Consultation Document on Listing Eligibility and Conservation
Actions
Grantiella picta (Painted honeyeater)
You are invited to provide your views about:
1)
the eligibility of Grantiella picta (painted honeyeater) for inclusion on the EPBC Act
threatened species list; and
2)
the necessary conservation actions for the above species.
The views of experts, stakeholders and the general public are welcome. Responses can be
provided by any interested person.
Anyone may nominate a native species, ecological community or threatening process for listing
under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act) or for a
transfer of an item already on the list to a new listing category. The Threatened Species
Scientific Committee (the Committee) undertakes the assessment of species to determine
eligibility for inclusion in the list of threatened species and provides its recommendation to the
Australian Government Minister for the Environment.
Draft information for your consideration of the eligibility of this species for listing starts at page 3
and information associated with potential conservation actions for this species starts at page 7.
To assist with the Committee’s assessment, the Committee has identified a series of specific
questions on which it seeks your guidance at page 8.
Responses to are to be provided in writing either by email to:
species.consultation@environment.gov.au
or by mail to:
The Director
Marine and Freshwater Species Conservation Section
Wildlife, Heritage and Marine Division
Department of the Environment
PO Box 787
Canberra ACT 2601
Responses are required to be submitted by 21 December 2014.
Contents of this information package
General background information about listing threatened species
Information about this consultation process
Draft information about the painted honeyeater and its eligibility for listing
Conservation actions for the species
References cited
Collective list of questions – your views
Grantiella picta (Painted Honeyeater) consultation
Page 1 of 9
Page
2
2
3
7
7
8
General background information about listing threatened species
The Australian Government helps protect species at risk of extinction by listing them as
threatened under Part 13 of the EPBC Act. Once listed under the EPBC Act, the species
becomes a Matter of National Environmental Significance (MNES) and must be protected from
significant impacts through the assessment and approval provisions of the EPBC Act. More
information about threatened species is available on the department’s website at:
http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened/index.html.
Public nominations to list threatened species under the EPBC Act are received annually by the
department. In order to determine if a species is eligible for listing as threatened under the
EPBC Act, the Threatened Species Scientific Committee (the Committee) undertakes a rigorous
scientific assessment of its status to determine if the species is eligible for listing against a set of
criteria. These criteria are available on the Department’s website at:
http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened/pubs/guidelines-species.pdf.
As part of the assessment process, the Committee consults with the public and stakeholders to
obtain specific details about the species, as well as advice on what conservation actions might
be appropriate. Information provided through the consultation process is considered by the
Committee in its assessment. The Committee provides its advice on the assessment (together
with comments received) to the Minister regarding the eligibility of the species for listing under a
particular category and what conservation actions might be appropriate. The Minister decides to
add, or not to add, the species to the list of threatened species under the EPBC Act. More
detailed information about the listing process is at:
http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened/nominations.html.
To promote the recovery of listed threatened species and ecological communities, conservation
advices and where required, recovery plans are made or adopted in accordance with Part 13 of
the EPBC Act. Conservation advices provide guidance at the time of listing on known threats
and priority recovery actions that can be undertaken at a local and regional level. Recovery
plans describe key threats and identify specific recovery actions that can be undertaken to
enable recovery activities to occur within a planned and logical national framework. Information
about recovery plans is available on the department’s website at:
http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened/recovery.html.
Information about this consultation process
Responses to this consultation can be provided electronically or in hard copy to the contact
addresses provided on Page 1. All responses received will be provided in full to the Committee
and then to the Australian Government Minister for the Environment.
In providing comments, please provide references to published data where possible. Should the
Committee use the information you provide in formulating its advice, the information will be
attributed to you and referenced as a ‘personal communication’ unless you provide references
or otherwise attribute this information (please specify if your organisation requires that this
information is attributed to your organisation instead of yourself). The final advice by the
Committee will be published on the department’s website following the listing decision by the
Minister.
