DOCSLIB.ORG

Studies on the Status and Diversiy of Avian

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

MANAS A Set of Technical Article cli: STUDIES ON Ser THE STATUS AND DIVERSIY OF AVIAN Jar FAUNA IN 5"( MANAS BIOSPHERE RESERVE, ASSAM. the P' K' saikia & A' Rabha' for TNTR'DUCTT'N exl Conservation of Biological diversity in tr6pissl forest for ecosystems is under threat throughout Southeast Asia owrn= to various anthropogenic problems (Byron and Gillman, ma 1998; Will,ot et. at,2000;Hjll, et al. 2001). The most widesprea: human related problems of tropical forests such as encroachments of forest land, i[egal logging, shifting agriculture causec the forest disturbance which leading to open up the dis canopy (Hill et. al., 2001). As iorest-iandscapes become increasinglr disturbed, ecosystem inputs and outputs are. altered, Gr ani'pieuiously existed core habitats become exposed to external conditions, ail of which results in a progressive erosion of biologicat diversity (Terborgh & winter, l9g0; Tilmwr et al., 1994)' The creation of rapid forest edges exposed open str, to habitats can severely modifiedihe local microclimatic conditions. increasing tree moftality and promote the establishment inr of non-forest species (Lovejoy et at., 19g6;Kapos, l9g9; Laurance et al 1998; Tabarelli et al, 1999). cal It is asserted that the avian faunas are the convenient an( indicators of biodiversity (ICBR 1992) andalso useful for monitoring environmental changes (Furness der &_Greenwoo d,, lgg3).Again, the avian communities are suitable study subject for the of community response to disturbance. For birds, studies for in NJtn America have generally indicated that forest birds. pecies are rulnerable to destruction for of breeding habitat (Askirs oi, rceoy.Although the effect birds have not been studied thoroughly "t of (Leck,1979;Willis, 1979; Bierregaard and Lovejoy, l9g9: of the tropical Th, birds species, for example white-winged I uck- Cairina scutulata,Rufous-neckec Hornbill- Aceros nipalensis, coI many other endemic species such as Arborophilla mendalai, Heterophasia yuhinc bakeri' gracilis, spelaeornis longicaudata, Brach teryx hyperythra, etc. lde are even more vulnerable to habitat destruction than anr birds to such habitat modification vary among species with some forest bird st predation and brood parasitism il;* Dic (Brittingharn& Temple, 1983; Donovan et al, 1995: Su o p r l anrs and an i mar s an d i s v ery . offi fi"ff $ ii] l::#,.ffi f n iiffi JJTffi"i ll;11 ?r':":, "i;;; The species present in disturbed forest and closed ?ffi: ; canopylorest has differ in their conservation values in which restrictei ranges species are of higher conservation priorities (collins eith and Morris, I9g5; New 1991; Spitzer et al, 1997). These endemic species are threatened and sensitive to global mel extinction as the closed tropical forests are disappeared 4.7 million hectares every year since 1990 and which could predicted rec( be extinction of 1-10 % biodiversity in the coming 25 yean (Thiollay, 2002). rec( In recent decades, the formation of artificial forest trot gaps in many tropical forests is much higher in rate than it could be predicted, owing to extensive tree felling. This is particui'aiy rec( true for the smaller pockets of tropical rain forests in North Eastern region, especially in Assam, where illegal tree scol fellers haa formed most gaps as a result of illegal logging throughout the state' since 1992' The present study aimed to find out differences rvitl between butterfly community composition in closed forests fragments and in grasslands/open areas and wetland habitat protected con in a ..u Lf Munus Biosphere Reserve and to evaluate the priority species for conservation. \\'gr METHODS Study area The investigations were carried out from 1994 to 2004 Dat inthe core area of Manas Biosphere Reserve (MBR) in the state of Assam in Northeast India. The MBR is located within the latitude of 25o45,- 26o50, N and Longitude g0o 30,- g1" 26' E' situated in the north bank of river Brahmapritra -'r'hir and about 200 km north of Guwahati city. The northern boundary of MBR is the common international boundary of Bhutan Himalayas. The study area is a foothill of lower Himalayas and undulating in the norlhern boundary and then gradually merging ;alc inio low lying flat plain on the southern side. The river Manas is the largest Himalayan tributary of the rivei :e$ Brahmaputra flowing from the northeastern to western boundary area. - - ------'J of the study *.llc Tropical moist deciduous, :. I tropical semi-evergreen and wet alluvial grasslands characterize area' the vegetation of Studl The invasive trees on the alluvial grassland habital have forming the characteristic tropical scattered forest of MBR. The 68 MANAS A Set ofTechnical Article \- c: :-. r t: cr !e E- L' T. The identification of forest bird's species was based on the information -\ Dickension, (t975). of Ali and Ripley, (19g3) and King and Survey techniques : tr - t E - c necessary. Total