This article was downloaded by: [203.41.244.58]On: 28 January 2014, At: 22:47Publisher: Taylor & FrancisInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

New Zealand Journal of ZoologyPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tnzz20

Abstracts of papers presented at the6th Oamaru Penguin Symposium held atthe Kingsgate Brydone Hotel, Oamaru,New Zealand, 26 and 27 June 2008Published online: 19 Feb 2010.

To cite this article: (2008) Abstracts of papers presented at the 6th Oamaru Penguin Symposiumheld at the Kingsgate Brydone Hotel, Oamaru, New Zealand, 26 and 27 June 2008, New ZealandJournal of Zoology, 35:4, 297-303, DOI: 10.1080/03014220809510127

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03014220809510127

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

New Zealand Journal of Zoology, 2008, Vol. 35: 297-3030301-4223/08/3504-0297 © The Royal Society of New Zealand 2008

397

Abstracts of papers presented at the 6th Oamaru PenguinSymposium held at the Kingsgate Brydone Hotel, Oamaru,New Zealand, 26 and 27 June 2008

Breeding success of yellow-eyed penguinson Stewart Island and offshore islands

S. KINGYellow-eyed Penguin TrustPO Box 5409Dunedin 9058, New Zealandsdk@callsouth.net.nz

The yellow-eyed penguin (Megadyptes antipodes)is endemic to New Zealand. Breeding populationssurvive on the south-east coast of the South Island,Stewart Island and outliers, and the sub-AntarcticAuckland and Campbell Islands. The total popula-tion is estimated at approximately 1800 pairs, ofwhich 470 are found on the South Island. Until thelate 1990s, it was proposed that a similar numberexisted on Stewart Island.

A survey by the Yellow-eyed Penguin Trust in1999-2001 found only 84 pairs on Stewart Island,and another 103 pairs on close outliers. Few juve-niles were observed during the survey, indicatingpoor breeding success. These findings promptedthe Trust and Department of Conservation to initi-ate a study into factors affecting breeding successon Stewart Island and its offshore islands. In theabsence of a mustelid population (the main preda-tors of penguin chicks on the South Island), thestudy looked for evidence of penguin predationby the large feral cat population on Stewart Island,but found none. However, the study did identifystarvation and disease as significant causes of chickmortality. Breeding success on Stewart Island wasconsistently low over 5 years of study (0-33%),while that on offshore islands ranged from 27-76%.The number of breeding pairs recorded in the StewartIsland study area declined steadily over the 5 years,in total by 50% since the initial survey.

Z08020; Online publication date 11 September 2008Received 9 July 2008; accepted 10 July 2008

Investigation of hoiho chick mortalityon the Anglem Coast of Stewart Island

K. McINNESDepartment of Conservation18-32 Manners StreetWellington 6011, New Zealandkm cinnes@doc. govt. nz

GRAHAM MACKERETHInvestigation and Diagnostic Centre—

WallacevilleBiosecurity New ZealandMinistry of Agriculture and ForestryBox 40742Ward StreetUpper Hurt 5140, Wellington, New Zealand

ROBERT SANSONAsure QualityPalmerston North OfficeBatchelar Agriculture CentreTennent DrivePO Box 609Palm erston North 4440, New Zealand

This investigation consisted of a review of existingresults and data from various sources (Yellow-eyedPenguin Trust, Department of Conservation, Masseyand Otago Universities, literature) and a field visitduring November 2007 to collect fresh samplesfor viral, bacterial, parasitic and histopathologicaltesting.

Of 15 chicks from Anglem providing postmortem results in 2007, two weighed >1 kg, and 13weighed 100-350 g and were approximately 6-19days old. The two big chicks died of disseminatedLeucocytozoon, a blood parasite. Of the smallerchicks, post mortem results on seven in the fieldshowed poor body condition, no muscle on chest, nofat in body cavity or around heart, no food in stomach/intestines, no evidence of trauma, no bruising. Therewere no significant results from bacterial, viral,parasitic or histopathological testing. A diagnosis ofstarvation was made for these seven chicks.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

203.