Information provided through consultation may be subject to freedom of information legislation
and court processes. It is also important to note that under the EPBC Act, the deliberations and
recommendations of the Committee are confidential until the Minister has made a final decision
on the nomination, unless otherwise determined by the Minister.
Grantiella picta (Painted Honeyeater) consultation
Page 2 of 9
Grantiella picta
Painted honeyeater
Taxonomy
Generally accepted as Grantiella picta (painted honeyeater), Gould, 1838. The species is
endemic to mainland Australia. Taxonomic uniqueness is high; the species is the only one in its
genus and there are no subspecies.
Description
The painted honeyeater has black upperparts, white underparts, black spots on its flanks and
golden edges to the flight and tail feathers. The bill is a deep pink and the eye red. The females
are smaller and browner on the back than the male, with fewer spots on its flanks.
There are no similar species. The painted honeyeater is the only small to medium honeyeater
with a wholly or mostly pink bill, and the only yellow-winged honeyeater with almost wholly white
underparts (marked only with sparse, fine and short black streaks) (Higgins et al., 2001).
Distribution
The species is sparsely distributed from south-eastern Australia to north-western Queensland
and eastern Northern Territory. The greatest concentrations and almost all records of breeding
are found on the inland slopes of the Great Dividing Range between the Grampians, Victoria
and Roma, Queensland.
The species exhibits seasonal north-south movements governed principally by the fruiting of
mistletoe, with many birds moving after breeding to semi-arid regions such as north-eastern
South Australia, central and western Queensland, and central Northern Territory. Considering its
dispersive habits the species is considered to have a single population (Garnett et al., 2011).
Relevant Biology/Ecology
The painted honeyeater is the most specialised of Australia’s honeyeaters, with a diet mainly
comprised of mistletoe fruits. Breeding individuals depend primarily on just two species: Needleleaved mistletoe (Amyema cambagei) and Grey mistletoe (Amyema quandang), which grow on
nitrogen-fixing hosts such as Acacias and Casuarinas. It also feeds on nectar and arthropods,
especially in the non-breeding season (Garnett et al., 2011; Birdlife International, 2014).
The species inhabits mistletoes in eucalypt forests/woodlands, riparian woodlands of black box
and river red gum, box-ironbark-yellow gum woodlands, acacia-dominated woodlands,
paperbarks, casuarinas, callitris, and trees on farmland or gardens. The species prefers
woodland which contain a higher number of mature trees, as these host more mistletoes. It is
more common in wider blocks of remnant woodland than in narrower strips (Garnett et al.,
2011), although breeds in quite narrow roadside strips if ample mistletoe fruit is available
(Birdlife International, 2014).
The species often occurs singly or in pairs, and less often in small flocks. Breeding occurs from
October to March when mistletoe fruits are most available. The species builds a flimsy cup nest
made of plant-fibre, spiders’ webs and rootlets in the outer foliage of trees anywhere from 3 m to
20 m above the ground. Usually 2-3 eggs are laid and both parents incubate the nest, brood and
feed young (Higgins et al., 2001; Garnett et al., 2011).
The species appears to prefer mistletoe as a nest substrate and selects nest sites in habitats
where mistletoe prevalence and parasitism rates are high (Barea, 2008). Nesting success is
relatively low in trees (43%) and especially within mistletoe clumps (17%), with 83% of nest
failures caused by predation. Generation time is estimated at 5.8 years, with a maximum
longevity in the wild estimated at 10.1 years (Garnett et al., 2011).
Grantiella picta (Painted Honeyeater) consultation
Page 3 of 9
Threats
Habitat loss is a key threat to this species. Much of its breeding habitat has been cleared or has
been reduced to ageing, widely-spaced trees, particularly box-ironbark and boree woodlands. Its
non-breeding habitat is still being cleared for agriculture (Barea, 2008). Most of the species’
remaining habitat is on private land which continues to be degraded by over-grazing by
livestock, native macropods and rabbits (Oryctolagus cuniculus) (Garnett et al., 2011).
