Investigating the Nesting and Roosting Habitat of Asian Barred Owlet.Pdf

A Report on Investigating the nesting and roosting habitat characteristics of Asian Barred Owlet (Glaucidium cuculoides) in Raghuganga, Myagdi district

Researcher

Anoj Subedi Institute of Forestry Pokhara Campus, Pokhara, Nepal

Submitted to

Friends of Nature (FON) Kathmandu, Nepal

June 2019

ACRONYMS % Percentage ABO Asian Barred Owlet cm Centimeter DBH Diameter at Breast Height DEM Digital Elevation Model FON Friends of Nature IOF Institute of Forestry GIS Geographic Information System GPS Global Positioning System IVI Important Value Index ha Hectare m Meter m.a.s.l. Meters Above Sea Level N, n Number RRF Raptor Research Foundation S Statistic SD Standard Deviation SE Standard Error SPSS Statistical Package for Social Science UTM Universal Transverse Mercator

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I am grateful to FON, Nepal for funding this research project. I would also like to acknowledge my research team Mr. Basant Sharma, Mr. Pratyush Dhungana, Mr. Sangeet Subedi, Ms. Sonima Subedi, Mr. Swostik Subedi and all of whom gave their support and encouragement during the field visits, data collection and analysis. I am delightful to my beloved brothers Amrit, Ashok, Anish, Arjun and sister, Anjita for their profound support and suggestion during the entire project period. I heartily thank them for their efforts. I sincerely thank all the people of study area, who positively responded to the research questions and shared their valuable knowledge and time with generosity as well as for their kind cooperation rendered during the data collection. Finally, I owe an enormous debt of gratitude to my adored parents for their love, great patience, guidance and moral support during the course of research in the particular.

III

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACRONYMS ...... II ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ...... III TABLE OF CONTENTS ...... IV LIST OF TABLES ...... VI LIST OF FIGURES ...... VII LIST OF ANNEXURES ...... VIII

1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 Background ...... 1 1.2 Objectives ...... 3

2. MATERIALS AND METHOD 2.1 Study area ...... 4 2.2 Survey design and data collection ...... 5 2.2.1 Establishment of call/listening stations ...... 5 3.2.2 Listening survey...... 6 2.2.3 Playback survey ...... 6 2.2.4 Locating nesting and roosting sites ...... 6 2.2.5 Measurements ...... 7 2.3 Data analysis ...... 8

3.RESULTS 3.1 Listening and playback survey ...... 10 3.2 Nesting features ...... 10 3.2.1 Nest tree characteristics ...... 10 3.2.2 Nest habitat characteristics ...... 12 3.3 Roosting features ...... 14 3.3.1 Roosting tree characteristics...... 14 3.3.3 Roosting height selection ...... 17 3.3.3 Roost habitat characteristics ...... 21 3.4 Mapping nesting and roosting location ...... 25

4. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION 4.1 Conclusion ...... 28 4.2 Recommendation ...... 29 REFERENCES ...... 30

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Physical characteristics measured at the nests ...... 11 Table 2: Relative diversity of tree species family composition around nesting site ...... 12 Table 3: Important Value Index of individual tree species around the nesting sites ...... 13 Table 4: Family wise % coverage of saplings around nest sites ...... 13 Table 5: Family wise % coverage of seedlings around nest sites ...... 14 Table 6: Physiographic characteristics measured around nest sites ...... 14 Table 7: Physical characteristics measured at the roosts ...... 15 Table 8: Descriptive calculation of tree variables at three levels of roosting height ...... 17 Table 9: Significance test of roosting height for different tree variables ...... 18 Table 10: Significance test of major roosted tree species for different tree variables ...... 18 Table 11: Descriptive calculation of tree variables for major roosts trees ...... 19 Table 12: Relative diversity tree species family composition around roosting site ...... 21 Table 13: Family wise % coverage of saplings around roost sites ...... 22 Table 14: Family wise % coverage of seedlings around roost sites ...... 23 Table 15: Important Value Index of individual tree species around the roosting sites ...... 24 Table 16: Physiographic characteristics measured around the roosting sites ...... 25

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: The map showing the Raghuganga and study area in Nepal ...... 5 Figure 2: Established listening/playback stations ...... 5 Figure 3: Bar diagram showing nest trees of ABO ...... 11 Figure 4: Types and coverage (%) of roost trees ...... 15 Figure 5: Graph showing tree part/branch ...... 16 Figure 6: Pie-chart showing orientation of roost location ...... 16 Figure 7: Scatter plot diagram showing relation between roosting height and height of roosted trees with best fitting line ...... 20 Figure 8: Scatter plot diagram showing relation between roosting height and DBH of roosted trees with best fitting line ...... 20 Figure 9: Roost sites aspect ...... 25 Figure 10: Map showing spatial distribution of nest sites of ABO in particular grid ...... 26 Figure 11: Map showing spatial distribution of roost sites of ABO in particular grid ...... 27

VII

LIST OF ANNEXURES

Annexure 1: Nest data collection sheet ...... 32 Annexure 2: Roost data collection sheet ...... 33 Annexure 3: Vegetation data collection sheet ...... 34 Annexure 4: Geo location of surveyed (listening/playback) stations ...... 35 Annexure 5: Photo plates of Asian Barred Owlet ...... 36 Annexure 6: Photo during the field work ...... 37 Annexure 7: Photo plates of owl habitat and threats ...... 38 Annexure 8: Photo plates of instruments ...... 39

VIII

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background

Owls, the apex predators, belong to two families of birds, namely Strigidae and Tytonidae. There are 225 species of owls recorded in the world. The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) lists 32 owl species as vulnerable to critically endangered and 22 owl species that are near threatened. All owls are listed in Appendix II of the international CITES treaty (the Convention on Illegal Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora). Nepal bears a total of 23 species among which three are critically endangered, one is endangered, five are vulnerable, nine are least concern, and three are data deficient (Inskipp et al., 2013; Inskipp et al., 2016) and two are unknown nationally (G. C. et al., 2017). These species are neither listed in global priority list nor included in the threatened category of birds by Birdlife International and are considered internationally least concern.

ABO is a fairly common and widespread resident species. Globally, the species has been recorded from Bangladesh, Bhutan, Cambodia, China, India, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Myanmar, Nepal, Pakistan, Thailand and Vietnam but was recently extinct from Hong Kong (BirdLife International, 2016). It is distributed from open sub-montane (or montane) forest to subtropical and tropical evergreen jungle around the elevations of 245m to 2000m (König & Weick, 2008). In Nepal, it has been recorded from Sukla Phanta Nationa Park (Baral & Inskipp, 2009) in the far west to the upper Mai valley (Robson et al., 2008) in the Far East. The species is however globally and regionally least concern.

