Hollow-using vertebrate fauna of Tasmania: distribution, hollow requirements and conservation status (original) (raw)

Hollow-using vertebrate fauna of Tasmania: distribution, hollow requirements and conservation status

Amelia J. Koch A,B,F,G{ }^{\mathrm{A}, \mathrm{B}, \mathrm{F}, \mathrm{G}}, Sarah A. Munks B,C,D{ }^{\mathrm{B}, \mathrm{C}, \mathrm{D}} and Eric J. Woehler D,E{ }^{\mathrm{D}, \mathrm{E}}
A{ }^{A} University of Tasmania, School of Geography and Environmental Studies, Private Bag 7B, Hobart, Tas. 7001, Australia.
B{ }^{\mathrm{B}} CRC for Forestry, Private Bag 12, Hobart, Tas. 7001, Australia.
C { }^{\text {C }} Tasmanian Forest Practices Authority, 30 Patrick Street, Hobart, Tas. 7000, Australia.
D{ }^{D} University of Tasmania, School of Zoology, Private Bag 5, Hobart, Tas. 7001, Australia.
E{ }^{\mathrm{E}} Birds Tasmania, GPO Box 6B Hobart, Tas. 7001, Australia.
F{ }^{F} Present address: Tasmanian Forest Practices Authority, 30 Patrick Street, Hobart, Tas. 7000, Australia.
G{ }^{G} Corresponding author. Email: amy.koch@fpa.tas.gov.au

Abstract

In Tasmania, a considerable proportion of the forested landscape is available for land clearance and production forestry, which has and will continue to result in a decline in hollow availability unless managed appropriately. All hollowusing species are listed as having priority status under the Tasmanian Regional Forest Agreement. To ensure the habitat for hollow-using fauna is managed effectively, we first have to understand the requirements of the species involved. This paper is a review of the distribution, hollow requirements and conservation status of the five species of arboreal marsupials, eight species of bats and 29 bird species that use hollows in Tasmania. The number of species that use hollows is lower than in many other areas of Australia, but these species represent a large proportion of the vertebrate fauna of Tasmania. Three of these species and nine subspecies are endemic to Tasmania and seven are exotic. Four bird species are listed as Threatened at the state and/or national level. Twenty-five of Tasmania’s hollow-using species are capable of using small hollows, 14 can use medium-sized hollows and three bird species are limited to using large hollows. Current records indicate that the highest diversity of hollow-using species is associated with dry forest areas.

Introduction

A tree hollow is a naturally formed cavity in the live or dead wood of a tree. Tree hollows are important shelter sites (denning and roosting) and breeding sites for many animals worldwide (e.g. Maheswaran and Balasubramanian 2003; Martin et al. 2004; Kalcounis-Ruppell et al. 2005; Ruczynski and Bogdanowicz 2005; Walker et al. 2005; Monterrubio-Rico and EscalantePliego 2006). Australia has a large number of hollow-using species, but has no primary excavators such as woodpeckers. Although some vertebrate species in Australia are known to modify the size of cavities (e.g. cockatoos: Saunders et al. 1982), hollows are usually produced by fire, fungi and/or termites. Consequently, many years are required to form hollows, particularly large hollows, in Australian forests. There is a general decline in hollow-bearing trees across Australia due to land clearing for urbanisation and agriculture, forestry activities and the dying out of hollow-bearing trees retained in paddocks and urban areas (Gibbons and Lindenmayer 2002). This has resulted in concern for hollow-using fauna across the country (Gibbons et al. 2000; Whitford and Williams 2002; Wormington et al. 2002).

A review by Munks et al. (2007) found that 45 vertebrate species have been recorded using tree hollows for breeding or
refuge in Tasmania. These species include endemics (at the species or subspecies level) and species listed in the schedules of the Tasmanian Threatened Species Protection Act 1995 and the Commonwealth Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. Approximately 48.4%48.4 \% of Tasmania ( 3.35 million hectares) is currently forested and so potentially provides habitat for such species. Of this forested area, 44.2%44.2 \% ( 1.48 million ha) is reserved ( 1.22 million ha in formal reserves and 0.26 million ha in informal reserves) (DPIW 2007a, 2008). However, there is unequal reservation of forest types, both by community and location. Of Tasmania’s 51 forest communities, only 35 meet the CAR (Comprehensive, Adequate and Representative) reserve requirements by having at least 15%15 \% of their pre-1750 extent protected in reserves. Seven native forest communities have less than 7.5%7.5 \% of their pre-1750 extent in reserves (Forest Practices Authority 2007). Reservation levels are low in the south-east of the state where human populations are greater than other areas of Tasmania. Of the 1.87 million ha of forest that is unreserved, 0.785 million ha is State Forest and 1.085 million ha is private land (DPIW 2007a, 2008). The large majority of this forest is potentially available for timber harvesting and is therefore unlikely to provide habitat for hollowusing fauna in the future unless managed appropriately. Given the

diversity of species’ requirements, it is particularly important that habitat for hollow-using fauna is conserved in areas of the state where forest is poorly reserved and in those forest types that are not adequately captured within the CAR reserve system. Without adequate conservation measures, the future status of the hollow resource and its dependent fauna in Tasmania is uncertain.

Forest management agencies in most states of Australia, including Tasmania, have developed management prescriptions for the conservation of habitat for hollow-using fauna in ‘offreserve’ areas (Wayne et al. 2006). Studies have shown that hollow requirements and the degree to which fauna are dependent on hollows vary greatly among species. Consequently, knowledge of the fauna that use hollows in a particular region and their known or likely hollow requirements is essential for the development of effective and appropriate management actions (Recher 1991). Tasmania’s Regional Forest Agreement (Commonwealth of Australia and State of Tasmania 1997) recognises hollow-dependent fauna as a priority fauna group to be protected by actions prescribed in the Tasmanian Forest Practices Code (Forest Practices Board 2000). In the absence of information on the hollow resource and its associated fauna in Tasmania, the current Tasmanian management prescriptions were developed predominantly from studies conducted on mainland Australia (Taylor 1991). To assist in the revision of these current measures for conserving habitat for hollow-using fauna in production forests, this paper reviews current knowledge (published and unpublished) on the hollow requirements, distribution, threats and status of vertebrate species known to use tree hollows in Tasmania. This synthesis allows identification of the breadth of species requirements and identifies knowledge gaps that require further research. This review is not intended to be a complete account of the requirements of hollow-using fauna in Tasmania. It does not include information on reptiles or amphibians that may use hollows, or the wide range of invertebrate species that are likely to use hollows as hibernation and aestivation sites. The aim of the present paper is to summarise information on the distribution, hollow requirements and conservation status of the main vertebrate species that use tree hollows (arboreal marsupials, bats and birds) for breeding and/or refuge.

Methods

Sources of information

Information for this review was obtained from a variety of sources, including published literature, unpublished reports, a community-based survey (see Koch and Woehler 2007), examination of museum specimens and personal communications with experts. Information used was primarily Tasmanian for three main reasons: to avoid regional differences; to make Tasmanian unpublished information more readily available to a wider audience; and because a thorough national review of unpublished sources was beyond the scope of the current paper. It has been indicated within the manuscript where information has been used from mainland Australia to support the Tasmanian derived information.

Museum specimens were examined where available to provide a rough indication of the minimum size of hollow required by the species present in Tasmania. Classification of animal species into different hollow-size categories was done
according to the size of the head of the animal and then verified by experts. Hollow sizes required by the species covered in this review were categorised into small ( 2−5 cm2-5 \mathrm{~cm} entrance width), medium ( 6−10 cm6-10 \mathrm{~cm} entrance width) and large ( >10 cm>10 \mathrm{~cm} entrance width). These classifications represent minimum hollowentrance dimensions that can be used by an animal. They do not reflect the internal dimensions required by fauna and many species will use hollows with entrances of a larger size. Small, medium and large-hollow users will be addressed separately in this paper. Initially, the group of animals in a particular size class will be considered as a whole and then each species within that size class will be addressed separately. Owing to the small size and cryptic nature of the bats found in Tasmania, many studies do not differentiate among species. Consequently, bats will first be addressed as a group and then any relevant species-specific information that is available will be presented.

There were large differences in the amount of literature available for the species considered, with more information generally available for listed threatened species. Owing to the limited amount of information that was available for some species of birds in Tasmania, a questionnaire survey was distributed to Tasmanian ornithologists (amateur and professional, see Koch and Woehler 2007). The aim of this survey was to gain opinions on the degree to which a particular bird species uses hollows, whether the population size of the species is increasing, stable or decreasing and on threatening processes. Birds considered were those previously reported to use tree hollows in Tasmania (Munks et al. 2007) and any others that might use hollows. Major sources of information on the distribution of birds were the three bird atlases published for Tasmania (Thomas 1979; Blakers et al. 1984; Barrett et al. 2003). Differences in population trends detected in the two national atlases (Blakers et al. 1984; Barrett et al. 2003) are subject to error resulting from a difference in the survey methods used. Attempts were made by the authors of these books to correct this error (Barrett et al. 2002), but caution should be taken in interpretation of trends and the atlases should be consulted directly for more detailed, species-specific information.

Distribution maps

For the distribution maps produced in this paper, the majority of bird sightings were provided by Birds Tasmania, a regional group of Birds Australia. Information on bat distributions was obtained from Rounsevell et al. (1991), using distribution data from the Tasmanian Parks and Wildlife Service ‘TASPAWS’ database. Arboreal mammal distribution data was obtained from Rounsevell et al. (1991), Munks et al. (2004) and from the Department of Primary Industries and Water (DPIW) Natural Values Atlas database (DPIW 2007b). In addition, several experts were approached to provide further unreported animal sightings. Data from these sources were often collected on an opportunistic basis post 1964 and are therefore likely to be concentrated around more populated areas or areas with well used roads. The data represent animal sightings, not nest sightings, so the presence of some species may not necessarily reflect hollow use in an area. This is most likely to have occurred with the yellow-tailed black cockatoo (Calyptorynchus funereus xanthanotus), which is a conspicuous and highly mobile species. For example, around Hobart, yellow-tailed black cockatoos are only known to nest on

Mount Wellington, but sightings have been reported in surrounding areas (M. Holdsworth, pers. comm.). Many records on King Island are also unlikely to reflect patterns of hollow use owing to a lack of hollow-bearing trees.

Results

This review identified 42 species that use hollows for breeding and/or refuge in Tasmania: five species of marsupials, eight bats and 29 birds. Twenty-five of these species were classified as small-hollow users, 14 as medium-hollow users and three as species that are only able to use large hollows (Tables 2-4). Seven of these species are likely to have been introduced to Tasmania. Species reported as being ‘hollow users’ in other sources but that are not included in this review are listed in Table 1. Vagrant species that have only been sighted a few times in Tasmania and species known to use tree hollows only very occasionally are not considered in the current paper. Some species that are known to use tree hollows on mainland Australia are not believed to do so in Tasmania. Species that only use hollows found at the base of a tree (basal hollows) are also not considered here. We define basal hollows as those less than 2 m up in the tree. Basal hollows are generally not included in studies of tree hollows (e.g. Gibbons et al. 2000), presumably because the type of habitat they provide is readily exchangeable for a hollow log or other refuge site on the ground. The remainder of this paper will focus on the known primary hollow-using vertebrate fauna in Tasmania.

Small-hollow users

Hollow entrance widths between 2 and 5 cm were identified as the minimum that could be used by 25 species in Tasmania
(Table 2). This included 14 bird species, three marsupials and eight bats. Locality records for small-hollow users are prevalent across the state, but highest on the north coast and in the southeast, with fewer species in the west (Fig. 1). This roughly corresponds with forest type, the western third of the state having more rainforest and wet sclerophyll forest in comparison with the rest of the state, which is predominantly covered in dry sclerophyll forest and non-forest areas. Details on the specific habitats used by each of the species are provided in Table 2. For the few species where information on the hollow requirements in Tasmania was available, hollows may be as close together as 1 m , or more than a kilometre apart. Up to 20 hollows per ha may be used by one species (Table 2). Three of the small hollow species have been classified as Endangered (Table 2). Two species that use small hollows are endemic to Tasmania and a further four are endemic at the subspecies level. Six species are migratory, overwintering on mainland Australia and then returning to Tasmania to breed. Three species are believed to be introduced.

Musk lorikeet (Glosopsitta concinna didimus)

Distribution. Although primarily found in the drier eastern half of the state (Thomas 1979), some unconfirmed records have been received from the south-west where the species may be vagrant (Brown 1979). This species is thought to avoid areas of high rainfall and high elevation (Brown 1979).

Hollow requirements. Musk lorikeets are reliant on hollows in both trees and stumps for breeding but can roost in other locations (Sharland 1958; Koch and Woehler 2007). Little is known about their specific hollow requirements. Three described nests were found 5.5−12.2 m5.5-12.2 \mathrm{~m} up a tree and 38−61 cm38-61 \mathrm{~cm} down the

Table 1. A summary of Tasmanian species that have been classified as hollow-using by other sources but which will not be addressed in this text and the reason for their exclusion

[1]

1. A{ }^{A} Where hollow use is referred to as ‘declared’ by someone, the reference does not provide evidence of hollow use but is a comment made by the author that they use hollows. ↩︎

Table 2. Conservation status, hollow use, habitat, population density, density and spacing of hollow-bearing trees for animals that use small hollows (2-5-cm entrance width) in Tasmania
Blank cells indicate no information was available. STATUS: M=\mathrm{M}= migratory, T=\mathrm{T}= Tasmanian endemic, t=\mathrm{t}= Tasmanian subspecies is endemic (although sources differ in their decision on this), I=\mathrm{I}= species is introduced, E and e=\mathrm{e}= endangered under Commonwealth Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC) and Tasmanian Threatened Species Protection Act 1995 (TSPA) respectively. V and v=\mathrm{v}= vulnerable under EPBC and TSPA respectively. R and r=\mathrm{r}= rare under EPBC and TSPA respectively. HOLLOW USE: Degree of dependency: BS = requires hollows for breeding and shelter (i.e. roosting or denning), B=\mathrm{B}= breeding, requires hollows for breeding, F=\mathrm{F}= facultative, uses hollows when available but can use other breeding and/or nesting sites, r=\mathrm{r}= rarely, rarely uses hollows. (Note, even for the breeding shelter and breeding categories, there have often been observations of breeding in non-hollows, but if most instances are in hollows they are considered to be eligible for these categories). Sociality of hollow use: G=\mathrm{G}= gregarious, many pairs use hollows in close proximity, each requiring one hollow, S=\mathrm{S}= single, each pair requires only one hollow which may be isolated from other members of the species, C=\mathrm{C}= communal, hollow shared by more than one individual but each individual uses multiple hollows, M=\mathrm{M}= multiple, multiple hollows are used by each individual but hollow-use is usually solitary. Brackets indicate this is done only occasionally. HABITAT TYPE: R = rainforest, W=\mathrm{W}= wet forest, D=\mathrm{D}= dry forest, MF=\mathrm{MF}= mixed forest, Wd=\mathrm{Wd}= woodland, CF=\mathrm{CF}= coniferous forest, ML=\mathrm{ML}= mallee, CH=\mathrm{CH}= coastal heath, C=\mathrm{C}= coastal, S=\mathrm{S}= sedgeland, SW=\mathrm{SW}= savannah woodland, M=\mathrm{M}= moorland, Al=\mathrm{Al}= alpine, SA=\mathrm{SA}= subalpine, A=\mathrm{A}= agricultural land, P=\mathrm{P}= plantation, Re=\mathrm{Re}= regrowth, U=\mathrm{U}= urban, Fr=\mathrm{Fr}= freshwater, Td=\mathrm{Td}= tidal. Brackets indicate low densities. CALCULATED SPACING OF TREES: These figures represent the distances apart used hollows have been found. For species that use multiple hollows it may refer to distances between hollows used by an individual. For species that only require one hollow per breeding pair, it will be the distance between hollows used by different individuals. M=\mathrm{M}= results from mainland Australia, T=\mathrm{T}= results from Tasmania

Table 2. (continued)

Table 2. (continued)

a{ }^{a} These distances were indicated in a study examining these four species but it was not specified which exact species the spacing referred to.
hollow (Australian National Wildlife Collection, RGH Green collection, CSIRO, Canberra).