How judged by the Committee in relation to the EPBC Act Criteria and Regulations
Criterion 1: Reduction in numbers (based on any of A1 – A4)
A1. An observed, estimated, inferred or suspected population very severe 90%, severe 70%
or substantial 50% size reduction over the last 10 years or three generations, whichever is
the longer, where the causes of the reduction are clearly reversible AND understood AND
ceased, based on (and specifying) any of the following:
(a) direct observation
(b) an index of abundance appropriate to the taxon
(c) a decline in area of occupancy, extent of occurrence and/or quality of habitat
(d) actual or potential levels of exploitation
(e) the effects of introduced taxa, hybridization, pathogens, pollutants, competitors or
parasites.
A2. An observed, estimated, inferred or suspected population very severe 80%, severe 50%
or substantial 30% size reduction over the last 10 years or three generations, whichever is
the longer, where the reduction or its causes may not have ceased OR may not be
understood OR may not be reversible, based on (and specifying) any of (a) to (e) under A1.
A3. A population size reduction very severe 80%, severe 50% or substantial 30%, projected
or suspected to be met within the next 10 years or three generations (up to a maximum of
100 years), whichever is the longer, based on (and specifying) any of (b) to (e) under A1.
A4. An observed, estimated, inferred, projected or suspected population size reduction very
severe 80%, severe 50% or substantial 30% over any 10 year or three generation
period (up to a maximum of 100 years into the future), whichever is longer, where the time
period must include both the past and the future, and where the reduction or its causes may
not have ceased OR may not be understood OR may not be reversible, based on (and
specifying) any of (a) to (e) under A1.
Evidence
It is thought that the population has undergone long-term decline, likely to have been
accelerated by clearance of trees for agriculture, and lack of regeneration resulting from
grazing by introduced herbivores. Much of its breeding habitat has become degraded,
although it may have benefited from an increase in abundance of mistletoe in degraded
woodland (Higgins et al., 2001). The population decline is suspected to be 20-29% over the
last three generations (17 years), based on monitoring, a reduced area of occupancy and
deteriorating habitat quality (Garnett et al., 2011).
The information presented above appears to demonstrate that the species is not eligible for
listing under this criterion. However, the purpose of this consultation draft advice is to elicit
additional information to better understand the species status. This conclusion should
therefore be considered tentative at this stage, as it may change as a result of responses to
this consultation process.
Criterion 2: Geographic distribution (based on either of B1 or B2)
B1. Extent of occurrence estimated to be very restricted <100 km2, restricted <5000 km2 or
limited <20 000 km2
Grantiella picta (Painted Honeyeater) consultation
Page 4 of 9
B2. Area of occupancy estimated to be very restricted <10 km2, restricted <500 km2 or
limited <2000 km2
AND
Geographic distribution is precarious for the survival of the species,
(based on at least two of a–c)
a. Severely fragmented or known to exist at a limited location.
b. Continuing decline, observed, inferred or projected, in any of the following:
(i)
extent of occurrence
(ii) area of occupancy
(iii) area, extent and/or quality of habitat
(iv) number of locations or subpopulations
(v) number of mature individuals.
c. Extreme fluctuations in any of the following:
(i)
extent of occurrence
(ii) area of occupancy
(iii) number of locations or subpopulations
(iv) number of mature individuals.
Evidence
As at 2010, the extent of occurrence is estimated to be 2 800 000 km2 and the area of
occupancy estimated to be 1000 km2 (Garnett et al., 2011). There is an inferred continuing
decline in the number of individuals, but the species distribution is not severely fragmented and
population fluctuations have not been extreme (Garnett et al., 2011).
The information presented above appears to demonstrate that the species is not eligible for
listing under this criterion, as although it has a restricted area of occupancy and there is an
inferred decline in area of occupancy and number of individuals the species distribution is not
severely fragmented and population fluctuations have not been extreme. However, the
purpose of this consultation draft advice is to elicit additional information to better understand
the species status. This conclusion should therefore be considered tentative at this stage, as it
may change as a result of responses to this consultation process.