41.2

44.5

8] a

t 22:

47 2

8 Ja

nuar

y 20

14

298 New Zealand Journal of Zoology, 2008, Vol. 35

Of chicks examined between 2003 and 2007,the Anglem Coast had the highest incidence ofdiptheritic stomatitis, Leucocytozoon, starvation andtrauma. By year, considering data from all sites, 2006had the highest incidence of diptheritic stomatitis,2005-06 had Leucocytozoon, and 2005-07 were theworst for starvation. Note that the sampling effortand techniques used for testing and decreasing nestnumbers at Anglem varied during that period.

The cause of death of young chicks in 2007 wasstarvation. In otheryears Leucocytozoon, diptheriticstomatitis or trauma may have had a significantrole, but it is not possible to determine which camefirst, starvation or disease. In older chicks, just priorto fledging, Leucocytozoon has clearly been thecause of death both on Stewart Island and WhenuaHou. The significance of this disease in adults is notknown. This investigation raises serious questionsabout the impact of disease on the hoiho population,both at Anglem and other locations.

The tip of the iceberg? The decline of StewartIsland yellow-eyed penguins indicates seriousproblems at sea

T. MATTERNDepartment of ZoologyUniversity of OtagoPO Box 56Dunedin 9054, New Zealandt.mattern@eudyptes.net

The numbers of endangered yellow-eyed penguinsbreeding along Stewart Island's northeasterncoastline have declined dramatically. Poor breedingoutcomes observed in the past 5 years suggest thatrecruitment is insufficient to sustain the population.On adjacent Codfish Island, penguins seem tobe faring reasonably well—breeding outcome iscomparable to monitored mainland sites, and thelocal population appears to be stable. The successand failure of local penguin populations across sucha small spatial scale suggests that global changesare unlikely to play a significant role in the StewartIsland penguins' demise. Foraging and diet researchconducted between 2004 and 2006 found strongevidence for localised sea-based problems. Foraginggrounds of penguins from both islands werespatially distinct, and individual foraging rangesand diving behaviour revealed greater flexibilityand performance in Codfish Island penguins. Dietcomposition also differed significantly, with CodfishIsland penguins feeding on a greater variety of prey

species that were also of better quality. As a primarilybenthic forager, the yellow-eyed penguin depends onan intact benthic ecosystem. Stewart Island penguinsforage primarily in areas that are commerciallydredged for oysters. In this light, it seems likely thatthe degradation of the benthic habitat associated withdredging is limiting viable foraging habitat and preydiversity for Stewart Island penguins. Since yellow-eyed penguins are at the top of the benthic food web,their rapid decline in the past few years suggest thatfar more is at stake than the fate of a single speciesof penguin. The unique biogenic reefs of FoveauxStrait off Stewart Island must also be disappearingat an alarming rate.

Impact of predation by New Zealand sea lionson yellow-eyed penguins at Otago Peninsula

C. LALASBox 31PortobelloDunedin 9054, New Zealandithaki@xtra.co.nz

H.RATZPenguin Place Conservation ReserveHarington Point RoadRD2Dunedin 9077, New Zealand

We review and update results presented in Lalas etal. (2006). This publication reached two conclusions.First, male sea lions did not eat yellow-eyedpenguins, but females ate 20-30 annually; oneindividual could have been responsible for mostkills. Second, the penguin population at any one sitecould not remain viable if it were the sole source ofpenguins killed. Populations of marked penguins,monitored through 12 years (1992-2003) at twoadjacent sites, Pipikaretu Beach and Ryans Beach,showed different trends attributed to predation by sealions. Neither nest numbers nor adult annual survivalvaried erratically at Pipikaretu Beach. In contrast,nest numbers at Ryans Beach collapsed by 90% tothree in 2004, and adult survival halved.

