Siberian White Crane on Protected Territories of Yakutia (Russian Northeast)

N. I. Germogenov

Abstract—The importance of existing protected territories of According to surveys of winter habitat in southeastern the Republic (Yakutia) to the conservation of the rare China, the current size of the white crane eastern popula- Siberian white crane is evaluated based on range structure and tion ranges from 2,610 to 3,000 individuals (Asia-Pacific new estimates of the white crane’s eastern population in northeast- Migratory Waterbird Conservation Strategy: 1996-2000; ern . The protection of the Siberian crane’s population is Harris and others 1994). mostly carried out within 13 territories, occupying 8,934.5 km2 or 2.6 percent of the Sakha Republic’s area. Three of these territories are the Kytalyk Resource Reserve (16,080 km2), the Chaygurino Estimating Population Size in (23,756 km2), and the Khroma (1,130 km2). Reservations are the Northeast Yakutia ______sites of nesting and summering of more than 720 birds, or 37 to 43.7 percent of the eastern population. Various aspects of practical During the last 40 years, volumes of material describing and research activity related to the development and optimization the Siberian crane’s population in northeastern Yakutia of the population are examined. have been collected by various investigators during special and passing aircraft surveys (table 1). The data collected are characterized by significant variation in population size and habitat size estimation. In all cases, the extrapolation of Conservation of the white crane (Grus leucogeranus), a survey data was made without use of any necessary correc- globally imperiled species, is determined principally by the tion for methodical errors that can be introduced by conflict condition of its eastern population. The breeding area and between aircraft and ground survey results. main summer habitat of this population are subarctic tun- The cartographic registration of birds (scale 1:100,000) dra, forest , and northern taiga in a vast system of during aircraft and ground observations in 1993 to 1997 lake depressions in northeastern Yakutia. To various de- 2 (following banding in 1990 to 1992) within the 1,314 km grees, the birds are found in the northern part of the control site in the Indigirsky population resulted in the territory, in the area between the and Omoloy Rivers, identification of 86 individuals: 38 couples, four single birds, to the River’s left bank—and in the southern part, 2 and two groups of three birds each (6.54 birds per 100 km ). in the and Kolyma River basins up to the Momsky Forty of these birds, including 17 couples, were found in the Range’s northern spurs. The basic habitat area in Yakutia 2 course of a ground survey on July 5 to 10, 1995, in an area makes up between 220,000 to 300,000 km . The main part of 2 of 502 km (38 percent of the control site). The local density the nesting population is concentrated in the northern half of birds was 7.97 individuals per 100 km2 (Germogenov and of this area—in tundra and in forest tundra, which makes up others 1996). A similar population density was observed 130,000 km2 (Flint and Kisshchinsky 1975). According to during a ground survey dated August 5 to 10, 1995, in the recent investigations, the area of the population’s regu- 2 territory adjacent to the control site—7.34 individuals per lar habitat (no more than 82,000 km ) is composed of 2 2 100 km (26 birds per 354 km ). Of the 38 couples recorded three isolated centers of increased bird density: Khromsky, 2 2 in the control site, 14 were observed during one season, nine 10,300 km ; Indigirsky, 7,900 to 9,700 km ; and Alazeysky, during two seasons, six during three seasons, five during 1,950 to 4,380 km2 (Degtyaryov and Labutin 1991). four seasons, three during five seasons, and one during six Some (probably nonbreeding) birds spend the summer seasons (1990 to 1997). This observation reflects the diffi- beyond the bounds of the observed region—in the River culty of yearly bird tracking, but suggests a strong attach- basin (the Linde and Khoruongka River basins) west of the ment for the territory. Accounting for annual variability in Zhigansk settlement (Degtyaryov and Labutin 1991). territorial fidelity and return rates, a population density from the control site of 5.4 birds per 100 km2, was indicated. Comparing this density with the estimates of Degtyaryov and Labutin (1991) for the same area (for example, 2.5 birds per 100 km2 in 1985; 1.7 per 100 km2 in 1987; and 2.63 per 100 km2 in 1989) suggests a correction factor (K + 2.46) In: Watson, Alan E.; Aplet, Greg H.; Hendee, John C., comps. 1998. to convert aerial survey numbers to estimates of the true Personal, societal, and ecological values of wilderness: Sixth World Wil- population size. derness Congress proceedings on research, management, and allocation, Applying this correction factor to white crane numbers volume I; 1997 October; Bangalore, India. Proc. RMRS-P-4. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research in northeastern Yakutia (670 to 790 birds) estimated by Station. aircraft survey (Degtyaryov and Labutin 1991) yields an N. I. Germogenov is Professor at the Yakutsk Institute of Biology, estimated population size of 1,650 to 1,950 birds in this Russian Academy of Sciences, Lenin Avenue, 41, 677891, Yakutsk. E-mail: [email protected]. territory.

USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-4. 1998 55 Table 1—Information on white crane habitat and numbers in the Northeast of Yakutia.

Area of main habitat (centres of increased Number of birds in main habitat Information source Period population density) (centres of increased population density) km2 Vorobyov 1963 1957-1960 — 200-250 couples or 400-500 specimens Uspenski and others 1962 1960 2,500-3,000 500-700 couples or 1,000-1,400 specimens Yegorov 1965 1963 20,000 900 specimens Yegorov 1971 1963-1964, 1966 32,000 1,500 specimens Flint and Kisshchinsky 1975 1971 130,000 (30,000) 300 specimens Flint and Sorokin 1982a,b 1977-1980 — 250-300 specimens Perfilyev 1965 1960-1962 — 300-350 couples or 600-700 specimens Perfilyev and Polakov 1979 1975, 1977 130,000 (30,000) 700 specimens Vshivtsev and others 1979 1978 >130,000 (51,000) 325 (301) specimens Labutin and others 1982 1980 65,560a 433 specimens Degtyaryov and Labutin 1991 1978-1989 82,000b (21,530c) 670-790 (572) specimens

aTotal area of the population’s main distribution. bThe population’s regular breeding area. cTotal area of the three centres of increased density of the population.

Particularly Protected Natural North East Asian Crane Site Network in 1997. Of the 13 protected territories in table 2, seven are included on the Territories______preliminary “List of Important Bird Areas” or I.B.A. (1996). The Kytalyk Resource Reserve and the Chaygurino (two Preliminary population estimates are essential to evalu- 2 sites) and Khroma Reserves total 38,275 km or 12.8 percent ate the potential of the Particularly Protected Natural of the main range and 46.7 percent of the Yakutian Territories system being developed in the Sakha Republic population’s regular habitat area. These three reserves (Yakutia) to help conserve the white crane. carry most of the basic load of protection of breeding area Historically, indigenous Sakha people both revered the and summer habitat. According to population estimates, white crane as an image of purity and femininity, and relied 712 birds (37 to 43.7 percent of the population) nest or spend on it for meat and eggs (Andreyev 1974, 1987; Beme and summers within these territories. Within these reserves Priklonsky 1976; Ergis 1960; Maak 1886; Mikhel 1935; are several “centres” of markedly increased population den- Vorobyov 1963). In the last century, legal measures for sity. The Khromsky population centre accounts for 14 per- white crane protection in Yakutia were established (Hunt- 2 cent of the territory (or 1,477 km ), the Indigirsky centre ing Regulations of 1962) that forbade the hunting of this 2 makes up 33 to 40.6 percent (3,204 km ), and the Alazeysky species. The first Particularly Protected Natural Territory, 2 centre (up to 1989) up to 90 percent (2,430 km ). Thus, the which directly addressed conservation of the white cranes’ 2 total protected area comprises 7,111 km or 29.2 to 35.3 eastern population, was established in the early 1980’s. percent of the areas of increased population density and The long-term plan for the Particularly Protected Natu- the habitat of 422 birds (21.6 to 25.6 percent of the total ral Territory system was established by Sakha Republic population). President M. E. Nikolayev’s Decree, “On Measures of Beyond this main range of the population, white cranes Particularly Protected Natural Territories Development.” are sometimes found within territories and vicinities of According to the federal-regional legislative base currently the Ust-Lensky State Sanctuary situated in the Bulunsky in force, Particularly Protected Natural Territories are placed Ulus (Labutin and others 1982; Perfilyev and Polyakov under the federal (State Sanctuaries and Reserves), regional 1979), the Ust-Viluysky State Reserve in the Kobyaisky (National Parks, Resource Reserves), and local (Reserve Ter- Ulus (Report Cadastre of white crane in the Sakha Republic ritories) authority. Particularly Protected Natural Territo- (Yakutia) 1991), and the Ungra State Reserve in the ries of regional and local significance are developed without Neryungrinsky Ulus (Perfilyev 1965). In addition, signifi- their withdrawal from economic turnover, generally charac- cant newly established Reserve Territories are situated in terized by traditional nature use. According to the Decree, the migration zone and supposed summer habitats includ- no less than 20 percent of the territory will be particularly 2 ing: the Badyarikha (3,000 km ); the Shangina River Basin protected by the year 2000. At present, the Decree is in force 2 (2,000 km ) in the Abyisky Ulus; the Yasachnaya River for 17 percent of the total area of the Republic. 2 Basin and Ozhogino River Basin (total 15,408 km ) in the Nowadays, white cranes are protected within their main Verkhnekolymsky Ulus; the Baraiyy (750 km2) in the range in northeastern Yakutia and adjacent territories in Tattinsky Ulus; the Amginsky (8,071 km2) in the Amginsky 13 Particularly Protected Natural Territories of republican 2 2 Ulus; the Kuoluma (4,915 km ) in the Churapchinsky and and local significance (81,934.5 km or 6 percent of the total Tattinsky Uluses; the Sunnagino-Siliginsky (10,000 km2) in area of the Republic). Their importance in white crane the Aldansky Ulus; and the Chabda (6,638 km2) in the Ust- conservation can be judged from the data in table 2. Maysky Ulus. Evaluation of their contribution to the conser- The Kytalyk Resource Reserve, established in 1996 with vation of the eastern population is impossible (with few the help and support of the World Wildlife Fund, joined the exceptions) due to lack of data.