Criterion 3: The estimated total number of mature individuals is very low <250, low <2500 or
limited <10 000; and either of (A) or (B) is true
(A)
evidence suggests that the number will continue to decline at a very high (25% in 3 years
or 1 generation (up to 100 years), whichever is longer), high (20% in 5 years or 2
generations (up to 100 years), whichever is longer) or substantial (10% in 10 years or 3
generations (up to 100), whichever is longer) rate; or
(B)
the number is likely to continue to decline and its geographic distribution is precarious for
its survival (based on at least two of a – c):
a. Severely fragmented or known to exist at a limited location.
b. Continuing decline, observed, inferred or projected, in any of the following:
(i) extent of occurrence
(ii) area of occupancy
(iii) area, extent and/or quality of habitat
(iv) number of locations or subpopulations
(v) number of mature individuals.
c. Extreme fluctuations in any of the following:
(i) extent of occurrence
(ii) area of occupancy
(iii) number of locations or subpopulations
(iv) number of mature individuals.
Grantiella picta (Painted Honeyeater) consultation
Page 5 of 9
Evidence
As at 2010, the total number of individuals is estimated at <10 000. The population is
suspected to have declined by 20-29% over the last three generations based on monitoring, a
reduced area of occupancy and deteriorating habitat quality (Garnett et al., 2011). Threats to
the species’ already fragmented habitat are ongoing, with habitat continuing to be cleared for
agriculture and degraded by over-grazing (Birdlife International, 2014). This suggests that the
population is likely to continue to decline at a substantial rate.
The information presented above appears to demonstrate that the species is eligible for
listing as Vulnerable under this criterion, as the total number of individuals is limited and the
population is likely to continue to decline at a substantial rate. However, the purpose of this
consultation draft advice is to elicit additional information to better understand the species
status. This conclusion should therefore be considered tentative at this stage, as it may change
as a result of responses to this consultation process.
Criterion 4: Estimated total number of mature individuals:
(a) Extremely low <50
(b) Very low <250
(c) Low <1000
Evidence
As at 2010, the total number of individuals is estimated at <10 000 (Garnett et al., 2011).
The data presented above appear to demonstrate that the species is not eligible for listing
under this criterion, as the number of mature individuals is not extremely low, very low or low.
However, the purpose of this consultation draft advice is to elicit additional information to better
understand the species status. This conclusion should therefore be considered tentative at this
stage, as it may change as a result of responses to this consultation process.
Criterion 5: Probability of extinction in the wild based on quantitative analysis is at least:
(a) 50% in the immediate future, 10 years or three generations (whichever is longer); or
(b) 20% in the near future, 20 years or five generations (whichever is longer); or
(c) 10% in the medium-term future, within 100 years.
Evidence
Population viability analysis has not been undertaken for this species, therefore there is
insufficient information to assess against this criterion.
Recovery Plan
There should be a recovery plan for this species as existing mechanisms are not adequate to
stop its decline and support recovery. The species has a widespread scattered distribution that
spans five states, public land, and private land held by multiple landholders. The species is
nomadic, has a specialised diet largely comprising of mistletoe fruits, and is dependent on
adequate food and habitat being available across its distribution. Threats to the species are
ongoing, with land continuing to be cleared and habitat degraded through over-grazing. Only two
states, the Victorian and NSW governments, have identified management actions for the
species.
Grantiella picta (Painted Honeyeater) consultation
Page 6 of 9
Recovery and Impact avoidance guidance
Primary Conservation Objectives
1. Stable population at key sites
2. No further clearance of suitable habitat
3. Biologically diverse woodland remnants, including adequate numbers of mature trees
and mistletoe populations for the painted honeyeater
Important populations
The single population is of high conservation value.
Important habitat for the survival of the species
Mistletoe in eucalypt forests/woodlands and acacia-dominated woodlands, especially those with
many mature trees, are important breeding and foraging habitat for the painted honeyeater.
