Factors affecting the occupation of a colony site in Sydney, New South Wales by the Grey‐headed Flying‐foxPteropus poliocephalus(Pteropodidae)

Abstract

Previous authors have reported that Pteropus poliocephalus colony sites are occupied in response to blossom availability. However, in the present study it is reported that at the Gordon site in suburban Sydney, colony numbers were negatively correlated with the occurrence of pollen in the droppings. In addition, in contrast to reported occupational patterns at other colony sites, where flying-foxes are not present at the site during winter and early spring, the Gordon site was occupied by substantial numbers of flying-foxes throughout the entire period of 62 months from 1985 to 1990. As a result of the introduction of plants native to other parts of Australia and exotics from other continents, there is a variety of foods available throughout the year in the Sydney region, in comparison with less urbanized areas. This food supply permits the occupation of the Gordon colony site during winter and spring and reduces the migratory behaviour of flying-foxes throughout the year. It is concluded that in the absence of a restrictive food supply, the occupational pattern of the Gordon colony of P. poliocephalus is the result of the reproductive requirements of the species modified by the vagaries of blossom production in the native forests outside the foraging range of the colony.

Factors affecting Grey‐headed Flying‐fox (Pteropus poliocephalus: Pteropodidae) foraging in the Melbourne metropolitan area, Australia

“…in press). Monthly fly out counts, initiated in March 2001, indicated that the size of the Melbourne population varies seasonally, a pattern observed elsewhere in Australia (Eby 1991a; Parry‐Jones & Augee 1992, 2001). The peak of abundance occurs in late summer/autumn, and the lowest abundance in winter/early spring (van der Ree et al.…”

“…Flying‐foxes were detected foraging in a number of different plant genera throughout Melbourne (see Table 1). From a full list of Australian species (119 species) that flying‐foxes have previously been known to feed in throughout their range (see Eby 1991a,b, 1998; Parry‐Jones & Augee 1991a,b, 2001), only 10 species from 7 genera are endemic to the Melbourne area (G. Moore pers. comm., 2003).…”

“…Information on the availability of possible food resources at each site was collected during the survey process. Since there had been little work on the diet of Grey‐headed Flying‐foxes in the Melbourne area (Menkhorst 1995), we defined possible food resources as species within genera outlined in diet studies conducted in other parts of the range (Eby 1991a,b, 1998; Parry‐Jones & Augee 1991a,b, 2001). Sites with one or more of these genera that were flowering or fruiting (see Table 1), or had new leaf growth ( Populus ), were classified as ‘food detected’.…”

“…Flying‐foxes occupy numerous colony sites in eastern Australia, some of which are in large urban centres (Parry‐Jones & Augee 2001). Flying‐foxes established a permanent colony site, occupied year‐round, at the Royal Botanic Gardens Melbourne (‘botanic gardens’) in 1986 (Aston 1987).…”

Changing resource landscapes and spillover of henipaviruses

“…Flying foxes have also increased their use of degraded remnant forest patches and planted trees in periurban pastureland. [69][70][71]107,168 Whether this is the result of resource restriction 34,35,40,71 or dietary preference for cultivated and weedy species 69 remains unresolved, but the frequent occurrence of diet plants in horse paddocks presents a spillover risk.…”