Results are now available from the next 3 years.Records for Pipikaretu Beach remained consistentwith earlier years. At Ryans Beach, adult annualsurvival improved but remained relatively low.Surprisingly the number of nests there increased to7-8, indicating a high rate of recruitment of breeders.Consequently, the sustainability of a penguinpopulation cannot be judged solely from trendsin nest numbers. The female sea lion considered

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

203.

41.2

44.5

8] a

t 22:

47 2

8 Ja

nuar

y 20

14

Proceedings of the Oamaru Penguin Symposium 2008 299

responsible for most penguin kills is still resident andeating yellow-eyed penguins. Her rate of predationhas not been quantified since 2003, except that she ate3-5 penguins through 6 weeks in January-February2006.

Lalas C, Ratz H, McEwan K, McConkey SD 2006.Predation by New Zealand sea lions (Phocarctoshookeri) as a threat to the viability of yellow-eyedpenguins (Megadyptes antipodes) at Otago Penin-sula, New Zealand. Biological Conservation 135:235-246. doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2006.10.024

Monitoring penguin bycatch incommercial setnet fisheries

S.ROWEMarine Conservation ServicesDepartment of ConservationPO Box 10420Wellington 6143, New Zealandsrowe@doc.govt.nz

The Marine Conservation Services Programme(Department of Conservation) places Governmentfisheries observers aboard New Zealand commercialfishing vessels to collect information on the natureand extent of protected species interactions. In thepast, the placement of fisheries observers has focusedon large vessels (>60 m) operating in high value,deepwater fisheries, with relatively little coverage ofinshore (<28 m) fleets. Consequently, New Zealandhas little historical information on inshore setnetand trawl fisheries. Initial observations of inshorefisheries undertaken from 1997 were focused solelyon observing fisheries interactions with Hector'sdolphin in Pegasus Bay and the Canterbury Bight inthe South Island. Since 2004, observations of inshoresetnet and trawl fisheries have been undertaken inNelson, Kaikoura, Southland, Otago and the WestCoast of the South Island, recording interactions withall protected species. Penguin species known to becaught in inshore fisheries include Eudyptula speciesand yellow-eyed penguins (Megadyptes antipodes),but the extent of interactions are unknown due tolimited historic observer coverage.

Despite low levels of observer coverage incommercial setnet fisheries, observers have reportedthe capture of three yellow-eyed penguins over thelast 2 observer years. This paper reports on penguincaptures and observer coverage achieved to date, anddiscusses some of the issues associated with placingobservers on inshore vessels.

Souvenirs or heirlooms? The phylogeographyof Adelie penguin faecal flora

J. C. BANKSS. C. CARY

I. D. HOGGDepartment of Biological SciencesUniversity of WaikatoPrivate Bag 3105Waikato Mail CentreHamilton 3240, New Zealandjbanks@waikato.ac.nz

The guts of animals change quickly from a totallysterile environment before birth to an abundantand highly diverse microbial community shortlyafter birth. However, few studies examine thisremarkable transformation and the source of thebacteria colonising the gut. We used genetic-based approaches to investigate the acquisition offaecal microbial communities by Adelie penguins,Pygoscelis adeliae, breeding in the Ross Sea region ofAntarctica by cloning a portion of the 16S rRNA geneand by using automated ribosomal intergenic spaceranalysis (ARISA). We hypothesised that bacteriawere acquired either from the penguins' environmentor from their parents. We also investigated thedistribution of faecal bacteria in samples collectedat breeding colonies of Adelie penguins from thenorthwestern edge of the Ross Sea coast through tothe southernmost Adelie penguin colonies on RossIsland. Most of the bacterial sequences we obtainedwere only distantly homologous with previouslypublished sequences. The distribution of faecalbacterial taxa does not appear to be restricted bygeographic distance at the scale we sampled. Ourresults also suggest that faecal bacteria are morelikely to be acquired from parents than from colonymates, although the data also suggest that inheritanceis only one of several factors affecting the acquisitionof faecal bacteria.