ABO has been recognized as ecologically important on a global basis. Owls including ABO are excellent indicators of biodiversity and ecosystem health and can be used to identify conservation targets and at-risk areas (Sergio et al., 2004). They are indicative species and their frequent study can detect any problems or changes in the ecosystem (Movalli et al., 2008). ABO, having predatory life, plays critical role in food chain. They are also recognized as the friend of farmers as they prey upon the species majorly damaging farmer’s agricultural crop. These species have significant role in various aspects like ecological, recreational, aesthetic etc. Besides having such critical role, they are threatened by loss and degradation of its forest habitat, especially in the tropical, subtropical and lower temperate zones (Inskipp et al., 2016). Fossils record suggests that the current rate of species loss is higher than the expected rate (Barnosky et al., 2011). Thus, such destruction/alteration including many other factors like hunting, trade, human influence, etc. may exaggerate losing species in the

1 endangered category and to extinction in the future. Thus, their study, monitoring and conservation is crucial to achieve larger biodiversity conservation goals (Kovacs et al., 2008). Forest vegetation are the essential factor to overcome such hurdle faced by owl. It provides basic habitats to diverse animal species for their survival. Many animals depend on forest resources for food, water, space, shelter, nesting materials and nest sites. Many animals rely on forest resources as sites for foraging, nesting, roosting, and protection that may vary in abundance in forests of different ages (Saara et al., 2003). It is very important to understand about the suitable habitat preferred by the individual species. The assessment of vegetation composition and structure is a useful tool to examine and understand the habitat characteristics and impacts of disturbance or alteration of habitats on the avian species (Rajpar & Zakaria, 2011).

Similarly, is important to identify and understand the characteristics of nesting and roosting sites of this bird for its conservation. Nest and roost characteristics are very important factors related to avian habitat selection (Deng et al., 2003). ABO uses small to large cavities in the trees either natural or created by primary cavity nesters as nest. Large rocks, logs and trees, bare sandy patches are found to be used for roosting by ABO. People damage the nesting habitat which has become the reason for their declination. The population of ABO is probably declining because of habitat loss and maybe also because of hunting and trapping, although not to an extent that warrants a threatened category for the species (Inskipp et al., 2016). The preferred habitat exploration is urgent to protect their population from the verge of declination and ultimate extinction. The biology and behavior of this species are in need of further study (König & Weick, 2008). Studying such species of owls would thus be excessively beneficial to the study area and to the whole country, ecologically and scientifically. On such case only we could initiate through simple researches to acquire more trustworthy data about the habitat priority of owls in Nepal which could be the precious guidelines for future investigations.

The information describing characteristics of ABO nests, roosts and their habitat would allow to understand the major habitat features of the species. For this reason, it was felt necessary to initiate a detail scientific survey and study on species composition and vegetation structure in and around roosting and nesting sites of ABO. Such exploration and information provides a scientifically valid justification referring to scientific literature and make a statement towards species conservation. Therefore, the research was focused on recording the current nests and roosts habitat of ABO in ward no.2 of Raghuganga, Myagdi district.

Raghuganga is highly inhabited by numerous bird species including owls too and the area lies in the vicinity of Annapurna Conservation Area (ACA). Habitat suitability of the area has shown that the area is populated with four important species of owl’s viz. Asian Barred Owlet, Jungle Owlet, Spotted Owlet and Indian Eagle Owl (Subedi, 2018). But the survey has also shown that the area has impaired owl’s population and habitats and necessity of further investigations to understand their preferred habitat and suitable environment necessary for living. Their nesting and roosting exploration and preservation has become essential of this time. Hence, this project was developed for exploring the diverse nesting/roosting habitat of ABO including the physical and physiographic characteristics in ward - 02 of Raghuganga. This project is believed to contribute substantially in the sector of avian research and study of Nepal.

1.2 Objectives i. General:  To describe habitat features of nest and roost sites of Asian Barred Owlet ii. Specific:  To assess the general characteristics of nest and roost trees  To study different habitat parameters around nesting and roosting sites  To map the nesting/roosting sites

Research hypothesis  There is no significance difference between roosting height and roost tree variables (tree height, tree DBH, tree canopy).  There is no significance difference between roost tree species and the roosting height.

2. MATERIALS AND METHOD This chapter describes study area, materials and the methodology used for the research.

2.1 Study area The study area is located in the Western region of Nepal in Gandaki Province within Myagdi district. The district occupies a significant portion of Dhorpatan Hunting Reserve (DHR) and Annapurna Conservation Area (ACA), which is recognized as biodiversity hotspot by the Conservation International bearing a home for numerous flora and faunas. The district has beautiful and unexplored plot of area named Raghuganga Rural Municipality within which the research was conducted. Raghuganga Rural Municipality comprises of 8 wards and the ward no. 2 (fig. 1) is chosen for the research project. The ward no. 2 (study area) extending from 28023.673’N to 28025.791’N latitude 83034.304’E to 83035.842’E longitude covers an area of 10.27 km2. It has sub-tropical to lower temperate vegetation structures with the altitudinal variation ranging from 871 m – 2513 m from m.a.s.l, which overlaps with the distribution range of ABO. The patch of area is distinctly separated by Kaligandaki River in the southern part, Begkhola River in the eastern part and other wards in the northern and western part. The area covers a major portion of recently developed Dhaulagiri Icefall Trekking Circuit.

Figure 1: The map showing the Raghuganga and study area in Nepal

2.2 Survey design and data collection 2.2.1 Establishment of call/listening stations

Figure 2: Established listening/playback stations

The survey area was divided into several UTM grid of 500 m*500 m size with the help of Fishnet tools in ArcGis 10.3.3 (fig.2). In the center of each grid, a listening and/or call station were located as described in Johnson et al. (2007).

3.2.2 Listening survey During the early breeding season (February-April 2019), listening survey of ABO calls was carried in the pre-specified stations (center of the grid, Annexure 4) as per the protocol developed by Takats et al. (2001). This was undertaken during the dawn and dusk in an attempt to identify the general location of nest/roost sites. The process was followed in similar manner among the other stations under suitable listening condition. We estimated the distance and direction after the ABO responded with back call and recorded the UTM co- ordinates for that survey station (Forsman, 1983). On the contrary, in the case where no response was heard, we proceeded for playback survey in the respective station.