of 24 different field trips were made throug Data analysis We estimated the diversity in terms of species richnes ss, as . which combines richness and tirrrn*rdex, t abundance into a single measure 9gg). rarefaction (Heck et aI. 19.75). i We estimated species evenness u'ron,s Ii calculate 95%o confidence intervals for -. sed to s between habitats, pair-wise randomizati order to test for differences in diversity re-samples of species following solo 1te'13). percentage cumulz abundance data a/. ) against log species rank (Lambshead 19831 for .;pu;in; diversity between samptes. et The transact data ofthree habitat studied Forestland, wetl nd and grasslands were computed to evaluate the propor- 69 MANAS A Set of Technical Article tional to undisturbed habitat by the following formula: wt/wt + fdt + gt, where wt: total bird census data of habitat 'W'; n = total bird census data of habitat 'F'; and gt: total bird census data of habitat 'G'. The Propund data were Arcsine transformed for analysis. The variables such as food and migration status of the species were compared with Arcsine transformed data through analysis of variance. Only signifrcant results are presented. RESULTS Diversity We observed a total of 5245 individuals from 422 species belonging to 57 families of birds in grassland, wetland and forestland habitat of Manas Biosphere Reserve (see Appendix- I ). The numbers of species were higher in forested habitat than grassland and wetland habitat. The greatest numbers of species were obseryed in forested habitat (n -- 290), compared with grassland (n: 51 species) and wetland habitat (n: 106). Comparison of diversity between habitat samplings showed that, species richness was different among habitats (330.8 -390.8 species, Table. l; use rarefaction mgthods for species richness in each habitat separately). The Shannon Index of diversity was higher in forest habitat compared with 'grassland and wetland habitat' at 5o/o level (Table. l; Forestland vs. Grassland randomization test, ? : - 1.78 P : 0.01; Forestland versus Wetland randomization test, ? : -1.77 P:0.01). The Simpsons D index of diversity was also significantly higher in the Fie forested habitat than grassland habitat (? : 106.16, P: 0.001; Tablel) and wetland habitat at 5Yo level (? : -l 15.54, P : For 0.001). The percentage cumulative abundance plotted (K dominance, Fig. l) against log species rank for comparing diversity oth between samples (F, W & G) showed that, the diversity of Forest habitat (lower line) was higher than Grassland and Wetland Sta habitat (lower line has higher diversity). In wetland and grassland habitat, the K dominance line crosses each other and therefore showed the ranked differently for different diversity indices (see Lambshed et al. 1983). spe pro Table I Species richness, abundance and diversity of avian fauna sampled in three habitats ( F, W A G ). Simpson and Shannon pro means followed by the same letter are not signifrcantly different atthe 5%o level (pair wise randomized test based on 10,000 0.0 random samples). Rarefaction test was done species richness present for based on absent data ofeach transact ofthe habitat 1A F, W &G. Habitat category w G Individuals 2500 2304 441 Species (total:422) 290 106 5l Richness 398.8 380.4 330.8 (SE) (0.2) (0.3) (0.2) Shannon-winner(H') s.23b 3.46a 3.45a (Variance) (0.00037) (0.0010) (0.001e) Simpson Index 130.2 14.67 24.04 F: Forest habitat; W: Wetland habitat: G: Grassland habitat Figt 70 MANAS A Set ofTechnical Article 100 980 E60 540 €zo 10 100 Log Species Ranlr among forest habitat, Grassland habitat and Wetland ersity than others and the wetland and grassland hab et al. 1983). E1 $ o (5 (,L o .o E o o- Lo CL o o 00 Bird families Figure: 2: Mean proportional abundance of avian species belonging to different families in grassland habitat studied. 71 ,:-/ MANAS A Set ofTechnical Article 't.2 Di ! 1.0 (I' thr o the 0) oL .8 He LL o me .b As .o E cie om Lo n hie bar o z Bu (Tl 00 Ap Fr Bird families Pr Pt Figure: 3: Mean proportional abundance of avian species belonging to different families in forest habitat studied. 1.2 oc 1.0 (g o =.8I c .oE .6 o o_ 0 o_r c (5 o 00 Bird famllies Figure: 4: Mean proportional abundance of avian species belonging to different families in wetland habitat studied. 72 MANAS A Set of Technical Article Discussion Appendix: I. comprehensive Checklist of Avian fauna in Manas Biosphere Reserve Family SFerla English Name Local name Status Podicipididae Tac ny\ b ap t us rufi c o I I i s LittleGrebes Ghilahans C,M Pelicanidae P e le camts ph ilippens is Spot-billed pelican Dhera LM,r Phalacrocoracidae Phalacrrcorat niger LittleCormorant Panikawri C,&LM P carbo GreatCormorant Darkola C,RLM P fiiscicollis Indian Cormorant Koi-lang r,M Anhingdae Anhingarnelanogaster Darter Moniori r,RrLM Ardeidae Atdeacinerca GreyHeron HalKheda r,&LM A.
Recommended publications
  • Birdlife International for the Input of Analyses, Technical Information, Advice, Ideas, Research Papers, Peer Review and Comment

