Water nesting mounds to increase incubation success in malleefowl

Overall effectiveness category Unknown effectiveness (limited evidence)
Number of studies: 1
Share Tweet Email

View assessment score

How is the evidence assessed?

Effectiveness

9%
Certainty

10%
Harms

0%

Calculating overall effectiveness category

Background information and definitions

Malleefowl Leipoa ocellata and other megapodes build large nesting mounds, filled with vegetation. This vegetation rots and produces heat which then incubates the eggs. This process requires the vegetation to be damp, meaning that eggs may die in dry conditions. Artificially adding water to the mounds may help prevent this.

Study locations

Key messages

A small controlled in Australia found that two malleefowl Leipoa ocellata nests were abandoned after they dried out, despite being watered, although unwatered nests were abandoned much earlier.

About key messages

Key messages provide a descriptive index to studies we have found that test this intervention.

Studies are not directly comparable or of equal value. When making decisions based on this evidence, you should consider factors such as study size, study design, reported metrics and relevance of the study to your situation, rather than simply counting the number of studies that support a particular interpretation.

Supporting evidence from individual studies

A small controlled trial in mallee scrub in South Australia, Australia, in October-December 1981 (a drought year) Booth & Seymour (1984) found that two malleefowl Leipoa ocellata nest mounds which were watered to promote microbial decomposition were abandoned around the 6^th December, after birds constructed egg chambers but did not lay eggs. However, the internal temperature rose to approximately 35^oc following the addition of 400 litres of water (equivalent to approximately 57 mm of rain on the mounds), compared to a maximum of approximately 25^oC for two control (unwatered) mounds. However, watered mounds dried out in late November, the temperature fell and birds abandoned them. Control nests were abandoned around 12^th November.
Study and other actions tested
Referenced paper
Booth D.T. & Seymour R.S. (1984) Effect of adding water to malleefowl mounds during a drought. Emu, 84, 116-118.

Please cite as:

Williams, D.R., Child, M.F., Dicks, L.V., Ockendon, N., Pople, R.G., Showler, D.A., Walsh, J.C., zu Ermgassen, E.K.H.J. & Sutherland, W.J. (2020) Bird Conservation. Pages 137-281 in: W.J. Sutherland, L.V. Dicks, S.O. Petrovan & R.K. Smith (eds) What Works in Conservation 2020. Open Book Publishers, Cambridge, UK.

Where has this evidence come from?

List of journals searched by synopsis

All the journals searched for all synopses

This Action forms part of the Action Synopsis:

Bird Conservation

Related Actions

	Actions	Effectiveness	Studies	Category
	Water nesting mounds to increase incubation success in malleefowl Action Link	Unknown effectiveness (limited evidence)	1	Synopsis Link
	Replace nesting substrate following severe weather Action Link	Unknown effectiveness (limited evidence)	1	Synopsis Link