Status and threats. The status of the musk lorikeet in Tasmania is unclear. Six of 14 responses to the survey undertaken by Koch and Woehler (2007) indicated that the species is decreasing, whereas the self declared ‘expert’ was the single response saying the species is increasing. Bryant (2002) described the species as declining and the atlas data suggests they may be increasing across Australia (although they were also more likely to be recorded in the second survey: Barrett et al. 2003). Although forestry practices are perceived as a major threat to this species (Koch and Woehler 2007), these birds do not generally use forested areas (M. Holdsworth, pers. comm.). This species is considered to be threatened by clearing for agriculture, loss of habitat due to domestic firewood collection and competition for nest sites. Concern has also been expressed over poaching, road kill and injury by window collision (Bryant 2002; Koch and Woehler 2007).

Rainbow lorikeet (Trichoglossus haematodus)

Distribution. Sightings have been received from the Ulverstone and Hobart areas (Birds Australia atlas data), although they are likely to be found in a range of other areas.

Hollow requirements. Rainbow lorikeets use tree hollows for breeding but not roosting (Sharland 1958; Koch and Woehler 2007).

Status and threats. Until recently, rainbow lorikeets were rarely sighted and were considered vagrants in Tasmania, although reported sightings go back many years (Cooper 1998). Numbers are believed to be increasing (Koch and Woehler 2007) and this species is now established and breeding in Tasmania (M. Holdsworth, pers. comm.). Owing to their dubious native
status and rare nature, threats are not considered. This species may compete for suitable hollows with native hollow-using fauna.

Swift parrot (Lathamus discolor)

Distribution. Swift parrots breed in Tasmania and migrate to mainland Australia in autumn. In Tasmania, they are mainly found in the east, although there are records throughout the state (Brown 1979; Thomas 1979). The main breeding range is the south-east coast, but the species is known to also breed in the north-west (Brereton 1997; Brereton et al. 1999; Webb et al. 2007) and along the north-east coast (M. Webb, unpubl. data). Nesting sites are generally in relatively close proximity to the main food source (Eucalyptus globulus nectar) and near large forest patches with old-growth characteristics (Webb et al. 2007).

Hollow requirements. Swift parrots require tree hollows for breeding but not roosting (Sharland 1958; Brown 1989a; Koch and Woehler 2007), often using large Eucalyptus obliqua, Eucalyptus pulchella and E. globulus trees (Brereton 1997). Most nests observed are in branch hollows (Brereton 1997; Webb et al. 2007) between 6 and 20 m above the ground (maximum known range 5−40 m5-40 \mathrm{~m} above the ground) in trees with an average diameter of 105 cm (range 33−305 cm33-305 \mathrm{~cm} ) (Brereton 1997; Webb et al. 2007). The entrance diameter of hollows used was estimated to be 10±4 cm10 \pm 4 \mathrm{~cm} by Brereton (1997), but smaller than ∼6 cm\sim 6 \mathrm{~cm} by Webb et al. (2007). The depth of hollows used ranges between 30 and 60 cm (Australian National Wildlife Collection, RGH Green collection, CSIRO, Canberra). Swift parrots generally nest communally and are often found in close proximity, even in the same tree (Brown 1989a; Brereton 1997; Brereton et al. 1999; Webb et al. 2007).

Status and threats. This species is listed as Endangered in Tasmania and nationally (Commonwealth Environmental

Fig. 1. Map indicating the number of species able to use small hollows that are known to exist in 10×10 km10 \times 10 \mathrm{~km} grid squares around Tasmania. Small hollows have a minimum entrance width of 2−5 cm2-5 \mathrm{~cm}. Indication is also given of the type of forest found in the different areas of the state.

Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999, Schedule 3 Tasmanian Threatened Species Protection Act 1995) owing to loss of habitat and the small and decreasing population size (Brereton et al. 1999; Swift Parrot Recovery Team 2001). Previously common, the species was noted to be declining in the early 1980s (Wilson 1984). Population-size estimates decreased from 1320 pairs in 1987 (Brown 1989a) to 940 pairs in 1995 (Swift Parrot Recovery Team 2001). There are currently estimated to be fewer than 1000 pairs or 2500 mature individuals (Brereton et al. 1999; Swift Parrot Recovery Team 2001). A recovery program was established in 1995 (Brereton et al. 1999). The main threat to this species is the loss of habitat from forestry operations, agricultural clearing, urbanisation and firewood collection (Brereton et al. 1999). Current figures indicate that of the 8000 ha of foraging habitat in the breeding range, 82%82 \% is on private land and only 18%18 \% is in CAR reserves (Swift Parrot Recovery Team 2001). Although foraging habitat has generally received a high level of protection, recent studies have indicated little protection is provided for nesting hollows throughout their range (Webb et al. 2007). Further pressure on this species occurs from competition for nest hollows by starlings (Sturnus vulgaris), tree martins (Hirundo nigricans nigricans), owlet nightjars
(Aegotheles cristatus), green rosellas (Platycercus caledonicus) and blue-winged parrots (Neophema chrysostoma) (M. Webb, pers. comm.; Wilson 1984; Brown 1989a) as well as collision with cars, fences and windows (Brereton et al. 1999; Swift Parrot Recovery Team 2001).

Orange-bellied parrot (Neophema chrysogaster)

Distribution. Orange-bellied parrots migrate to mainland Australia (Victoria and South Australia) in winter and return to Tasmania to breed (Brown 1979; Thomas 1979; Drechsler 1998). They are found patchily across the north and west coasts, with a few records in the south-east and central north-east. Although previously reported to breed in the Midlands of Tasmania (Giblin and Swindells 1927; Sharland 1947; Brown and Wilson 1982), these may be misidentified reports of blue-winged parrots (M. Holdsworth, pers. comm.). Current evidence indicates that this species only breeds in the south-west close to the coast or large harbours (Brown 1979; Thomas 1979; Statham 1984; Holdsworth 2006). Most of the breeding population is located within the Bathurst Harbour area, centred on Melaleuca (Holdsworth 2006).

Hollow requirements. Orange-bellied parrots rely on tree hollows for breeding (Koch and Woehler 2007), using either isolated copses of trees or trees located in large areas of forest (Brown and Wilson 1982). They generally roost in thick heath along creeks (Brown and Wilson 1982). Nesting hollows are generally located 8−25 m8-25 \mathrm{~m} up live Eucalyptus nitida or Eucalyptus ovata trees. The nest entrance is usually ∼5−cm\sim 5-\mathrm{cm} across (but up to 25 cm ) and 45−60−cm45-60-\mathrm{cm} deep (Brown and Wilson 1982; Brown and Wilson 1984).

Status and threats. The orange-bellied parrot is listed as Endangered both in Tasmania and nationally (Commonwealth Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999, Schedule 3 Tasmanian Threatened Species Protection Act 1995) owing to a decrease in numbers and range since European settlement (Lord 1924; Brown and Wilson 1982). Species recovery efforts are occurring and include population monitoring, habitat management and captive breeding (Orange-bellied Parrot Recovery Team 2006). The total population is believed to be around 150 mature adults (Orange-bellied Parrot Recovery Team 2006). Although reasons for the population decrease and factors influencing the mortality of the species are unclear (Drechsler 1998), the main threat is presumed to be loss of wintering habitat. Other potential contributing factors are changes in fire regime in the breeding habitat, competition for food, predation, disease, windfarms and possibly inbreeding depression (Brown and Wilson 1984; Orange-bellied Parrot Recovery Team 1999).

Blue-winged parrot (Neophema chrysostoma)

Distribution. Although records of blue-winged parrots are mostly centred in the Midlands region, they are widely distributed across Tasmania (Giblin and Swindells 1927; Thomas 1979). During the breeding season they are usually found in open forests with hollow-bearing trees (Giblin and Swindells 1927; Sharland 1947). The majority of individuals migrate to the mainland in winter (Brown 1979).

Hollow requirements. Blue-winged parrots are dependent on tree hollows for breeding but not roosting (Giblin and Swindells 1927; Koch and Woehler 2007). Some reports indicate they often breed in retained stags in cleared forest (Wilson 1981).

The preferred nesting location is a dead spout with a hard outer casing and a decaying centre or a broken-off upright branch. They have also been known to use knot-holes in the upper side of a horizontal branch and occasionally a hole in the main bole of the tree (Giblin and Swindells 1927). Nests examined range from 30 to 60−cm60-\mathrm{cm} deep and have been located 3−24 m3-24 \mathrm{~m} from the ground (Australian National Wildlife Collection, RGH Green collection, CSIRO, Canberra; Giblin and Swindells 1927). Individuals have been found nesting within 1 m of each other in the same tree (Giblin and Swindells 1927).

Status and threats. Reports on the current status of this species are conflicting. Some reports indicate an increase in numbers and range due to land clearing (Giblin and Swindells 1927; Brown 1979; Brown and Wilson 1982), whereas others report a decrease in the population since European settlement (Lord 1924; Green 1983) that may be continuing today (Koch and Woehler 2007). The atlas data indicate that there has been little change in population size across Australia (Barrett et al. 2003). The potential increase in range causes some concern because it may start expanding farther into the range of the endangered orange-bellied parrot (Brown and Wilson 1982). The main threats to this species are considered to be forestry, clearing for agriculture, competition for nest hollows, windfarms and poaching (Giblin and Swindells 1927; Koch and Woehler 2007). However, they may be found in regenerating forest if nest trees are available (Pattemore 1980).

Tree martin (Hirundo nigricans nigricans)

Distribution. Tree martins are widespread in the east of the state, being more scattered in the west and north (Thomas 1979). They are frequently observed in populated areas (Thomas 1972; Fielding 1979; Harris 1980) and are characteristic of open environments (Taylor et al. 1997). Some reports suggest they breed only in mature forest (Wilson 1981) although no difference in density was found between mature forest and regrowth by Taylor et al. (1997).

Hollow requirements. Tree martins mostly use tree hollows for nesting but can use other sites such as caves, holes in cliffs (Australian National Wildlife Collection, RGH Green collection, CSIRO, Canberra) and buildings (Sharland 1958; Harris 1980). They use hollows with small entrances (Green 1995) and nests have been found 4.5−12 m4.5-12 \mathrm{~m} above the ground (Dove 1915).

Status and threats. This species is believed to be stable at moderate numbers, although there is some concern of a recent decline (Koch and Woehler 2007). The atlas data indicate a potential decrease over most of Tasmania except in the central and southern areas (Barrett et al. 2003). The major threats are perceived to be the forest industry, clearing for agriculture and competition for nest sites (Koch and Woehler 2007). However, at their study site in north-east Tasmania, Wapstra and Taylor (1998) only observed tree martins after harvesting. Concern has also been expressed about the potential impact of wind farms (Koch and Woehler 2007).

Welcome swallow (Hirundo neoxena)

Distribution. Welcome swallows are found across the state, including occasionally in the south-west (Thomas 1979). This species is characteristic of open environments (Ratkowsky and Ratkowsky 1977; Taylor et al. 1997) and is frequently seen in
populated areas (Thomas 1972; Fielding 1979; Harris 1980) although it has also been recorded near wet sclerophyll forests (Ratkowsky and Ratkowsky 1977).

Hollow requirements. It is likely that this species only occasionally uses tree hollows for nesting (Sharland 1958; Koch and Woehler 2007). It will often build nests around man-made structures (Sharland 1958; Green 1977; Park 1981). Of the 11 nests found by Green, six were in man-made structures, three were in hollows 1.5−2.7 m1.5-2.7 \mathrm{~m} up trees, one was under a sea coast cliff ledge and the other location was unclear (Australian National Wildlife Collection, RGH Green collection, CSIRO, Canberra). It is believed that welcome swallows favour large trees where they nest in burnt-out trunks with openings facing north or east, preferring hollows with more than one entrance (Fletcher 1924).

Status and threats. Populations are thought to be stable at relatively large numbers (Koch and Woehler 2007). They are thought to benefit from logging (Green 1977; Pattemore 1980; Taylor et al. 1997), although Wilson (1981) states that although they feed over regenerating forest, they nest in hollow and burnt older trunks. Welcome swallows are not perceived to be currently under threat.

Australian owlet nightjar (Aegotheles cristatus)

Distribution. Australian owlet nightjars are widely distributed in the east of Tasmania (Thomas 1979) although they have recently been found breeding in the south-west of the state (Orange-bellied Parrot Recovery Team 1999).

Hollow requirements. Australian owlet nightjars are reliant on hollows for nesting and roosting, although there was a report of roosting in a fence post (Sharland 1958; Statham 1984; Bryant 2002; Koch and Woehler 2007). Green located three nests (Australian National Wildlife Collection, RGH Green collection, CSIRO, Canberra), all in hollows around 75−cm75-\mathrm{cm} deep located 4.5−5.5−m4.5-5.5-\mathrm{m} above the ground (Australian National Wildlife Collection, RGH Green collection, CSIRO, Canberra). Colonies are loosely spaced by territories that tend to be less than 80 ha in size (Bryant 2002).

Status and threats. There is some concern that this species is found only in small numbers or is decreasing (Koch and Woehler 2007). The greatest threats are perceived to be competition for nest sites, clearing for agriculture and forestry and road kill (Koch and Woehler 2007).

Dusky robin (Melanodryas vittata)

Distribution. This Tasmanian endemic is common and widely distributed around the state but is rarely abundant (Thomas 1979; Wilson 1984). Although probably more numerous in open forest, they are found in a range of environments, including cleared land, rainforest, pine forest, sedgeland and urban areas (Fielding 1976, 1979; Duckworth 2001; Newman 2002). Densities of this species in dry sclerophyll forest were found to be greater in young regrowth than in mature forest and lowest in older regrowth (Taylor et al. 1997).

Hollow requirements. Dusky robins breed occasionally in tree hollows but more often in low bushes, upturned trees, behind flaking bark, on tree stumps, branch forks and banks (Dove 1910; Wilson 1984; Newman 2002). Green found 38 dusky robin nests (Australian National Wildlife Collection, RGH Green collection, CSIRO, Canberra). For those where a description was provided,

most were located in trees or bushes but two were in embankments and one was in a man-made structure. Only three were specified to be hollows, two of which were in dead stumps (Australian National Wildlife Collection, RGH Green collection, CSIRO, Canberra). Nests are usually located less than 3 m above the ground (Dove 1910; Newman 2002).

Status and threats. This species is largely considered to be stable in numbers, although some people have expressed their concern about a possible decrease (Koch and Woehler 2007). The main threats to this species are considered to be the forestry industry, clearing for agriculture, competition for nest sites and predation (Koch and Woehler 2007). However, reports suggest this species occurs in regrowth areas, although at reduced population densities (Green 1982b; Wilson 1984).

Flame robin (Petroica phoenicea)

Distribution. Flame robins are found across the state, with the majority of records from the Midlands and the south-east (Thomas 1979). They are found in a range of habitats and breed in a narrow altitudinal range (Newman 2002). This species requires forest clearings and was found at lower densities in the uniformly thick undergrowth of older regrowth dry sclerophyll forest than in either young regrowth or mature forest (Taylor et al. 1997).

Hollow requirements. In addition to using hollows, flame robins nest in cavities in creek banks, in quarries, disused mines, among roots of upturned trees, cavities behind bark, wood piles, on the ground and in open sheds (Fletcher 1924; Sharland 1958; Napier 1967; Newman 2002). Tree hollows used by flame robins were found to regularly face east or north by Fletcher (1924).

Status and threats. The national atlas surveys found a decrease in reporting rates across the entire range of this species, suggesting a significant decline in flame robin populations (Barrett et al. 2003). A decrease around Hobart has also been anecdotally reported (see Newman 2002). Land clearing, forestry and competition for nesting sites are perceived to be the major threats to flame robins (Koch and Woehler 2007). A decrease in abundance after clearfelling has been found in some studies (Coulson and Coulson 1981), although they have been found in cleared and regenerating areas (Green 1982b). Another perceived threat is climate change and the concomitant change in rainfall pattern (Newman 2002).

Forty-spotted pardalote (Pardalotus quadragintus)
Distribution. This leaf-gleaning Tasmanian endemic (Brereton et al. 1997; Dorr 1999) is strongly associated with Eucalyptus viminalis dry forest, which is an important food source (Woinarski and Rounsevell 1983). Generally found in coastal areas below 100 m in altitude on fertile soils (Brown 1986; Brereton et al. 1997), this species prefers undisturbed habitat near creek lines (Brown 1989b). All known localities except that on Flinders Island are in south-east Tasmania, with the most important populations being on Maria Island and Bruny Island (Brereton et al. 1997).