The potential for "magnetic cleansing" toprovide a "quick wash" of contaminatedwildlife in the field

J. D. ORBELLH.VANDAOL. N. NGEH

S. W. BIGGERSchool of Molecular SciencesInstitute for Sustainability & InnovationVictoria University

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

203.

41.2

44.5

8] a

t 22:

47 2

8 Ja

nuar

y 20

14

300 New Zealand Journal of Zoology, 2008, Vol. 35

PO Box 14428Melbourne City MCVictoria 8001, AustraliaJohn.Orbell@vu.edu.au

In collaboration with the Phillip Island Nature Park,the development of new technologies for environ-mental remediation and wildlife rehabilitation hasbeen an active area of research at Victoria Universityfor more than a decade (Orbell et al. 1999, 2004,2006). One such technique that shows promise fora number of applications involves the removal ofcontamination by oil-sequestering magnetic par-ticles. Since the contaminant-laden particles canbe harvested magnetically, this is essentially a be-nign dry cleaning process that, unlike traditionaldetergent-based methods, lends itself to portability.The potential for this technology to be incorporatedinto field stabilisation protocols is discussed in lightof its ability to remove toxic fuel oil from penguinplumage.

Orbell JD, Tan EK, Coutts MC, Bigger SW, Ngeh LN1999. Cleansing oiled feathers magnetically. Ma-rine Pollution Bulletin 38: 219-221.

Orbell JD, Ngeh LN, Bigger SW, Zabinskas M, ZhengM, Healy M, Jessop R, Dann P 2004. Whole-birdmodels for the magnetic cleansing of oiled feath-ers. Marine Pollution Bulletin 48: 336-340.

Orbell JD, Dao HV, Ngeh LN, Bigger SW, Healy M, JessopR, Dann P 2006. Magnetic cleansing of weathered/tarry oiled feathers—the role of pre-conditioners.Marine Pollution Bulletin 52: 1591-1594.

Transponder use in yellow-eyed penguins

B. BEAVENDepartment of ConservationPO Box 3Halfmoon BayStewart Island 9846, New Zealandbzbeaven@doc.govt.nz

Marking individuals is important for populationstudies, especially for determining cohort survivaland recruitment. Options for marking yellow-eyedpenguins have been limited, relying so far on flipperbands. Flipper bands are not ideal in all situations,requiring regular checks because they have potentialto spring open, or to restrict blood flow during moult.Stewart Island/Rakiura is one site where it is notpracticable regularly to monitor bands, and thereforethe use of transponders was trialled as an alternative.Transponders are individually encoded, passive,glass-encased tags that are charged by a reader

to produce a unique 12 digit number. Over 150transponders have been inserted into yellow-eyedpenguins on Stewart Island/Rakiura and CodfishIsland/Whenua Hou over the last 3 years. No healthproblems have been observed as a result of tagging,and several returns have been achieved. The use oflarge tags (23 mm) and wand readers allows tags tobe read at a distance (up to 1 m from the tip of thereader). This paper describes the Best Practice (BP)for transponder insertion in yellow-eyed penguins.This BP has been approved by the DOC AnimalEthics Committee, making transponder insertion, asdescribed in the BP, standard management practice.Future use may involve read/write transponders ortags enclosed in surgical plastic.