2.2.3 Playback survey

A playback survey was conducted to solicit the response of ABO at dawn and dusk according to the protocol developed by Whelton (1989) in case where the calls weren’t heard. A 15 minutes playback sequence was adapted. That comprised a total of 15-minutes playback sequence i.e. first 2-minute playback and 1 minute listening, another 2-minute playback and another 1 minute of listening, and a final 2-minute playback followed by 7 minutes of listening. The playback sequence was repeated at least 3 time or until a response is heard and a total of 45 minutes to 1 hour was spent in a station for the survey. Wherever the response was heard, we estimated the distance and direction and recorded the UTM co-ordinates for that survey station (Forsman, 1983).

2.2.4 Locating nesting and roosting sites We followed the guide by Willey & Riper (2013) to carry searches for evidence of the ABO during the day in the general locations where the response of ABO was identified. We searched the evidences like large areas of whitewash, pellets, and suitable hollow-bearing trees adjacent to the nesting/roosting habitat identified by the previous listening and playback survey. The potential areas, such as, old buildings in villages, chimneys of houses, towers, abandoned buildings, tall trees at different locations and elevations, and natural areas were prioritized to locate the roosting and nesting sites of the species. Those sites where the ABO

6 was found roosting and where the nest was observed were traced with GPS. The species was identified and photographed wherever possible.

2.2.5 Measurements Data collection was conducted in February to April, 2019 using the data collection formats provided in annexure (Annexure 1, 2, and 3). For each nest and roost habitat (tree), recordings and measurements taken included; UTM co-ordinates, elevation in m from m.a.s.l., the name of tree species, tree height in m, tree condition (alive or dead), DBH to nearest cm, canopy cover in percentage, location and orientation of nests or roost (trunk, branch, limb, knot hole or dead portion of live tree) and height in m. Roost/nest trees at each site were considered as the plot center for measuring vegetation and physiographic characteristics.

The plant data were recorded with stratifying the vegetation into layers based on the life forms and heights of the plant species. The vertical structure of vegetation in the study area constitutes tree/pole layer, sapling layer, the layer of seedlings and ground flora (Rabten, 2016). Any woody perennial that has DBH of above 10 cm were classified as trees/poles, whereas all tree species having DBH above 5 cm but less than 10 cm were identified as sapling. Woody perennial plant more than 0.5 m and less than 5 m high at maturity without a definite crown were considered as seedlings.

Once a nesting/ roosting ABO was located, habitat variables were measured within 314.15 m2 circular plots (10-m radius) centered below the nest/roost, and we recorded information to describe the physical setting around the nest/roost. Nested circular plots of 314.15 m2 (10 m radius) trees/poles, 78.53 m2 (5 m radius) for saplings and 3.14 m2 (1m radius) for seedlings (Nautiyal, 2008) were established with each recorded nest/roost sites as the plot center. For trees and poles DBH in cm and height in m, for sapling and seedling, total number in plot and percentage cover were recorded.

All the tree height were measured with the help of Vertex and Transponder with high accuracy. The same instrument was used to determine the radius of 10m, 5m and 1m for delineating the plot area for trees/poles, sapling and seedling respectively. Tree diameter was measured with a diameter tape. A spherical densitometer was used to determine the canopy cover as the percentage of sky obstructed by the vegetation. The determinations of cover percent of saplings and seedlings species within a plot/quadrat were estimated on ocular

7 basis. The GPS device was used to record the geographic coordinates and the altitudes of the respective locations from m.a.s.l. Slope and aspect of the recorded location were determined with the help DEM generated from ArcGIS 10.3 software. Due to small sample size, the results were reported in terms of mean and standard for nesting data but statistical test were run from the recorded roosting information.

2.3 Data analysis The raw data collected from the field was arranged, summarized and presented graphically using MS - Excel 2016. Calculations were performed and results presented in the form of mean, standard deviation and identified standard error. Descriptive statistics like bar diagram, tables and pie-chart were used for the further simple analysis.

We categorized roosting height into three levels (<5m, 5-10m and >10m) and analyzed the effect and association with tree variables using distribution free tests, Kruskal-Wallis test, a distribution free test analogous to f – tests at the 5% level of significance to avoid type I error. Similarly, the variability of roosting among the major roosting trees was tested by categorizing into 7 levels (1 = Alnus nepalensis, 2 = Bambusa vulgaris, 3 = Erythrina arborescense, 4 = Ficus semicordata, 5 = Litsea monopetala, 6 = Madhuca indica and 7 = Toona ciliata). Due to the non - normality of the data, the differences were presented as median and we adjusted. All these analysis were carried in IBM SPSS package. Structural characteristics (DBH, height and basal area, canopy cover) were calculated. The DBH was used to determine basal area (BA cm2). The formulae described by Zobel et al. (1987) were used for calculating BA, as shown below: d  Basal Area (BA) = πr2 or πd2/4 where, d = DBH of a tree, radius (r) = 2 The species composition in the study area was computed using the following parameters (Rabten, 2016; Froumsia et al., 2012):

total basal area of a species • Relative basal area = ∗ 100 % total basal area of all species

number of individuals of a species • Relative density = ∗ 100 % total number of individuals of all species

frequency of a species • Relative frequency = ∗ 100 % sum of all frequencies of all species number of species in a family • Relative diversity = ∗ 100 % total number of species in all families

• Importance Value Index (IVI) = relative basal area + relative density + relative frequency.

The theoretical range for relative basal area, relative frequency, relative density and relative diversity is 0 – 100%, so that IVI of species may vary between 0 and 300% (Froumsia et al., 2012). The spatial distribution map of the nesting and roosting sites were prepared through Arc GIS 10.3.3.

3. RESULTS This chapter describes the results of the study carried out based on the research objectives. The results include taxonomic composition and structure of the habitats including nesting and roosting features.

3.1 Listening and playback survey We conducted listening survey in 30 plots. Three plots were inaccessible and 10 plots were very smaller than half of the 500 m*500 m area. We didn’t conduct listening/playback survey at those stations with the recognition that the nearby station represents the best coverage of this particular station or a survey plot. Of the listening surveyed plots, responses were heard only in five plots. In rest of the plots i.e. 25 plots, we conducted playback survey during dawn and/or at the dusk and spent about an hour at the particular station. Successfully, we heard response of ABO from 15 plots. This means, we recorded the presence of ABO from 15 plots out of 43 plots. However, we searched for the evidence of the ABO in the plot with no response to record its nesting or the roosting habitat. Among the recorded response of ABO, nest were located in the six of the total plots and roosts in 15 of the total plots. In one station, two passive nest were quite near than any other.