Information required, research and monitoring priorities
1. Population trends at key sites
2. Ecology and locations during the non-breeding season
3. Importance of Brigalow and other semi-arid woodlands
4. Monitor key sites, particularly where there are management interventions
Management actions required
1. Protect all woodland from clearing in which painted honeyeaters have been regularly
sighted.
2. Place all areas of public land that contain the species under secure conservation
management, particularly those in timber reserves, transport corridors and areas owned by
local government.
3. Promote ecological management of woodland remnants on public or private land, including
maintaining a diverse community with mature trees and adequate mistletoe populations.
4. Promote revegetation and land reclamation that recreates woodland habitat with a full
complement of biodiversity, including the painted honeyeater.
5. Control firewood collection from occupied areas and reduce grazing densities.
References cited in the advice
Birdlife International (2014) ‘Species factsheet: Grantiella picta’. Retrieved 24 June, 2014 from
http://www.birdlife.org/datazone/species
Barea, LP (2008) Nest-site selection by the Painted Honeyeater (Grantiella picta), a mistletoe
specialist. Emu 108: 213-220.
Department of Environment and Heritage. ‘Painted Honeyeater (Grantiella picta)’. Retrieved 24
June, 2014 from
http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/savingourspeciesapp/project.aspx?ProfileID=10357
Department of Sustainability and Environment (2003). ‘Action statement. Painted Honeyeater
Grantiella picta’. Retrieved 24 June, 2014 from
http://www.depi.vic.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0020/251219/Painted_Honeyeater_Eu
sthenia_nothofagi.pdf
Grantiella picta (Painted Honeyeater) consultation
Page 7 of 9
Garnett ST, Szabo JK and Dutson G (2011). The Action Plan for Australian Birds 2010. Birds
Australia, CSIRO Publishing, Melbourne.
Higgins PJ, Peter JM, Steele WK, eds. (2001) Handbook of Australian, New Zealand and
Antarctic Birds. Volume 5: Tyrant-flycatchers to Chats. Oxford University Press,
Melbourne.
Grantiella picta (Painted Honeyeater) consultation
Page 8 of 9
Collective list of questions – your views
1. Do you agree with the current taxonomic position of the Australian Faunal Directory and
Birdlife Australia for this species (as identified in the draft conservation advice)
2. Can you provide any additional references, information or estimates on longevity, age of
maturity, average life span and generation length?
3. Has the survey effort for this species been adequate to determine its national distribution
and adult population size?
4. Do you accept the estimate provided in the nomination for the current population size of the
species?
5. For any population with which you are familiar, do you agree with the population estimate
provided? If not, are you able to provide a plausible estimate based on your own
knowledge? If so, please provide in the form:
Lower bound (estimated minimum):
Upper bound (estimated maximum):
Best Estimate:
Estimated level of Confidence: %
6. Can you provide any additional data, not contained in the current nomination, on declines in
population numbers over the past or next 10 years or 3 generations, whichever is the
longer?
7. Is the distribution as described in the nomination valid? Can you provide an estimate of the
current geographic distribution (extent of occurrence or area of occupancy in km2) of this
species?
8. Has this geographic distribution declined and if so by how much and over what period of
time?
9. Do you agree that the species is eligible for inclusion on the threatened species list, in the
category listed in the nomination?
10. Do you agree that the threats listed are correct and that their effects on the species are
significant?
11. To what degree are the identified threats likely to impact on the species in the future?
12. Can you provide additional or alternative information on threats, past, current or potential
that may adversely affect this species at any stage of its life cycle?
13. In seeking to facilitate the recovery of this species, can you provide management advice for
the following:



What individuals or organisations are currently, or need to be, involved in planning to
abate threats and any other relevant planning issues?
What threats are impacting on different populations, how variable are the threats and
what is the relative importance of the different populations?
What recovery actions are currently in place, and can you suggest other actions that
would help recover the species? Please provide evidence and background information.
14. Can you provide additional data or information relevant to this assessment?
15. Can you advise as to whether this species is of cultural significance to Indigenous
Australians?
Grantiella picta (Painted Honeyeater) consultation
Page 9 of 9