Hollow requirements. The degree of hollow dependency of the forty-spotted pardalote may vary among locations. In an examination of opportunistically located breeding sites, Brown (1986) found that most breeding occurred in north or east-facing hollows in limbs of live E. viminalis. In contrast, just under half of the nests on North Bruny Island found by Woinarski and Bulman
(1985) were located in tree hollows. Other nesting sites used include stumps, fallen trees or limbs and occasionally holes in the ground (Sharland 1983; Woinarski and Rounsevell 1983; Woinarski and Bulman 1985; Brown 1986, 1989b). The height of nests above ground varies from 0 to 38 m (average 9.2 m ) (Woinarski and Bulman 1985; Brown 1986). Individuals often nest in close proximity (Sharland 1983), with nests being as close as 5 m and even occurring in the same tree (Woinarski and Bulman 1985). Home-range size is, on average, 0.7 ha (range 0.3−1.60.3-1.6 ) (Woinarski and Bulman 1985). They are found at densities of around 4.2 birds per ha in prime habitat and 0.6 birds per ha in secondary habitat on Maria Island (Brown 1989b).

Status and threats. The forty-spotted pardalote is classified as Endangered both in Tasmania and nationally (Commonwealth Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999, Schedule 3 Tasmanian Threatened Species Protection Act 1995). Although some reports indicate a decrease in range since European settlement (Brown 1986), recent modelling indicates that it might always have been a rare species with a restricted distribution (Brereton et al. 1997; Bryant 1997). About 60% of the populations occur in reserves (Brereton et al. 1997), although on Bruny Island, ∼8%\sim 8 \% of the populations occur in reserves (Brown 1986). The total population size is estimated to be between 3000 and 4600 individuals and is believed to be currently stable (Threatened Species Section 2006). Land clearing is probably the biggest threat to this species and recovery programs have included planting E. viminalis. Wildfire has also been proposed as a threatening agent because it damages nesting sites in mature trees (Statham 1984; Brereton et al. 1997). Forty-spotted pardalotes are also potentially threatened by competition for nesting sites because they have been observed defending their nests against potential competitors such as tree martins and green rosellas (Woinarski and Rounsevell 1983; Woinarski and Bulman 1985).

Striated pardalote (Pardalotus striatus)

Distribution. In Tasmania, records are concentrated in the south-east, but have been reported across the state (Thomas 1979). They are possibly common in grazing areas (Sharland 1983). They prefer E. viminalis woodland with large, old trees but the association is not as strong as for the forty-spotted pardalote (Woinarski and Rounsevell 1983).

Hollow requirements. Striated pardalotes generally use tree hollows for nesting, but they can also use holes in the ground, caves and human structures (Sharland 1958, 1983; Green 1995; Koch and Woehler 2007). One anecdotal report was received saying that the preference for nesting site may have changed from tree hollows to nesting in holes in banks in northern Tasmania (see Koch and Woehler 2007). Striated pardalotes sometimes nest in close proximity (Sharland 1983) and nests can be clumped in distribution, being only 2−m2-\mathrm{m} apart or in the same tree (Woinarski and Bulman 1985). Green (1995) reported 30 pairs on the bank of the Tamar river in an area 30−m30-\mathrm{m} long and 3−m3-\mathrm{m} high, with burrows ∼40−cm\sim 40-\mathrm{cm} deep. In the north-east of the state, nests are largely found in north-east facing trunk or branch hollows in live Eucalyptus amygdalina and E. obliqua trees (Haseler and Taylor 1993). Striated pardalotes appear to prefer a relatively horizontal entrance located 0−28 m0-28 \mathrm{~m} (average 7.8 m ) above the ground (Woinarski and Bulman 1985). Hollow entrances are usually small (2.4-6 cm) and deep enough for nests to be set back from the

entrance (Haseler and Taylor 1993). They have been found at densities of 0.73−1.10.73-1.1 breeding adults per ha (Woinarski and Bulman 1985).

Status and threats. The striated pardalote population is currently believed to be stable in Tasmania (Koch and Woehler 2007). Striated pardalotes are believed to be sensitive to logging (Koch and Woehler 2007). Although they have been located in regenerating forest (Green 1977), they are found at lower densities in harvested forest than mature forest (Taylor et al. 1997). Competition for nesting sites may also be an issue, conflicts having been observed with forty-spotted pardalotes (Woinarski and Rounsevell 1983).

Dusky woodswallow (Artamus cyanopteris)

Distribution. Dusky woodswallows migrate to Tasmania from the mainland to breed in open forest (Sharland 1958). Most records are from the south-east of the state, with numbers decreasing across the north coast. Only a few records have been found on the central west coast (Thomas 1979).

Hollow requirements. Dusky woodswallows can use hollows for breeding but they often use stumps and bushes (Sharland 1958; Coulson and Coulson 1981; Koch and Woehler 2007).

Status and threats. This species is thought to be stable at low to moderate numbers although there is some concern that it may be decreasing (Koch and Woehler 2007). The atlas data suggest that a decrease has occurred in eastern Tasmania and that an increase has occurred in the west (Barrett et al. 2003). The biggest threats to this species are believed to be forestry, clearing for agriculture, predation and competition for nesting sites (Koch and Woehler 2007). However, the effect of forestry is uncertain, with some studies finding a decrease in numbers after forestry activities (Wilson 1981) and others finding them at greater density in regrowth than in older forest (Taylor et al. 1997).

Common starling (Sturnus vulgaris)

Distribution. Records of common starlings have been found across the state, although with few records in the south-west and some areas of the mid and north-west (Fielding 1976; Thomas 1979). They prefer areas near human settlement (Thomas 1979; Harris 1980).

Hollow requirements. Starlings use tree hollows for nesting but can also nest under roofs and in buildings (Sharland 1958; Koch and Woehler 2007). Of the 17 nests found by Green, 16 were in man-made structures and one was in a dead stump (Australian National Wildlife Collection, RGH Green collection, CSIRO, Canberra).

Status and threats. This species was introduced some time in the late 1800s (Green 1995). Although it is believed by many to be increasing in numbers (Koch and Woehler 2007), the atlas data largely indicated no change in density between 1980 and 2000 (Barrett et al. 2003). Being an introduced species, threatening processes are not considered. This aggressive species is one of the primary competitors for native hollow-nesting birds (Koch and Woehler 2007).

Sugar glider (Petaurus breviceps)

Distribution. Sugar gliders are found in most areas of Tasmania (Munks et al. 2004) but seem to be absent from the far
south-west (Holdsworth 2006). They typically prefer forest with ‘old growth’ elements (Statham 1987; Slater 1987a).

Hollow requirements. A study in the wet southern forests in Tasmania found that groups of four to five individuals, with up to 20 sugar gliders in a single tree denned in hollow trunks and limbs of old-growth trees (Slater 1987a). Although they have been observed using other locations such as the roofs of buildings (C. Spencer, pers. comm.), information available suggests that they are dependent on hollows in forested environments.

Status and threats. The sugar glider is believed to have been introduced to Tasmania from Victoria in the 1800s (Gunn 1851). Populations are currently considered stable. The impact of logging on sugar glider populations is unknown. Although no sugar gliders were found in 52 year-old regrowth in southern Tasmania (Slater 1987a), they have been found in selectively logged and burnt forest at high altitude in the central highlands where hollow-bearing trees are retained within the logged area (Slater 1987b). Introduced predators such as feral cats (Felix catus) can reduce sugar glider populations (Munks et al. 2004).

Eastern pygmy-possum (Cercartetus nanus nanus)

Distribution. In Tasmania, the eastern pygmy-possum is found scattered across the state (Harris et al. 2008) in a wide range of habitats, including rainforest, sclerophyll forest and heathland (Duncan and Taylor 2001; Munks et al. 2004; Harris et al. 2008). They are believed to prefer mature habitat (Slater 1987a) although they have been found in 20-year-old clearfall regenerating forest (Duncan 1995; Duncan and Taylor 2001).

Hollow requirements. Eastern pygmy-possums use tree hollows but have also been known to den in other spaces, such as hollow logs, tree stumps and shredded bark in the forks of trees (Duncan 1995; Duncan and Taylor 2001). The dependency of breeding individuals on tree hollows in Tasmania is unknown. In southern Tasmania, the majority of dens found have been under the bark of large trees (Slater 1987a). At least three den sites, between 25 and 133 m apart, may be used by the same individual (Duncan and Taylor 2001).

Status and threats. Little is known about the current status of the eastern pygmy-possum. Although there is no information indicating that they are declining, they may be at risk of decline in certain areas owing to habitat loss and predation (Munks et al. 2004; Harris et al. 2008).

Little pygmy-possum (Cercartetus lepidus)
Distribution. Thought for many years to be confined to Tasmania, little pygmy-possums have now been collected from Victoria and South Australia (Green 1979; Duncan 1995). They have a widespread distribution in Tasmania but sightings are more concentrated in the east (Rounsevell et al. 1991). They are found in a range of habitats from heath to tall wet forest (Duncan and Taylor 2001). They are thought not to occur in rainforest, although anecdotal reports have been received (Wall 1985). They are said to prefer more mature habitat (Slater 1987a), although they have been found in both wet and dry regenerating forest (Duncan 1995).

Hollow requirements. Although little pygmy-possums do use tree hollows, they also use decayed logs, hollow stumps, overturned turf, abandoned birds nests, fissures in trees, wall cavities, tree branches and clothes (Green 1979; Duncan 1995;

Duncan and Taylor 2001). Denning sites are usually close to the ground and often temporary in nature (Green 1979). In the southern forests of Tasmania, the majority of dens, including one confirmed breeding site, were found in or under thick bark at the base of old E. obliqua trees (Slater 1987a; Duncan 1995). The only den site observed by forest contractors (Slater 1987a) that was not in an old-growth tree was an 80 -year-old tree with exceptionally thick bark. Established dens have usually been found to have one or two adults (Green 1979; Slater 1987a). At least three den sites, between 25 and 88 m apart, may be used by one individual (Duncan 1995; Duncan and Taylor 2001).

Status and threats. The little pygmy-possum is believed to be the rarer of the two pygmy-possums found in Tasmania (Slater 1987a). It has been proposed that they once occurred as a continuous population from the south-east to the north coast (Green 1979). After European settlement, populations are thought to have decreased owing to habitat clearance and fragmentation (Green 1979; Duncan 1995; Hocking and Driessen 1996). It is possible that this species will experience a reduction in population size in the future, but there is considered to be no risk of extinction (Munks et al. 2004). They are potentially preyed on by cats, quolls, owls and snakes (Green 1979).

Bats

Distribution

All eight bat species in Tasmania are widespread and none is rare (Taylor et al. 1987). Different bat species exhibit different foraging strategies related to their body structure, which is likely to result in different distributions. Slow manoeuvrable flight is well suited for use in areas with obstacles such as dense vegetation, whereas faster, less manoeuvrable flight is better suited to more open habitats such as above the canopy (O’Neill and Taylor 1986). Although species adapted to closed forest are able to use open environments, species adapted to foraging in open habitats are unable to use closed habitats, limited by the mechanical and sensory ability to deal with ‘clutter’. Tracks and streams in forested environments can provide important ‘flyways’ for bats (Taylor and O’Neill 1985). However, in Tasmania, O’Neill (1984) found that bat community diversity was not related to the structural diversity of the habitat, instead suggesting that the distribution and abundance of species may be dictated by the availability of roosts. In a study comparing bat density in five habitats in eastern Tasmania, coastal mallee had the greatest trapping success (seven species), followed by regrowth forest (six species), dry forest (five species), wet sclerophyll forest (three species) and grassy forest (two species: O’Neill 1984). Diversity of bats has also been found to be high in blackwood swamp and low in rainforest (Taylor and O’Neill 1985). Species diversity and bat density is thought to be lower in the west and south-west and higher in the east of the state (Taylor et al. 1987; Taylor and Comfort 1993). To date, only two species (the lesser long-eared bat (Nycrophilus geoffroyi pacificus) and King River vespadelus (Vespadelus regulus)) have been recorded around Melaleuca in the far south-west of Tasmania, whereas in eastern Tasmania, eight species are likely to occur sympatrically (Taylor et al. 1987). Further trapping in the south-west may find other species, or the lower diversity could be a result of smaller insect populations, greater rainfall or lower temperatures (Taylor et al. 1987).

Hollow requirements

Bats use tree hollows for diurnal roosts and maternity colonies, but have been found roosting in logs on the ground, behind bark, in fence posts, buildings and in clothes (Green 1966a; Statham 1984; Taylor et al. 1987; Taylor and Savva 1988). There is only one record of bats using caves in Tasmania (Savva and Taylor 1986). Although often found roosting under bark in forests, Australian forest bats are more reliant on tree hollows for maternity roosts (Churchill 1998). Trees selected for roosting by bats are usually mature, senescing or dead eucalypts (Taylor and Savva 1988). They have been found to use a large height range of trees and prefer a diurnal resting place where they fit snugly between two surfaces. Entrance openings vary from 1.5 cm to a metre and they have been found to change roosts frequently (Taylor and Savva 1988). The distance between roosts on successive nights ranged from 80 m to 1.4 km (Taylor and Savva 1988). They roost both alone or in colonies of up to 26 individuals (Taylor and Savva 1988).

Status and threats

Populations of all Tasmanian bat species are believed to be stable but it is recommended that the endemic subspecies (greater long-eared bat) should be monitored because it is apparently less widespread than other species (R. Brereton, pers. comm.). Little is known about the requirements and threatening processes for bats in Tasmania and more research is required. However, the result of a national survey indicated that the priorities for conserving bats in Australia are currently to assess the effects of habitat fragmentation, logging and mining (Lunney 1989). Owing to the limited amount of mining occurring in Tasmania, it is unlikely to have a great impact, but concerns have been raised about collisions with turbines on windfarms as evidenced by the ‘Bats and windfarms’ brochure published by the Australasian Bat Society Inc. (2005). There are records of some individuals being killed by wind turbines in Tasmania, especially in autumn (R. Brereton, pers. comm.).

Bats can use a large range of habitat types and are sometimes thought to be less sensitive to fragmentation and deforestation than other species owing to their ability to travel large distances (Tidemann and Flavel 1987; Law 1996). The ability of a particular species to survive in fragmented landscapes is likely to be influenced by the roosting ecology of that species and the availability of suitable roosting and foraging sites (Lumsden et al. 1995, 2002). Studies differ in the observed impact of forest fragment size on the species richness of bats, but linear strips and scattered trees can be used by some species on mainland Australia (Lumsden et al. 1995, 2002; Law 1996) and roads within forested areas can be used as ‘flyways’ (Taylor and O’Neill 1985). The lack of a strong preference for particular vegetation types or structure in Tasmanian bats possibly makes them adaptable (at least in the short term) to landscape changes (Taylor et al. 1987). Bats have been found foraging in regrowth forest owing to a high abundance of insects (Taylor and O’Neill 1985). Some studies have found a greater abundance of certain species in regrowth forest than in other forest types (Taylor and O’Neill 1985), whereas others have found greater bat activity in mature than regrowth forest (Rhodes 1996). A study in Tasmania examined 23 roost sites. All were located in mature forest despite

many of the bats being originally caught in regrowth forest (Taylor and Savva 1988). This indicates that forestry practices are likely to have a detrimental effect on the availability of roosting sites for Tasmanian bats, as has been suggested for mainland Australia (Law 1996).

Lesser long-eared bat (Nyctophilus geoffroyi pacificus)

Lesser long-eared bats are widespread and relatively abundant throughout the state (Green 1966b; Rounsevell et al. 1991). They are a relatively slow flying, highly manoeuvrable species that is capable of using dense vegetation (O’Neill and Taylor 1986). Their presence has been related to the number of dead stems in a forest (O’Neill 1984). This species is thought to use buildings and houses for roosting more often than other species, but they are still not frequent visitors (Green 1966b). They are least abundant in regrowth and dry sclerophyll forest and most abundant in rainforest (Taylor and O’Neill 1985) and mature forest (Rhodes 1996).

Greater long-eared bat (Nyctophilus timoriensis)

This species was formerly believed to be Nyctophilus gouldii but is now recognised as Nyctophilus timoriensis, Tasmanian subspecies sherrini (Taylor et al. 1987). It is probably endemic to Tasmania as a sub- or full species (Taylor et al. 1987). Its distribution is largely located in the eastern half of Tasmania (Bryant 2002). This species is relatively slow flying and highly manoeuvrable and is capable of foraging in dense vegetation (O’Neill and Taylor 1986). They are not commonly trapped, but have been found at low densities in a range of forested areas, potentially favouring areas with a high shrub cover and low eucalypt density (O’Neill 1984; O’Neill and Taylor 1986). They are believed to be impacted by logging (Rhodes 1996).