3.2 Nesting features 3.2.1 Nest tree characteristics A total of six nest trees were located during the survey. All nests were cavity type structures. Half of the recorded nests were active and half were passive. Two nests were located in the dead tree and two in live tree. Two nests were found in Ficus semicordata, two in Bombax ceiba, one in Alnus nepalensis and one in Rhus wallichi tree as shown in fig. 3.

Ficus semicordata Bombax ceiba

2 Number Rhus wallichii Alnus nepaensis 1

0 NestTree tree species

Figure 3: Bar diagram showing nest trees of ABO

The mean nest height was 5.43 m (0.75 SE) in the tree of height averaged 12.05 m (1.45 SE) and DBH averaged 32.83 cm (2.03 SE) as in table 1. The average canopy cover of the nest trees was 34.01%.

Table 1: Physical characteristics measured at the nests

Mean Tree Maximum Variables N S Range S Minimum S S S SE SD Nest Height (m) 6 5.4 2.2 7.6 5.43 0.75 1.84

Tree height (m) 6 9.0 6.7 15.7 12.05 1.45 3.54

Tree DBH (cm) 6 12.7 26.8 39.5 32.83 2.03 4.97

Tree Canopy C. (%) 6 48.86 17.18 66.04 34.01 7.76 19.01

3.2.2 Nest habitat characteristics The entire tree species recorded in 6 nesting plots resulted in a total of 53 individuals/stems comprising of 12 species belonging to 11 families as shown in table 2. The most common tree species was Alnus nepalensis at 16.98% (n = 9). This made the family Betulaceae most dominant family around the nesting sites. Among the eleven families recorded, Fabaceae, Lauraceae and Rosaceae (15.09%) with eight species each were the secondly dominant families. 5 families, with relative diversity of 3.77% were least occurring tree families around the nesting sites.

Table 2: Relative diversity of tree species family composition around nesting site

S.N. Tree family Number Relative diversity (%) 1 Anacardiaceae 2 3.77 2 Araliaceae 2 3.77 3 Betulaceae 9 16.98 4 Bombacaceae 2 3.77 5 Euphorbiaceae 2 3.77 6 Fabaceae 8 15.09 7 Lauraceae 8 15.09 8 Meliaceae 2 3.77 9 Moraceae 6 11.32 10 Rosaceae 8 15.09 11 Sapotaceae 4 7.55

For nesting ground, Alnus nepalensis was the dominant species, while Prunus cerasoides was the codominant species with regards to relative basal cover. Alnus nepalensis has highest relative density of 19.57, relative frequency of 9.52, relative basal area of 29.19 and IVI of 58.28. It was followed by Prunus cerasoides with relative density of 17.39. The least recorded tree species was Morus alba with relative density of 2.17, relative frequency of 4.76, relative basal area of 1.25 and IVI of 8.19 (Table 3). Overall analysis showed ‘Alnus nepalensis’ as the dominant and most important species around the nesting habitat of ABO with higher IVI of 58.28.

Table 3: Important Value Index of individual tree species around the nesting sites

Relative Relative Relative basal Important S.N. Tree Scientific name density frequency area value index 1 Alnus nepalensis 19.57 9.52 29.19 58.28 2 Prunus cerasoides 17.39 9.52 18.03 44.95 3 Erythrina arborescense 8.7 4.76 18.43 31.89 4 Litsea monopetala 15.22 9.52 7.1 31.84 5 Madhuca indica 8.7 14.29 8.33 31.32 6 Ficus semicordata 6.52 9.52 6.49 22.54 7 Toona cilliata 4.35 9.52 2.25 16.12 8 Sapium insigne 4.35 9.52 2.02 15.89 9 Rhus wallichii 4.35 9.52 1.29 15.16 10 Bombax ceiba 4.35 4.76 4.58 13.69 11 Brassiopsis hainla 4.35 4.76 1.02 10.13 12 Morus alba 2.17 4.76 1.25 8.19

The nesting plots of ABO had very low percentage coverage of both saplings and seedlings. The family Rosaceae possessed higher relative diversity among the recorded families as shown in table 4 and table 5.

Table 4: Family wise % coverage of saplings around nest sites

Saplings S.N. Family Relative diversity Average cover (%) 1 Betulaceae 25 5.6 2 Araliaceae 12.5 4.7 3 Moraceae 6.25 0.9 4 Lauraceae 6.25 2.1 5 Sapotaceae 12.5 1.3 6 Lamiaceae 6.25 1.1 7 Rosaceae 31.25 36.76

Table 5: Family wise % coverage of seedlings around nest sites

Seedlings SN Family Relative diversity Average cover (%) 1 Betulaceae 28.571 3.4 2 Araliaceae 14.286 3.1 3 Tiliaceae 14.286 2.3 4 Lauraceae 14.286 3 5 Rosaceae 28.571 46.23

The nest sites oriented differently along the eastern (50%) and southeastern (50%) aspects with the slope of 15.510 (SE=1.780) between the altitudes of 1218-1732 m from m.a.s.l. as shown as in the table 6 with a mean aspect value of 119.03.

Table 6: Physiographic characteristics measured around nest sites

Mean Variables N S Range S Minimum S Maximum S S SE SD S Altitude (m) 6 514 1218 1732 1564.83 78.15 191.44 Slope (0) 6 10.09 10.73 20.83 15.51 1.78 4.37

Aspect value* 6 63.62 89.01 152.63 119.03 9.44 23.14

* East (67.5-112.5) and Southeast (112.5-257.5)

3.3 Roosting features 3.3.1 Roosting tree characteristics A total of 101 roosting tree were located during the field survey. 98.02 % of the roosts were located in live tree and the remaining were located in the dead tree branch. With the measurement, mean roost height was calculated to be 8.2 m (0.42 SE) in the tree of height averaged 14.66 m (0.74 SE) and DBH averaged 29.61 cm (1.53 SE). A detail can be seen in the table 7.

Table 7: Physical characteristics measured at the roosts

Mean

Tree variables N S Range S Minimum S Maximum S S SE SD S Roosting Height (m) 101 22.20 1.20 23.40 8.20 0.42 4.24

Tree height (m) 101 28.70 2.60 31.30 14.66 0.74 7.48

Tree DBH (cm) 101 67.90 3.80 71.70 29.61 1.53 15.40 Tree Canopy Cover 101 75.20 3.12 78.32 30.43 1.64 16.47 (%)

23.23% of the roost sites were in the Alnus nepalensis followed by 20.20% roosts in Toona ciliata as shown in the fig. 4. Lowest roost were recorded in Prunus persica, Pinus ruxburghii, Juglans regia, Citrus reticulate, Bombax ceiba and Aesandra butyraceae. 34.65% of the roost were traced in the secondary branch of a tree followed by 24.75% in the tertiary branch. The minimum roosting were seen in dead trunk portion, primary and septenary branch as shown in fig. 5.

