Acridotheres tristis (common myna)
- Summary of Invasiveness
- Taxonomic Tree
- Notes on Taxonomy and Nomenclature
- Distribution Table
- History of Introduction and Spread
- Risk of Introduction
- Habitat List
- Species Vectored
- Biology and Ecology
- Notes on Natural Enemies
- Means of Movement and Dispersal
- Pathway Causes
- Pathway Vectors
- Impact Summary
- Economic Impact
- Environmental Impact
- Threatened Species
- Social Impact
- Risk and Impact Factors
- Uses List
- Detection and Inspection
- Similarities to Other Species/Conditions
- Prevention and Control
- Links to Websites
- Principal Source
- Distribution Maps
Don't need the entire report?
Generate a print friendly version containing only the sections you need.Generate report
PicturesTop of page
IdentityTop of page
Preferred Scientific Name
- Acridotheres tristis
Preferred Common Name
- common myna
Other Scientific Names
- Acridotheres tristas Linnaeus
- Paradisea tristis Linnaeus
International Common Names
- English: Calcutta myna; common mynah; house myna; Indian myna; Indian mynah; mynah; mynah, common; mynah, Indian; talking myna
- Spanish: miná común
- French: martin triste; Martin triste; merle des Moluques
Local Common Names
- Cook Islands: manu; manu kaomani; manu kavamani; manu rataro; manu teve; piru
- Czech Republic: majna obecná
- Denmark: maina
- Finland: pihamaina
- Germany: German Indischer mynah; Heuschreckenstar; Hirtenmaina; Hirtenstar
- Iceland: hjarðmænir
- Italy: maina comune
- Japan: kabairohakka
- Netherlands: treurmaina
- Poland: majna brunatna
- Portugal: mainato
- Sweden: brun majna
- ACRHTR (Acridotheres tristis)
Summary of InvasivenessTop of page
The common myna (Acridotheres tristis), also called the Indian myna, is a highly commensal passerine that lives in close association with humans, being most successful in disturbed habitats. It competes with small mammals and birds for nesting hollows. On some islands, such as Hawaii and Fiji, it preys on other birds' eggs and chicks, and in Seychelles, it also attacks adults of some small birds. It presents a threat to indigenous biota, especially on islands with endemic fauna, but also in Australia and elsewhere.
Taxonomic TreeTop of page
- Domain: Eukaryota
- Kingdom: Metazoa
- Phylum: Chordata
- Subphylum: Vertebrata
- Class: Aves
- Order: Passeriformes
- Family: Sturnidae
- Genus: Acridotheres
- Species: Acridotheres tristis
Notes on Taxonomy and NomenclatureTop of page
Three subspecies of Acridotheres tristis are recognised: nominate tristis, from peninsular India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran, southern Kazakhstan and southern China; tristoides, from Nepal and Myanmar; and melanosternus, which is endemic to Sri Lanka. There are birds intermediate between tristis and melanosternus in the southern Indian states of Kerala and Tamil Nadu.
The generic name Acridotheres is from the Greek akridothera, loosely meaning ‘locust hunter’.
The genus Acridotheres comprises nine other species (Feare and Craig, 1998): the great myna A. grandis, crested myna A. cristatellus, white-vented myna A. javanicus, pale-bellied myna A. cinereus, jungle myna A. fuscus, collared myna A. albocinctus, bank myna A. ginginianus, vinous-breasted myna A. burmannicus and the black-winged myna A. melanopterus.
DescriptionTop of page
Common mynas are 23 to 26 cm long, weigh 82 to 143 g and have a wingspan of 120 to 142 mm (Markula Hannan-Jones and Csurhes, 2009). The common myna has a medium to heavy build and a cocoa-brown body colour (Massam 2001). The head, neck and upper breast of the adult is glossy black with the head sporting an erectile crest. The undertail coverts, tail tip and the outer feathers are white and white bases to the primary feathers produce a white wing patch that is conspicuous in flight. Skin below the eye and extending into a point behind it is bare and bright yellow (rarely tending towards orange). Juveniles are generally duller, lacking gloss on the black head feathers and lacking the crest. The bill, legs and feet are bright yellow; in adults the lower mandible has a dark greyish mark towards the base. The iris is grey in juveniles but in adults it is highly variable, with a base colour from grey-brown through brown to red, often with inner and/or outer margins differently coloured to the centre, but within the range of grey-brown to red. Almost invariably the adult iris is marked with white spots which are also highly variable in pattern; the significance of this variation in iris colour and pattern is unknown (Feare, unpublished). Male and female A. tristis are not clearly sexually dimorphic and are thus impossible to distinguish in the field (Counsilman et al., 1994) unless they are seen courting or copulating.
Mynas are distinctive birds in that they walk rather than a hop. Like most territorial birds they have a bout of intense calling in the early morning that lasts between 5 and 15 minutes and a more prolonged bout of calling as they arrive at the roost in the evening, but they are also highly vocal throughout the day. Males call more often than the females, and pairs sometimes duet. The territorial call is a rowdy medley of creaky notes, growls, rattles, raucous, gurgling, chattering and bell-like sounds in rapid sequence often strung together as a song. Adults with young utter harsh squarking noises and young learning to fly emit persistent ‘chi-chi-chis’. At their communal roosts mynas maintain a noisy chattering, even well after nightfall and before dawn. To hear samples of the common myna call visit: Tidemann (2007b): Common Indian Myna Website > Identifying Mynas.
DistributionTop of page
Most of the common myna’s indigenous range lies within the tropics and subtropics, up to 30°N, but recent range extensions in Turkey and southern Russia have reached about 40°N. Most of its introduced range also falls within these limits, but reaches over 40°S in Tasmania.
The common myna is native to central and southern Asia and is widely distributed throughout India, Afghanistan, Turkestan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka as well as much of southern China and Indochina, and there are signs of spread into Iran and north into southern Russian states and former Soviet countries (Feare and Craig, 1998).
Known Introduced Range
The common myna has been introduced to parts of South East Asia, New Zealand, eastern Australia, southern Africa and Madagascar. It is also present in many islands in the Atlantic Ocean (including the Canary Islands, St Helena and Ascension Island), Indian Ocean (including Réunion, Mauritius, Rodriguez, Comores, Seychelles, Lakshadweep, Maldive Islands, Chagos and east to Andaman and Nicobar Islands) and Pacific Ocean (including Fiji, Tonga, Wallis and Fortuna, New Caledonia, Tokelau, Solomon Islands, Samoa, Cook Islands, Society Islands and French Polynesian islands).
Recently, reports have detailed breeding of common mynas in northern France (P. Clergeau Pers. Comm. 2005; Feare and Craig, 1998) and it is now established locally in southern Florida, USA (Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, 2003) and may be spreading (Everglades CISMA, 2013). On the tropical Pacific islands of Fiji, Tonga, Samoa (Feare and Craig, 1998), and recently on Kiribati (Teariki, 2003) and Wallis and Furtuna (Lepage, 2007), the common myna has become established alongside the jungle myna (Acridotheres fuscus).
Distribution TableTop of page
The distribution in this summary table is based on all the information available. When several references are cited, they may give conflicting information on the status. Further details may be available for individual references in the Distribution Table Details section which can be selected by going to Generate Report.
|Continent/Country/Region||Distribution||Last Reported||Origin||First Reported||Invasive||Reference||Notes|
|Brunei Darussalam||Present||Introduced||Invasive||ISSG, 2011|
|-Hong Kong||Present||Introduced||ISSG, 2011|
|-Andaman and Nicobar Islands||Present||Introduced||1867||Invasive||ISSG, 2011|
|-Maharashtra||Present||CAB ABSTRACTS Data Mining 2001|
|-Uttar Pradesh||Present||CAB Abstracts|
|Saudi Arabia||Present||Introduced||ISSG, 2011|
|South East Asia||Present||Native||Not invasive||ISSG, 2011|
|Sri Lanka||Present||Native||ISSG, 2011|
|United Arab Emirates||Present||Introduced||ISSG, 2011|
|Rodriguez Island||Present||Introduced||C Feare, pers. comm.|
|Saint Helena||Present||Introduced||Probably 1885 /1879 /1820||Invasive||ISSG, 2011|
|Seychelles||Restricted distribution||Introduced||Invasive||ISSG, 2011|
|South Africa||Present||Introduced||Invasive||ISSG, 2011|
|USA||Present||Present based on regional distribution.|
|-Florida||Localised||Introduced||C Feare, pers. comm.|
|Russian Federation||Present||Introduced||ISSG, 2011|
|Spain||Present||Present based on regional distribution.|
|-Balearic Islands||Restricted distribution||Introduced||1998||Invasive||ISSG, 2011|
|American Samoa||Present||Introduced||Invasive||ISSG, 2011|
|Australia||Present||Present based on regional distribution.|
|-New South Wales||Present||Introduced||Invasive||ISSG, 2011|
|Cook Islands||Present||Introduced||Invasive||ISSG, 2011|
|French Polynesia||Present||Introduced||Invasive||ISSG, 2011|
|Line Islands||Present||Introduced||Invasive||ISSG, 2011|
|Midway Islands||Present||Introduced||1974||Invasive||ISSG, 2011|
|New Caledonia||Present||Introduced||Invasive||ISSG, 2011|
|New Zealand||Present||Introduced||Invasive||ISSG, 2011|
|Solomon Islands||Present||Introduced||Invasive||ISSG, 2011|
|Tokelau||Restricted distribution||Introduced||Invasive||ISSG, 2011|
|Wallis and Futuna Islands||Present||Introduced||ISSG, 2011|
History of Introduction and SpreadTop of page
Common mynas have been introduced to many parts of the world. Many introductions were deliberate, often with the intention of providing biological control of insect pests. Accidental introductions most likely resulted from escapes from the cage bird trade. Many of the deliberate introductions took place in the 18th and 19th centuries, of both A.tristis and the race tristoides (Lever 1987).
The earliest deliberate introductions date to the middle of the 18th century, when common mynas were taken from India for release in the Indian Ocean island of Mauritius, and from there to Reunion, to control plagues of locusts (Nomadacris septemfasciata) and probably other grasshoppers in the 1760s (Cheke and Hume, 2008). This was probably one of the world’s first attempts at biological pest control (Hawkins and Safford, 2013). Later in the 18th century mynas were taken from Mauritius to Seychelles and from Reunion to Madagascar, both for insect control and as cage birds. In September 1862 Newton (1863) saw a pair of common mynas at Fenerive (Toamasina), on the eastern coast of Madagascar. He thought that the birds had been introduced to St Mary’s Island (Nosy Boraha) just offshore but did not explain why. According to Lever (1987), the first introduction may have taken place at the end of the 18th century, followed by another in 1875. Subsequently, A. tristis now occupies areas of suitable habitat throughout Madagascar and, according to Safford and Hawkins (2013), is the only known introduced bird that has become widespread on the island.