    Birdlife International for the Input of Analyses, Technical Information, Advice, Ideas, Research Papers, Peer Review and Comment

    UNEP/CMS/ScC16/Doc.10 Annex 2b CMS Scientific Council: Flyway Working Group Reviews Review 2: Review of Current Knowledge of Bird Flyways, Principal Knowledge Gaps and Conservation Priorities Compiled by: JEFF KIRBY Just Ecology Brookend House, Old Brookend, Berkeley, Gloucestershire, GL13 9SQ, U.K. June 2010 Acknowledgements I am grateful to colleagues at BirdLife International for the input of analyses, technical information, advice, ideas, research papers, peer review and comment. Thus, I extend my gratitude to my lead contact at the BirdLife Secretariat, Ali Stattersfield, and to Tris Allinson, Jonathan Barnard, Stuart Butchart, John Croxall, Mike Evans, Lincoln Fishpool, Richard Grimmett, Vicky Jones and Ian May. In addition, John Sherwell worked enthusiastically and efficiently to provide many key publications, at short notice, and I’m grateful to him for that. I also thank the authors of, and contributors to, Kirby et al. (2008) which was a major review of the status of migratory bird species and which laid the foundations for this work. Borja Heredia, from CMS, and Taej Mundkur, from Wetlands International, also provided much helpful advice and assistance, and were instrumental in steering the work. I wish to thank Tim Jones as well (the compiler of a parallel review of CMS instruments) for his advice, comment and technical inputs; and also Simon Delany of Wetlands International. Various members of the CMS Flyway Working Group, and other representatives from CMS, BirdLife and Wetlands International networks, responded to requests for advice and comment and for this I wish to thank: Olivier Biber, Joost Brouwer, Nicola Crockford, Carlo C. Custodio, Tim Dodman, Roger Jaensch, Jelena Kralj, Angus Middleton, Narelle Montgomery, Cristina Morales, Paul Kariuki Ndang'ang'a, Paul O’Neill, Herb Raffaele and David Stroud.
  • The Impact of Predation by Introduced Mammals on Endemic Shorebirds in New Zealand: a Conservation Perspective

    The Impact of Predation by Introduced Mammals on Endemic Shorebirds in New Zealand: a Conservation Perspective

    Biological Conservation 99 (2001) 47±64 www.elsevier.com/locate/biocon The impact of predation by introduced mammals on endemic shorebirds in New Zealand: a conservation perspective John E. Dowding a,*, Elaine C. Murphy b aPO Box 36-274, Merivale, Christchurch 8030, New Zealand bScience and Research Unit, Department of Conservation, Private Bag 4715, Christchurch, New Zealand Abstract The avifauna of New Zealand has been severely depleted since human colonisation and currently contains a disproportionately high number of threatened species. Of the 23 threatened shorebird species worldwide, six are endemic to New Zealand. We review the status of New Zealand's endemic shorebirds and examine the impact on them of various threats, particularly predation by introduced mammals. The conservation status of the 10 extant species (three oystercatchers, one stilt, four plovers and two snipe) is outlined and the factors that predisposed them to predation by introduced mammals are summarised. Individual species accounts are presented, including data on population trends, known or suspected impacts of predation, identi®cation of important predator species, other threats, and conservation measures currently in place or required. One species and two subspecies are extinct, three species are con®ned to predator-free islands and another is found only on the Chatham Islands group. Six survive on the mainland but three have declined to varying degrees and are assigned threatened status by Collar et al. (1994). Only one plover and two oystercatchers are still relatively numerous and/or widespread. Rats, cats and mustelids have had the greatest overall impacts. Conservation measures in place to mitigate the eects of introduced predators include the formulation of recovery plans, predator control around breeding areas, captive breeding and rearing programmes and the founding of new populations by translocation.
  • Stilt 50 Final 16-04-07