Gould’s wattled bat (Chalinolobus gouldii)

Gould’s wattled bats are largely located in north and central Tasmania (Bryant 2002). They are not commonly trapped but have been found in blackwood swamp and wet sclerophyll forest at low densities (O’Neill and Taylor 1986). They are thought to be the swiftest and least manoeuvrable bat species in Tasmania (O’Neill and Taylor 1986). They are occasionally killed by wind turbines in the north-west of the state (C. Hull, pers. comm.). They are initially affected by forestry practices but their activity increases with forest age (Rhodes 1996).

Chocolate wattled bat (Chalinolobus morio)

This relatively common species is thought to be widespread throughout the state but at greater densities in the north and east (Rhodes 1996; Bryant 2002). It is found in a range of forest types (Taylor and O’Neill 1985; O’Neill and Taylor 1986; Rounsevell et al. 1991; Rhodes 1996). It prefers deeper eucalypt canopies and smaller tree sizes (O’Neill 1984). It has been found to have lower activity levels in regrowth forest (Rhodes 1996).

Little forest eptesicus (Vespadelus vulturnus formerly Eptesicus)

This is one of the most common bat species in Tasmania. Based on morphology, the little forest eptesicus is believed to use relatively closed habitats (O’Neill 1984). The species is most abundant in coastal mallee and blackwood swamp and is rare in
dry sclerophyll, forestry regrowth and wet sclerophyll forests (O’Neill 1984; O’Neill and Taylor 1986). They occur in highest numbers at low altitudes (Rhodes 1996). They are associated with E. amygdalina, greater shrub cover, patchy tree distribution, dead stems and lowland situations (O’Neill 1984; Taylor et al. 1987). They use tree hollows and buildings as roosts (Green and Rainbird 1984).

King River vespadelus (Vespadelus regulus formerly Eptesicus)

Probably the most common species in Tasmania (O’Neill 1984; Taylor et al. 1987), the King River vespadelus is believed to be widespread throughout the state (Rounsevell et al. 1991). It prefers dense eucalypt cover (but not E. pulchella) and thick understorey, being rarely found in open habitats with patchy cover (O’Neill 1984). They can be found in large numbers in regrowth forest (Taylor and O’Neill 1985).

Large forest vespadelus (Vespadelus darlingtoni formerly Eptesicus sagittula)

A common species in Tasmania, the large forest vespadelus is probably widespread throughout the state, particularly in the north and east (O’Neill 1984; Rounsevell et al. 1991; Bryant 2002). It has average flight agility and is expected to prefer open areas (O’Neill and Taylor 1986). Large forest vespadelus are trapped most often in dry forest, unlike the other two species in this genus, which prefer mallee habitat (O’Neill 1984; Taylor and O’Neill 1985). They have been associated with dense understorey and dead stems and have been found to be relatively abundant in regrowth forest (O’Neill 1984; Taylor and O’Neill 1985). The effect of logging on this species is unclear (Rhodes 1996).

Tasmanian pipistrelle (Falsistrellus tasmaniensis)

This species has primarily been found in the eastern half of Tasmania (Bryant 2002). Despite being one of the less commonly found species in Tasmania, Tasmanian pipistrelles can be found foraging and roosting in urban environments (O’Neill 1984; Taylor et al. 1987). Their presence is associated with greater shrub and E. amygdalina densities and lower understorey patchiness (O’Neill 1984). Their activity is potentially favoured by forestry practices because they are found in cleared and regrowth areas (Rhodes 1996).

Medium-hollow users

Hollow entrance widths of between 6 and 10 cm were identified as the minimum that could be used by 14 species in Tasmania (Table 3). This included 12 bird species and two marsupial species. Locality records for medium-hollow users are distributed across the state, with fewer species found in the west of the state, as was seen for small-hollow users (Fig. 2). Details on the specific habitats used by each species are provided in Table 3. One study on brushtail possums (Trichosurus vulpecula vulpecula) in an urban area found that up to 17 hollows may be used by one individual (Table 3). Mainland studies for several other species indicated that between 0.004 and over 71 hollows per hectare may be used. No information was found on the spacing of trees required in Tasmania for any of the medium-hollow-using species, although up to four ringtail possums (Pseudocheirus

Table 3. Conservation status, hollow use, habitat, population density, density and spacing of hollow-bearing trees for animals that use medium hollows (6-10-cm entrance width) in Tasmania
Refer to Table 2 for an explanation of terms used in the table

Table 3. (continued)

Fig. 2. Map indicating the number of species able to use medium hollows that are known to exist in 10×10 km10 \times 10 \mathrm{~km} grid squares around Tasmania. Medium hollows have a minimum entrance width of 6−10 cm6-10 \mathrm{~cm}. Indication is also given of the type of forest found in the different areas of the state. Note: no records for little corellas were obtained from the Atlas data although they are known to occur in Tasmania.
peregrinus convoluter) may be found in the same den. Mainland studies of these species indicated a range in tree spacing from as little as several metres to over a kilometre (Table 3). None of the medium-hollow-using species in Tasmania are threatened. The green rosella is endemic to Tasmania and the southern boobook (Ninox novaesseelandiae leucopis), the eastern rosella (Platycercus eximius diemenensis) and the two possums are endemic subspecies (Table 3).

Southern boobook (Ninox novaesseelandiae leucopis)
Distribution. Southern boobooks occur throughout Tasmania at low to moderate altitudes (Bell et al. 1997). Although more abundant in the drier eastern half of the state, they can be found in a wide range of habitats (Bell et al. 1997), being less common in alpine regions, extensive moorland, scrub and rainforest (Bell et al. 1997). This species can use modified landscapes when sufficient nesting sites are available (Bell et al. 1997). Although they are more likely to be found in older forest (Wilson 1981), they have been seen in cleared and regenerating forest (Mollison 1974).

Hollow requirements. Southern boobooks usually use tree hollows for nesting, but have also been recorded using nesting boxes and other man-made structures (Bell et al. 1997). They roost in tree hollows as well as in dense foliage, rocky crevices, caves and man-made structures (Bell et al. 1997). Bell et al. (1997) examined the 11 nesting records in Tasmania and all were in live or dead eucalypts. Of 13 roosting sites, most were on the external surfaces of plants or in man-made structures. Green examined four nests, which had a range in depth of 60−457 cm60-457 \mathrm{~cm} (Australian National Wildlife Collection, RGH Green collection, CSIRO, Canberra). Home-range sizes vary from 4 to 40 ha (Bell et al. 1997).

Status and threats. The southern boobook is considered to be stable at small numbers in Tasmania (Koch and Woehler 2007), although there is a chance that they are declining (Bryant 2002; Barrett et al. 2003). Little is known about the population size of this species, although an estimate of 85093 breeding

individuals has been made based on home-range size (Bell et al. 1997). Southern boobooks are found in several reserves across the state (Bell et al. 1997). The biggest threats to this species are considered to be the forestry industry, the clearing of land for agriculture, firewood collection and competition for nest sites with starlings and kookaburras (Dacelo novaeguineae) (Bell et al. 1997; Bryant 2002; Koch and Woehler 2007). Collision with vehicles is also likely to be an issue, although it is not clear how large a concern it is (Bell et al. 1997).

Pacific black duck (Anas superciliosa)

Distribution. Pacific black ducks are found across the state, including the south-west (Fielding 1976; Thomas 1979) and are associated with lakes, rivers, lagoons and estuaries (Sharland 1958).

Hollow requirements. Pacific black ducks usually nest on the ground but sometimes in tree hollows near water (Sharland 1958; Green 1995).

Status and threats. This species is believed to be stable at relatively large numbers (Koch and Woehler 2007). There is some concern about the impact of legal hunting on this species (Koch and Woehler 2007), but despite being the most heavily hunted species in the state, there is no sign of a population decrease (Game Management Services Unit 2005).

Australian shelduck (Tadorna tadornoides)

Distribution. Australian shelducks are found in fresh water, some tidal water areas and pastures throughout the state, but occur predominantly in the eastern half, including the highland lakes (Frith 1967; Thomas 1979).

Hollow requirements. This species uses tree hollows for breeding, although they can also use holes in the ground (Sharland 1958), rock crevices and disused rabbit burrows on islands and in treeless areas (C. Spencer, pers. comm.).

Status and threats. The population size of this species appears to be stable (Game Management Services Unit 2005). There is concern about the impact of legal hunting, competition for nesting sites, forestry and land clearing (Koch and Woehler 2007).

Chestnut teal (Anas castanea)

Distribution. Chestnut teal are found across the state, including the highland lakes and the west (Frith 1967; Thomas 1979). On the mainland they generally breed in coastal areas (Norman and Brown 1988) and typically occur near rivers, estuaries, marshes and lakes (Sharland 1958; Frith 1967).

Hollow requirements. Chestnut teal sometimes nest on the ground, but more commonly nest in hollow trees in or near water (Sharland 1958).

Status and threats. This species shows erratic population trends (Game Management Services Unit 2005). They are available for hunting and in 2004 comprised 21%21 \% of the harvested ducks in Tasmania (Game Management Services Unit 2005).

Australian wood duck (Chenonetta jubata)

Distribution. A survey by the Game Management Services Unit (2005) looked at 485 dams in all areas of Tasmania except the west coast and World Heritage area. The survey found an average of 1.3 Australian wood ducks per dam in the north-west, 2.5 birds
per dam in the north-east and 3.3 birds per dam in the south-east. However, these figures are likely to vary with repeated surveys. The data are not an indication of the range in bird numbers found per dam because Australian wood ducks generally occur in flocks. They have also been sighted in the south-west of Tasmania (Foster 2001).

Hollow requirements. This species nests in holes in trees or on the ground among reeds (Sharland 1958). In south-west Tasmania, they roost near narrow, vegetation-lined, flowing streams (Foster 2001).

Status and threats. Australian wood ducks were previously rare in Tasmania, but they have increased in population size and distribution throughout Tasmania and are now considered common (Green 1995; Game Management Services Unit 2005). A survey in 2004 (Game Management Services Unit 2005) counted 1145 Australian wood ducks at 485 dams. In 2004, the Australian wood duck was included as a game species for a trial period of three years. First surveys suggest that hunting has not affected population sizes (Game Management Services Unit 2005).

Grey teal (Anas gracilis)

Distribution. Grey teal live near freshwater and tidal areas (Thomas 1979). They are distributed across the state, including the south-west, with highest densities occurring on the Tasman Peninsula (Fielding 1976; Thomas 1979).

Hollow requirements. Grey teal use tree hollows for nesting and generally roost on the ground (Australian National Wildlife Collection, RGH Green collection, CSIRO, Canberra; Sharland 1958).

Status and threats. This species is believed to be stable at low to moderate numbers (Koch and Woehler 2007), although the observed densities are highly variable (Game Management Services Unit 2005). This species is listed for hunting (Game Management Services Unit 2005).

Galah (Eolophus roseicapilla)

Distribution. There are several resident groups of galahs, largely along the north coast of Tasmania but with some farther south and east (Brown and Holdsworth 1992). They have been found in modified landscapes (Thomas 1972). Flocks of up to 100 birds have established around Hobart in the last decade.

Hollow requirements. It is believed that galahs use hollows mainly for breeding (Koch and Woehler 2007), as they do in Western Australia (Rowley 1990).

Status and threats. Galahs are thought to have been introduced to Tasmania, although it is possible that individuals can migrate from the mainland (Brown and Holdsworth 1992). They are believed to currently be at small numbers (less than 500 individuals) but probably increasing rapidly throughout the state (Brown and Holdsworth 1992; Barrett et al. 2003; Koch and Woehler 2007; E. Woehler unpubl. data). Although a loss of nesting hollows could be an issue for this species, there is no great concern for its future in Tasmania (Koch and Woehler 2007).

Long-billed corella (Cacatua tenuirostris)

Distribution. Long-billed corellas have been reported in small numbers scattered throughout the north-west, Midlands area and around Hobart (Brown and Holdsworth 1992).

Hollow requirements. Nesting of long-billed corellas in Tasmania has not been confirmed but is believed to occur occasionally (Brown and Holdsworth 1992). They are likely to be dependent on hollows for breeding and possibly also use them for roosting (Koch and Woehler 2007).

Status and threats. The presence of this species in Tasmania is believed to be the result of aviary escapes, with reported sightings occurring from the mid 1980s onwards (Brown and Holdsworth 1992; Coupland 2000). In 1992, there were ∼100\sim 100 known long-billed corellas in the wild but their numbers are probably increasing (Rowley 1990; Brown and Holdsworth 1992; Green 1995). As they are considered to be an introduced pest, threatening processes are not considered.

Little corella (Cacatua sanguinea)

Distribution. A questionnaire survey indicated that little corellas have increased their range from the Midlands into the north-west, north-east and southern regions of the state. The results show that this is linked to an increase in cropping practices (Coupland 2000).

Hollow requirements. They are known to breed in woodlands in the Midlands of Tasmania (Brown and Holdsworth 1992). They are likely to be dependent on hollows for nesting but may also use them for roosting (Koch and Woehler 2007).

Status and threats. This species is believed to be an aviary escapee. The first wild report was in 1982 and they are believed to be increasing in numbers (Brown and Holdsworth 1992; Koch and Woehler 2007). In 2000, there was estimated to be 600 individuals in the wild (Coupland 2000). This species is considered to be an introduced pest and consequently no threatening processes are considered.

Laughing kookaburra (Dacelo novaeguineae)
Distribution. Laughing kookaburras were introduced in the north of the state and are now widespread, although with a limited distribution in the west (Thomas 1979). Recent observations at the mouth of the Arthur River indicate their spread in coastal regions on the west coast (E. Woehler, unpubl. data). They generally inhabit open woodland or open sclerophyll forest, but are found in other areas (Thomas 1979; Green 1995). There is some evidence suggesting that they are found in mature forest more often than in regrowth (Taylor et al. 1997).

Hollow requirements. Laughing kookaburras use tree hollows for nesting but not roosting, although they can also use tree stumps and cavities in buildings (Sharland 1958; Lloyd 2002; Koch and Woehler 2007). Haseler and Taylor (1993) found three kookaburra nests, all in hollows with enlarged chambers facing north-east. Minimum entrance diameters were between 8.5 and 10 cm and hollow depth was 30 to 62 cm . Internal dimensions were roughly 20 to 30 cm in diameter. A 40−cm40-\mathrm{cm}-thick branch is believed to be the minimum size that can be used by this species (Haseler and Taylor 1993).

Status and threats. Laughing kookaburras were first introduced in the early 1900s (Green 1995) and they have been increasing in numbers and in range since then. Being an introduced species, there is no need to mention threatening processes, although possibly thousands of individuals have been killed in Tasmania by people hoping to conserve native fauna (Green et al. 1988). It should be noted, however, that this
aggressive hollow-dependent species poses a threat to native species by competing for nesting sites (Lloyd 2002).

Eastern rosella (Platycercus eximius diemenensis)
Distribution. Eastern rosellas are found in the eastern half of the state, with the most records from the south-east (Thomas 1979; Bryant 2002). They generally do not venture far from trees (Green 1983).

Hollow requirements. They use tree hollows for breeding but not roosting (Koch and Woehler 2007). Green examined four nests and found the hollows used were 30−76−cm30-76-\mathrm{cm} deep (Australian National Wildlife Collection, RGH Green collection, CSIRO, Canberra).

Status and threats. The distribution and population size of the eastern rosella is believed to have decreased since European settlement (Green 1983, 1995). They were previously abundant in the Midlands but, owing to a loss of habitat, competition for hollows and being killed by farmers, they are no longer found in areas where they were once common (Green 1983; Bryant 2002; Koch and Woehler 2007). Road kill, window collisions and poaching may also be of concern (Koch and Woehler 2007; M. Holdsworth, pers. comm.). The current status of this species is thought to be stable at small numbers or decreasing (Koch and Woehler 2007).

Green rosella (Platycercus caledonicus)

Distribution. The green rosella is a Tasmanian endemic found throughout the state (Brown 1979; Thomas 1979). Green rosellas are found in most habitats with trees, including pine forest and paddocks (Fielding 1976; Wilson 1984; Duckworth 2001). They favour mature forest with a well developed understorey, although they can be found feeding but not nesting in regenerating forest (Wilson 1984; Statham 1987). In thinned regrowth with scattered old trees, 13.7 birds per km were found along transects and only 5.5 birds per km were found in unlogged regrowth (Taylor and Haseler 1995).