56 USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-4. 1998 Table 2—White Crane in Particularly Protected Natural Territories of the Sakha Republic’s Northeast.

Particularly Protected Date of Particularly Particularly Protected Natural Territories number Protected Natural Natural Territories Status of Relative species and name of foundation Territories area in km2 speciesa (number of specimensb) 1. The Khroma State 1992 1,130 N 39 Reservec of the Allaikhovsky Ulus 2. The Chaygurgino State 1982 23,756 N 300 Reserve of the Niznekolymsky Ulus with the following plots: Alazeysky 6,154 N 160 Chukochya 14,911 N 140 Omolonsky 2,691 M Probably nonrare. 3. The Kytalyk Resource 1996 16,080 N 382 Reserve with the following zonesd: absolute seasonal 6,246 N 229 rest (2 zones) traditional nature use 1,411 N 69 license hunting the caribou 281 N 3 summer fishery 70 N? 5 holly land 66 N? 2 reserve zone 8,006 N 74 4. The Ozogino Lake Resource 1996 2,412.5 N, S? Probably rare and extremely rare. Reserve within the Allaikhovsky and Abyisky Uluses; 5. The Sutoruokha Resource 1996 5,000 M, N?, S Probably rare to common. No Reserve of the Abyisky Ulus more than 1-2 nesting couples. 6. The Saiylyk State Reserve 1986 246 M, N?, S? Probably common during migration and of the Abyisky Ulus possible transit stages. The rest of the time is extremely rare (1-2 couples). 7. The Omoloy Resource 1996 3,325 M, S, N? Probably common. No more Reserve Ust-Yansky Ulus than 1 nesting couple. 8. The Ygynnya State 1988 1,856 M Presumably common. Transit Reservation of the stages during migration possible. UST-Yansky Ulus 9. The Eselekh Resource 1996 24,020 M, N?, S? Probably common during migration. Reserve of the Momsky Ulus 1-2 couples the rest of the time. 10. The Zhirkovo State 1979 110 M Presumably extremely rare. Reservation of the Srednekolymsky Ulus 11. The Sededema 1992 650 M, S? Presumably extremely rare. State Reservation of the Srednekolymsky Ulus 12. The Sylgy-Ytar 1988 140 M, S Probably migration and possible State Reservation transit stages. The rest of the time is extremely rare (1-2 couples). 13. The Yana River 1997 3,209 O, S? Probably not numerous. Delta Reserve Territory of the Ust-Yansky Ulus