    Stilt 50 Final 16-04-07

    Stilt 50 ( 2006 ): 215-223 Are we neglecting non-migratory shorebirds? ARE WE NEGLECTING THE NON-MIGRATORY SHOREBIRDS OF THE EAST ASIAN– AUSTRALASIAN FLYWAY? MICHAEL A WESTON Birds Australia National Office, 415 Riversdale Rd, Hawthorn East, 3123, Australia (from February 2007: Green Building, 60 Leicester St, Carlton 3053, Australia) A recurrent debate within the Australasian Wader Study Group (AWSG) is whether resident (non-migratory) shorebirds are being neglected in favour of migratory species in terms of research and conservation efforts. This paper examines whether migrants have attracted a disproportionate research and conservation effort from the AWSG, by using articles published in Stilt as an index of effort. More articles (223 cf. 110) and more pages (912 cf. 267) have been dedicated specifically to migrants. Articles on migrants (4.3 ± 2.2 [mean ± standard deviation] pages) were longer than those on residents (2.5 ± 1.8 pages). These differences might reflect the fact that there are more migrants in the East Asian–Australasian Flyway since the ratio of migrant to resident species is 1.4:1 or 2:1 depending on which species are considered to use the flyway. Even when corrections are applied for this imbalance (for the 1.4:1 ratio only), a disproportionate number of pages and articles have still been devoted to migrants. Overall, it appears that there is a bias towards research and conservation effort on migratory species, with the cumulative magnitude of the bias to date equating to the number of pages in 3.8 average-length editions of Stilt . I speculate on some of the causes of the apparent bias.
  • SHOREBIRDS (Charadriiformes*) CARE MANUAL *Does Not Include Alcidae

    SHOREBIRDS (Charadriiformes*) CARE MANUAL *Does Not Include Alcidae

    SHOREBIRDS (Charadriiformes*) CARE MANUAL *Does not include Alcidae CREATED BY AZA CHARADRIIFORMES TAXON ADVISORY GROUP IN ASSOCIATION WITH AZA ANIMAL WELFARE COMMITTEE Shorebirds (Charadriiformes) Care Manual Shorebirds (Charadriiformes) Care Manual Published by the Association of Zoos and Aquariums in association with the AZA Animal Welfare Committee Formal Citation: AZA Charadriiformes Taxon Advisory Group. (2014). Shorebirds (Charadriiformes) Care Manual. Silver Spring, MD: Association of Zoos and Aquariums. Original Completion Date: October 2013 Authors and Significant Contributors: Aimee Greenebaum: AZA Charadriiformes TAG Vice Chair, Monterey Bay Aquarium, USA Alex Waier: Milwaukee County Zoo, USA Carol Hendrickson: Birmingham Zoo, USA Cindy Pinger: AZA Charadriiformes TAG Chair, Birmingham Zoo, USA CJ McCarty: Oregon Coast Aquarium, USA Heidi Cline: Alaska SeaLife Center, USA Jamie Ries: Central Park Zoo, USA Joe Barkowski: Sedgwick County Zoo, USA Kim Wanders: Monterey Bay Aquarium, USA Mary Carlson: Charadriiformes Program Advisor, Seattle Aquarium, USA Sara Perry: Seattle Aquarium, USA Sara Crook-Martin: Buttonwood Park Zoo, USA Shana R. Lavin, Ph.D.,Wildlife Nutrition Fellow University of Florida, Dept. of Animal Sciences , Walt Disney World Animal Programs Dr. Stephanie McCain: AZA Charadriiformes TAG Veterinarian Advisor, DVM, Birmingham Zoo, USA Phil King: Assiniboine Park Zoo, Canada Reviewers: Dr. Mike Murray (Monterey Bay Aquarium, USA) John C. Anderson (Seattle Aquarium volunteer) Kristina Neuman (Point Blue Conservation Science) Sarah Saunders (Conservation Biology Graduate Program,University of Minnesota) AZA Staff Editors: Maya Seaman, MS, Animal Care Manual Editing Consultant Candice Dorsey, PhD, Director of Animal Programs Debborah Luke, PhD, Vice President, Conservation & Science Cover Photo Credits: Jeff Pribble Disclaimer: This manual presents a compilation of knowledge provided by recognized animal experts based on the current science, practice, and technology of animal management.
  • CMS/CAF/Inf.4.13 1 Central Asian Flyway Action Plan for Waterbirds and Their Habitat Country Report