In the early 1800s, common mynas were introduced to Agalega from Mauritius to control a variety of insects and also scorpions, and according to Lever (1987) there may have been a second introduction to Seychelles at about the same time. Around the turn of the century they were introduced to Anjouan in the Comores, from where they had subsequently spread to the remaining three large islands by 1960 (Benson, 1960). In 1905, common mynas were found to be established on Egmont atoll in the Chagos group, having escaped from captivity (at this time Chagos was administered by Mauritius, which was the likely origin of these birds in this instance). By 1953 Common mynas were present on the main atoll of the group, Diego Garcia (Bourne, 1971), to which introduced birds are now restricted (Carr, 2011). They have also been introduced to the Lakshadweep (an island off the western coast of India) and Maldives (Ali and Ripley, 1972) but have subsequently died out in the latter (Grimmett et al., 1998). According to Ali and Ripley (1972) common mynas were introduced to the Andaman Islands around 1867 and possibly also to the Nicobars; the origin would most likely have been India and the birds are said to have been introduced as scavengers to assist in the removal of rubbish.
Introductions to Australia, New Zealand and South Africa followed in the second half of the 19th century. In the first two countries, these introductions occurred at a time when ‘Acclimatisation Societies’ were actively importing a variety of birds from Europe. Neither the origin nor the reason for introducing the common myna to Australia are known, but import from its native range in India or Afghanistan have been suggested and pest control is a likely reason (Hone, 1978). Acclimatisation Societies and private individuals introduced several hundred common mynas from Australia into New Zealand’s South Island in the 1870s. They were first introduced to North Island by the Wellington Acclimatisation Society in 1877 (Lever, 1987).
An attempt to introduce common mynas from Mauritius to Durban, South Africa, in 1888 was unsuccessful and the current population in Kwa Zulu Natal apparently derives from birds released in 1902 by a cage bird dealer (Peacock et al., 2007); these birds are of the subspecies tristoides (Brooke, 1976). Another introduction into South Africa, in Johannesburg in the 1930s, was of the nominate race tristis (Brooke et al., 1986) but their origin appears to be unknown. However, there is some debate over the identity of the subspecies present in South Africa, and whether the apparent Johannesburg release represented a different introduction from those in Kwa Zulu Natal (Peacock et al., 2007). There is confusion over the date of introduction of common mynas to St Helena, in the south Atlantic, with both 1815 and 1885 given (Lever, 1987). Further confusion arises from the alleged presence there of the hill myna Gracula religiosa, said to have been introduced in 1929; if these were here they have certainly not survived (Rowlands et al., 1998; Ashmole and Ashmole, 2008). Common mynas were introduced to control cattle ticks (McCulloch, 1992) but their region of origin is not stated. However, if they are of the subspecies tristoides, as claimed by Holyoak and Thibault (1984), this suggests a possible South African origin and importation from Kwa Zulu Natal. If this is the case, however, this would have pre-dated the introduction of this subspecies to Durban. While there are clearly uncertainties regarding the common myna in St Helena, it is known the several consignments were imported from Mauritius to Ascension Island (Ashmole and Ashmole, 2008) around 1815, to control insects (Lever, 1987).
In the Pacific, common mynas were introduced to Hawaii in the mid-1860s, directly from India, to control armyworms Laphygma exempta or Cirphis unipuncta and cutworms Spodoptera spp. in the island’s grasslands (Lever, 1987). They have subsequently spread to the major volcanic islands and had reached the remote atolls of Kure and Midway by 1974 (Lever, 1987) but the mechanism of this spread has not been described.
According to Medway and Marshall (1975), common mynas reached Vanuatu in the 1880s when a ship, carrying caged birds to Fiji, was wrecked off the island of Tanna. They have since spread northwards up the archipelago and reached western Santo (Bregulla, 1992). They are now widely distributed in Vanuatu, New Caledonia and the Solomons (Dutson, 2011), but whether these populations derive from the escape of birds on Tanna, or whether some come from independent introductions, is not recorded.
Common mynas were introduced to Fiji in 1890-1900, or possibly earlier (Long, 1981), directly from India in order to control insect pests of sugar cane (Lever, 1987). The Indian human population of Fiji has kept them as cage birds to the extent that people walk around with them in their cages, from which they sometimes escape or are deliberately released. This has doubtless facilitated their spread among the larger islands, most of which have now been colonised (Watling, 2001; Nagle, 2006). This might also account for their recent establishment on Nauru (Fagane, 2005), which has regular communications with Fiji. In addition, cyclones have been identified as possible agents in dispersal of common mynas among Pacific islands.
Chronologically, the next introduction to the Pacific islands was to Tahiti, where common mynas were imported between 1908 and 1915 to control wasps (Lever, 1987, quoting Bruner, 1972), but the origin of these birds does not appear to have been recorded. From Tahiti common mynas have colonised neighbouring islands (Lever, 1987), a process that may still be continuing. At about this time common mynas were also introduced, for pest control, to Raratonga, but the origin of the birds is uncertain; both Tahiti and New Zealand have been postulated (Lever, 1987).
From these beginnings in the Pacific common mynas have spread during the 20th century to other island groups within Melanesia, Polynesia and Micronesia (e.g. Western and American Samoa, Kiribati, Palau) and this spread, sometimes accompanied by the jungle myna Acridotheres fuscus, may continue with increasing human connectivity between islands.
In addition to the regions where common mynas might be expected to reach, they periodically become established in areas more remote from centres of dispersal. Small numbers became established in the Spanish Canary and Balearic Islands (Live Arico, 2007a,b) and in northern France (Hars, 1991); in France, occasional breeding has been reported in other locations but none of these groups have been self-sustaining (Dubois, 2007).
In Japan, they have been observed in the Kanto district (Honshu Island) since 1961 and breed in three Tokyo prefectures. They are also present on some of the Ryukyu islands but breeding there has not been confirmed (National Institute for Environmental Studies, undated). In the United States a breeding population was established in Los Angeles in the 1940s but has since died out (Lever, 1987). Since 1983 they have bred in southern Florida, centred around Miami, but the population is increasing and spreading, and the range now includes the Everglades (AOU, undated; Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, 2003).
Around the borders of the species’ native range some of the factors that underlie distribution change become blurred, making it difficult to distinguish natural spread from artificial introduction. In the south, range extension (through southern Myanmar and Thailand into Malaysia and eventually Singapore) is attributed to forest clearance and its replacement with agricultural and urban environments, but it is possible that escape or deliberate release of cage birds may also have been involved. Common mynas were first reported in Hong Kong in 1952 (Chalmers, 1986). Hong Kong is only c. 350 km from Hainan, the easternmost extent of the species range in southern China. However, Hong Kong, along with Taiwan, has many bird markets and its Chinese inhabitants, particularly Buddhists, widely practise ‘prayer release’ or ‘merit release’ of captive birds (Gilbert et al., 2012), a practice that might have facilitated the deliberate release of common mynas in both territories and has been considered a risk for dispersal of invasive species (Liu et al., 2012). A northward extension of the species’ range in central Asia appears to be a natural dispersal (Feare and Craig, 1998), but the situation is less clear with its northwestern spread in the Middle East. While recent expansion within Israel is most likely associated with release of captive birds from a zoo (Holzapfel et al., 2006), the timeline of spread around the western countries of the Arabian Gulf and into Iraq and Turkey (Holzapfel et al., 2006) does not exclude the possibility of range extension from Iran, with the establishment of new populations facilitated by agricultural and urban development, and associated irrigation, in the Gulf region.
Risk of IntroductionTop of page
The 18th and 19th centuries saw a series of introductions of common mynas with the intention of combating insect pests of agriculture. They have also been transported as cage birds. Once established in their new range, common mynas have proved adept at spreading locally, both on their own or with human help, even in some instances managing to overcome significant water barriers.
The widespread desire to keep common mynas in cages as pets, and the industry that supports and encourages this, continue to present a serious risk of local dispersal and has demonstrably led to the recent establishment of new populations remote from existing ones, such as in Europe, the USA and Japan. Tackling this risk will be difficult, although in 2007 the European Union permanently banned the importation of wild birds (imposed originally to reduce the risk of the importation of H5N1 avian influenza) (RSPB, 2007).
All attempts to introduce common mynas to new places, for any reason, must be discouraged. Particularly in archipelagos, eradication of common mynas in one location still leaves the risk of re-invasion from local sources.
HabitatTop of page
The common myna inhabits flood plains, grasslands, cultivated areas, plantations, desert oases, the foothills of various mountain ranges and urban areas (Feare and Craig, 1999). Most of the common myna’s indigenous range lies within the tropics and subtropics.
The common myna evolved in open woodland habitats in India (Sengupta, 1968) but it has become so closely associated with human-modified habitats, including urban habitats and cultivated land (Ali and Ripley, 1972), that it is often regarded as commensal with man. Common mynas reach their highest densities in modified habitats near human establishments, including cities, towns, villages, farmland, rural dwellings, parks, gardens and roadsides (Gill, 1999; Heather and Robertson, 2000). In Australia it is said to prefer human-modified woodland (Tidemann 2007e) and its density is positively correlated with increasing urbanisation (van Rensburg et al., 2009, Lowe et al., 2011). They also reach high population densities on small tropical islands (Feare, unpublished).
The common myna is able to adapt to a wide range of climates and habitats and will use different habitats to suit its needs. In Fiji and the Seychelles it sometimes feeds and drinks on the seashore, eating littoral invertebrates and detritus (Feare, 1994). In Singapore it is strongly associated with agricultural and farm areas but roosts at night in the city, where it commonly roosts among monoclonal stands of tall densely canopied trees in built-up areas (Hails 1985; Yap et al., 2002; Lim et al., 2003). In Australia mynas prefer nature reserves, especially the perimeters (Pell and Tidemann, 1997). While reserves provide excellent environments for the myna in Australia and are home to large numbers of mynas during the breeding season, in the winter months mynas find refuge in surrounding suburban areas (Pell and Tidemann, 1997).