aN = nesting (N? = presumably nesting), M = passing during migration, S = spending summer, O = passing occasionally. bThe numeric data on Particularly Protected Natural Territories were gained by extrapolation, with the exception of the Yelon zone of absolute seasonal rest of the Kytalyk Resource Reserve. cOwing to foundation of the Kytalyk Resource Reserve in 1996, the one of the Khroma Reserve’s two plots (The Khroma-2, 4,100 km2) joined it as the Lower Khroma zone of absolute seasonal rest. dThe territory of the Yelon Reservation (1980-1996, 11,336 km2) is included in the Yelon zone of absolute seasonal rest.

USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-4. 1998 57 Protection and Research on the Reserve and the Chaygurino Reserve and adjacent territo- ries. The rest of the Particularly Protected Natural Territo- Particularly Protected Natural ries have not been touched by ground researchers. Territories______To increase the contribution of the developing Particu- larly Protected Natural Territory system of the Sakha Re- Potentials for white crane protection and monitoring in public (Yakutia) for the protection of the white crane’s the Particularly Protected Natural Territories of the Sakha eastern population, the following measures are proposed: Republic (Yakutia) can be judged from the example of the 1. The existing Particularly Protected Natural Territories’ Kytalyk Resource Reserve of the Allaikhovsky Ulus. There, area expansion: The Kytalyk Resource Reserve—at the a staff of four employees includes three huntsmen carrying expense of annexation of the Khroma Reserve (113,000 ha) out protection duties and nature observation, primarily of a and new territories, adjacent to the Khroma (toward the phenological character. Thus, each employee is responsible north and west up to the borders with the Ust-Yansky Ulus) for over 4,000 km2 in need of protection. The population and Yelon (toward the south up to the Kubalakh and density of the Ulus is 4.94 persons per 100 km2. During Alysardakh Lakes and toward the northeast up to the June-September, the most important period for white crane Settlement and the Indigirka River) zones protection, protection is augmented by cordons and tempo- of absolute seasonal rest—500,000 ha more: rary posts situated along the main sections of the Yelon River, blocking water routes into the Reserve’s primary • The Chaygurino Reserve’s Alazeysky site—at the ex- protected zones, but this defense system does not work pense of the River right bank—300,000 ha more. where poachers use air and ground transportation. To in- 2. Creation of new Particularly Protected Natural Ter- crease protection of the Reserve and carry out monitoring ritories (Resource Reserves) on the basis of the Kuoluma, observations (drawing researchers, specialists, and volun- Chabda, and Yana Delta Reserve Territories (at the expense teer assistants from local residents), a system of internal of the eastern part of the delta and adjacent territories of cordons is planned within key habitats. the Yana-Indigirka lowland up to the Allaikhovsky Ulus’ In the last 17 years, there have been about 50 reported borders). violations of the nature protection legislation in the pro- 3. Completion of documentation preparation (and agree- tected territories—mostly illegal hunting of caribou and ment with appropriate bodies) for inclusion into the North polluting of the territory by hunting wastes. One case of East Asian Crane Site Network, following existing and Siberian crane death (1992) has been reported, but the proposed Particularly Protected Natural Territories in the reasons are still unknown. Sakha Republic. The most important for white cranes are: The first scientific study of the white crane was carried out • The Chaygurino State Sanctuary (the Alazeysky and in the Reserve Territory long before the first Particularly 2 Chukochya sites with total area of 21,065 km ) Protected Natural Territories were established. Its results • The Nizhneyansky Resource Reserve were cited in numerous publications where organizational problems of Particularly Protected Territories were dis- • The Kuoluma Resource Reserve cussed (Beme and Priklonsky 1976; Flint and Kisshchinsky • The Chabda Resource Reserve 1975; Flint and Sorokin 1982a,b; Labutin and others 1982). 4. Completion of project work to include the Yakutian Since the 1980’s, research has been carried out principally white cranes’ primary habitats on the “List of Important by the Yakut Institute of Biology in close cooperation with Bird Areas” (1996). the International Crane Foundation, the Research Centre of 5. Acceptance by interested parties’ appropriate bodies of Wild Birds Community of Japan, and the World Wildlife the project, of multilateral “Agreement in the field of the Fund and their representatives. This work includes the white crane Grus leucogeranus eastern population and its scientific foundation for the creation and development of habitats investigation and conservation for the period of Particularly Protected Natural Territories, mapping of the 1997-2000” (P.R. China, Heilonjiang Province-ICF-Sakha population and banding birds, tracking of fall migrations Republic [Yakuita]), discussed in its first reading at the with tiny satellite transmitters (P.T.T.), and population de- International Conference on protection of wetlands and mography (Degtyaryov and Labutin 1991; Germogenov and waterfowl of northeastern Asia (Beidaihe, P.R. of China, others 1996; Germogenov and Solomonov 1997; Harris and March 4-7, 1997) and envisaging, in particular, organization others 1994; Nikiforov 1996). For the whole period, within of international expeditions to the nesting sites (the Cadillac the Reserve and adjacent territories, 18 adult birds (including Resource Reservation in Acadia/Russia), migration routes nonpubescent specimen) and 43 chicks have been banded. and transit stages (territory between the Alan and Aga Fifteen adults and two chicks have been fixed by the P.T.T. Rivers, Acadia/Russia; Exhaling Marshes, Nature Reserve A map (scale 1:100,000) of two bird populations has been in Heilongjiang Province and Xiang Hai, Momoge Nature compiled reflecting the distribution of 213 birds, including Reserve in Jilin Province P.R. China). 98 couples. In July 1996, for the first time, a bird that had 6. Drawing international, government, and nongovern- been banded as a chick in 1990 was caught 19 kilometers ment organizations to support nature conservation, and away from the place of origin. scientific and elucidative projects concerning the problem of Research on the biology and conservation of the white conservation of the white crane eastern population and crane has largely been limited to the Kytalyk Resource of the whole species.