Toona ciliata 20.2 Sapium insigne 4.04 Rhus wallichii 4.04 Prunus persica 1.01 Pinux ruxburghii 1.01 Madhuca indica 7.07 Macaranga postulata 2.02 Litsea salicifolia 2.02 Litsea monopetala 7.07 Juglans regia 1.01 Ficus semicordata 6.06

Ficus religiosa 2.02 Tree species Tree Erythrina arborescense 6.06 Citrus sinensis 2.02 Citrus reticulata 1.01 Brassiopsis hainla 2.02 Bombax ceiba 1.01 Boehmeria rugulosa 2.02 Bambusa vulgaris 6.06 Alnus nepalensis 23.23 Aesandra butyraceae 1.01

0 5 Representation10 in % 15 20 25

Figure 4: Types and coverage (%) of roost trees

40 35 35 30 25 25 20 15 12 12

10 10 Number records of Number 5 4 0 1 1 1 Dead trunk Primary Quartenary Quinary Secondary Senary Septenary Tertiary Trunk part branch branch branch branch branch branch branch Tree part

Figure 5: Graph showing tree part/branch

47% of the roost location oriented eastwardly followed by 16% orientation in the north- eastern direction (fig. 6). The minimum orientation of the nest was towards South.

13%

6% Eastern 6% North eastern 47% Northern 4% South 8% South eastern Southern Western 16%

Figure 6: Pie-chart showing orientation of roost location

3.3.3 Roosting height selection The table 8 shows detail information about the descriptive at different levels of roosting height. 46 of the total roosts were between the height of 5 -10 m from the ground. These roosting heights were in the tree of average height 13.31 m, average DBH of 28.35 cm and canopy of 30.18% as shown in the table 8.

Table 8: Descriptive calculation of tree variables at three levels of roosting height

Roosting Tree DBH Tree Canopy Height (m) Descriptive Tree height (m) (cm) C. (%) <5 Mean 9.75 20.39 28.03 N 25.00 25.00 25.00 Std. Deviation 7.33 13.65 16.89 Minimum 2.60 3.80 3.12 Maximum 28.60 51.40 58.24 5-10 Mean 13.31 28.35 30.18 N 46.00 46.00 46.00 Std. Deviation 6.41 15.31 16.37 Minimum 5.40 7.50 5.40 Maximum 31.30 71.70 66.04 >10 Mean 20.82 39.21 32.80 N 30.00 30.00 30.00 Std. Deviation 4.71 11.34 16.50 Minimum 13.70 7.90 8.88 Maximum 30.90 65.00 78.32 Total Mean 14.66 29.61 30.43 N 101.00 101.00 101.00 Std. Deviation 7.48 15.40 16.47 Minimum 2.60 3.80 3.12 Maximum 31.30 71.70 78.32

Kruskal Walllis Test showed a significant difference between the roosting heights and tree height (df = 2, p-value = 0.000) and tree DBH (df = 2, p-value = 0.000). The roosting height of ABO was found different accordingly with tree variables. But, there was no significant difference between roosting height and the tree canopies (df = 2, p-value = 0.602). The details can be seen from table 9.

Table 9: Significance test of roosting height for different tree variables

Test Statisticsa,b Tree height Tree DBH Tree Canopy C. Kruskal-Wallis H 36.612 24.360 1.016 df 2 2 2 Asymp. Sig. 0.000 0.000 0.602 a. Kruskal Wallis Test b. Grouping Variable: Roosting height

There was significance difference between major roosting tree species and the roosting height (df = 6, p-value = 0.000). The tree height, tree DBH and canopy cover were different for different roost tree species as shown in table 10.

Table 10: Significance test of major roosted tree species for different tree variables

Test Statisticsa,b Roosting Height Tree height Tree DBH Tree Canopy C. Kruskal-Wallis H 18.988 31.279 32.245 19.488 df 6 6 6 6 Asymp. Sig. .004 .000 .000 .003 a. Kruskal Wallis Test b. Grouping Variable: Tree species

The average roosting height in Alnus nepalensis (mean height = 16.94 m, mean DBH = 28.25 cm and mean canopy cover = 29.23%) was found to be 9.6 m (SE =1.16). Similarly, the average roosts height in Toona ciliata (mean height = 17.37 m, mean DBH = 45.72 cm and mean canopy cover = 34.60%) was found to be 10.31 m (SE = 0.73). Similar details for other major roost species are shown in table 11.

Table 11: Descriptive calculation of tree variables for major roosts trees

Tree N Minimum Maximum Mean SD SE Variables Tree species Alnus nepalensis 23.00 1.20 23.40 9.60 5.58 1.16 Bambusa vulgaris 6.00 4.80 11.10 8.18 2.40 0.98 Erythrina arborescense 6.00 5.40 13.60 9.47 3.68 1.50 Roosting Ficus semicordata 6.00 3.70 6.70 5.23 1.26 0.51 Height Litsea monopetala 7.00 2.70 6.40 4.60 1.48 0.56 Madhuca indica 7.00 2.00 13.70 7.19 3.75 1.42 Toona ciliata 20.00 4.60 17.70 10.31 3.27 0.73 Total 75.00 1.20 23.40 8.62 4.31 0.50 Alnus nepalensis 23.00 3.70 30.90 16.94 7.97 1.66 Bambusa vulgaris 6.00 24.10 31.30 27.28 2.83 1.15 Erythrina arborescense 6.00 7.50 22.20 14.40 5.35 2.18 Ficus semicordata 6.00 4.20 9.30 6.93 1.91 0.78 Tree height Litsea monopetala 7.00 3.30 16.00 8.01 3.91 1.48 Madhuca indica 7.00 7.70 26.80 15.57 6.32 2.39 Toona ciliata 20.00 7.20 27.20 17.37 5.67 1.27 Total 75.00 3.30 31.30 15.92 7.64 0.88 Alnus nepalensis 23.00 3.80 48.90 28.25 12.95 2.70 Bambusa vulgaris 6.00 7.50 10.10 8.33 1.01 0.41 Erythrina arborescense 6.00 21.70 45.00 32.60 10.15 4.14 Ficus semicordata 6.00 16.00 39.50 28.77 8.81 3.60 Tree DBH Litsea monopetala 7.00 5.90 32.00 21.07 9.01 3.40 Madhuca indica 7.00 9.00 51.40 30.23 15.90 6.01 Toona ciliata 20.00 24.30 71.70 45.72 13.75 3.08 Total 75.00 3.80 71.70 31.22 15.82 1.83 Alnus nepalensis 23.00 7.80 53.00 29.23 10.56 2.20 Bambusa vulgaris 6.00 13.70 29.81 22.60 6.30 2.57 Erythrina arborescense 6.00 8.88 53.29 22.30 16.08 6.57 Tree Ficus semicordata 6.00 5.40 66.04 32.98 21.52 8.78 Canopy C. Litsea monopetala 7.00 3.12 53.00 15.26 17.18 6.49 Madhuca indica 7.00 17.89 78.32 46.94 17.94 6.78 Toona ciliata 20.00 17.98 55.60 34.60 12.17 2.72 Total 75.00 3.12 78.32 30.23 15.37 1.77