The common myna prefers warmer climates. For example, in New Zealand, it tends to avoid colder regions in the south such as Nelson; but it does establish stable populations near piggery sheds where sufficient heat is produced by the pigs to maintain a relatively high temperature; in addition there is an abundance of pig food available (P.R. Wilson Pers. Comm.).
Habitat ListTop of page
|Terrestrial – Managed||Cultivated / agricultural land||Present, no further details||Harmful (pest or invasive)|
|Urban / peri-urban areas||Present, no further details||Harmful (pest or invasive)|
Biology and EcologyTop of page
Common myna are omnivorous and eat fruits, berries, grains, flower nectar, insects (including beetle larvae and adults, caterpillars, worms, flies, snails) and spiders. They also scavenge on street litter and at rubbish dumps, on animal food and waste at farms and on roadkill. Nestlings are fed for the first ten days exclusively on invertebrates, primarily insects (Markula Hannan-Jones and Csurhes, 2009). When insects are scarce, fruits and seeds make up a more important component of their diet (Peacock et al., 2007). At such times, common mynas can become agricultural pests (Peacock et al., 2007), feeding on the ripening fruit and seeds of plants such as figs, papaya, mango, chilli, dates, apple, pear, tomato, and cereal crops such as maize, wheat and rice. Mynas are egg predators (Feare and Craig, 1998), and are known to eat birds' eggs (of seabirds as well as smaller birds) and chicks, as well as attacking adults of small species. They can also take small reptiles.
Common mynas are predominantly ground feeders, taking prey from the surface or sub-surface in short pasture and grain stubble, but will opportunistically feed in flowering or fruiting trees and bushes and scavenge on human waste (Feare and Craig, 1999). In their native range of southern Asia the myna is typically a bird of human-modified habitats, but it will form flocks in rural areas which eat insects and other invertebrates turned up in the cultivated soil by the plough (Australian Museum 2003).
Common mynas are believed to pair for life (Sengupta, 1982) and maintain the same territory from year to year. They build cup-shaped nests out of dry grass, twigs and leaves, and sometimes string, paper, plastic. They construct nests in tree hollows, crowns of living and dead coconut trees, clefts in cliffs, walls buildings or thick vegetation, such as dense clumps of New Zealand flax Phormium tenax in St Helena (Ashmole and Ashmole, 2000).
The common myna usually raises two broods per season, laying up to six pale greenish-blue eggs (3.1cm x 2.2cm; Massam, 2001) in each clutch, with an average of four. Both sexes brood and care for the young (Massam, 2001). In New Zealand they lay eggs from mid-October to early March, with the highest egg-laying activity from November to January. In Australia up to three broods of young may be produced in one season. Both sexes brood and care for the young (Massam, 2001). Breeding in southern Africa begins in September (Clancey, 1964). In the Malagasy region they breed in the austral summer, October to January (Safford and Hawkins, 2013). In the Seychelles they breed mainly during the wet season, September to March (Skerrett et al., 1998), but can be seen nest-building in most months (Feare, unpublished).
Both sexes incubate the eggs for 13 to 14 days but the female devotes more time than the male. The fledging period lasts between 20 to 32 days, averaging 25 days. Parents feed the chicks as long as three weeks after they have left the nest (Massam, 2001). Sexual maturity occurs at nine to 12 months. Juveniles form small flocks and may form mating pairs at as young as nine months old, although few breed in their first year. Life span averages four years in the wild, possibly up to 12 years for some individuals (Markula Hannan-Jones and Csurhes, 2009).
Common mynas are omnivorous scavengers and will feed on fruits, berries, grains, flower nectar, insects (including beetle larvae and adults, caterpillars, worms, flies, snails) and spiders. Nestlings are fed for the first ten days exclusively on invertebrates, primarily insects (Markula Hannan-Jones & Csurhes 2009). When insects are scarce, fruits and seeds make up a more important component of their diet (Peacock van Renburg & Robertson 2007). At such times, common mynas can become agricultural pests (Peacock van Renburg & Robertson 2007), feeding on the ripening fruit and seeds of plants such as figs, papaya, dates, apple, pear, tomato, and cereal crops such as maize, wheat and rice. Mynas are egg predators (Feare & Craig 1998), and are known to consume birds' eggs and chicks, as well as small reptiles.
Common mynas are highly adaptable to human habitations (Sontag & Louette 2007) and local food resources. For example, they has been known to consume pet food (Australian Museum 2003) and forage on the seashore for worms, molluscs, crustaceans and other seafood stranded on the mud flats (Stoner 1923). They also scavenge rubbish dumps, pastures, farmyards and roads for roadkill.
They are predominantly ground feeders, pecking prey from the surface in short pasture and grain stubble, but will opportunistically feed in flowering or fruiting trees and bushes (Feare and Craig 1999). In their native range of southern Asia the myna forms flocks in rural areas, which feast on insects and grubs turned up in the cultivated soil by the plough (Australian Museum 2003).
In their introduced ranges common mynas display some phenotypic adaptability. Baker and Moeed (1979) found that common mynas introduced on North Island, New Zealand, showed variations in several morphological characteristics, some of which were sex specific, relating to latitude (birds being larger in the warmer north), precipitation and altitude. In South Africa, Berthouly-Salazar et al. (2012) identified differences in morphological characteristics likely to be associated with dispersal ability between birds within the core of their present range and on the margins of the expansion zone. Especially in females, which they found to be the dispersive sex, wing length and head size were larger at the expansion front than in the species’ established areas.
The common myna is resident throughout its native and introduced range, apart from in higher parts of its distribution in the Himalayas, where it is an altitudinal migrant (Ali and Ripley, 1972). Where studied, its movements are generally very limited. Kang (1992) radio-tracked birds in Singapore and found that common mynas had very small home ranges of only 0.1 km2 and that the average distance from their roost to their main activity centres was 0.4 km. Berthouly-Salazar et al. (2012) considered dispersal distances to be <16 km, although in South Africa one ringed common myna was reported 381 km from its original capture site (Oschadleus, 2001).
The common myna prefers to forage in open, grassy habitats (Crisp and Lill, 2006, in Newey 2007), either alone or in groups, and roosts in isolated stands of tall trees. In Fiji and the Seychelles, less densely canopied trees such as coconut palms are sometimes used for roosting and refuge (Stoner, 1923; Feare et al., 1994). Common mynas show flexibility in their roosting behaviour. While they generally roost communally, often in large groups, some birds roost individually in cavities (possibly former nest sites). On Bird Island, Seychelles, they did not roost communally in 1973, and instead roosted widely in trees over the island (Feare, 1976), whereas in 2013 they did roost communally in two large trees, Caliphyllum inophyllum and Eugenia javanica. On Fregate Island, Seychelles, common mynas were observed in 1992 assembled in the evenings in coastal coconut palms, creating the sound typical of large communal roosts, but dispersed among the coconut tree crowns at dusk to roost in their pairs in a large number of trees (Feare et al., 1994).
Population Size and Density
The density of common mynas is highly variable as it is strongly dependent on habitat characteristics. Estimated densities also vary according to estimation methods used, time of day, time of year and temporal changes in availability of food. Estimates (from line transects) from Canberra, Australia, range from 15/km2 in 1991 (Avian Web, 2013) to 189 ± 136 km2 in July/August of 2004 (C. Tidemann, pers. comm.); Cairns Bentley Park, a suburb of Cairns, northern Australia, had a much higher estimate in March 2006 of 566 ± 117 km2.
Notes on Natural EnemiesTop of page
Little is known of predators of common mynas. Ali and Ripley (1972) mentioned noisy defence against cats and snakes, and introduced cats and native snakes may take mynas (and snakes possibly take their eggs) where mynas have been introduced. Snakes may also take myna eggs.
Means of Movement and DispersalTop of page
Introduction Pathways to New Locations
Acclimatisation societies: In New Zealand acclimatisation societies were active in importing wild animals, including, in the 1870s, common mynas. Introductions of mynas to Australia occurred around the same time but according to Long (1984) it is not known whether acclimatisation societies were responsible in Australia.
Other: On large landmasses, including within large islands, invasion pathways appear to be primarily along roads (Tidemann, 2005).
Pet/aquarium trade: The pathway to the Spanish islands has been via pet shops and later escapes from the home cages. In Polynesia the transport of caged birds by people is a likely means of dispersal and in Hong Kong and Taiwan prayer release of birds bought in local markets may have contributed to common myna introductions.
Ship: On oceanic islands, invasion pathways appear to be primarily via ships, particularly large ferries (Tearika, 2003; D. Watling pers. comm.).
Botanical garden/zoo: In Israel, mynas escaped from a private facility of exotic birds in the centre of the Tel Aviv public park.
Local Dispersal Methods
Escaped mynas will breed in the wild and expand their territory unaided.
Pathway CausesTop of page
Pathway VectorsTop of page
Impact SummaryTop of page
|Crop production||Positive and negative|
Economic ImpactTop of page
Compiled by IUCN SSC Invasive Species Specialist Group (ISSG):
Many negative impacts of common mynas have been identified but not quantified. Some may be important on a local scale, such as in private gardens and smallholdings, but most are unlikely to have major economic significance.
Flocks of common myna are known to damage fruit crops, including grapes, apricots, apples, pears, strawberries, figs and gooseberries (Heather and Robertson, 1997). In the tropics they eat papaya, mangoes, bananas, carambole (star fruit), java apple, golden apple, tomato, chilli and other cultivated fruits.
The preference of common mynas for open grassland leads them to congregate on airfields, especially in the late afternoon. This sometimes leads them to be involved in bird strikes with jet aircraft, but their relatively low body mass usually means any damage caused is less serious than with larger birds (Mathew et al., 2003; Australian Transport Safety Bureau, 2008). Disposal of refuse or waste from food outlets can compound the attraction of common mynas to airports.
Environmental ImpactTop of page
Impact on Biodiversity
Common mynas are believed to have both positive and negative impacts on biodiversity. Positive impacts concern the pollination of flowers, especially of trees, and the dispersal of the seeds of native plants (Feare and Craig, 1998). Negative impacts are perceived to stem from the common myna’s dominance over and competition with indigenous fauna, especially endangered birds, over food and nest sites, predation of eggs, chicks and sometimes adults, and the spread of invasive plants and pathogens. The concerns thus range from broad communities to individual species.