Assessment of transponders as an alternativemarking technique for blue penguins inNew Zealand—a progress report

G. TAYLORBanding and Wildlife HealthResearch and Development GroupDepartment of ConservationPO Box 10420Wellington 6143, New Zealandgtaylor@doc.govt.nz

R. WOLFECatchpool Field CentreDepartment of Conservation1025 Coast RoadRD1Wainuiomata 5373, New Zealandrwolfe@doc.govt.nz

R. COTTER1 Bolton StreetPetoneLower Hutt 5012, Wellington, New Zealand

In 2007, we commenced a study to compare survivalrates in blue penguins by using two differentmarking techniques (transponders and flipperbands). Transponders (also known as PIT tags) havebeen used widely in a number of studies on marinebirds, and are used by many researchers overseas tomonitor penguin activity. Transponders are insertedsubcutaneously under the skin in the area at thebase of the neck or between the shoulders on thebird's mantle. We will be capturing a sample ofblue penguins on Matiu/Somes Island in WellingtonHarbour (estimated population 200-500 breedingpairs) over the period 2007-10 to test the impactsof transponders and flipper bands on this species.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

203.

41.2

44.5

8] a

t 22:

47 2

8 Ja

nuar

y 20

14

Proceedings of the Oamaru Penguin Symposium 2008 301

Flipper-banded birds already live at this site(1406 have been banded since 1960) including manyadults and chicks banded in the past 2 years. Theaims of the projects are:(1) To determine if birds with transponders or flipper-bands have similar survival rates.(2) To check for tag loss (either type) by dual markinga sample of birds.(3) To see if birds that have carried flipper bandsfor more than 1 year have a different survival ratecompared with newly flipper-banded birds (i.e., dobirds learn to compensate for band placement?).

As at December 2007, we have banded 182adults and 33 chicks, and applied transponders to74 adults and 41 chicks. We aim to increase thesample of marked birds in 2008 (especially birdswith transponders) and to increase recapture effort.To assist with monitoring of birds, we have nowinstalled 100 artificial nest boxes. These were builtfor us by two local school groups, and the childrenhelped with installing them at the site. We have alsostarted to locate and map nest sites on the island. Weare looking at installing an electronic transponderreader and data-logger at one landing site.

Conservation of the blue penguin (Eudyptulaminor) on the West Coast, South Island,New Zealand

K. J. WILSONR. BLYTH

Bio-Protection and Ecology DivisionLincoln UniversityPO Box 84Lincoln 7647Canterbury, New ZealandWilsok@lincoln.ac.nz

S. HEBERCentre for Nature ConservationGeorg-August Universityvon-Siebold-Str.2, 37075Göttingen, GermanyPresent address: School of Biological Sciences,

University of Canterbury, Christchurch.

M. CHARTERIS

H. CHAMBERSPO Box 33Charleston 7865West Coast, New Zealand

This community-led project was initiated byconcerned local West Coast residents, who noticed

a decline in numbers of blue penguins (Eudyptulaminor) on the West Coast. Evidence for any declinewas anecdotal, and there was virtually no informationon distribution, numbers, breeding success or threatsto penguins in the region. Since 2004, the WestCoast Blue Penguin Trust has surveyed 310 km ofthe Westland coastline (450 km long), with detailedfollow up surveys of those areas where penguinsappeared most common. The survey found a numberof small colonies, but reported penguins missingfrom large areas of apparently suitable habitat. WestCoast penguins laid a single clutch with no evidenceof replacement laying. Chicks fledged from 66% ofeggs laid, with a mean of 1.18 chicks fledged perbreeding pair. Only 38% of suitable burrows wereoccupied, suggesting a recent decline in numbers.Monitoring of selected colonies began in 2006, andin August 2007 we began control operations againstintroduced predators at some of these colonies.Threats to penguins varied between colonies, butthe most important were introduced predators, roadkills, dogs, land development, coastal erosion andpossibly loss of burrows to possums. Our researchhas been undertaken at Lincoln University, but thisproject is equally dependent on the commitment oflocal residents.

The West Coast Blue Penguin Trust:a powerful example of community conservation

J. REEDYDepartment of ConservationBuller Kawatiri Area OfficePO Box 357Westport 7866, New Zealandjreedy@doc.govt.nz

R. GIBSONDepartment of ConservationGrey Mawheranui Area OfficePO Box 370Greymouth 7840, New Zealand

R. BARBERWest Coast Blue Penguin Trust8 Kowhai StreetKaroroGreymouth 7805, New Zealand

In 2004, a member of the Charleston communityalerted the Department of Conservation to the issueof blue penguins (Eudyptula minor) deaths due toroaming dogs. That spring, 16 blue penguins werekilled by two dogs, close to a breeding colony. It be-came apparent that these were not isolated events—

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

203.