Hollow requirements. Green rosellas are reliant on tree hollows for breeding but not roosting (Sharland 1958; Statham 1984; Koch and Woehler 2007). They breed only in larger trees in mature forest (tree diameter 0.4−2 m0.4-2 \mathrm{~m} : Wilson 1984). They can use hollows of a range of sizes, entrance width varying from 4 to 22 cm (Wilson 1984; Haseler and Taylor 1993). They have been found using relatively deep ( 40−91 cm40-91 \mathrm{~cm} ) branch and trunk hollows (Australian National Wildlife Collection, RGH Green collection, CSIRO, Canberra; Haseler and Taylor 1993). The minimum size for the nest chamber used is considered to be 50×15 cm50 \times 15 \mathrm{~cm} (Wilson 1984). Green rosellas are thought to use hollows located 6-40 m above the ground (Wilson 1984; Statham 1987), possibly preferring northward-facing hollows (Wilson 1984; Haseler and Taylor 1993).

Status and threats. The King Island subspecies, P. caledonicus brownii, is listed as Vulnerable under Schedule 4 of the Tasmanian Threatened Species Protection Act 1995 owing to its limited distribution (50 km2)\left(50 \mathrm{~km}^{2}\right) and small population size ( 500 mature individuals), although competition for nesting sites is also a potential issue (Legge et al. 2004). Although there is some belief that there has been a gradual decrease in green rosella numbers on mainland Tasmania since 1940 (R. H. Green, pers. comm. from Higgins 1999), the green rosella is generally believed

to be stable at large numbers (Koch and Woehler 2007). The atlas data indicate a potential increase in numbers, although green rosellas were more likely to be detected in the second survey (Barrett et al. 2003). Potential threats include forestry, clearing for agriculture, window collisions and road kills (Koch and Woehler 2007). Some reports indicate a positive effect of clearing (Brown 1979), but this is most likely a result of their ability to feed in regenerating forest, while they need older forest for nesting (Wilson 1984). Taylor and Haseler (1995) found the relative rates of use between regenerating and mature forest varied. Starlings are probably the main species competing for nesting hollows, but green rosellas have a wider distribution than the common starling, which may help its population stability (Green 1983).

Common brushtail possum (Trichosurus vulpecula vulpecula)

Distribution. Before the 1940s, the brushtail possum was probably confined to mountainous and forested areas (Green 1973). They are now relatively common in most places, although they are partly restricted by the absence of trees (Guiler 1953). Brushtail possums are rarely found in sedgeland and rainforest, with a limited distribution in the south-west of the state (Hocking and Guiler 1983; Hocking 1990; Munks et al. 2004). There is some evidence to suggest that brushtail possums increase in density in areas disturbed by fire or logging (Hocking 1981; Driessen et al. 1990).

Hollow requirements. Brushtail possums preferentially use tree hollows for denning sites where available (Cawthen 2007) and the few records of females with pouch young in forest environments have all been in hollows (L. Cawthen, pers. comm.). However, non-breeding individuals have been found sheltering in a variety of sites, including rabbit warrens, rock piles, fallen logs, dense undergrowth, artificial hollows or crevices in buildings (Statham 1987; Munks et al. 2004). It should be noted that although the minimum entrance dimension of a hollow used by the brushtail possum is in the range of 6−10 cm6-10 \mathrm{~cm}, hollows of larger entrance dimensions are frequently used by this species. A study of den use in an urban area showed that between one and three (but up to 17) day sites were regularly used, with 28%28 \% of den sites being in trees (Statham and Statham 1997).

Status and threats. Brushtail possum numbers have increased dramatically in the last few decades, potentially due to a decrease in hunting pressure (Driessen and Hocking 1992). The brushtail possum is currently the most abundant and widespread arboreal marsupial species in Tasmania (Munks et al. 2004) and its status is considered secure. Approximately 60%60 \% of Tasmania is thought to provide suitable habitat for the brushtail possum (Hocking 1990). Although partly protected under Schedule 4 of the Wildlife Regulations 1999 under the National Parks Wildlife Act 1970, brushtail possums are considered a pest species in many areas of Tasmania and permits are available for hunting and baiting. To ensure the species is not being overexploited, spotlight surveys have been conducted annually since 1975 (Hocking 1990; Callister 1991; Driessen and Hocking 1992). Large numbers are also killed each year by collisions with vehicles on roads (Mooney and Johnson 1979).

Common ringtail possum (Pseudocheirus peregrinus convoluter)

Distribution. In Tasmania, the common ringtail possum is found in most areas but is absent from more open vegetation in the south-west of the state (low and open woodland, sedgeland and scrubland) (Hocking and Guiler 1983; Slater 1987a; Munks 1990).

Hollow requirements. Common ringtail possums can use tree hollows or build nests (dreys) for shelter. The preference between the two alternatives is believed to be related to the availability of suitable understorey and the availability of suitable hollows (S. Munks, pers. comm.). Dreys are usually built in thick scrub or low canopy areas of various tall shrub and tree species, including regrowth eucalypt forest (Statham 1987).

Status and threats. The common ringtail possum was common in Tasmania until 1940, when its population underwent a rapid decline, possibly due to a disease and over-hunting (Munks et al. 2004). The ringtail possum is now wholly protected in Tasmania (Schedule 2 of the Wildlife Regulations 1999 under the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1970). Numbers have partially recovered (Green 1973) and are thought to be stable. Although Green (1982b) proposed that there is likely to be a longterm reduction in total population size owing to habitat loss resulting from intensive forest management practices, there is no risk of extinction (Bekessy et al. 2004; Munks et al. 2004). In some areas, the ringtail possum may have to compete with the brushtail possum for refuge sites (Munks et al. 2004). Young ringtail possums are at risk of predation by feral cats, wedge-tailed eagles (Aquila audax), brown falcons (Falco berigora), grey goshawks (Accipiter novaehollandiae) and masked owls (Tyto novaehollandiae castanops) (Green 1982a; N. Mooney, pers. comm. in Munks et al. 2004).

Large-hollow users

Three species, all birds, are limited to using large hollows in Tasmania and cannot physically use hollows with an entrance diameter less than 10 cm (Table 4). Clear patterns in the distribution of large-hollow users are difficult to determine owing to the small number of species. Although observations of these three species are more concentrated in the north of the state, they clearly have a wide distribution (Fig. 3). Details on the specific habitats used by each species are provided in Table 4. Only one study exists that considered the hollow requirements of a large-hollow-using species in Tasmania. It was estimated that the endemic and Endangered masked owl requires a distance of ∼1.5 km\sim 1.5 \mathrm{~km} between nesting sites and uses 0.03 trees per hectare (Table 4).

Yellow-tailed black cockatoo (Calyptorynchus funereus xanthanotus)

Distribution. Yellow-tailed black cockatoos are widely distributed and are found in most habitats in Tasmania (Thomas 1979), even at small numbers in pine plantations, forest remnants and in the west (Brown 1979; Brown and Holdsworth 1992; Duckworth 2001). They breed only in mature forest (Wilson 1981), possibly more in wet forest than dry (R. Brereton, pers. comm. in Bekessy et al. 2004).

Table 4. Conservation status, hollow use, habitat, population density, density and spacing of hollow-bearing trees for animals that use large hollows (>10-cm entrance width) in Tasmania
Refer to Table 2 for an explanation of terms used in the table

Hollow requirements. Yellow-tailed black cockatoos are reliant on large hollows for breeding (Brown and Holdsworth 1992; Koch and Woehler 2007). They often use dead trees or trees with large dead limbs (Brown and Holdsworth 1992). Large hollows are required, with reported holes being 20−30−cm20-30-\mathrm{cm} wide and 65 cm deep (Haseler and Taylor 1993; Wapstra and Doran 2004).

Status and threats. Yellow-tailed black cockatoos are generally distributed at small numbers and some people are concerned that they are declining (Koch and Woehler 2007). This belief is disputed by others. However, the large size and loud call of the species and their gregarious and nomadic nature means that they are readily noticed (Brown and Holdsworth 1992), which, in conjunction with their relatively long life span, may delay recognition of a decrease in numbers. One report was received indicating that numbers are increasing in the north of the state, which was attributed to their having learnt to eat pine cones (Koch and Woehler 2007). The only estimate of population size in Tasmania is around 100 breeding pairs in the north-east of the state (Bekessy et al. 2004). Breeding birds are believed to be intolerant of disturbance (Brown and Holdsworth 1992). Recent modelling work predicted decreases under all scenarios that involve anthropogenic disturbance, this pattern driven by loss of breeding habitat (Bekessy et al. 2004).

Sulfur-crested cockatoo (Cacatua galerita galerita)

Distribution. Sulfur-crested cockatoos are widespread and their range is increasing throughout Tasmania (Coupland 2000),
although they may have a limited distribution on the east coast, the north-east in particular (Brown 1979; Thomas 1979; Coupland 2000). They are thought to prefer open wooded country (Statham 1987), although they have been found in rainforest, buttongrass (Mollison 1974; Brown 1979), wet forest (Brown and Holdsworth 1992), suburban areas (Thomas 1972) and orchards (Fielding 1979).

Hollow requirements. Although sulfur-crested cockatoos are believed to be reliant on tree hollows for breeding, there are few breeding records for this species in Tasmania (Brown and Holdsworth 1992; Koch and Woehler 2007). They have been observed to occupy hollow limbs in trees, preferring the more mature and large trees with a hollow entrance size of 20 cm or more (Brown and Holdsworth 1992). They often roost communally but show little indication of being selective in terms of tree species or site, although patch size may be important (Coupland 2000). The main factors influencing choice of nest site in Tasmania are suggested to be food availability and distance to travel to feed (Coupland 2000).

Status and threats. The sulfur-crested cockatoo is believed to be common and possibly increasing in numbers (Brown and Holdsworth 1992; Coupland 2000; Koch and Woehler 2007). There has been some community perception that this species is introduced, but reports indicate it is native to Tasmania (Brown and Holdsworth 1992). No threats are considered to be of immediate concern, although potential issues are a decrease in nesting sites and habitat availability and competition for nest sites (Pattemore 1980; Koch and Woehler 2007).

Fig. 3. Map indicating the number of species able to use large hollows that are known to exist in 10×10 km10 \times 10 \mathrm{~km} grid squares around Tasmania. Large hollows have a minimum entrance width of more than 10 cm . Indication is also given of the type of forest found in the different areas of the state.

Masked owl (Tyto novaehollandiae castanops)
Distribution. The masked owl is generally found throughout the state in a range of habitats, although there are fewer records from the west (Bell and Mooney 2002). There is evidence that it occurs at higher densities in areas of low elevation, low rainfall and high annual mean temperatures (Bell and Mooney 2002). Masked owls are frequently found close to cleared or non-forested areas in areas with a mosaic understorey and open and dense areas (Bell and Mooney 2002). Rainforest is of low importance to this species (Mooney 1992).

Hollow requirements. Masked owls usually nests in tree hollows, although there is a record of them breeding in a building and another in a cave (Sharland 1958; Bell et al. 1997; Mooney 1997). They can roost in hollows but also use other locations such as cliffs, caves, vegetation and occasionally man-made structures (Mooney 1992; Bell et al. 1997; Bell and Mooney 2002). Nests are rarely less than 1.5 km apart (Mooney 1992) and home-range sizes are estimated to be between 400 and 2500 ha (Bell et al. 1997; Young 2006). Hollows used by masked owls are on average 9.5 m(2.8−26 m)9.5 \mathrm{~m}(2.8-26 \mathrm{~m}) above the ground in trees 1.24 m(0.95−1.56 m)1.24 \mathrm{~m}(0.95-1.56 \mathrm{~m}) in diameter, often with badly burned bases (Mooney 1997;

Wapstra and Doran 2004). Hollow entrance widths of 30 cm have been recorded (Green 1982a).

Status and threats. This species is listed as Endangered at the Tasmanian level (Schedule 3 Tasmanian Threatened Species Protection Act 1995), and is being considered for listing under the Commonwealth Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (M. Holdsworth, pers. comm.). Populations in Tasmania are thought to be stable at small numbers or decreasing (Koch and Woehler 2007). There is no direct evidence of a decrease, although there are anecdotal reports of masked owls being more commonly seen in the 1940s and 1950s (Bell et al. 1997; Mooney 1997). The population size was estimated at 1300 breeding individuals in 1997 (Bell et al. 1997) and 200-400 pairs in 2002 (Bell and Mooney 2002). The biggest threats to the masked owl are the forest industry, clearing for agriculture, lack of available nest sites due to attrition of nest trees, competition with bees, brushtail possums and kookaburras and collision with motor vehicles and powerlines (Bell et al. 1997; Mooney 1997; Koch and Woehler 2007). Masked owls are sensitive to direct disturbance at their nest sites (Bell et al. 1997), although they have been known to use isolated trees in pastureland (Mooney 1997). Only a small area of the preferred habitat for masked owls ( 6%6 \% ) is within reserves, most being on private land (Bell and Mooney 2002).

Discussion

Hollow-using species in Tasmania

This review found that around 42 species of arboreal marsupials, bats and birds regularly use tree hollows in Tasmania. This number decreases to 35 if the introduced bird species and sugar glider are not included. However, it is important to consider the presence of introduced species because they can potentially compete for hollows with native fauna. The number of hollowusing vertebrate species identified in the current review is lower than that identified by Munks et al. (2007; 45 species). The reason for this difference is largely due to the inclusion of amphibians and reptiles and occasional users of basal hollows by Munks et al. (2007). Species that very rarely use hollows and those that only use basal hollows have not been considered in the current review, which is a more thorough assessment of Tasmania’s hollow-using fauna.

The number of hollow-using species in Tasmania is at the lower end of the range found on mainland Australia: 42-70 species (see Gibbons and Lindenmayer 2002 for collation). In comparing the rates of hollow use for the different taxa between Tasmania and mainland Australia, the results are variable. Approximately 91 terrestrial birds have been recorded breeding in Tasmania (Blakers et al. 1984; Taylor 1991). Therefore, 31.9%31.9 \% of Tasmania’s bird species use hollows to some degree. This rate is reduced to 25.3%25.3 \% if the number of native hollow-using terrestrial birds is expressed as a percentage of all (introduced and native) terrestrial birds to allow comparison with the national rate of 15%15 \% calculated by Gibbons and Lindenmayer (2002; note that the national number of birds estimated does not include seabirds or migratory birds). The available information indicates that 35%35 \% of the 37 mammal species in Tasmania ( 33 natives, the sugar glider and three introduced rats or mice: Watts 1993) use hollows. When the number of native-mammal hollow users (i.e. excluding

the sugar glider) is expressed as a percentage of all mammal species (introduced and exotic) as per Gibbons and Lindenmayer (2002), the Tasmanian rate of hollow use ( 32%32 \% ) is similar to the national average of 31%31 \% (Gibbons and Lindenmayer 2002). Although the present review did not include amphibians and reptiles, a previous review by Munks et al. (2007) stated that one species of frog and two lizards occasionally use hollows. If these records are correct, then the rate of hollow use for amphibians (9%)(9 \%) and reptiles ( 9.5%9.5 \% ) in Tasmania is roughly similar to the national rates of 13%13 \% and 10%10 \% (although national rates are highly variable, e.g. Taylor et al. 2003). The figures given here on the proportion of species within each taxon that use hollows in Tasmania is slightly different to that quoted elsewhere (Taylor et al. 2003). These differences are due to slight variations in the species considered and because the review by Taylor et al. (2003) provided figures on the percentage of forest-using species that use hollows. We present the information as a percentage of all species to allow comparison with national rates of hollow use (Gibbons and Lindenmayer 2002). This comparison revealed that, although the number of species found to use tree hollows in Tasmania is at the lower end of many regions of mainland Australia, the proportion of species within a taxon that use hollows is similar or higher than the national average.

Within more local areas, the taxa and abundance of hollowusing vertebrate species found in Tasmania may be similar to other temperate areas of Australia. For example, in south-west Western Australia, 42 vertebrate species use tree hollows: seven marsupials, nine bats, 21 birds and five reptiles (Abbott and Whitford 2002). Although the number of marsupials and bats found in south-west Western Australia is similar to Tasmania, more birds and fewer reptiles were estimated to use hollows in Tasmania compared with south-west Western Australia. However, estimates of hollow-using species in Western Australia did not include species thought to not be part of the original forest fauna. If Tasmania’s introduced species and recent natural migrants are excluded, the number of hollow-using birds in Tasmania is reduced to 23 species. Another difference in the composition of hollow-using fauna between the two areas is that more large-hollow users are found in Western Australia: nine species have a maximum adult body width of at least 100 mm compared with the three large-hollow users in Tasmania. Taylor et al. (2003) compared the rate of hollow use between Tasmania and south-west Western Australia. They reported higher rates of hollow use for birds ( 34%34 \% ) and mammals ( 50%50 \% ) in Tasmania than we have because only forest-using species were considered. Using their approach, mammals used hollows at a similar rate between south-west Western Australia and Tasmania, but a higher rate of use was found for birds in Tasmania. The results of the current review indicate that although there are some differences, the number and variety of hollowusing species in Tasmania is similar to that found in south-west Western Australia.