At the community scale, studies of the impacts of common mynas have produced conflicting results. Pell and Tidemann (1997) examined interactions between common mynas and indigenous cavity-nesting parrots in two nature parks in the suburbs of Canberra, Australia. In agonistic encounters mynas generally dominated parrots and the authors found some evidence of mynas taking over active parrot nests, concluding that they had uncovered ‘strong circumstantial evidence’ that mynas were depressing the reproductive output of crimson and eastern rosellas (Platycircus elegans and P. exemius).
Lowe et al. (2011), in Sydney, Australia, found little interaction between common mynas and native birds and concluded that the former had little impact on the latter. Grarock et al. (2012), on the other hand, examined a long term dataset of bird abundance in Canberra, Australia, which covered a period of introduction and establishment of common mynas in the study sites. This study also accounted for the effects of changes in habitats associated with expansion of human influence during the course of the dataset. Grarock et al. (2012) found a negative relationship between myna establishment and the long-term population trends of three native cavity-nesting species and eight small species, six of them native.
In community studies it is difficult to tease out the roles of potential competition/displacement between introduced species and their native cohabitants, and the responses of the two to habitat changes, usually those imposed by man. Grarock et al. (2013a) found that the negative relationships between the abundances of common mynas and native parrots in habitats with differing tree densities were explained mainly by the habitat preferences of the birds. In habitats with the greatest myna abundance, however, there was some evidence that they interfered with some breeding attempts of parrots that were attempting to nest in their less-preferred habitats.
It is the perceived negative impacts that have led the common myna to be regarded as one of the world’s most invasive species, and for calls for its management in many areas where it has been introduced. However, the perception of negative impacts has proved difficult to translate into good evidence and many instances of threats to wildlife and people are little more than anecdotal. Nevertheless, part of the problem lies in the difficulty of studying myna-biodiversity interactions, especially in remote places with few resources such as small tropical islands. In such places, where some of the allegedly threatened species survive in very small populations, it is wise to adopt a precautionary approach and react to the perceived threats.
This approach is supported by studies of the responses of endemic birds on small islands to the removal of mynas. On Moturoa Island, New Zealand, Tindall et al. (2007) recorded increases in numbers of birds, both introduced and native, when common myna numbers were reduced by trapping. Increases in the numbers of the native tui Prosthemadera novaeseelandii, grey warbler Gerygone igata and the introduced blackbird Turdus merula were attributed to the reduction in predation and interference from mynas.
Ongoing studies in the Seychelles by Jildou van der Woude and colleagues (pers. comm.) are monitoring the response of endemic seychelles warblers Acrocephalus sechellensis, which were introduced to Denis Island to establish an insurance population, to the reduction in the numbers of common mynas during an eradication attempt (Feare, 2010a). Before the eradication attempt around 25 % of the warblers caught in mist nets had serious head injuries, as did some Seychelles fodies Foudia sechellensis and Seychelles flycatchers Terpsiphone corvine, species endemic to the Seychelles that, along with the Seychelles magpie robin Copsychus sehclellensis, had also been introduced to establish insurance populations. Monitoring, following the reduction in the myna population, is still ongoing and no results have yet been published, but there are signs that the populations of magpie robins are producing more young and flycatchers are increasing (Feare, pers. obs.; Georgia French, pers. comm.). There are also signs that the number of white terns Gygis alba has increased and individuals are nesting in lower vegetation than before (Feare, pers. obs). These observations should be highly instructive in determining the impact of common mynas on endangered species that are introduced to an island where mynas were already established.
Impact on Habitat
The nectarivorous and frugivorous components of the common myna’s diet give it role in the pollination and seed dispersal of some plants. This is regarded as a valuable ecosystem service in its native range (Feare and Craig, 1998). Its role in the propagation of native vegetation in places where mynas have been introduced appears unknown. Its role in dispersing non-native food plants is regarded as beneficial in some places, such as the Seychelles, where it disperses papaya (Feare, personal observation), but this is largely offset by the damage they do to fruit. In extreme cases, such as in St Helena, mynas are responsible for spreading the seeds of invasive plants, especially Lantana camara and Schinus terebinthifolia, the spread of which has transformed some of the island’s landscapes and could be restricting the recolonisation by endemic plants (Ashmole and Ashmole, 2008).
Threatened SpeciesTop of page
|Threatened Species||Conservation Status||Where Threatened||Mechanism||References||Notes|
|Acrocephalus caffer (Tahiti reed-warbler)||EN (IUCN red list: Endangered) EN (IUCN red list: Endangered)||French Polynesia|
|Acrocephalus kerearako (Cook Islands reed-warbler)||NT (IUCN red list: Near threatened) NT (IUCN red list: Near threatened)||Cook Islands||ISSG, 2011|
|Aplonis cinerascens (Raratonga starling)||CR (IUCN red list: Critically endangered) CR (IUCN red list: Critically endangered)||Cook Islands||Competition - monopolizing resources||ISSG, 2011|
|Bebrornis sechellensis||VU (IUCN red list: Vulnerable) VU (IUCN red list: Vulnerable)||Seychelles||Predation|
|Charadrius sanctaehelenae (St Helena plover)||CR (IUCN red list: Critically endangered) CR (IUCN red list: Critically endangered)||Saint Helena||Predation||ISSG, 2011|
|Collocalia leucophaeus||VU (IUCN red list: Vulnerable) VU (IUCN red list: Vulnerable)||French Polynesia|
|Copsychus sechellarum||EN (IUCN red list: Endangered) EN (IUCN red list: Endangered)||Seychelles|
|Cyanoramphus novaezelandiae||VU (IUCN red list: Vulnerable) VU (IUCN red list: Vulnerable)||New Zealand|
|Foudia sechellarum||NT (IUCN red list: Near threatened) NT (IUCN red list: Near threatened)||Seychelles||Predation|
|Humblotia flavirostris||EN (IUCN red list: Endangered) EN (IUCN red list: Endangered)||Comoros||Predation|
|Hypsipetes olivaceus (Mauritius black bulbul)||VU (IUCN red list: Vulnerable) VU (IUCN red list: Vulnerable)||Mauritius||Competition; Predation|
|Otus capnodes (Anjouan scops owlp)||CR (IUCN red list: Critically endangered) CR (IUCN red list: Critically endangered)||Comoros||Competition - monopolizing resources||ISSG, 2011|
|Otus insularis (Seychelles owl)||EN (IUCN red list: Endangered) EN (IUCN red list: Endangered)||Seychelles||Competition|
|Otus pauliani (Grand Comoro scops owl)||CR (IUCN red list: Critically endangered) CR (IUCN red list: Critically endangered)||Comoros||Competition - monopolizing resources||ISSG, 2011|
|Pomarea mendozae (Marquesan monarch)||EN (IUCN red list: Endangered) EN (IUCN red list: Endangered)||French Polynesia|
|Pomarea nigra (Tahitian monarch)||CR (IUCN red list: Critically endangered) CR (IUCN red list: Critically endangered)||French Polynesia||ISSG, 2011|
|Psittacula eques (Mauritius parakeet)||EN (IUCN red list: Endangered) EN (IUCN red list: Endangered)||Mauritius||Competition - monopolizing resources||ISSG, 2011|
|Ptilinopus rarotongensis (Cook Islands fruit dove)||VU (IUCN red list: Vulnerable) VU (IUCN red list: Vulnerable)||Cook Islands||Predation|
|Terpsiphone corvina||CR (IUCN red list: Critically endangered) CR (IUCN red list: Critically endangered)||Seychelles|
|Todirhamphus godeffroyi||CR (IUCN red list: Critically endangered) CR (IUCN red list: Critically endangered)||French Polynesia||Predation||ISSG, 2011|
|Todirhamphus ruficollaris (Mangaia kingfisher)||VU (IUCN red list: Vulnerable) VU (IUCN red list: Vulnerable)||Cook Islands||Competition - monopolizing resources||ISSG, 2011|
|Zosterops modestus (Seychelles white eye)||EN (IUCN red list: Endangered) EN (IUCN red list: Endangered)||Seychelles||Predation||ISSG, 2011|
Social ImpactTop of page
Adapted from the IUCN SSC Invasive Species Specialist Group (ISSG):
The introduction of common mynas to the Andaman Islands in order to assist urban hygiene suggests that in India their scavenging is believed to help in refuse disposal. Further beneficial considerations stem from their popularity as pets and in religious use for merit release.
Mynas roost in numbers as great as 5000 (Markula et al., 2009). They are highly vocal throughout the year, especially at dusk and dawn when they settle in and emerge from their night roosts. In some places, especially Singapore, this has led them to be regarded as a public nuisance. Their droppings are also a nuisance (Yap et al., 2002, in Lim et al., 2003) and public health concern, although compared with their relative the common starling (Sturnus vulgaris), relatively small quantities of droppings accumulate under common myna roosts (Feare, 1984and pers. obs.). Common myna can also be a residential nuisance as they build nests in spouting and drainpipes (Stoner, 1923). Mynas fearlessly steal food off plates which may be a hygiene or general nuisance for restaurants and other shops, and they scavenge food from people’s houses and gardens.
Common mynas pose a human health risk as they can carry bird mites such as Ornithonyssus bursa and Dermanyssus gallinae that may infect humans. These mites can also cause dermatitis, asthma, severe irritation and rashes. Their droppings can spread ornithosis and salmonellosis. Mynas can host arboviruses (Bill Handke, pers. comm.) that can be transmitted to humans through bites from arthropods. They may also carry owl flies, biting lice, Oxyspirrura thread worm and round worm (Stoner, 1923). Mynas are known to carry avian malaria (Massam, 2001).
Risk and Impact FactorsTop of page Invasiveness
- Proved invasive outside its native range
- Benefits from human association (i.e. it is a human commensal)
- Negatively impacts agriculture
- Negatively impacts human health
- Negatively impacts animal health
- Reduced native biodiversity
- Threat to/ loss of endangered species
- Threat to/ loss of native species
- Causes allergic responses
- Competition - monopolizing resources
- Pest and disease transmission
UsesTop of page
In India the common myna is referred to as the farmer’s friend because it protects crops by eating insect pests. The myna has been deliberately introduced to continental landmasses and islands with warm temperate to tropical climates, ostensibly to control invertebrate pests (Case 1996; Veltman et al., 1996; Feare and Craig, 1998).
Many myna species are accomplished mimics and can be taught to speak; for this reason the myna is a much sought-after pet in some parts of the world (Tidemann, 2005). In Mallorca and the Canary Islands, Spain, several pet birds have escaped or been released into the wild.