58 USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-4. 1998 Harris, J. T.; Goroshko, O.; Labutin, Yu. V.; Degtyaryov, A. G.; References ______Germogenov, N. N.; Jingsheng, Z.; Nanjing Z.; Higuchi, H. 1994. Results of Chinese-Russian-American investigation of cranes Andreyev, B. N. 1974. Ptitsy Viluyskogo basseina. Yakutsk: Yakutsk. wintering at Poyang Lake Nature Reserve. China//Cranes and knizhn. izd-vo,1 - 312. 1987. Ptitsy Viluyskogo basseina. Yakutsk: storks of the Amur River. (The Proceedings of the International Yakutsk. knizhn. izd-vo, 1-188/The Birds of the Viluy River Workshop). Moscow: 57-72. Basin. Labutin, Yu. V.; Degtyaryov, A. G.; Laronov, V. P. 1982 Asia-Pacific migratory waterbird conservation strategy: 1996-2000. Rasprostraneniye i chislennost’ zhuravley v severo-vostochnoy Wetlands International—Asia-Pacific, Kuala Lumpur, Publica- Yakutii//Zhuravli Vostochnoy Asii. Vladivostok: Izd-vo DVNT tions 117, and International Waterfowl and Wetland Research AN SSSR, 66-69/Distribution and number of cranes in the North- Bureau—Japan Committee, Tokyo: 1-41. East of Yakutia. Beme, R. L.; Priklonsky, C. G. 1976. Svedenia o chislennosti sterkha Maak, R. K. 1886. Vilyuysky okrug Yakutskoy oblasti. Spb., 1-197. v del’te Indigirki b 1960 g.//Tr. Oksk. zapovedn., 13,96-98/Re- Mikhel, N. M. 1935. Materialy po ptitsam Indigrskogo kraya//Tr. turns on white crane number in the Indigirka Delta in 1960. Arktichesk. in-ta, 31. L., 1-101/Data on the Indifirka region birds; Degtyaryov, A. G.; Labutin, Yu. V. 1991. Sterkh Grus leicogeranus Nikiforov, V. 1996. Kytalyk resource reserve: combining establish- (Gruiforme, Gruidae) v Yakutii: areal, migratsii, chislennost’// ment of protected areas with indigenous communities’ needs// Zool.zh., 70,1,63-74 / The white crane Grus leicogeranus Arctic Bulletin. 4: 19-20. (Gruiforme, Gruidae) in Yakutia: range, migration, number. Perfilyev, V. I. 1965. Sterkh i yego okhrana v Yakutii//Priroda Ergis, G. U. 1960. Istoricheskiye predaniya i rasskazy Yakutiov. M.