Distribution

Locality records (Figs 1-3) suggest that fewer hollow-using species are found in western Tasmania. Although some species, such as the orange-bellied parrot, are largely confined to the west of the state, a greater number of species are known to largely occur
in the east. These include the forty-spotted and striated pardalotes, swift parrot, eastern rosella and musk lorikeet. The apparent trend in species richness roughly corresponds with forest type, the western third of the state having more rainforest, wet sclerophyll forest and heathland while the east is predominately dry sclerohpyll forest and non-forest areas, including cleared agricultural land with remnant paddock trees.

Although we have used the best information available to assess the distribution of hollow-using species, the information is extremely limited and may bias the conclusions made. The bird atlas data used to construct the distribution maps were collected during standardised surveys (Barrett et al. 2003), limiting the amount of bias among the geographical areas of the state. However, the limited survey effort used in the atlases means that birds occurring in small numbers may have been missed. Only a small number of additional sightings were obtained from expert ornithologists. Much of the mammal distribution data were obtained opportunistically. Fewer people live in the west of the state, resulting in reduced observation effort in this large area and biasing mammal distributions to areas of higher human population. Furthermore, forest type may influence the ease with which animals are observed and, thus, influence the rate of incidental reports of animal occurrence.

Despite the shortcomings of the data, the published literature appears to confirm the trend of greater species richness for hollow-using mammals and birds in eastern Tasmania compared with the west. A greater number of bat species has been found in the eastern part of the state compared with the west (Taylor et al. 1987; Taylor and Comfort 1993), sugar gliders appear to be absent in the south-west of the state (Holdsworth 2006), brushtail possums were not found in a survey in the south-west and ringtail possums were not found in open vegetation formations in the area (open woodland, sedgeland and scrubland) (Hocking and Guiler 1983). Table 5 suggests there is little difference in the number of species found between wet and dry forests, although there is possibly a decrease in species richness in mixed forest and rainforest. However, this summary is again based on limited information and does not indicate how frequently species are found in the respective forest types. It has previously been reported that the number of forest-using birds are known to decrease from dry forest, through wet forest to rainforest (Statham 1984). This suggests that the observed change in the number of hollow-using species is likely to also decrease through these forest types. Therefore, although firm conclusions on the distribution of hollow-using species cannot be made, current information suggests that there are greater numbers of hollowusing species in the drier forests of eastern Tasmania than the wetter forests in the west. Despite this apparent trend, recent research suggests that more hollows are used in wet forests than dry. However, the rate at which hollows are used may not be an accurate reflection of demand for hollows (Koch et al. 2008a).

Hollow requirements

There are limited data available on the specific hollow requirements of fauna in Tasmania. Yet from the information that is available, it is apparent that Tasmanian species have extremely diverse requirements. The number and spacing of hollow-bearing trees required by a species varies according to the purpose for

Table 5. A summary of the number of small, medium and large-hollow users that have been reported in different habitat types
This information is a summary of the habitat information provided in Tables 2-4. It is a summary of the habitats in which hollow-using animals were sighted as determined by the literature examined. It is possible that species may be found in habitats not indicated in the literature. Furthermore, these figures do not reflect the relative densities of hollow-using species in these habitats or the distribution of breeding areas

which hollows are used and, to varying degrees, with the size of the animals and the territoriality of the species.

As a generalisation, the size of hollow used by an animal is related to its body size (Gibbons 1999). The information gathered in this review indicates that three species of possums, all eight species of bats and 14 species of birds ( 59.5%59.5 \% of hollow-using species) can potentially use small hollows (Table 1). Two possums and 12 birds ( 33.3%33.3 \% of hollow-using species) are medium-hollow users and three birds ( 7.1%7.1 \% of hollow-using species) are more than likely restricted to using large hollows (although it is likely that the bats are also reliant on large hollows for breeding colonies). Many of these species will also use hollows that are larger than the sizes indicated. Although there are many more small-hollow users than large-hollow users, many of the small-hollow users can use alternative sites, such as holes in the ground, hollow logs, dense undergrowth, tree stumps etc. In comparison, all three bird species limited to using large hollows are reliant on hollows for breeding (Table 6). Larger hollows take longer periods of time to develop (Koch et al. 2008b). Therefore, despite the apparent low demand for large hollows in Tasmania, it is these hollows that need to be managed most carefully, particularly because all three large-hollow users are dependent on hollows for breeding and one of these species, the masked owl, is a listed Threatened species.

The majority of Tasmanian hollow-using bird species are dependent on hollows only for breeding (Table 6), meaning they require only one hollow per breeding pair during the breeding season. One exception to this is the Australian owlet nightjar, which is the only hollow-user in Tasmania that is dependent on hollows for both nesting and roosting. Some other species that breed in hollows, such as masked owls, southern boobooks and little corellas, also use hollows for roosting but can use alternative locations. In comparison, all the arboreal marsupial species use hollows as a diurnal refuge (but can use alternative locations) and multiple hollows are used by each individual throughout the year (Table 6). Like the arboreal marsupials, Tasmanian bats use tree hollows all year round but can also use alternative roost locations. Bats, brushtail possums and sugar gliders are believed to be more reliant on tree hollows for breeding sites than roosting sites (R. Brereton, pers. comm.; Table 6).

Estimating the density of hollows required in a forest to maintain populations of vertebrate hollow-using fauna is a difficult undertaking. In some other areas of Australia, tree-retention rates for hollow-using fauna have been estimated using information

Table 6. A summary of the hollow dependency of hollow-using vertebrate fauna in Tasmania
Breeding shelter: requires hollows for breeding and for shelter (i.e. roosting, denning). Breeding: requires hollows only for breeding. Facultative: uses hollows when available but can use other breeding, roosting or denning sites. Rare: rarely uses hollows. (Note that some species in the breeding shelter and breeding category have also been observed using alternative sites, but the majority of observations are of tree hollow use)

on the hollow requirements and density of all hollow-using species (e.g. Smith 1993; Lamb et al. 1998; Smith and Lees 1998). The current review has revealed the paucity of information available for most hollow-using species in Tasmania, which prevents a similar approach being adopted in Tasmania.

The only current estimate of the number of hollows used by fauna in Tasmania was gathered from felled trees in wet and dry E. obliqua forest, estimating between 8 and 15 trees per hectare are being used (Koch et al. 2008a). However, the number of hollows being used in an area is not necessarily an indication of the number of hollows that are needed, where ‘need’ is determined by the number required to maintain viable populations. For example, the rate at which hollows are required may be underestimated when hollows are the limiting factor for species reproduction. Conversely, some species may use hollows at a higher rate than is strictly required. For introduced species, one could argue that no hollows are needed at all. However, introduced species need to be taken into consideration because they may compete for hollows with native species. Starlings, bees and wasps are all potential competitors for tree hollows (Green 1983; Paton 1996). If insufficient hollows are provided in an area, native fauna could potentially be excluded by pest species owing to competition for this resource. Furthermore, competition may not be limited to the hollows themselves. Highly territorial species

can exclude individuals of the same or different species from an area, thereby impacting the number and spacing of hollows required.

A final complication regarding tree-hollow management is that the hollows being retained as part of management actions may not be appropriate. Animals are selective in their use of hollows for a large number of reasons, examples of which have been given for the species discussed above. Even for those species whose requirements have been well studied, our ability to determine the suitability of trees is inhibited by physical limitations (Koch 2008). Consequently, many hollows are rejected by species, so a simple accounting of the density of hollows needed by each species in an area will almost certainly underestimate the number of hollows needed in a forest to support a healthy vertebrate community.

Despite these complexities and limitations with regards to tree-hollow management, decisions are required. Studies looking at the rate at which hollows are used (e.g. Koch et al. 2008a) can form the basis for management prescriptions. An effective monitoring program can then facilitate an adaptive management procedure to try to detect if and where shortcomings exist in the prescriptions. Reviewing current knowledge, as we have done in the current manuscript, helps design such a monitoring program by highlighting species of concern and identifying the highest research priorities.

Conservation considerations and management implications

Four hollow-using bird species are classified as Endangered at the state and/or federal level (Commonwealth Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999, Tasmanian Threatened Species Protection Act 1995), and all are reliant on tree hollows for breeding. The major processes identified as causing a decrease of the hollow resource across Australia since European settlement are logging, clearance for agriculture, firewood collection, urban development, grazing and altered fire regimes (Gibbons and Lindenmayer 2002). All these processes occur in Tasmania. The significance of habitat loss is compounded by a lack of recruitment of hollow-bearing trees in many areas. Road kill, wind farms and hunting are three other threatening processes occurring in Tasmania. The incidence of animals killed by vehicles on the road (road kill) is estimated to be higher in Tasmania than in any other state (A. Hobday, pers. comm.), but the majority of road-kill species are non-threatened or non-hollow-using fauna.

There is limited reservation of habitat within the areas of the state identified as potentially having the highest number of hollow-using species (Fig. 4) and production forestry operations are perceived to be the most serious threat to habitat for hollowusing fauna (Koch and Woehler 2007). Approximately 60% of the forest in Tasmania was potentially available for logging in 2003, including more than 70%70 \% of the more productive tall forests (Hickey and Brown 2003). The amount of forest potentially available for logging has reduced since the Community Forest Agreement (Commonwealth of Australia and State of Tasmania 2005; DPIW 2007a, 2008). However, a decrease in amount of forest available for wood production without a corresponding decrease in harvesting quotas leads to an intensification of

Fig. 4. Map indicating the land tenure in Tasmania.
harvesting in the remaining forest (Lindenmayer and Franklin 2002: p. 93). Forestry operations in Tasmania range from the selective harvest of dry eucalypt forest, through to the more intensive clear-felling of wet eucalypt forest and conversion of native forest to plantations or agriculture. Conversion removes habitat permanently. Although selective harvesting and clearfelling procedures change the structure and age of forests, forest habitat can still be maintained in the longer term. However, few hollows are likely to form given current rotation times used in most areas of Australia (e.g. see Ball et al. 1999). There is more potential to ensure a continual supply of hollows in production forestry areas if some sort of selective harvesting or ‘in-coupe’ tree retention is undertaken.

Future research directions

There is a lack of information available on the hollow-bearing tree requirements for several hollow-using species in Tasmania, including the spacing of trees and the characteristics of the hollows used. Such information is required to assess the adequacy of current tree-retention prescriptions, particularly in production forest areas. Making an assessment of the current management strategies is critical to ensure that a continual supply of tree hollows is available into the future for all fauna. However, an assessment of how to maintain hollow-bearing trees in areas that

are not used for timber production (e.g. agricultural and urban areas) would also be extremely valuable. The degree to which hollows may be limiting populations of hollow-using species in Tasmania also needs to be established. This would involve a more thorough investigation of competition among species for the hollow resource and the impact of exotic hollow-using species such as bees and starlings. For those species not reliant on tree hollows, it would be useful to have more information on the consequences of using alternative nesting sites on fecundity and survival rates.

Conclusion

In Tasmania, 42 species of possums, bats and birds use tree hollows to varying degrees. The five species of possums may use hollows for denning at any time, but all of these species can use other locations. However, the brushtail possum and the introduced sugar glider most likely only use hollows when breeding in forested areas. All of the eight bat species can also use a variety of roosting sites, although tree hollows are believed to be the preferred location for breeding. Of the 29 bird species, the Australian owlet nightjar was the only species that was reliant on tree hollows for both breeding and roosting. Nineteen species were reliant on tree hollows for breeding but not roosting, five species generally use tree hollows for breeding but can also use other locations and four species use tree hollows only occasionally. Four of these bird species are classified as Endangered at the state and/or federal level (Commonwealth Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999, Tasmanian Threatened Species Protection Act 1995), all of which are reliant on tree hollows for breeding. Although the number of hollow-using species found in Tasmania is at the lower end of the range found in other areas of Australia, the proportion of species in a particular taxon that use hollows is similar or greater. Hollow-using fauna form a major component of Tasmania’s vertebrate fauna.

There is some evidence to suggest there is a greater number of hollow-using species in the eastern half of the state, possibly associated with areas of dry forest areas rather than wet forest or rainforest areas. Dry forest areas are more heavily used by people for urbanisation, forestry and agricultural purposes. Furthermore, the distribution of formal reserves is heavily biased towards the western half of the state. Consequently, the availability of hollows in the east of the state may be limited and appropriate management in off-reserve areas is required.

There are limited data available on the specific nesting requirements of hollow-using fauna in Tasmania. Yet from the information that is available, it is apparent that the Tasmanian species have extremely diverse requirements. The number and spacing of nest trees required by a species varies according to the purpose for which hollows are used and, to varying degrees, with the size of the animals and the territoriality of the species. Most of the bird species only use hollows for breeding. Consequently, they will generally require only one hollow per breeding pair during the breeding season. In comparison, the arboreal marsupials use hollows as a diurnal refuge and multiple hollows are used by each individual throughout the year. The spacing of nesting sites used by a species varies from as little as 1 m to as much as 1.5 km . The largest spacing of nests
currently identified is required by the largest hollow-using animal, the masked owl, while the smallest distance is required by one of the smallest species, the forty-spotted pardalote. Swift parrots are larger than forty-spotted pardalotes, but they use hollows in close proximity owing to the gregarious nesting habits of this species.

In terms of the types of hollows required by Tasmanian fauna, the majority of hollow-using species ( 59.5%59.5 \% ) can use small hollows ( ≤5 cm\leq 5 \mathrm{~cm} in entrance diameter). One-third can use hollows that are medium in size or larger (6−10 cm)(6-10 \mathrm{~cm}) and 7%7 \% are limited to only the largest of hollows (>10 cm)(>10 \mathrm{~cm}). However, many of these species, bats and brushtail possums in particular, can and will use hollows that are larger than their minimum requirements. Larger hollows take longer periods of time to develop. Therefore, despite the apparent low demand for large hollows in Tasmania, it is these hollows that need to be managed most carefully, particularly because all three large-hollow users are dependent on hollows for breeding and one of these species, the masked owl, is a listed Threatened species. The main threats to the hollow-using fauna in Tasmania are habitat loss, lack of recruitment of hollow-bearing trees and competition for the hollow resource with introduced species.

Acknowledgements

Thanks to Mark Holdsworth, Don Driscoll and Jamie Kirkpatrick for reading and helping improve this manuscript. The bird distribution data used in this paper were supplied by Birds Tasmania, a regional group of Birds Australia. Thanks to Mark Holdsworth and Chris Spencer who helped check the species distribution maps. Thanks to Stewart Blackhall for checking the distribution maps and editing the text on ducks. Thanks to Raymond Brereton for discussions on Tasmanian bats and for checking the text on bats in this paper. Thanks to Nick Mooney for reading the sections on Tasmanian owls. Thanks to Matt Webb for comments on the texts for swift parrot, masked owl and yellow-tailed black cockatoo.

References

Abbott, I., and Whitford, K. (2002). Conservation of vertebrate fauna using hollows in forests of south-west Western Australia: strategic risk assessment in relation to ecology, policy, planning, and operations management. Pacific Conservation Biology 7, 240-255.
Anonymous (1919). Order Psittaciformes, family Loriidae, genus Trichoglossus. South Australian Ornithologist 4, 38-39.
Ball, I. R., Lindenmayer, D. B., and Possingham, H. P. (1999). A tree hollow dynamics simulation model. Forest Ecology and Management 123, 179-194. doi: 10.1016/S0378-1127(99)00026-2
Barrett, G., Silcocks, A., and Cunningham, R. (2002). ‘Australian Bird Atlas (1998-2001) Supplementary Report No. 1 - Comparison of Atlas 1 (1977-1981) and Atlas 2 (1998-2001).’ (Birds Australia: Melbourne.)
Barrett, G., Silcocks, A., Barry, S. C., Cunningham, R., and Poulter, R. (2003). ‘The New Atlas of Australian Birds.’ (Royal Australasian Ornithologists Union: Melbourne.)
Bekessy, S., Fox, J., Munks, S., and Wintle, B. (2004). PVA for ringtail possum (Pseudocheirus peregrinus convolutor). In ‘Linking Landscape Ecology and Management to Population Viability Analysis. Report 2: Population Viability Analysis for Eleven Forest Dependent Species’. (Eds J. C. Fox, T. J.Regan, S. A. Bekessy, B. A. Wintle, M. J. Brown, J. M. Meggs, K. Bonham, R. Mesibov, M. A. McCarthy, S. A. Munks, P. Wells, R. Brereton, K. Graham, J. Hickey, P. Turner, M. Jones, W. E. Brown, N. Mooney, S. Grove, K. Yamada and M. A. Burgman.) pp. 190-214. A project by the University of Melbourne prepared for Forestry Tasmania. (University of Melbourne: Melbourne.)