Uses ListTop of page
- Biological control
- Pet/aquarium trade
Detection and InspectionTop of page
At dusk common mynas frequently seem to favour short grassland in which they feed and at this time of day lawns, airstrips and similar habitats are good places to check for their presence. Most of the day, but especially in the mornings and evenings, they are vocal and their loud calls and songs can indicate their presence.
Similarities to Other Species/ConditionsTop of page
The most likely species the common myna could be confused with are other members of the genus Acridotheres, most of which are blackish with white wing patches. In Hong Kong the common myna lives alongside the native crested myna A. cristatellus, but the crested myna is almost entirely black with a very prominent tuft of feathers on the forehead and an ivory-white bill.
On several Polynesian islands both the common myna and the jungle myna have become established. The plumage of the jungle myna is dark grey but paler below, its bill is more orange with a bluish base to the lower mandible, and it lacks the yellow peri-orbital skin of the common myna, but has a conspicuous yellow eye and a tuft of forehead feathers.
The common myna may be confused with a native Australian honeyeater known as the yellow-throated miner (Manorina flavigula). However, the cocoa colour, raucous voice, white wing patches and ground-frequenting habit of the common myna will usually distinguish it from the honeyeater. It is also sometimes confused with the slightly larger (24cm - 29cm) noisy miner, Manorina melanocephala, another native Australian honeyeater. Both species have yellow bills, legs and bare eye skin, but the common myna is brown with a black head, and in flight it shows large white wing patches, whereas the noisy miner is mostly grey (Australian Museum, 2003).
Prevention and ControlTop of page
Ideally, every step should be taken to discourage common mynas from reaching areas where they are not native and have not yet naturalised; this almost invariably means persuading people not to allow them to escape from captivity, to deny mynas access to transport links that could enable them to travel, and especially to prohibit people from introducing them deliberately to previously unoccupied areas. Where common mynas are already established in areas where they are not native, decisions must be made whether to take any action against them or not. Decision making can be assisted using the risk assessment procedure of Bomford (2003). If action is deemed appropriate, the nature of the action – either maintaining numbers at reduced levels or complete eradication – must be addressed.
Most introductions of common mynas, deliberate and accidental, have involved transport and release. Prevention of future introductions must therefore target both transport and release, and cover all levels of these activities, from movement and release of individual birds to larger consignments, and by individual people through to organisations. This will require education at all levels of society, maintenance of vigilance on transport systems and in their destinations, strict border controls (even among islands in archipelagos, among states in large countries, and among countries in assemblies like the EU), and adequate legislation and enforcement to support the confiscation of mynas in transit and the eradication of any discovered in new regions.
Post-Establishment Problem Limitation
In some circumstances it might be possible to reduce the problems caused by common mynas by limiting their access to resources in the areas where they cause problems. For example, they could be physically excluded from food stores and food outlets by netting, although this kind of approach is unlikely to be relevant to biodiversity problems caused by mynas. In the Seychelles attempts have been made to dissuade mynas from hotel restaurants by placing abundant food outside the restaurant before meal times, in the hope that birds would not be hungry while guests are eating. This approach failed and led to an increase in bird populations , mainly of non-native species including mynas (Feare, pers. obs.).
Post-Establishment Population Reduction
The disadvantage of a population reduction strategy is that it must be sustained, involving on-going labour requirement and high costs. However, where populations are large and wherever rapid recolonisation is likely, there may be no alternative. This is currently being practised in Canberra, Australia, where a community action group is trapping large numbers of mynas annually, which is certainly reducing the numbers but does not provide any prospect of eradication (King, 2010; CIMAG, 2013).
Eradication of common mynas should be the goal on isolated islands, where native fauna and flora have been demonstrated to be negatively impacted or where there is a clear risk of this, and in other areas where mynas have been reported for the first time and thus could represent founder populations. Eradication of small populations has been achieved (Saavedra, 2010), but eradication of a population of hundreds of mynas has only so far been achieved on Fregate Island, Seychelles (Canning, 2010). The cost of this operation was not estimated. However, eradication is time-consuming and labour intensive, and therefore expensive, but probably much less so than rodent eradications which, although they can now be achieved over relatively short time-frames, often involve the use of expensive equipment and expertise (Martins et al., 2006).
Physical barriers will exclude common mynas from localised food sources, such as food stores, fruit gardens and restaurants that are under cover. A large variety of netting materials and fixings is now available from pest control companies worldwide.Scaring devices, such as models of predators, sound producing devices (including distress calls) and balloons and kites (sometimes painted with eyes or to resemble avian predators), may be effective for a short period but mynas are intelligent and are soon likely to learn that these devices pose no threat, after which they will not deter mynas.
Common mynas are able to locate invertebrate food at or just beneath the surface of grassland (Feare and Craig, 1998), which is often their main source of dietary animal protein. Grassland is thus a preferred habitat and common mynas frequently feed on managed lawns, in park grassland, sports fields, grass airstrips and similar areas. Mynas are generally less attracted to dense forest, except when trees are fruiting, which is often localised in time and space in mixed forest. Replacement of open grasslands with woodland or dense indigenous bush (preferably bush that does not depend on birds for seed dispersal) could reduce the availability of preferred foods for mynas and should be considered as a valuable management option, especially where endemic or indigenous woodland birds are present. This approach has proved beneficial on some small islands where endemic birds have been introduced to establish insurance populations (Samways et al., 2010), and Grarock et al. (2013b) highlighted the value of habitat restoration for the management of myna populations and for safeguarding native birds in mainland situations.
The scavenging habits of mynas lead them to exploit a wide variety of human discards. High standards of waste management in domestic and urban situations, at open food outlets, on farms and especially at refuse disposal sites (such as rapidly covering waste with soil) can contribute to the reduction of food available to mynas.
On several islands in Seychelles mynas have been shot, sometimes in the hundreds, but eradication of island populations has not been achieved by this method and the problem of birds becoming averse to people with guns has been highlighted (Millet et al., 2004). In these eradication attempts shooting has not been sustained. Greg Wepener (pers. comm.), working on North Island, Seychelles, maintained that shooting with a rifle was effective when birds were arriving to roost in the evenings, but shooting carried a risk that birds learn to avoid people, especially with guns, reducing the effectiveness of shooting over time and rendering the remaining birds more difficult to eradicate. However, this has not been subjected to experimental investigation with common mynas. Aversion to shooting might be less of a problem during the breeding season when mynas are feeding young; birds returning to feed their young at the nest could be shot out of view of the mate and of most neighbouring birds. On this basis, shooting at the nest could help to eradicate remaining birds after other techniques have been successfully reduced numbers.
A variety of traps have been used to catch mynas, some relying on the birds’ attraction to baits of various kinds ( called ‘foraging traps’ in Australia) and others including live decoy birds. In practice, baited multi-catch traps become decoy traps as soon as the first myna is caught. The mynas are caught alive, and so need to be killed after capture; non-target species can be released.
At present not enough is known to predict which traps will be most successful in a given area. Different trap designs seem to vary in efficiency in different places, including different islands within the same group (Feare, 2010a) and different habitats on the same island (Feare, unpublished). On North Island, Seychelles, commercially available multiple catch traps failed to catch mynas feeding on the island’s grassland but were successful close to the island’s organic waste site, while locally-made decoy traps, each with four catching compartments with a drop door triggered on entry, were most efficient on the grassland (Feare, unpublished). On Fregate Island, however, the same multi catch traps had been very successful on grassland and had led to the successful eradication of mynas on this island (Canning, 2011). On Denis Island, decoy traps were successful in all habitats, leading to the removal of more than 900 of the island’s 1000 or so mynas, but after that the eradication programme lapsed through lack of staff and funding, as did the attempt on North Island. On these two islands non-target birds cause serious problems, particularly with the decoy traps; Madagascar turtles doves Nesoenas picturata and common moorhens Gallinula chloropus were attracted to the bait and, when caught, their flapping inside a catching compartment was often sufficient to drop the doors of the other compartments, prohibiting the entry of mynas.
Avoidance of traps has been identified as a hindrance to trapping programmes involving multi-catch baited traps (King, 2010; Canning, 2011), although during intensive trapping it is difficult, without monitoring the behaviour of individually marked birds, to distinguish trap avoidance from population reduction. During the use of decoy traps on small islands in Seychelles, individually marked birds were similarly not available for observation but observed declines in catch rates were almost certainly due to declining populations and the negative impact of non-target catches (Feare, unpublished).
Common mynas can sometimes be trapped on the nest using nooses inside the nest or in the nest entrance. Where this has been used the number caught has been very small compared with the numbers caught by more traditional trapping away from the nest (Millet et al., 2004; Canning, 2011; Tideman et al., 2011). In view of the inaccessibility of many myna nests, trapping in the nest seems to be unlikely to make a major contribution to control or eradication. Tidemann (2010) investigated the use of large net enclosures to capture mynas in their night roosts but concluded that it was technically not feasible.
In Australia, Tidemann and colleagues (Tidemann and King, 2009; Tidemann et al., 2011) developed euthanasia systems for trapped mynas using exhaust gases (CO and CO2) and Canning (2011) adopted this system on Fregate Island, Seychelles. On many islands combustion engines have been largely replaced by electric vehicles and on Denis and North Islands, Seychelles, mynas have been killed by cervical breakage using long-nosed round-nosed pliers, which kill instantly (these pliers are not the same as ‘humane killing pliers’ which are marketed in UK by pest control suppliers and which Feare and Saavedra (pers. obs.) found in St Helena did not kill mynas instantly or humanely).
A wide variety of traps and trap designs are available from pest control distributors and others supplying the main markets around the world. In view of the variation in trap effectiveness in different places it is difficult to recommend particular models and the best ones to suit local conditions and trials are needed to select what works best. Trap availability is perhaps best investigated through local networking and using an internet search engine.
The toxicant Starlicide (also called DRC1339, 3-chloro-p-toluidine hydrochloride), produced in the Unites States and in New Zealand, has been used in attempts to reduce numbers or eradicate common mynas from islands (Millet et al. 2004, Rocamora and Jean-Louis 2009, Terrestrial Resources Conservation Section 2009, Feare 2010b). Starlicide is believed to interfere with kidney function, is more toxic to birds than to mammals, and differs in toxicity among bird families, thus offering some selectivity towards highly susceptible families, including starlings (Sturnidae).
Some toxoicants which may kill mynas are also likely to kill other bird species, and there is very little known about some toxicant effects on other components of island faunas, such as reptiles, crustaceans and insects (Feare, 2010b). There is also evidence that the common myna learns to avoid toxic baits (Feare, 2010b).