41.2

44.5

8] a

t 22:

47 2

8 Ja

nuar

y 20

14

302 New Zealand Journal of Zoology, 2008, Vol. 35

blue penguins appeared to be under constant threatalong the coast. Discussion followed, and lead tothe formation of a group consisting of concernedcommunity members, the Buller District Council andthe Department of Conservation. This group evolvedinto The West Coast Blue Penguin Trust.

As little was known about the West Coast bluepenguin population or their breeding sites, it becamethe Trust's first goal to establish baseline data on theWest Coast blue penguin population and to identifykey breeding sites. The Trust has commissionedfurther studies into breeding success and timing,has begun mapping penguin density, and has sup-ported work to identify terrestrial threats to bluepenguins.

An objective of the Trust has been to raise com-munity awareness of blue penguins and their needfor greater protection throughout the West Coast.The Trust has worked collaboratively with agenciessuch as the Department of Conservation to deliverblue penguin awareness in schools. The Trust hasbecome a respected advisor to local councils oncoastal issues relating to blue penguins.

This presentation explores an effective commu-nity conservation model and identifies the successfulcomponents and challenges faced by those involvedin the West Coast Blue Penguin Trust.

Oamaru's blue penguins continue to thrive

P. AGNEWOamaru Blue Penguin ColonyWaterfront RoadOamaruNew Zealandresearch@penguins.co.nz

D. HOUSTONAuckland Conservancy OfficeLevel 5, Taylor's College Building75 Karangahape RoadNewtonAuckland 1010, New Zealand

From humble beginnings of 33 breeding pairs in1993, the colony of blue penguins at the OamaruBlue Penguin Colony (Quarry) now numbers 136breeding pairs. Occupying a disused quarry, the col-ony has fostered a popular tourism operation attract-ing around 80 000 visitors per year. Monitoring ofthe Quarry pairs, and others at a nearby control siteat Oamaru Creek (Creek), has found reproductivesuccess amongst the highest recorded for the species.

Oamaru blue penguins regularly begin breeding dur-ing the winter months, and commonly double brood.In eight of the 14 breeding seasons from 1994 to2007, over 20% of breeding pairs produced a doublebrood. This high reproductive output resulted in anaverage annual number of chicks fledged per pair of1.75 at the Quarry and 1.66 at the Creek. Preliminaryanalyses of survival rates of the penguins show that,at the Quarry colony, the average annual survivalof adult males and females is 87% and of juveniles38%. The observed rate of population increase at theQuarry averages 11% annually. The ongoing successof these two colonies provides an example of howproperly managed tourism can benefit, not only thelocal economy, but also the wildlife that is the centreof the tourism focus.

Foraging areas of little penguins during chick-rearing: evidence of changing food availability

P.DANNL. RENWICKJ. McINNESA. CHIARADIA

R. KIRKWOODResearch DepartmentPhillip Island Nature ParkPO Box 97CowesVictoria 3922, Australiapdann@penguins.org.au

E. BUICKSchool of Life and Environmental SciencesDeakin UniversityMelbourne, Australia

J. HOFFMANSchool of Biological SciencesMonash UniversityMelbourne, Australia

J. ARNOULDSchool of Life and Environmental SciencesDeakin UniversityMelbourne, Australia

It has been proposed that one mechanism for thedensity-dependent regulation of seabird populationsoperates through the intense foraging by breedingseabirds, which causes a local depletion of food, par-ticularly during chick provisioning (a "halo effect").This depletion of food reduces breeding success and,consequently, recruitment and population size.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

203.