The strength of association between the tree DBH and tree height in determining the particular roosting height was identified through the scatter plot diagram. The tree height (R2 = 0.44) and DBH (R2 = 0.23) of tree were identified as the determining factor for the roosting height. The details can be seen from fig.7 and fig. 8.

25 y = 0.3761x + 2.6914 20 R² = 0.44

10 Roostingheight 5

0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 Tree height

Figure 7: Scatter plot diagram showing relation between roosting height and height of roosted trees with best fitting line

25 y = 0.1334x + 4.2535 20 R² = 0.23

10 Roostingheight 5

0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 Tree DBH

Figure 8: Scatter plot diagram showing relation between roosting height and DBH of roosted trees with best fitting line

3.3.3 Roost habitat characteristics 355 individual/stems comprising of 31 species belonging to 16 families were recorded from 101 roosting plots. Among the sixteen families recorded Betulaceae (14.37%) with 51 species and Moraceae (14.09%) with 50 species were dominant families (Table 12). The family Caesalpiniaceae was least occurring with the relative diversity of 0.28%.

Table 12: Relative diversity tree species family composition around roosting site

S.N. Family Number Relative diversity (%) 1 Anacardiaceae 13 3.66 2 Araliaceae 7 1.97 3 Betulaceae 51 14.37 4 Caesalpiniaceae 1 0.28 5 Euphorbiaceae 34 9.58 6 Fabaceae 23 6.48 7 Lamiacea 2 0.56 8 Lauraceae 35 9.86 9 Meliaceae 23 6.48 10 Moraceae 50 14.09 11 Pinaceae 4 1.13 12 Rosaceae 33 9.30 13 Rutaceae 13 3.66 14 Sapotaceae 41 11.55 15 Tiliaceae 23 6.48 16 Urticaceae 2 0.56

Table 13: Family wise % coverage of saplings around roost sites

Saplings S.N. Family Relative diversity Average cover (%) 1 Anacardiaceae 3.76 0.83 2 Araliaceae 3.76 1.35 3 Berberidaceae 3.23 13.83 4 Betulaceae 5.91 1.38 5 Euphorbiaceae 7.53 1.46 6 Lamiaceae 0.54 0.53 7 Lauraceae 9.14 1.58 8 Meliaeae 1.61 0.88 9 Moraceae 9.68 1.11 10 Musaceae 9.14 13.83 11 Myartaceae 1.61 0.53 12 Pinaceae 0.54 1.05 13 Poaceae 16.67 46.61 14 Rosaceae 3.23 24.16 15 Rutaceae 6.45 1.93 16 Sapotaceae 3.76 4.80 17 Tiliaceae 6.45 0.79 18 Ericaceae 0.54 2.34 19 Rutaceae 6.45 17.14

The most common sapling family was Poaceae with relative diversity of 16.67% and the lowest occurrences were of family Lemiaceae Pinaceae and Ericaceae with the relative diversity of 0.54%. The most dominant family of sapling in terms of coverage was of Poaceae (46.61%) whereas the lowest occurring family had only 0.79% of the average coverage as shown in table 13. Similarly, table 14 shows seedling families in detail. Lauraceae had the highest relative diversity of 16.66 whereas, with the low relative diversity of 2.38, the family Anacardiaceae, Fabaceae and Verbenaceae were among the lowest. The Poaceae had the highest average coverage of 15.56%.

Table 14: Family wise % coverage of seedlings around roost sites

Seedlings S.N. Family Relative diversity Average % cover 1 Anacardiaceae 2.38 1.23 2 Araliaceae 9.52 1.54 3 Betulaceae 4.76 1.85 4 Euphorbiaceae 4.76 6.15 5 Fabaceae 2.38 1.23 6 Lamiaceae 4.76 3.69 7 Lauraceae 16.66 2.11 8 Moraceae 14.29 1.64 9 Poaceae 9.52 15.56 10 Poaceae 7.14 1.85 11 Sapotaceae 9.52 4.00 12 Tiliaceae 11.90 1.23 13 Verbenaceae 2.38 1.23

For roosting ground, Alnus nepalensis was the dominant species, while Madhuca indica and Toona ciliata were the codominant species with regards to relative basal cover. Alnus nepalensis had highest relative density of 14.53, relative frequency of 10.94, relative dominance of 21.07 and important value index of 46.54. It was followed by Madhuca indica and Toona ciliata with relative density of 11.11 and 5.7 respectively. The least recorded tree species was Prunus persica with relative density of 0.28, relative dominance of 0.07, and important value index of 0.87 (Table 15). Overall analysis showed ‘Alnus nepalensis’ as the dominant and most important species in the roosting habitat of ABO with higher IVI.