Concerns over environmental safety and efficacy in population management indicate a need for more knowledge on the chemical’s use in island ecosystems. The use of toxicants on any island must be subjected to rigorous risk assessment.
The work of Saavedra (2010) Feare (2010a,b and unpublished) and Canning (2011) suggest that common mynas can be eradicated from islands and failures to achieve this to date have been due to inadequate funding, lack of availability of trained and dedicated staff, and lack of resolve by island owners and managers.
Control and eradication attempts also suffer from lack of knowledge of basic aspects of the biology of common mynas in their non-native ranges, especially in terms of reproductive capacity and demography and how these are affected by interventions aimed at reducing their numbers, ideally to zero (Feare 2010a).
BibliographyTop of page
ACT 2003. State of the Environment Report 2003. Indicator–Pest Animals. Australian Capital Territory.
Armstrong D.P.; Ewen J.G.; Dimond W.J.; Lovegrove T.G.; Bergstrom A.; Walter B. 2000. Breeding biology of North Island robins (Petroica australis longipes) on Tiritiri Matangi Island, Hauraki Gulf, New Zealand. Notornis 47: 106-118
Atkinson, I. A. E. and Atkinson, T. J. 2000. Land vertebrates as invasive species on islands served by the South Pacific Regional Environment Programme. In: Invasive Species in the Pacific: A Technical Review and Draft Regional Strategy. South Pacific Regional Environment Programme, Samoa: 19-84.
Auckland Regional Council. 2002. Auckland Regional Pest Management Strategy 2002-2007. http://www.arc.govt.nz/albany/fms/main/Documents/Environment/Plants%20and%20animals/pest%20management%20strategy.pdf
Australian Museum. 2003. Common Myna Acridotheres tristis. http://www.birdsinbackyards.net/finder/display.cfm?id=36
Avibase, undated. The world bird database: Common Myna (Acridotheres tristis) (Linnaeus, 1766) http://www.bsc-eoc.org/avibase/species.jsp?lang=EN&id=D1CF6D3C0FE5774D&ts=1203996833593&sec=summary
Beichle, U. R. 1989. Common myna on Upolu: first record for the Western Samoa Islands. Elepaio 49: 85–86.
Blanvillain C.; Pierce R.; Saducci J-M. 1999. Trimestrial report on the reproductive success of the Omama’o or Tahiti flycatcher (Pomarea nigra). Unpublished report to SPREP
Bomford, M., 2003. Risk Assessment for the Import and Keeping of Exotic Vertebrates in Australia. Bureau of Rural Sciences, Canberra. http://www.feral.org.au/feral_documents/PC12803.pdf
Bull, P.C.; Gaze, P.D.; Robertson, C.J.R. 1985. The Atlas of Bird Distribution in New Zealand. Ornithological Society of New Zealand.
Byrd, G. V. 1979. Common myna predation on wedge-tailed shearwater eggs. Elepaio 39: 69–70.
CIMAG. Undated. Indian myna: the Flying Cane Toad. http://www.indianmynaaction.org.au/documents/Brochure%20-%20the%20Flying%20Cane%20Toad%201.pdf
Cook Islands Biodiversity Database. Undated. Acridotheres tristis Manu Kavamani, Common Myna. Cook Islands Biodiversity & Natural Heritage. http://cookislands.bishopmuseum.org/species.asp?id=8262
Counsilman, J.J., Nee, K., Jalil, A.K. and Keng, W.L. 1994. Discriminant Analysis of Morphometric Characters as a Means of Sexing Mynas, Journal of Field Ornithology, Vol. 65(1): 17.
CSN 1972. Classified Summarised Notes. Notornis 23: 89.
CSN 1974. Classified Summarised Notes. Notornis 25.
CSN 1981. Classified Summarised Notes. Notornis 28: 77.
CSN 1984. Classified Summarised Notes. Notornis 31: 55.
CSN 1994. Classified Summarised Notes, North Island. Notornis 41: 49.
Department of Agriculture and Food., 2008. National Animal Pest Alert: Common myna. Department of Agriculture and Food the State of Western Australia http://www.agric.wa.gov.au/content/PW/vp/bird/CommonMyna_NHT.pdf
Dhami, M.K. & Nagle, B. 2009. Review of the Biology and Ecology of the Common Myna (Acridotheres tristis) and some implications for management of this invasive species. PII (Pacific Invasives Initiative). http://www.issg.org/cii/Electronic%20references/pii/Myna_review_final.pdf
Drent R. 1996. Myna eradication boosts tuis. Sunday Star Times 4, August 1996.
Feare, C. & Craig, A. 1998. Starlings and mynas. Christopher Helm (A & C Black), London, United Kingdom. 285 pp.
Feare, C., and A. Craig. 1999. Starlings and mynas. Illustrated by Barry Croucher, Chris Shields and Kamol Komolphalin. Princeton University Press Princeton New Jersey
Fleischer, R.C., R.N. Williams & A.J. Baker. 1991. Genetic Variation within and among Populations of the Common Myna (Acridotheres tristis) in Hawaii, Journal of Heredity 82: 205-208.
Foster, J.T. & S.K. Robinson. 2007. Introduced Birds and the Fate of Hawaiian Rainforests, Conservation Biology 21(5): 1248-1257.
Gargominy, O., Bouchet, P., Pascal, M., Jaffre, T. and Tourneu, J. C. 1996. Conséquences des introductions d'espèces animales et végétales sur la biodiversité en Nouvelle-Calédonie.. Rev. Ecol. (Terre Vie) 51: 375-401.
Gibson-Hill, C. A. 1949. An annotated checklist of the birds of Malaya. Bulletin of Raffles Musuem 20:1-299.
Gill, B. J. 1999. A myna increase – notes on introduced mynas (Acridotheres) and bulbuls (Pycnonotus) in Western Samoa. Notornis 46: 268–269.
Government of Western Australia Undated. National Pest Animal Alert: Common Myna. Government of Western Australia Department of Food and Agriculture. http://www.agric.wa.gov.au/objtwr/imported_assets/content/pw/vp/bird/commonmyna_nht.pdf
Griffin, A.S. & H.M. Boyce. 2009. Indian mynahs, Acridotheres tristis, learn about dangerous places by observing the fate of others, Animal Behaviour 78: 79-84.
Griffin, A.S. 2009. Temporal Limitations on Social Learning of Novel Predators by Indian Mynahs, Acridotheres tristis, Ethology 115:287-295.
Hails, C. J. 1985. Studies of problem bird species in Singapore: I. Sturnidae (Mynas and Starlings). A report submitted to the commissioner for Parks and Recreation, Ministry of National Development, Singapore.
Hatzofe, O. 2001. Pers. Commm. Re: FW Indian Myna in West Africa (Email communication.)
Hatzofe, O. and Perelman, Y. 2001. Myna trapping trial report: summary and recommendations. Israel Nature and Parks Authority internal report of the Science and Conservation Division. 4pp.
Heather B.D.; Robertson H.A. 2000. The new field guide to the birds of New Zealand. Viking, Auckland.
Holyoak, D. T. and Thibault, J. C. 1984. Contribution a l’Étude des Oiseaux de Polynésie Orientale. Mémoires du Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle, n.s. Série A, Zoologie, Tome 127. Éditions du Museum, Paris.
Holyoak, D. T.& Thibault, J. C. 1984. Contribution à l’Étude des Oiseaux de Polynésie Orientale. Mémoires du Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle, n.s. Série A, Zoologie, Tome 127. Éditions du Museum, Paris.
Hughes, B.J., G.R. Martin & S.J. Reynolds. 2008. Cats and seabirds: effects of feral Domestic Cat Felis silvestris catus eradication on the population of Sooty Terns Onychoprion fuscata on Ascension, Ibis 150(Suppl. 1): 122-131.
IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. http://www.iucnredlist.org/
Kang, N. 1989. Comparative behavioural ecology of the mynas, Acridotheres tristis (Linnaeus) and A. javanicus (Cabanis) in Singapore. PhD thesis, National University of Singapore.
Kang, N., Sigurdsson, J. B., Hails, C. J., & Counsilman J. J. 1990. Some implications of resource removal in the control of mynas (Acridotheres spp.) in Singapore. Malayan Nature Journal 44: 103-108.
Landcare Research (LCR). 2008. Garden Bird Survey. Landcare Research, New Zealand.
Lever, C. 1987. Naturalized birds of the world. Longman Scientific and Technical, London.
Lever, C. 1994. Naturalized Animals: the Ecology of Successfully Introduced Species. London: T. & A. D. Poyer.
Lim, H.C., Sodhi, N.S., Brook, B.W. and Soh, M.C.K. 2003. Undesirable Aliens: Factors Determining the Distribution of Three Invasive Bird Species in Singapore, Journal of Tropical Ecology 19: 685–695.
Live Arico Tenerife Animal and Environmental Protection, 2007. First campaign for Common Myna (Acridotheres tristis) control in the island of Mallorca. Final Report for the Environment Departament Balearic Islands’ Government
Live Arico. 2007. First Campaign for Common Myna (Acridotheres tristis) Control in the island of Mallorca 2006.
Live Arico. Undated. Miná común - Common myna.
Markula, A., M. Hannan-Jones & S. Csurhes. 2009. Pest animal risk assessment Indian myna Acridotheres tristis. Queensland Government. http://www.dpi.qld.gov.au/documents/Biosecurity_EnvironmentalPests/IPA-Indian-Myna-Risk-Assessment.pdf
Martin, W.K. 1996. The Current and Potential Distribution of the Common Myna Acridotheres tristis in Australia, Emu 96: 166-173. http://www.publish.csiro.au/?act=view_file&file_id=MU9960166.pdf
Massam, M. 2001. Common myna [Farmnote No. 61/2001]. Department of Agriculture (Western Australia).
Mc Kenzie H.R. 1979. A history and account of the birds of the Hunua Ranges. Notornis 26: 105-119.
McAllan, I.A.W. & D. Hobcroft. 2005. The further spread of introduced birds in Samoa, Notornis 52: 16-20.
Millett, J, Climo, G & Jivan Shah, N. 2004. Eradication of the common myna Acridotheres tristis populations in the granitic Seychelles: successes, failures and lessons learned. Advances in Vertebrate Pest Management 3: 169-183.
Monson, V. 2005. Bio-control the Last Resort for Hawaii’s Plants, The Maui News.