- Yakutii i yeyo okhrana. Yakutsk: Yakutsk. knizhn.izd-vo, 99- L. Izd-vo AN SSSR,1-322/Historical legends and tales of the 112/The white crane and its protection in Yakutia. Yakuts. Perfilyev, V. I.; Polyakov, A. V. 1979. O sovremennom rasprostranenii Flint, V. E.; Kisshchinsky, A. A. 1975. Sterkh v Yakutii// Zool..zh., i sostoyanii chislennosti sterkha v Yakutii//Okhrana i 54, 8, 1197-1212/The white crane in Yakutia. ratsional’noye ispol’zovaniye zhivotogo mira i prirodnoy sredy Flint, V. E.; Sorokin, A. G. 1982a. K biologii sterkha//Migratsii i Yakutii: Yakutsk.knizhn.izd-vo, 45-51/On modern distribution ecologiya ptits Sibiri. Novosibirsk: Nauka, 1-180 / On the white and number condition of the white crane in Yakutia. crane’s biology. Uspensky, S. M.; Beme, R. L.; Priklonsky, C. G.; Vekhov, V. N. 1962. Flint, V. E.; Sorokin, A. G. 1982b. Sovremennoye sostoyaniye Ptitsy severo-vostoka Yakutii//Ornitologia, 4, 64-86 / Birds of the yakutskoy populyatsii sterkha//Zhuravli Vostochnoy Asii. Yakutian North-East. Vladivostok: Izd-vo DVNT AN SSSR, 60-65 / The modern condi- Vorobyov, K. A. 1963. Ptitsy Yakutii. M.: Izd-vo AN SSSR, 1-336 / tion of the white crane Yakut population. Birds of Yakutia. Germogenov, N. I.; Kanai, Yu.; Pshennikov, A. E.; Yegorov, N. N.; Vshivtsev, V. P.; Pavlov, B. M.; Novikov, B. V.; Kolpashchikov, L. A. Sleptsov, S. M. 1996. New data on ecology of Siberian crane 1979. Aviauchyot sterkhov v Yakutii//Migratsii i ecologia ptits v (Grus leucogeranus) in Yakutia//Northern knowledge serves Sibiri. Tez. dokl. ornitol. konf., Yakutsk: Izd-vo YF SO AN SSSR, northern needs (the first international conference). Yakutsk, 47. 69-71/Air survey of white cranes in Yakutia. Germogenov, N. N.; Solomonov, N. G. 1997. Mezhdunarodnoye Yegorov, O. V. 1965. Sostoyanie chislennosti vodoplvayushchikh i sotrudnichestvo po izucheniyu i okhrane sibirskogo zhuravlya v nekotorykh drugikh ptits v del’te Leny i Yano-Indigirskoy tundre Yakutii: opyt organizsii, itogi i perspektivy//Nauka i obozreniye. po materialam aviauchyota//Priroda Yakutii i yeyo okhrana. Yakutsk:Izd-vo Yakutskogo Nauchnogo Tsentra, 2 (6), 96-99/ Yakutsk: Yakutsk. knizhn. izd-vo, 124-127 / Condition of number International Co-operation in study and conservation of the of waterfowl and some other birds in the Lena River Delta and white crane in Yakutia: organization experience, results and Yana-Indigirka Tundra on the airsurvey data. perspectives. Yegorov. 1971. [Complete reference unknown].

USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-4. 1998 59