Bell, H. L. (1979). Tree martins nesting in buildings. Australian Bird Watcher 8, 102 .
Bell, P. J., and Mooney, N. (2002). Distribution, habitat and abundance of masked owls (Tyto novaehollandiae) in Tasmania. In ‘Ecology and Conservation of Owls.’ (Eds I. Newton, R. Kavanagh, J. Olsen and I. Taylor.) pp. 125-136. (CSIRO Publishing: Melbourne.)

Bell, P., Mooney, N., and Wiersma, J. (1997). Predicting essential habitat for forest owls in Tasmania. Report to the Tasmanian RFA Environment and Heritage Technical Committee, Hobart.
Blakers, M., Davies, S. J. J. F., and Reilly, P. N. (1984). ‘The Atlas of Australian Birds.’ (Melbourne University Press: Melbourne.)
Bosworth, P., Dorney, N., and Tarran, A. (1976). Application of island biogeographic principles to the selection and management of Tasmanian dry sclerophyll reserves. M.Sc. Thesis, University of Tasmania, Hobart.
Brereton, R. (1997). Management prescriptions for the swift parrot in production forests. Report to the Tasmanian RFA Environment and Heritage Technical Committee, Hobart.
Brereton, R. N., Bryant, S. L., and Rowell, M. (1997). Habitat modelling of the forty-spotted pardalote and recommendations for management. Report to the Tasmanian RFA Environment and Heritage Technical Committee, Hobart.
Brereton, R., Swift Parrot Recovery Team, and Tasmanian Parks and Wildlife Service (1999). Swift parrot recovery plan 1997-2000. Department of Primary Industries, Water and Environment, Hobart.
Brown, P. B. (1979). The status of parrot species in Western Tasmania. Tasmanian Bird Report 9, 4-12.
Brown, P. B. (1986). The forty-spotted pardalote in Tasmania. Wildlife Division Technical Report 1986/4, Hobart.
Brown, P. B. (1989a). The swift parrot Lathamus discolor(White). A report on its ecology, distribution and status, including management considerations. Report for the Australian Heritage Commission and the Department of Lands Parks and Wildlife, Tasmania, Hobart.
Brown, P. B. (1989b). The Forty-spotted pardalote on Maria Island. Tasmanian Bird Report 18, 4-13.
Brown, P. B., and Holdsworth, M. C. (1992). The status of cockatoos in Tasmania. Tasmanian Bird Report 21, 4-12.
Brown, P. B., and Wilson, R. I. (1982). The orange-bellied parrot. In ‘Species At Risk: Research in Australia. Proceedings of a Symposium on the Biology of Rare and Endangered Species in Australia, Canberra, 25-26 November 1981’. (Eds R. H. Groves and W. D. L. Ride.) pp. 106-115. (Australian Academy of Science: Canberra.)
Brown, P. B., and Wilson, R. I. (1984). Orange-bellied parrot recovery plan. National Parks and Wildlife Service, Tasmania, Hobart.
Bryant, S. L. (1997). Status of forty-spotted pardalote colonies. Tasmanian Bird Report 26, 45-50.
Bryant, S. (2002). Impact of clearing old growth elements on Tasmania’s woodland vertebrates. In ‘Launceston Firewood Conference 2001. Summaries of Papers Presented’. pp. 102-103. (Natural Heritage Trust Bushcare National Projects: Hobart.)
Callister, D. J. (1991). A review of the Tasmanian brushtail possum industry. Traffic Bulletin 12, 49-58.
Cawthen, L. (2007). Den use by the common brushtail possum in logged and unlogged dry forest in SE Tasmania. B.Sc. (Hons.) Thesis, University of Tasmania, Hobart.
Cayley, N. W., and Lendon, A. H. (1973). ‘Australian Parrots in Field and Aviary. Revised Edition of Neville W. Cayley’s Original Work.’ (Angus and Robertson: Sydney.)
Churchill, S. (1998). ‘Australian Bats.’ (Reed New Holland: Sydney.)
Commonwealth of Australia and State of Tasmania (1997). ‘Tasmanian Regional Forest Agreement between the Commonwealth of Australia and the State of Tasmania.’ (Commonwealth of Australia and State of Tasmania: Hobart.)

Commonwealth of Australia and State of Tasmania (2005). ‘The Tasmanian Community Forest Agreement.’ (Commonwealth of Australia and State of Tasmania: Hobart.)
Cooper, R. (1998). A second record for Tasmania? Scepticism little lorikeets and rainbows. Tasmanian Bird Report 27, 3-4.
Coulson, R. I., and Coulson, G. M. (1981). The effect of forestry practices on bird breeding in open forest. Project Report 1980/4. Centre for Environmental Studies, University of Tasmania, Hobart.
Coupland, C. (2000). The distribution, roosting requirements and daily routine of white cockatoos in Northern Tasmania. B.Sc. (Hons.) Thesis, University of Tasmania, Hobart.
Debus, S. J. S. (1993). The mainland masked owl Tyto novaehollandiae: a review. Australian bird watcher 15, 168-191.
Dorr, T. L. (1999). Foraging behaviour and habitat selection of the forty-spotted pardalote, Pardalotus quadragintus. B.Sc. (Hons.) Thesis, University of Tasmania, Hobart.
Dove, H. S. (1910). The dusky robin (Petroeca vittata). Emu 10, 127-131. doi: 10.1071/10.1071 / MU. 910127
Dove, H. S. (1915). Some Tasmanian birds nests. Emu 15, 234-243. doi: 10.1071/10.1071 / MU. 915234
DPIW (2007a). ‘CAR Reserves.’ (Department of Primary Industries and Water: Hobart.)
DPIW (2007b). ‘Natural Values Atlas.’ (Department of Primary Industries and Water: Hobart.)
DPIW (2008). ‘Forest Groups Data.’ (Resource Management and Conservation, Department of Primary Industries and Water: Hobart.)
Drechsler, M. (1998). Spatial conservation management of the orangebellied parrot Neophema chrysogaster. Biological Conservation 84, 283-292. doi: 10.1016/S0006-3207(97)00124-9
Driessen, M. M., and Hocking, G. J. (1992). Review and analysis of spotlight surveys in Tasmania: 1975-1990. Department of Parks, Wildlife and Heritage, Hobart.
Driessen, M. M., Taylor, R. J., and Hocking, G. J. (1990). Trends in abundance of three marsupial species after fire. Australian Mammalogy 14, 121-124.
Duckworth, P. (2001). Birds in Pinus radiata plantation in the Fingal valley, Tasmania. Tasmanian Bird Report 29, 15.
Duncan, A. M. R. (1995). Use of silvicultural regrowth by fauna. Report to Forestry Tasmania and the Department of Primary Industries and Energy, Canberra.
Duncan, A. M. R., and Taylor, R. J. (2001). Occurrence of pygmy-possums, Cercarietus lepidus and C. nanus, and their nest sites in logged and unlogged dry and wet eucalypt forest in Tasmania. Australian Forestry 64, 159−164159-164.
Elliott, A. J., and Elliot, A. O. (1930). The flame robin. Emu 30, 301-302. doi: 10.1071/10.1071 / MU. 930301
Fielding, P. (1976). Birds of the far west coast of Tasmania. Tasmanian Naturalist 44, 12-16.
Fielding, P. (1979). Avifauna of Tasmanian orchards (Part 2). Tasmanian Naturalist 57, 2-12.
Fletcher, J. A. (1924). Birds of the steppes. Emu 24, 107-117. doi: 10.1071/ MU. 924107
Forest Practices Authority (2007). ‘State of the Forests Tasmania 2006.’ (Forest Practices Authority: Hobart.)
Forest Practices Board (2000). ‘Forest Practices Code.’ (Forest Practices Board: Hobart.)
Foster, G. (2001). Observations of wood duck (Chennetta jubata) in far south and south-west Tasmania. Tasmanian Bird Report 29, 19.
Frith, H. J. (1967). ‘Waterfowl in Australia.’ (Angus and Robertson Ltd.: Sydney.)
Frith, C. B., and Frith, D. W. (1993). Notes on birds found nesting at Iron Range, Cape York peninsula, November-December 1990. Sanbird 23, 44−5844-58.
Game Management Services Unit (2005). Game tracks Issue 10. Department of Primary Industries, Water and Environment, Hobart.

Gibbons, P. (1999). Habitat tree retention in wood production forests. Ph.D. Thesis, Australian National University, Canberra.
Gibbons, P., and Lindenmayer, D. (2002). ‘Tree Hollows and Wildlife Conservation in Australia.’ (CSIRO Publishing: Melbourne.)
Gibbons, P., Lindenmayer, D. B., Barry, S. C., and Tanton, M. T. (2000). Hollow formation in eucalypts from temperate forests in southeastern Australia. Pacific Conservation Biology 6, 218-228.
Giblin, W. W., and Swindells, A. W. (1927). Field notes on the blue-winged parrot. Emu 27, 5-13. doi: 10.1071/MU927005
Green, R. H. (1965). Observations on the little brown bat Eptesicus pumilus Gray in Tasmania. Records of the Queen Victoria Museum 20, 1-16.
Green, R. H. (1966a). Notes on Tasmanian bats. Tasmanian Naturalist 7(Suppl.), 1-2.
Green, R. H. (1966b). Notes on lesser long-eared bat Nyctophilus geoffroyi in nothern Tasmania. Records of the Queen Victoria Museum 22, 1-4.
Green, R. H. (1973). ‘The Mammals of Tasmania.’ (Published by the author: Launceston.)
Green, R. H. (1977). The vertebrate fauna of Maggs Mountain Tasmania. Records of the Queen Victoria Museum 58, 1-40.
Green, R. H. (1979). The little pygmy-possum Cercartetus lepidus in Tasmania. Records of the Queen Victoria Museum 68, 3-11.
Green, R. H. (1982a). Breeding and food of the masked owl Tyto novaehollandiae. Tasmanian Naturalist 69, 4-6.
Green, R. H. (1982b). The activity and movement of fauna in compartment 2, Maggs Mountain, Tasmania in the first five years of forest regeneration. Records of the Queen Victoria Museum 75, 1-31.
Green, R. H. (1983). The decline of the eastern rosella and other Psittaciformes in Tasmania concomitant with the establishment of the introduced European starling. Records of the Queen Victoria Museum 82, 1-5.
Green, R. H. (1995). ‘The Fauna of Tasmania. Birds.’ (Potoroo Publishing: Launceston.)
Green, R. H., and Rainbird, J. L. (1984). The bat genus Eptesicus Gray in Tasmania. Tasmanian Naturalist 76, 1-5.
Green, R. H., Scarborough, T. J., and McQuillan, P. B. (1988). Food and feeding of the laughing kookaburra and tawny frogmouth in Tasmania. Tasmanian Naturalist 93, 5-8.
Guiler, E. R. (1953). Distribution of the brush possum in Tasmania. Nature 172, 1091. doi: 10.1038/1721091b010.1038 / 1721091 b 0
Gunn, G. C. (1851). On the introduction and naturalisation of Petaurus sciureus in Tasmania. Papers and Proceedings of the Royal Society of Tasmania 1 253-255.
Harris, J. G. K. (1980). Birds of the Sullivans Cove area, city of Hobart. Tasmanian Naturalist 60, 1-6.
Harris, J. M., Munks, S. A., Goldingay, R. L., Wapstra, M., and Hird, D. (2008). Distribution, habitat and conservation status of the eastern pygmy-possum Cercartetes nanus in Tasmania. Australian Mammalogy 29, 213-232.
Haseler, M. (1990). The distribution and abundance of tree hollows and their use by birds in a dry sclerophyll forest in north-east Tasmania. Report to the Forestry Commission of Tasmania, Hobart.
Haseler, M., and Taylor, R. (1993). Use of tree hollows by birds in sclerophyll forest in north-eastern Tasmania. Taxforests 5, 51-56.
Hickey, J. E., and Brown, M. J. (2003). Towards ecological forestry in Tasmania. In ‘Towards Forest Sustainability’. (Eds D. B. Lindenmayer and J. F. Franklin.) pp. 31-46. (CSIRO Publishing: Melbourne.)
Higgins, P. J. (1999). ‘Handbook of Australian, New Zealand and Antarctic birds: Volume 4: Parrots to Dollarbird.’ (Oxford University Press: Melbourne.)
Higgins, P. J., Peter, J. M., and Cowling, S. J. (2006). ‘Handbook of Australian, New Zealand and Antarctic birds: Volume 7: Boatbill to Starlings. Part A: Boatbill to Larks.’ (Oxford University Press: Melbourne.)
Hingston, A. B. (2000). Impacts of logging on autumn bird populations in the southern forests of Tasmania. Papers and Proceedings of the Royal Society of Tasmania 134, 19-28.

Hocking, G. J. (1981). The population ecology of the brush-tailed possum, Trichosurus vulpecula (Kerr), in Tasmania. M.Sc. Thesis, University of Tasmania, Hobart.
Hocking, G. J. (1990). The brush possum Trichosurus vulpecula (Kerr) in Tasmania. Report for the Department of Primary Industries, Water and Environment, Hobart.
Hocking, G. J., and Driessen, M. M. (1996). Mammals of northeast Tasmania. Records of the Queen Victoria Museum 103, 163-169.
Hocking, G. J., and Guiler, E. R. (1983). The Mammals of the Lower Gordon River Region, South-West Tasmania. Australian Wildlife Research 10, 1-23. doi: 10.1071/WR9830001
Holdsworth, M. (2006). Breeding success and demography of the orangebellied parrot Neophema chrynogaster. M.Sc. Thesis, University of Tasmania, Hobart.
Johnson, K. A. (1977). Methods for the census of wallaby and possum in Tasmania. Wildlife Division Technical Report 77/2, Hobart.
Kalcounis-Ruppell, M. C., Psyllakis, J. M., and Brigham, R. M. (2005). Tree roost selection by bats: an empirical synthesis using meta-analysis. Wildlife Society Bulletin 33, 1123-1132. doi: 10.2193/0091-7648(2005) 33[1123:TRSBBA]2.0.CO;2
Kavanagh, R. P., and Murray, M. (1996). Home range, habitat and behaviour of the masked owl Tyto novaehollandiae near Newcastle, New South Wales. Emu 96, 250-257. doi: 10.1071/MU9960250
Koch, A. J. (2008). Errors associated with two methods of assessing tree hollow occurrence and abundance in Eucalyptus obliqua forest, Tasmania. Forest Ecology and Management 255, 674-685. doi: 10.1016/ j.foreco.2007.09.042

Koch, A. J., and Woehler, E. J. (2007). Results of a survey to gather information on the use of tree hollows by birds in Tasmania. The Tasmanian Naturalist 129, 37-64.
Koch, A. J., Munks, S. A., and Driscoll, D. (2008a). The use of hollow-bearing trees by vertebrate fauna in wet and dry Eucalyptus obliqua forest, Tasmania. Wildlife Research 35, 727-746. doi: 10.1071/WR08007
Koch, A. J., Munks, S. A., Driscoll, D. A., and Kirkpatrick, J. B. (2008b). Does hollow occurrence vary with forest type? A case study in wet and dry Eucalyptus obliqua forest. Forest Ecology and Management 255, 3938-3951. doi: 10.1016/j.foreco.2008.03.025
Lamb, D., Loyn, R. H., Smith, A. P., and Wilkinson, G. (1998). Managing habitat trees in Queensland forests. A report by the Habitat tree technical advisory group to the Queensland Department of Natural Resources, Forest Resources, Brisbane.
Law, B. S. (1996). The ecology of bats in south-east Australian forests and potential impacts of forestry practices: a review. Pacific Conservation Biology 2, 363-374.
Legge, S., Heinshohn, R., and Garnett, S. (2004). Availability of nest hollows and breeding population size of eclectus parrots, Eclectus roratus, on Cape York Peninsula. Australian Wildlife Research 31, 149-161. doi: 10.1071/WR03020
Lenz, M. (1990). The breeding bird communities of three Canberra suburbs. Emu 90, 145-153.
Lindenmayer, D. B., and Franklin, J. F. (2002). ‘Conserving Forest Biodiversity. A Comprehensive Multiscaled Approach.’ (Island Press: Washington, DC.)
Lloyd, S. (2002). Ecological impact of the laughing kookaburra in Tasmania. Tasmanian Bird Report 30, 6-8.
Lord, C. (1924). Some Tasmanian parrots. Tasmanian Naturalist 1, 25.
Loyn, R. H. (1980). Bird populations in a mixed eucalypt forest used for production of wood in Gippsland, Victoria. Emu 80, 145-156.
Lumsden, L. F., Bennett, A. F., Krasna, S. P., and Silins, J. E. (1995). The conservation of insectivorous bats in rural landscapes of northern Victoria. In ‘People and Nature Conservation. Perspectives on Private Land Use and Endangered Species Recovery’. (Eds A. F. Bennett, G. Backhouse and T. Clark.) pp. 142-148. (The Royal Zoological Society of New South Wales: Sydney.)