Muséum national d'Histoire naturelle [Ed]. 2003-2006 . Acridotheres tristis. Inventaire national du Patrimoine naturel, site Web : http://inpn.mnhn.fr. Document téléchargé le 28 mars 2008 . http://inpn.mnhn.fr/isb/servlet/ISBServlet?action=Espece&typeAction=10&pageReturn=ficheEspeceDescription.jsp&numero_taxon=199444
Nelson, P.C. 1994. Bird Control in New Zealand Using Alpha-Chloralose and DRC1339, Vertebrate Pest Conference Proceedings collection: Proceedings of the Sixteenth Vertebrate Pest Conference.
Newey, Philip. 2007. Foraging behaviour of the Common Myna (Acridotheres tristis) in relation to vigilance and group size, Emu 107: 315-320.
Newsome, A.E. & Noble, I.R. 1986. Ecological and physiological characters of invading species. Pp. 1-20 in Ecology of Biological Invasions: An Australian Perspective. Eds R.H. Groves & J.J. Burdon. Australian Academy of Science, Canberra.
Northland Regional Council. Undated. Home > Environment > Weed and pest control > Pest animals > Myna http://www.nrc.govt.nz/Environment/Weed-and-pest-control/Animal-pests/Myna/
NZFSA (New Zealand Food Safety Authority). Undated. home > acvm > publications > notes > Drc1339 Bird Study Notes: Controlled Pesticides: DRC 1339 For Bird Control. http://www.nzfsa.govt.nz/acvm/publications/notes/drc1339-bird-study-notes.pdf
Parkes, J. 2009. Common Mynas (Acridotheres tristis) on the Three Kings Islands: Should and Can They Be Controlled or Eradicated?
Pascal, M., Barré, N., De Garine-Wichatitsky, Lorvelec, O., Frétey, T., Brescia, F., Jourdan, H. 2006. Les peuplements néo-calédoniens de vertébébrés : invasions, disparitions. Pp 111-162, in M.-L. Beauvais et al., : Les espèces envahissantes dans l’archipel néo-calédonien, Paris, IRD Éditions, 260 p.+ cédérom
Peacock, D.S., van Renburg, B.J., Robertson, M.P. 2007. The distribution and spread of the invasive alien common myna, Acridotheres tristis L. (Aves: Sturnidae), in southern Africa, South African Journal of Science 103(11-12): pp. 465-473.
Pell, A.S. & C.R. Tidemann. 1996. The Ecology of the Common Myna in Urban Nature Reserves in the Australian Capital Territory, Emu 97: 141-149.
Pell, A.S. and Tidemann, C.R. 1997. The ecology of the common myna (Acridotheres tristis) in urban nature reserves in the Australian Capital Territory (Abstract), EMU 97: 141-149.
Pierce R.J.; Blanvillain C. 2000. Conservation of the Tahiti flycatcher (Pomarea nigra): report on advice provided to Societe d’Ornitologie de Polynesie. Conservation Advisory Science Notes 290. Department of Conservation, Wellington. 8 pp.
Probst J.-M. 1997. Animaux de la Réunion. Azalées Editions. 168 pp.
Savage, J. (Bird Gard). 2004. Subject: Re: [Aliens-L] Dealing with Common Mynas (Acridotheres tristis). Email communication.
Science Centre. Undated. Faunal Wealth of Andaman & Nicobar Islands. http://www.and.nic.in/Know%20Andaman/faunalwealth/faunal_wealth.htm
Seitre, R. & Seitre, J. 1992. Causes of land-bird extinction in French Polynesia. Oryx, 26, 215-222.
Stoner, D. 1923. The Mynah. A Study in Adaptation, Auk 40(2): 328-330.
The Cook Islands Natural Heritage Trust. 2005. Acridotheres tristis: Manu Kavamani (Common Myna). http://cookislands.bishopmuseum.org/search.asp
Thibault, J.C., 1998. Extrait du compte-rendu de la seconde mission. Te Manu 25, 2.
Thomas, A. 2004. Myna Fightback, In Scribbly Gum, ABC. 2005.
Tidemann, C. 2005. Common Myna. The Australian National University. http://sres.anu.edu.au/associated/myna/problem.html
Tidemann, C. 2007a. Common Indian Myna Website > Home. The Australian National University. http://fennerschool-associated.anu.edu.au//myna/index.html
Tidemann, C. 2007b. Common Indian Myna Website > Identiying Mynas. The Australian National University. http://fennerschool-associated.anu.edu.au//myna/identification.html
Tidemann, C. 2007c. Common Indian Myna Website > Myna Problems. The Australian National University. http://fennerschool-associated.anu.edu.au//myna/problem.html
Tidemann, C. 2007d. Common Indian Myna Website > Are Mynas spreading?. The Australian National University. http://fennerschool-associated.anu.edu.au//myna/spreading.html
Tidemann, C. 2007e. Common Indian Myna Website > Minimising Mynas: Mitigation of the impact of Mynas on biodiversity and public amenity. The Australian National University. http://fennerschool-associated.anu.edu.au//myna/minimising.html
Tidemann, C. 2007f. Common Indian Myna Website > Trapping Mynas: Humane bird trap for Common Indian Mynas and European Starlings. The Australian National University. http://fennerschool-associated.anu.edu.au//myna/trapping.html
Tidemann, C. 2007g. Common Indian Myna Website > Humane Disposal. The Australian National University. http://fennerschool-associated.anu.edu.au//myna/humane.html
Tidemann, C. 2007h. Common Indian Myna Website > Monitoring Mynas. The Australian National University. http://fennerschool-associated.anu.edu.au//myna/monitoring.html
Tindall, S.D., C.J. Ralph & M.N. Clout. 2007. Changes in bird abundance following common myna control on a New Zealand island, Pacific Conservation Biology 13(3): 202-212.
van Rensburg, B.J., D.S. Peacock & M.P. Robertson. 2009. Biotic homogenization and alien bird species along an urban gradient in South Africa, Landscape and Urban Planning.
Varnham, K. 2006. Non-native species in UK Overseas Territories: a review. JNCC Report 372. Peterborough: United Kingdom. http://www.jncc.gov.uk/page-3660
Wildland Consultants. 2000. Norske Skog Tasman Wildlands: Wetland Restoration Project. http://www.wildland.co.nz/projects/norsketasman/norske_project.htm
Yap, C. A. M., N. S. Sodhi & B. W. Brook. 2002. Roost characteristics of invasive mynas in Singapore. Journal of Wildlife Management 66: 1118-1127.
ReferencesTop of page
ACT Goverment, 2003. State of the Environment Report 2003. Indicator-Pest Animals. Australian Capital Terriotory. ACT, Australia: Office of the Commissioner for the Environment, 7 pp. http://www.environmentcommissioner.act.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0006/169152/pestanimals03p.pdf
Armstrong DP; Ewen JG; Dimond WJ; Lovegrove TG; Bergstrom A; Walter B, 2000. Breeding biology of North Island robins (Petroica australis longipes) on Tiritiri Matangi Island, Hauraki Gulf, New Zealand. Notornis, 47:106-118.
Ashmole P; Ashmole M, 2000. St Helena and Ascension Island: a natural history. Oswestry, UK: A. Nelson.
Atkinson IAE; Atkinson; TJ, 2000. Land vertebrates as invasive species on the islands of the South Pacific Regional Environment Programme. In: Sherley G, ed. Invasive Species in the Pacific: A Technical Review and Draft Regional Strategy. Samoa, South Pacific Regional Environment Programme, 19-84.
Auckland Regional Council, 2002. Auckland Regional Pest Management Strategy 2002-2007. Auckland Regional Pest Management Strategy 2002-2007., New Zealand: Auckland Regional Council. http://www.arc.govt.nz/albany/fms/main/Documents/Environment/Plants%20and%20animals/pest%20management%20strategy.pdf
Australian Museum, 2003. Common Myna Acridotheres tristis. Common Myna Acridotheres tristis. http://www.birdsinbackyards.net/finder/display.cfm?id=36
Avibase, 2012. Avibase - the world bird database. http://avibase.bsc-eoc.org
Beichle UR, 1989. Common myna on Upolu: first record for the Western Samoa Islands. Elepaio, 49:85-86.
Blanvillain C; Pierce R; Saducci JM, 1999. Trimestrial report on the reproductive success of the Omama'o or Tahiti flycatcher (Pomarea nigra). Trimestrial report on the reproductive success of the Omama'o or Tahiti flycatcher (Pomarea nigra).
Bomford M, 2003. Risk assessment for the import and keeping of exotic vertebrates in Australia. Canberra, Australia: Bureau of Rural Sciences. http://www.feral.org.au/feral_documents/PC12803.pdf
Bull PC; Gaze PD; Robertson CJR, 1985. The Atlas of Bird Distribution in New Zealand., New Zealand: Ornithological Society of New Zealand.
Byrd GV, 1979. Common myna predation on wedge-tailed shearwater eggs. Elepaio, 39:69-70.
Cook Islands Biodiversity Database, 2007. Acridotheres tristis Manu Kavamani, Common Myna., Cook Islands: Cook Islands Biodiversity & Natural Heritage, unpaginated. http://cookislands.bishopmuseum.org/species.asp?id=8262
Counsilman JJ; Nee K; Jalil AK; Keng WL, 1994. Discriminant analysis of morphometric characters as a means of sexing mynas. Journal of Field Ornithology, 65(1):17.
CSN, 1972. Classified Summarised Notes. Notornis, 23. 89.
CSN, 1974. Classified Summarised Notes. Notornis, 25. unpaginated.
CSN, 1981. Classified Summarised Notes. Notornis, 28. 77.
CSN, 1984. Classified Summarised Notes. Notornis, 31. 55.
CSN, 1994. Classified Summarised Notes, North Island. Notornis, 41. 49.
Department of Agriculture and Food Western Australia, 2008. National Animal Pest Alert: Common myna. National Animal Pest Alert: Common myna., Australia: Department of Agriculture and Food for the State of Western Australia. http://www.agric.wa.gov.au/content/PW/vp/bird/CommonMyna_NHT.pdf
Dhami MK; Nagle B, 2009. Review of the Biology and Ecology of the Common Myna (Acridotheres tristis) and some implications for management of this invasive species. Auckland, New Zealand: PII (Pacific Invasives Initiative). http://www.issg.org/cii/Electronic%20references/pii/Myna_review_final.pdf
Drent R, 1996. Myna eradication boosts tuis. Sunday Star-Times 4, August 1996., New Zealand.