41.2

44.5

8] a

t 22:

47 2

8 Ja

nuar

y 20

14

Proceedings of the Oamaru Penguin Symposium 2008 303

Here we examine the evidence that food avail-ability changes during chick-rearing, and the rolethat intraspecific competition for food might playin determining the size of populations of little pen-guins Eudyptula minor in southeastern Australia.Little penguins have relatively short daily foragingranges, and we used satellite telemetry to track upto 20 individuals through each of two chick-rearingstages at Phillip Island (2005 and 2006), RabbitIsland (2005) and Notch Island (2006). We tested thehypothesis that, if prey availability declined duringchick-rearing, the birds would forage in differentareas or further away from the colony as the chick-rearing period progressed. In the four instanceswhere we had data on both stages of chick rearing,the foraging ranges increased substantially betweenguard and post-guard stages in three instances, butnot in one. At Rabbit Island in 2005, the foragingrange of penguins increased dramatically, and wasaccompanied by a drop in the relative abundanceof both sandy sprat and anchovy in their diets.At Phillip Island in 2005, the foraging range didnot change substantially, and nor did the diets ofpenguins between guard and post-guard stages.

Causes of sickness and injury in little penguins(Eudyptula minor) rehabilitated at PhillipIsland, Victoria

R. JESSOPM.HEALY

Environment DepartmentPhillip Island Nature ParkPO Box 97CowesPhillip IslandVictoria 3922, Australiarjessop@penguins.org.au

Between July 1992 and June 2007,2440 juvenile andadult little penguins were received at the WildlifeHospital located at the Phillip Island Nature Park.Of these, 1528 were successfully rehabilitated andreleased. The majority of birds were found on theisland (89%). Other areas included Port Phillip Bay(3%), where Phillip Island adults spend the winterand pre-egg laying period; the coastline 100 km eastof Phillip Island (4%); and the coastline 100 km westof Phillip Island (1%). This discrepancy reflectsthe ease of access to locations to the east and westof Phillip Island and the availability of wildlifeshelters in these areas, rather than a difference inthe distribution of beachwashed birds. The most

common causes of hospital admittance were oiledplumage, starvation or broken limbs. The number ofpenguins received varied annually and seasonally.Annual admittance varied between 28 (1986/87) and571 (2001 /02) and was greatest in those years whenoil spill incidents occurred. Juveniles were mostcommon in January and February (73%), and adultsin January and February (49%). Adults (70%) weremore successfully rehabilitated than juveniles (49%),but there were no differences between genders. Theaverage stay for a successfully rehabilitated birdwas 21 days (range 0-195days), and for birds thatdied or were euthanased, 9 days (0-191 days). Overtime the release rate of both adults and juveniles hasimproved by about 10%.

Sexing little penguin chicks usingmorphometrics

J. McINNESResearch DepartmentPhillip Island Nature ParksPO Box 97 CowesPhillip IslandVictoria 3922, Australiajmcinnes@penguins.org.au

T. BILLINGP. MACREADIE

Zoology DepartmentUniversity of MelbourneParkville 3053, Australia

P.DANNResearch DepartmentPhillip Island Nature ParksPO Box 97 CowesPhillip IslandVictoria 3922, Australia

The ability to determine the sex of birds is highlyimportant in ecological studies. In a number of pen-guin species the sex of adults can be determinedusing morphometrics. Knowing the sex of chicksat fledging is also important, as it can provide uswith valuable information about sex-specific chickmortality as well as record a sex for birds that havebeen tagged at fledging. Adult little penguins can besexed with a high level of accuracy using bill depthmeasurements; however at present chicks can onlybe sexed using molecular techniques, which are bothcostly and invasive. We have investigated the useof morphometrics to sex little penguins at PhillipIsland, Victoria. We will discuss the reliability of thistechnique for chicks of known and unknown age.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

203.

41.2

44.5

8] a

t 22:

47 2

8 Ja

nuar

y 20

14