Table 15: Important Value Index of individual tree species around the roosting sites

Relative Relative Relative Important S.N. Tree species density frequency basal area value index 1 Alnus nepalensis 14.53 10.94 21.07 46.54 2 Madhuca indica 11.11 7.81 12.79 31.71 3 Toona ciliata 5.70 6.77 12.93 25.40 4 Prunus cerasoides 7.98 7.29 8.11 23.38 5 Erythrina arborescense 6.55 7.29 8.92 22.77 6 Litsea monopetala 7.41 8.85 4.36 20.62 7 Ficus semicordata 5.98 8.33 4.00 18.32 8 Grewia oppositoefolia 6.55 6.77 2.95 16.27 9 Sapium insigne 5.70 5.73 3.03 14.46 10 Macaranga postulata 3.99 2.60 3.12 9.71 11 Rhus wallichii 3.42 3.13 2.12 8.67 12 Ficus hypanthodium 2.28 4.17 1.32 7.76 13 Litsea salicifolia 2.28 2.60 1.96 6.85 14 Citrus reticulata 3.13 2.08 1.41 6.63 15 Morus alba 1.42 2.08 1.92 5.43 16 Brassiopsis hainla 1.99 2.08 1.22 5.29 17 Pinux ruxburghii 1.14 1.56 2.26 4.96 18 Ficus clavata 1.42 1.56 0.65 3.64 19 Ficus religiosa 1.42 1.04 1.11 3.57 20 Artocarpus lakoocha 1.42 0.52 1.08 3.02 21 Melia azederach 0.85 1.56 0.41 2.83 22 Aesandra butyraceae 0.57 1.04 0.60 2.21 23 Ficus lacor 0.28 0.52 1.18 1.99 24 Boehmeria rugulosa 0.57 0.52 0.56 1.65 25 Rhus javanica 0.57 0.52 0.34 1.43 26 Citrus sinensis 0.57 0.52 0.13 1.22 27 Bauhinia variegata 0.28 0.52 0.13 0.93 28 Cinnamomum tamala 0.28 0.52 0.12 0.93 29 Choerospondias axillaris 0.28 0.52 0.11 0.92 30 Prunus persica 0.28 0.52 0.07 0.87

The roost sites were oriented differently along the eastern and southeastern aspects as shown in fig. 9. The average slope was 14.410 (SE = 0.540) between the altitudes of 1221-1886 m from m.a.s.l. with the mean aspect mean of 104.662 as shown as in the table 16.

3% East

Northeast 46% 46% South

Southeast 2% West 3%

Figure 9: Roost sites aspect

Table 16: Physiographic characteristics measured around the roosting sites

Mean

Variables N S Range S Minimum S Maximum S S SE SD Slope (0) 101 26.70 1.89 28.59 14.14 0.54 5.41 1583.0 Altitude (m) 101 665.00 1221.00 1886.00 13.60 136.64 3 Aspect value(*) 101 228.69 61.77 290.47 121.57 3.44 34.52

* Northeast (22.5-67.5), East (67.5-112.5), Southeast (112.5-257.5), South (157.5-202.5), Southwest (202.5-247.5) and West (247.5-292.5)

3.4 Mapping nesting and roosting location The nest and roost locations were located among the six and 15 of the established grid respectively. The locations of nesting trees are shown in fig. 10 and roosting trees in fig. 11. The nests and the roosts were located nearby the agricultural area. The North-Western and South-Eastern part of the study area showed very low or no records of ABO.

Map of nest sites

Figure 10: Map showing spatial distribution of nest sites of ABO in particular grid

Map of roost sites

Figure 11: Map showing spatial distribution of roost sites of ABO in particular grid

4. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION 4.1 Conclusion  The nesting and roosting sites of ABO were found at an altitude range of 1218 to 1886 m.a.s.l. in the study area with the slope value between 1.890- 28.590 in the eastern and southeastern aspects.  The nests and roosts tree constituted deciduous trees majorly.  Ficus semicordata and Bombax ceiba were the major nesting trees.  Alnus nepalensis with average height = 16.94 m, average DBH = 28.25 cm and average canopy cover = 29.23% followed by Toona cliata with average height = 17.37 m, average DBH = 45.72 cm and average canopy cover = 34.60%, are the major roosting trees.  The nest and roost sites were mostly distributed within and around the agricultural field.  The roosts were recorded highly in the secondary branch of a tree followed by tertiary branch.  There was significant difference between roosting height and tree height and also, between roosting height and tree DBH. The tree height was identified as the major factor for the selection of roosting height for Asian Barred Owlet. The roosting height increased with the increase in tree height. We found a positive relation between these two variables. However, there was no significant difference between roosting height and the canopy cover of a tree.  There was significant difference between roosting height and tree species. Roosting height was different for different tree species.  Alnus nepalensis was the most dominant and frequent tree species with higher IVI in the study area. It was also the most common species recorded both at nesting and roosting sites.  Rosaceae is the important sapling and seedling family around the nesting sites.  Poaceae for sapling and Lauraceae for seedling are the dominant and important families around the roosting sites.

4.2 Recommendation Based on the results of this study, the following recommendations were suggested to enhance a better future for ABO including other owl species and to conserve their habitats:  This study relatively covered a few nest and roost sites, and still it needs detailed investigation on vegetation structure and composition covering more areas for better understanding of owl’s nesting and roosting habitats.  The trees and forest around the agricultural land should be prioritized and protected.  We recommend retention and creation of large trees of Alnus nepalensis.  Encouraging local farmers and youths from the local level for owl conservation.  Continuing the long-term owl status and demographic studies.  We also recommend that tree species composition, diameter at breast height, and various ecological indicators could be developed and used to identify priority habitat conservation areas where forest habitat loss affects the viability of local ABO populations.  Repeating this assessment in other geographic areas to determine how well the desired conditions for those areas describe nesting roosting habitat for owls.  We recommend further work to investigate potential threats to nest and roost habitat of this species as well as other owl species.  Initiating the ecological investigations and research of owl species.  Similarly, continuous and extensive research focusing on this species status, distribution and habitats should be assessed to initiate and promote for the conservation of this species.  Standard methodology through the use of sophisticated instruments (like GPS tracking, radio collaring, etc.) for the constant monitoring of owl population, which would allow the results from studies across this species’ range or through time to be compared.