Lumsden, L. F., Bennett, A. F., and Silins, J. E. (2002). Location of roosts of the lesser long-eared bat Nyctophilus geoffroyi and Gould’s wattled bat Chalinolobus gouldii in a fragmented landscape in south-eastern Australia. Biological Conservation 106, 237-249. doi: 10.1016/S0006-3207(01)00250-6
Lunney, D. (1989). Priorities for bat conservation: analysis of the response to a questionnaire in July 1989 by the participants of the eighth international bat research conference. Australian Zoologist 25, 71-78.
Maheswaran, B., and Balasubramanian, P. (2003). Nest tree utilization by the Malabar grey hornbill Ocyceros griseus in the semi-evergreen forest of Mudumalai wildlife sactuary (S India). Acta Ornithologica 38, 33-37.
Marchant, S., and Higgins, P. J. (1990). ‘Handbook of Australian, New Zealand and Antarctic birds: Volume 1: Ratites to Ducks. Part A: Ratites to Petrels, Part B: Australian Pelican to Ducks.’ (Royal Australasian Ornithologists Union: Melbourne.)
Martin, K., Aitken, K. E. H., and Wiebe, K. L. (2004). Nest sites and nest webs for cavity-nesting communities in interior British Columbia, Canada: nest characteristics and niche partitioning. The Condor 106, 5-19. doi: 10.1650/748210.1650 / 7482
Mollison, B. C. (1974). Birds of the Australian Newsprint mills concession Florentine and Styx valleys. Tasmanian Naturalist 37, 1-2.
Monterrubio-Rico, T. C., and Escalante-Pliego, P. (2006). Richness, distribution and conservation status of cavity nesting birds in Mexico. Biological Conservation 128, 67-78. doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2005.09.017
Mooney, N. (1992). Diet of the masked owl in Tasmania. Tasmanian Bird Report 21, 35-55.
Mooney, N. (1997). Habitat and seasonality of nesting masked owls in Tasmania. Australian Raptor Studies 2. Birds Australia Monograph 3, 34-39.
Mooney, N. J., and Johnson, K. A. (1979). Methods for the census of wallaby and possum in Tasmania. Report for National Parks and Wildlife Service, Tasmania and the Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service, Hobart.
Munks, S. A. (1990). Ecological energetics and reproduction in the common ringtail possum Pseudocheirus peregrinus (Marsupialia: Phalangeroidea). Ph.D. Thesis, University of Tasmania, Hobart.
Munks, S. A., Mooney, N., Pemberton, D., and Gales, R. (2004). An update on the distribution and status of possums and gliders in Tasmania, including off-shore islands. In ‘The Biology of Australian Possums and Gliders’. (Eds R. L. Goldingay and S. M. Jackson.) pp. 111-129. (Surrey Beatty and Sons: Chipping Norton.)
Munks, S., Wapstra, M., Corkrey, R., Otley, H., and Miller, G. (2007). The occurrence of potential tree hollows in the dry eucalypt forests of southeastern Tasmania, Australia. Australian Zoologist 34, 22-36.
Napier, J. (1967). Birds of Mt Elephant. Tasmanian Naturalist 10, 2-4.
Nelson, J. L., and Morris, B. J. (1994). Nesting requirements of the yellowtailed black-cockatoo, Calyptorhynchus funereus, in Eucalyptus regnans forest, and implications for forest management. Wildlife Research 21, 267-278. doi: 10.1071/WR9940267
Newman, M. (2002). A breeding season comparison of the Tasmanian robins. Tasmanian Bird Report 30, 19-25.
Norman, F. I., and Brown, R. S. (1988). Aspects of the distribution and abundance of Chestnut Teal in south-eastern Australia. Emu 88, 70-80.
O’Neill, M. G. (1984). Structure and composition of Tasmanian bat communities. B.Sc. (Hons.) Thesis, University of Tasmania, Hobart.
O’Neill, M. G., and Taylor, R. J. (1986). Observations on the flight patterns and foraging behaviour of Tasmanian bats. Australian Wildlife Research 13, 427-432. doi: 10.1071/WR9860427
O’Neill, M. G., and Taylor, R. J. (1989). Feeding ecology of Tasmanian bat assemblages. Australian Journal of Ecology 14, 19-31.
Orange-bellied Parrot Recovery Team (1999). Orange-bellied parrot recovery plan 1998-2002. Department of Primary Industries, Water and Environment, Hobart.
Orange-bellied Parrot Recovery Team (2006). National recovery plan for the orange-bellied parrot (Neophema chrysogaster). Department of Primary Industries and Water, Hobart.

Park, P. (1981). Results from a nesting study of welcome swallows in southern Tasmania. Corella 5, 85-88.
Paton, D. C. (1996). Overview of feral and managed honeybees in Australia: distribution, abundance, extent of interactions with native biota, evidence of impacts and future research. Report for the Australian Nature Conservation Agency, Adelaide.
Pattemore, V. (1980). Effects of the pulpwood industry on wildlife in Tasmania 3. Succession in bird communities and their habitats. Wildlife Division Tech. Rep. 80/1, National Parks and Wildlife Service, Hobart.
Penck, M., Torcello, J. C., and Sanderson, K. J. (1995). Observations of coexistence between Adelaide and eastern rosellas (Platycercus spp.) in Adelaide. South Australian Ornithologist 32, 25-32.
Ratkowsky, A. V., and Ratkowsky, D. A. (1977). The birds of the Mt. Wellington range, Tasmania. Emu 77, 19-22.
Recher, H. F. (1991). The conservation and management of eucalypt forest birds: resource requirements for nesting and foraging. In ‘Conservation of Australia’s Forest Fauna’. (Ed. D. Lunney.) pp. 25-34. (Royal Zoological Society of NSW: Sydney.)
Recher, H. F., Thomas, D. G., and Milledge, D. R. (1971). Census of dry sclerophyll. Emu 71, 40-43.
Rhodes, M. P. (1996). Use of silvicultural regrowth for foraging by Tasmanian bat species. Report to Forestry Tasmania and the Department of Primary Industry and Energy, Hobart.
Robinson, D. (1990). The nesting ecology of sympatric scarlet robin Petroica multicolor and flame robin PP. phoenicea populations in open eucalypt forest. Emu 90, 40-52.
Rounsevell, D. E., Taylor, R. J., and Hocking, G. J. (1991). Distribution records of native terrestrial mammals in Tasmania. Wildlife Research 18, 699-717. doi: 10.1071/WR9910699
Rowley, I. (1990). ‘Behavioural Ecology of the Galah Eolophus roseicapillus in the Wheatbelt of Western Australia.’ (Surrey Beatty and Sons Pty Ltd: Chipping Norton.)
Ruczynski, I., and Bogdanowicz, W. (2005). Roost cavity selection by Nyctalus noctula and N. leisleri (Vespertilionidae: Chiroptera) in Bialowieza Primeval Forest, eastern Poland. Journal of Mammalogy 86, 921-930. doi: 10.1644/1545-1542(2005)86[921:RCSBNN] 2.0.CO;2

Saunders, D. A., Smith, G. T., and Rowley, I. (1982). The availability and dimensions of tree hollows that provide nest sites for cockatoos (Psittaciformes) in Western Australia. Australian Wildlife Research 9, 541-556. doi: 10.1071/WR9820541
Savva, N., and Taylor, R. (1986). Bat remains in a Tasmania cave. Macroderma 2, 21.
Sharland, M. (1947). Notes on two Neophema parrots. Emu 46, 258-264.
Sharland, M. (1958). ‘Tasmanian Birds.’ (Angus and Robertson: Sydney.)
Sharland, M. (1983). Pardalotes in and near Hobart. Tasmanian Naturalist 72, 2-3.
Slater, P. (1962). Breeding birds in the lower wongong valley. Western Australian Naturalist 8, 124-126.
Slater, J. (1987a). ‘Arboreal Marsupial Fauna of Southern Tasmania. 1. The Species and Their Distribution.’ (The author: Hobart.)
Slater, J. E. (1987b). ‘The Autumn/winter Diet of the Sugar Glider, Petaurus breviceps, with an Investigation of Banksia Nectar as a Food Source.’ (University of Tasmania: Hobart.)
Smith, A.P. (1993). Habitat tree retention in the Wingham Management Area. Department of Planning, Department of Ecosystem Management, University of New England, Armidale.
Smith, G., and Lees, N. (1998). Density and distribution of habitat trees required to support viable populations of hollow-dependent species. Department of Natural Resources, Brisbane.
Smith, A. P., and Murray, M. (2003). Habitat requirements of the squirrel glider (Petaurus norfolcensis) and associated possums and gliders on the New South Wales central coast. Wildlife Research 30, 291-301. doi: 10.1071/10.1071 / WR01115

Statham, H. L. (1984). The effects of forest operations on wildlife in Tasmania. A literature review submitted to the Forest Ecology Research Fund, Hobart.
Statham, H. L. (1987). The fauna of the Southern Forests. Forestry commission, Hobart.
Statham, H., and Statham, H. L. (1997). Movements and habits of brushtail possums (Trichosurus vulpecula Kerr) in an urban area. Wildlife Research 24, 715-726. doi: 10.1071/WR96092
Swift Parrot Recovery Team (2001). Swift parrot recovery plan. Department of Primary Industries, Water and Environment, Hobart.
Tarburton, M. K. (1993). A comparison of the breeding biology of the welcome swallow in Australia and recently colonised New Zealand. Emu 93, 34-43.
Taylor, R. J. (1991). Fauna conservation in production forests in Tasmania. Forestry Commission, Hobart.
Taylor, R. J., and Comfort, M. D. (1993). Small terrestrial mammals and bats of Melaleuca and Claytons, southwestern Tasmania. Papers and Proceedings of the Royal Society of Tasmania 127, 33-37.
Taylor, R. J., and Haseler, M. (1993). Occurrence of potential nest trees and their use by birds in sclerophyll forest in north-east Tasmania. Australian Forestry 56, 165-171.
Taylor, R. J., and Haseler, M. E. (1995). Effects of partial logging systems on bird assemblages in Tasmania. Forest Ecology and Management 72, 131-149. doi: 10.1016/0378-1127(94)03470-H
Taylor, R. J., and O’Neill, M. G. (1985). Composition of the bat (Chiroptera: Vespertilionidae) communities in Tasmanian forests. Australian Mammalogy 9, 125-130.
Taylor, R. J., and Savva, N. M. (1988). Use of roost sites by four species of bats in State Forest in south-eastern Tasmania. Australian Wildlife Research 15, 637-645. doi: 10.1071/WR9880637
Taylor, R. J., Bryant, S. L., Pemberton, D., and Norton, T. W. (1985). Mammals of the upper henty river region, western Tasmania. Papers and Proceedings of the Royal Society of Tasmania 119, 7-14.
Taylor, R. J., O’Neill, M. G., and Reardon, T. (1987). Tasmanian bats: identification, distribution and natural history. Papers and Proceedings of the Royal Society of Tasmania 121, 109-119.
Taylor, R. J., Duckworth, P., Johns, T., and Warren, B. (1997). Succession in bird assemblages over a seven-year period in regrowth dry sclerophyll forest in south-east Tasmania. Emu 97, 220-230.
Taylor, R. J., Woinarski, J. C. Z., and Chatto, R. (2003). Hollow use by vertebrates in the Top End of the Northern Territory. Australian Zoologist 32, 462-476.
Thomas, H. F. (1957). The starling in the Sunraysia district, Victoria. Emu 57, 325−337325-337.
Thomas, D. G. (1972). Birds of a suburban garden. Tasmanian Naturalist 31, 5−85-8.
Thomas, D. (1979). ‘Tasmanian Bird Atlas. Fauna of Tasmania Handbook No. 2.’ (University of Tasmania: Hobart.)
Threatened Species Section (2006). Fauna recovery plan: forty-spotted pardalote 2006-2010. Department of Primary Industries and Water, Hobart.
Tidemann, C. R., and Flavel, S. C. (1987). Factors affecting choice of diurnal roost site by tree-hole bats (Microchiroptera) in south-eastern Australia. Australian Wildlife Research 14, 459-473. doi: 10.1071/WR9870459

Walker, J. S., Cahill, A. J., and Marsden, S. J. (2005). Factors influencing nest-site occupancy and low reproductive output in the Critically Endangered yellow-crested cockatoo Cacatua sulphurea on Sumba, Indonesia. Bird Conservation International 15, 347-359. doi: 10.1017/ S0959270905000638
Wall, L. E. (1985). Little pygmy-possum Cercartetus lepidus. Tasmanian Naturalist 8-9, 10-11.
Wapstra, M., and Doran, N. (2004). Observations on a nesting hollow of yellow-tailed black cockatoo, and the felled tree that hosted it, in northeastern Tasmania. Tasmanian Naturalist 126, 59-63.
Wapstra, M., and Taylor, R. J. (1998). Use of retained trees for nesting by birds in logged eucalypt forest in north-eastern Tasmania. Australian Forestry 61, 48-52.
Wapstra, M., Thompson, V., and Hudler, P. (2000). Observations of echidnas using tree hollows in Tasmanian forests. Tasmanian Naturalist 122, 29-31.
Ward, S. J. (1990). Life history of the eastern pygmy-possum, Cercatetus nanus (Acrobatidae, Marsupialia) in south-eastern Australia. Australian Journal of Zoology 38, 287-304. doi: 10.1071/ZO9900287
Watts, D. (1993). ‘Tasmanian Mammals - A Field Guide.’ (Peregrine Press: Hobart.)
Wayne, A., Kavanagh, R. P., Loyn, R. H., Munks, S. A., and Smith, G. (2006). Brief summary of prescriptions for the retention of hollow bearing trees in multiple-use forests throughout Australia. Report for the Research Priorities and Coordination Committee, Perth.
Webb, M., Holdsworth, M., and Voogdt, J. (2007). Nesting requirements of the swift parrot Lathamus discolour. Unpublished report to the Department of Primary Industries and Water, Hobart.
Whitford, K. R., and Williams, M. R. (2002). Hollows in jarrah (Eucalyptus marginata) and marri (Corymbia calophylla) trees II. Selecting trees to retain for hollow dependent fauna. Forest Ecology and Management 160, 215-232. doi: 10.1016/S0378-1127(01)00447-9
Wilson, R. I. (1981). The Woodchip Industry and Tasmanian birds. Tasmanian Bird Report 11, 11-15.
Wilson, R. I. (1984). Breeding habitat requirements of four endemic bird species in Tasmanian dry sclerophyll forests: green rosella, dusky robin, yellow wattlebird and swift parrot. Report to the Tasmanian National Parks and Wildlife Service, Hobart.
Woinarski, J. C. Z., and Bulman, C. (1985). Ecology and breeding biology of the forty-spotted pardalote and other pardalotes on north Bruny Island. Emu 85, 106-120.
Woinarski, J. C. Z., and Rounsevell, D. E. (1983). Comparative ecology of pardalotes, including the forty-spotted pardalote, Pardalotus quadragintus (Aves: Pardalotidae) in south-eastern Tasmania. Australian Wildlife Research 10, 351-361. doi: 10.1071/WR9830351
Wormington, K. R., Lamb, D., McCallum, H. I., and Moloney, D. J. (2002). Habitat requirements for the conservation of arboreal marsupials in dry sclerophyll forests of Southeast Queensland, Australia. Forest Science 48, 217−227217-227.
Young, D. (2006). Home range size, habitat use and diet of the endangered Tasmanian masked owl. Forest Practices News 7(4), 5.

Manuscript received 8 January 2008, accepted 16 December 2008