Feare C; Craig A, 1998. Starlings and mynas. London, UK: Christopher Helm (A & C Black), 285 pp.
Feare CJ, 1984. The Starling. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Fleischer RC; Williams RN; Baker AJ, 1991. Genetic variation within and among populations of the common mMyna (Acridotheres tristis) in Hawaii. Journal of Heredity, 82:205-208.
Gargominy O; Bouchet P; Pascal M; Jaffre T; Tourneu JC, 1996. [English title not available]. (Consequences des introductions d'especes animals et vegetales sur la biodiversite en Nouvelle-Caledonie.) Rev. Ecol. (Terre Vie), 51:375-401.
Gibson-Hill CA, 1949. An annotated checklist of the birds of Malaya. Bulletin of Raffles Musuem, 20:1-299.
Gilbert M; Sokha C; Joyner PH; Thomson RL; Poole C, 2012. Characterizing the trade of wild birds for merit release in Phnom Penh, Cambodia and associated risks to health and ecology. Biological Conservation, 153:10-16. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0006320712002066
Gill BJ, 1999. A myna increase - notes on introduced mynas (Acridotheres) and bulbuls (Pycnonotus) in Western Samoa. Notornis, 46:268-269.
Government of Western Australia, 2008. National Pest Animal Alert: Common Myna., Australia: Government of Western Australia Department of Food and Agriculture, 4 pp. http://www.agric.wa.gov.au/objtwr/imported_assets/content/pw/vp/bird/commonmyna_nht.pdf
Griffin AS, 2009. Temporal Limitations on Social Learning of Novel Predators by Indian Mynahs, Acridotheres tristis. Ethology, 115:287-295.
Griffin AS; Boyce HM, 2009. Indian mynahs, Acridotheres tristis, learn about dangerous places by observing the fate of others. Animal Behaviour, 78:79-84.
Hails CJ, 1985. Studies of problem bird species in Singapore: I. Sturnidae (Mynas and Starlings). Studies of problem bird species in Singapore: I. Sturnidae (Mynas and Starlings). [A report submitted to the commissioner for Parks and Recreation, Ministry of National Development, Singapore.]
Hatzofe O; Perelman Y, 2001. Myna trapping trial report: summary and recommendations. Myna trapping trial report: summary and recommendations., Israel: Israel Nature and Parks Authority, 4 pp.
Heather BD; Robertson HA, 2000. The new field guide to the birds of New Zealand. Auckland, New Zealand: Viking.
Holyoak DT; Thibault JC, 1984. Contribution a l'Étude des Oiseaux de Polynésie Orientale. Paris, France: Éditions du Museum. [Mémoires du Muséum National d'Histoire Naturelle, n.s. Série A, Zoologie, Tome 127.]
Hughes BJ; Martin GR; Reynolds SJ, 2008. Cats and seabirds: effects of feral domestic cat Felis silvestris catus eradication on the population of sooty terns Onychoprion fuscata on Ascension. Ibis, 150(Suppl. 1):122-131.
IUCN, 2012. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2012.2. www.iucnredlist.org/
Kang N, 1989. Comparative behavioural ecology of the mynas, Acridotheres tristis (Linnaeus) and A. javanicus (Cabanis) in Singapore., Singapore: National University of Singapore.
Landcare Research, 2008. Garden Bird Survey., New Zealand: Landcare Research (LCR).
Lever C, 1987. Naturalized birds of the world. Harlow, UK: Longman Scientific & Technical.
Liu Xuan; McGarrity ME; Li YiMing, 2012. The influence of traditional Buddhist wildlife release on biological invasions. Conservation Letters, 5(2):107-114. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/10.1111/(ISSN)1755-263X
Live Arico Tenerife Animal and Environmental Protection, 2007. First campaign for Common Myna (Acridotheres tristis) control in the island of Mallorca. First campaign for Common Myna (Acridotheres tristis) control in the island of Mallorca. [Final Report for the Environment Department Balearic Islands' Government.]
Live Arico, 2008. Minà común - Common myna. Minà común - Common myna.
Markula A; Hannan-Jones M; Csurhes S, 2009. Pest animal risk assessment: Indian myna Acridotheres tristis., Australia: The State of Queensland, Department of Employment, Economic Development and Innovation, 20 pp. http://www.dpi.qld.gov.au/documents/Biosecurity_EnvironmentalPests/IPA-Indian-Myna-Risk-Assessment.pdf
Martin WK, 1996. The current and potential distribution of the common myna Acridotheres tristis in Australia. Emu, 96:166-173. http://www.publish.csiro.au/?act=view_file&file_id=MU9960166.pdf
Massam M, 2001. Common myna [Farmnote No. 61/2001]. Common myna [Farmnote No. 61/2001]., Australia: Department of Agriculture (Western Australia).
McKenzie HR, 1979. A history and account of the birds of the Hunua Ranges. Notornis, 26:105-119.
Millett J; Climo G; Jivan Shah N, 2004. Eradication of the common myna Acridotheres tristis populations in the granitic Seychelles: successes, failures and lessons learned. Advances in Vertebrate Pest Management, 3:169-183.
Monson V, 2005. Bio-control the Last Resort for Hawaii's Plants. Bio-control the Last Resort for Hawaii's Plants. Hawaii, USA: The Maui News.
Muséum national d'Histoire naturelle, 2006. Acridotheres tristis., France: Inventaire national du Patrimoine naturel.
Nelson PC, 1994. Bird control in New Zealand using Alpha-Chloralose and DRC1339. In: Vertebrate Pest Conference Proceedings collection: Proceedings of the Sixteenth Vertebrate Pest Conference. Davis, USA: University of California. http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1039&context=vpc16
New Zealand Food Safety Authority, 2008. Bird Study Notes: Controlled Pesticides: DRC 1339 For Bird Control. Drc1339 Bird Study Notes: Controlled Pesticides: DRC 1339 For Bird Control., New Zealand: New Zealand Food Safety Authority. http://www.nzfsa.govt.nz/acvm/publications/notes/drc1339-bird-study-notes.pdf
Newsome AE; Noble IR, 1986. Ecological and physiological characters of invading species. Ecology of biological invasions [ed. by Groves, R.H.\Burdon, J.J.]. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1-20.
NIES (National Institute for Environmental Studies), 2012. Invasive Species of Japan. http://www.nies.go.jp/biodiversity/invasive/index-en.html
Northland Regional Council, 2008. Myna. Myna., New Zealand: Northland Regional Council. http://www.nrc.govt.nz/Environment/Weed-and-pest-control/Animal-pests/Myna/
Parkes J, 2009. Common Mynas (Acridotheres tristis) on the Three Kings Islands: should and can they be controlled or eradicated?.
Pascal M; Barré N; Garine-Wichatitsky De; Lorvelec O; Frétey T; Brescia F; Jourdan H, 2006. [English title not available]. (Les peuplements néo-calédoniens de vertébébrés: invasions, disparitions.) In: Les espèces envahissantes dans l'archipel néo-calédonien, Paris, IRD Éditions, 260 p.+ cédérom [ed. by Beauvais, M. L. (et al.)]. 111-162.
Peacock DS; Rensburg BJvan; Robertson MP, 2007. The distribution and spread of the invasive alien common myna, Acridotheres tristis L. (Aves: Sturnidae), in southern Africa. South African Journal of Science, 103(11/12):465-473. http://www.sajs.co.za
Pell AS; Tidemann CR, 1996. The ecology of the common myna in urban nature reserves in the Australian Capital Territory. Emu, 97:141-149.
Pell AS; Tidemann CR, 1997. The ecology of the common myna (Acridotheres tristis) in urban nature reserves in the Australian Capital Territory (Abstract). EMU, 97:141-149.
Pierce RJ; Blanvillain C, 2000. Conservation of the Tahiti flycatcher (Pomarea nigra): report on advice provided to Societe d'Ornitologie de Polynesie. In: Conservation Advisory Science Notes 290. Wellington, New Zealand: Department of Conservation, 8 pp.
Probst JM, 1997. Animaux de la Réunion. Azalées Editions. 168 pp.
Rensburg BJvan; Peacock DS; Robertson MP, 2009. Biotic homogenization and alien bird species along an urban gradient in South Africa, Landscape and Urban Planning. Biotic homogenization and alien bird species along an urban gradient in South Africa, Landscape and Urban Planning. unpaginated.
Science Centre, 2008. Faunal Wealth of Andaman & Nicobar Islands. Faunal Wealth of Andaman & Nicobar Islands. Port Blair, India: Science Centre. http://www.and.nic.in/Know%20Andaman/faunalwealth/faunal_wealth.htm
Seitre R; Seitre J, 1992. Causes of land-bird extinction in French Polynesia. Oryx, 26:215-222.
Stoner D, 1923. The mynah. A study in adaptation. Auk, 40(2):328-330.
The Cook Islands Natural Heritage Trust, 2005. Acridotheres tristis: Manu Kavamani (Common Myna). Cook Islands Biodiversity Website. http://cookislands.bishopmuseum.org/search.asp
Thibault JC, 1998. [English title not available]. (Extrait du compte-rendu de la seconde mission.) Te Manu, 25:2.
Thomas A, 2004. Myna Fightback., Australia: ABC Science.
Tidemann C, 2007. Common Indian Myna Website., Australia: Australian National University. http://fennerschool-associated.anu.edu.au//myna/index.html
Tindall SD; Ralph CJ; Clout MN, 2007. Changes in bird abundance following common myna control on a New Zealand island. Pacific Conservation Biology, 13(3):202-212.
Varnham K, 2006. Non-native species in UK Overseas Territories: a review. Peterborough, UK: Joint Nature Conservation Committee.
Wildland Consultants, 2000. Norske Skog Tasman Wildlands: Wetland Restoration Project. Norske Skog Tasman Wildlands: Wetland Restoration Project. http://www.wildland.co.nz/projects/norsketasman/norske_project.htm
Yap CAM; Sodhi NS; Brook BW, 2002. Roost characteristics of invasive mynas in Singapore. Journal of Wildlife Management, 66:1118-1127.
ContributorsTop of page
- Last Modified: Friday, 11 December 2009
Distribution MapsTop of page
Unsupported Web Browser:
One or more of the features that are needed to show you the maps functionality are not available in the web browser that you are using.
Please consider upgrading your browser to the latest version or installing a new browser.
More information about modern web browsers can be found at http://browsehappy.com/