REFERENCES Baral, H.S. & Inskipp, C. (2009). The birds of Sukla Phanta Wildlife Reserve, Nepal. Our Nature, 7: 56-81. http://www.nepjol.info/index.php/ON . Barnosky, A., Matzke, N., Tomiya, S., Wogan, G., Swartz, B., Quental, T., Marshall, C., McGuire, J., Lindsey, E., Maguire, K., Mersey, B. & Ferrer, E. (2011). Has the Earth’s sixth mass extinction already arrived?. Nature, 471:51-57. BirdLife International. (2016). Glaucidium cuculoides. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species2016.e.T22689277A93224900.http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.20163.RLTS.T226 892 77A93224900. Downloaded on 05 January 2019. Forsman, E.D., Meslow, E.C. & Wight, H.M. (1984). Distribution and biology of the Spotted Owl in Oregon. Wildlife Monographs, 87:1–64. Froumsia, M., Zapfack, L., Mapongmetsem, P.M. & Nkongmeneck, B.A. (2012). Woody species composition, structure and diversity of vegetation of Kalfou Forest Reserve, Cameroon. Journal of Ecology and the Natural Environment, 4 (13): 333-343. G.C., Som, Acharya, R. & Ghimirey, Y. (2017). Owls of Nepal. Friends of Nature, Nepal and Rufford Small Grant, London. Inskipp, C., Baral, H.S., Inskipp, T. & Stattersfield, A. (2013). The state of Nepal birds 2010. Journal of Threatened Taxa, 5(1): 3473–3503. Inskipp C., Baral H.S., Phuyal, S., Bhatt, T.R., Khatiwada, M., Inskipp, T., Khatiwada, A., Gurung, S., Singh, P.B., Murray, L., Poudyal, L. & Amin, R. (2016). The status of Nepal's Birds: The national red list series. Zoological Society of London, UK. Johnson, D. H., D. V. Nieuwenhuyse, and J. C. Génot (2007). Survey Protocol for the Little Owl (Athene noctua). Report submitted to Global owl project. www.globalowlproject.com König, C. & Weick, F. (2008). Owls of the world. Christopher Helm Publishers, 36 Soho Square, London. Kovacs, A., Mammen, U. & Wernham, C. (2008). European monitoring for raptors and owls: state of the art and future needs. Ambio, 37:408-412. Movalli, P., Duke, G. & Osborn, D. (2008). Introduction to monitoring for and with raptors. Ambio, 37:395-396. Mullet, T.C. & Ward, J.J.P. (2010). Microhabitat features at Mexican Spotted Owl nest and roost sites in the Guadalupe Mountains. Journal of Raptor Research, 44:277–285. Nautiyal, S., & Kaechele, H. (2008). A modeling approach for natural resource management in nature protection areas in the Indian Himalayan region. Management of Environmental Quality. An International Journal, 19(3):335-352, https://doi.org/10.1108/14777830810866455. Rabten, M. (2016). Vegetation structure and species composition in nesting and roosting habitats of white-bellied heron along the Phochu River. Thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the

requirements for the B.Sc. Forestry Programme. Royal University of Bhutan,College of Natural Resources, Lobesa, Punakha. Rajpar, M.N. & Zakaria, M. (2011). Bird species abundance and their correlationship with microclimate and habitat variables at Natural Wetland Reserve, Peninsular Malaysia. International Journal of Zoology, 2011: 17. Robson, B., Keys, A., Ellison, M., Pandey, M. & Pokharel, K.P. (2008). CEPF bird survey of Mai Valley. Report submitted to Bird Conservation Nepal and Royal Society for Protection of Birds. Unpublished. Saara, J.D. W., S.J., Maliakala, S.K. & Denslowa, J.S. (2003). Changes in vegetation structure and composition along a tropical forest chronosequence: implications for wildlife. Forest Ecology and Management, 182:139-151. Sergio, F., Newton, I., Marchesi, L. & Pedrini, P. (2004). Integrating individual habitat choices and regional distribution of a biodiversity indicator and top predator. Journal of Biogeography, 31:619-628. Subedi, A. (2018). Exploring the status and distribution of Owls and its conservation initiatives in the Raghuganga Gaupalika of Myagdi district, Nepal. Report submitted to Raptor Research Foundation, Inc. USA. Takats, D.L., Francis, C.M., Holroyd, G., Duncan, J.R., Mazur, K.M., Cannings, R.J., Harris, W. & Holt, D. (2001). Guidelines for nocturnal owl monitoring in North America. Beaverhill Bird Observatory and Bird Studies Canada, Edmonton, Alberta. Whelton, B.D. (1989). Distribution of the Boreal Owl in eastern Washington and Oregon. Condor, 91:712–716. Willey, D.W. (2013). Diet of Mexican Spotted Owls in Utah and Arizona. Wilson Journal of Ornithology, 125:775–781. Willey, D.W. & Riper, C.V. (2015). Roost Habitat of Mexican Spotted Owls (Strix occidentalis lucida) in the Canyonlands of Utah. The Wilson Journal of Ornithology, 127(4):690-696. The Wilson Ornithological Society. http://dx.doi.org/10.1676/14021.1. Zobel, D.B., Jha, P.K., Yadav, U.K.R. & Behan, M.J. (1987). A practical manual for ecology. Nepal: Ratna Book Distributors, Kathmandu.

Annexure 1: Nest data collection sheet

Location Tree Nest

S N X Y Remarks

Altitude Species Height Live Dead DBH Canopy Type/stage Height Location Aspect

Annexure 2: Roost data collection sheet

Location Tree Roost

S N X Y Remarks

Altitude Species Height Live Dead DBH Canopy C. Height Location Aspect

Annexure 3: Vegetation data collection sheet

S Trees/Pole Shrubs(5* Herbs N Location (10*10) 5) (1*1) Remarks

Aspect Slope

Species r

X Y

Altitude DBH Height No. % cover No. % Cove

Annexure 4: Geo location of surveyed (listening/playback) stations

Stations X co-ordinates Y co-ordinates 1 752828 3143766 2 753327 3143791 3 753826 3143816 4 754325 3143841 5 752304 3144241 6 752803 3144265 7 753302 3144290 8 753801 3144315 9 754301 3144340 10 752279 3144740 11 752778 3144765 12 753277 3144789 13 753777 3144814 14 754276 3144839 15 752254 3145239 16 752753 3145264 17 753253 3145289 18 753752 3145313 19 754251 3145338 20 754750 3145363 21 752229 3145738 22 752729 3145763 23 753228 3145788 24 753727 3145813 25 754226 3145837 26 754725 3145862 27 751705 3146212 28 752205 3146237 29 752704 3146262 30 753203 3146287 31 753702 3146312 32 754201 3146337 33 751681 3146711 34 752180 3146736 35 752679 3146761 36 753178 3146786 37 753677 3146811 38 754176 3146836 39 751157 3147185 40 751656 3147210 41 752155 3147235 42 752654 3147260 43 753153 3147285

Annexure 5: Photo plates of Asian Barred Owlet

Roosting in dead tree Male and female of ABO trunk

Roosting in horizontal branch

Watching with keen eyesight Roosting in Alnus nepalensis

Annexure 6: Photo during the field work

Measuring tree DBH Tracing location

Assistants in field Measuring height

Measuring canopy cover Owl search and scanning

Annexure 7: Photo plates of owl habitat and threats

Tree felling Dismantled cavity

Snowy study area

Annexure 8: Photo plates of instruments

DBH tape Recorder Densiometer

GPS Vertex

Binocular Speaker