    CMS/CAF/Inf.4.13 1 Central Asian Flyway Action Plan for Waterbirds and Their Habitat Country Report

    CMS/CAF/Inf.4.13 Central Asian Flyway Action Plan for Waterbirds and their Habitat Country Report - INDIA A. Introduction India situated north of the equator covering an area of about 3,287,263 km2 is one of the largest country in the Asian region. With 10 distinctly different bio geographical zones and many different habitat types, the country is known amongst the top 12 mega biodiversity countries. India is known to support 1225 species of bird species, out of these 257 species are water birds. India remains in the core central region of the Central Asian Flyway (CAF) and holds some crucial important wintering population of water bird species. India is also a key breeding area for many other water birds such as Pygmy cormorant and Ruddy-shelduck, globally threatened water birds such as Dalmatian Pelican, Lesser White-fronted Goose, Siberian crane, oriental white stork, greater adjutant stork, white winged wood duck etc. Being located in the core of the CAF, and several important migration routes the country covers a large intra-continental territory between Arctic and Indian Ocean. Being aware of the importance of the wetlands within the geographic boundary of the India for migrating avifauna, India has developed a wetland conservation programme. India currently has 19 RAMSAR sites. India has identified more than 300 sites which has the potential to be consider as the RAMSAR sites. However, being the second most populus nation in the world with agricultural economy, wetlands are one of the most used habitat with water bird and human interface. Much of the Indian landmass also being dependent to the normal monsoonal rainfall for precipitation is also subjected to extremes of drought and flood making the wetlands vulnerable to drastic ecological changes.
  • Annex4 CAF Action Plan.Doc

    Annex4 CAF Action Plan.Doc

    AEWA MOP Inf. 4.6 Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals MEETING TO CONCLUDE AND ENDORSE THE PROPOSED CENTRAL ASIAN FLYWAY ACTION PLAN TO CONSERVE MIGRATORY WATERBIRDS AND THEIR HABITATS New Delhi, 10-12 June 2005 _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ CMS/CAF/Report Annex 4 CENTRAL ASIAN FLYWAY ACTION PLAN FOR THE CONSERVATION OF MIGRATORY WATERBIRDS AND THEIR HABITATS As finalised by Range States of the Central Asian Flyway at their second meeting in New Delhi, 10-12 June 2005 AEWA MOP Inf. 4.6 Contextual Note on the Central Asian Waterbirds Flyway Action Plan The Meeting to Conclude and Endorse the Proposed Central Asian Flyway Action Plan to Conserve Migratory Waterbirds and their Habitats took place in New Delhi, India, from 10-12 June 2005. The New Delhi Meeting was the second official meeting of the Central Asian Flyway (CAF) Range States since they first met in Tashkent, Uzbekistan, in 20011, to discuss a draft action plan for the CAF and various legal and institutional options to support an action plan’s implementation. The New Delhi meeting was attended by nearly 100 participants including delegates from 23 of 30 Range States and a number of international and national level non-governmental organisations. CMS organised the meeting, in cooperation with Wetlands International, who also provided technical advice to the CMS Secretariat and in-kind support to the meeting. The Indian Ministry of Environment and Forests hosted the event with organisational support from the Wildlife Institute of India. The Governments of India, the Netherlands and Switzerland, as well as CMS, AEWA, the Global Environment Facility, and the UNEP Regional Offices for West Asia, Asia and the Pacific, and Europe (Pan-European Biodiversity and Landscape Strategy) provided generous financial contributions.
  • Taiwan: Formosan Endemics Set Departure Tour 17Th – 30Th April, 2016

    Taiwan: Formosan Endemics Set Departure Tour 17Th – 30Th April, 2016

    Taiwan: Formosan Endemics Set departure tour 17th – 30th April, 2016 Tour leader: Charley Hesse Report and photos by Charley Hesse. (All photos were taken on this tour) Mikado Pheasant has become so accustomed to people at the feeding sites, it now comes within a few feet. Taiwan is the hidden jewel of Asian birding and one of the most under-rated birding destinations in the world. There are currently in impressive 25 endemics (and growing by the year), including some of the most beautiful birds in Asia, like Swinhoe’s & Mikado Pheasants and Taiwan Blue-Magpie. Again we had a clean sweep of Taiwan endemics seeing all species well, and we also found the vast majority of endemic subspecies. Some of these are surely set for species status, giving visiting birders potential ‘arm chair ticks’ for many years to come. We also saw other major targets, like Fairy Pitta, Black-faced Spoonbill and Himalayan Owl. Migrants were a little thin on the ground this year, but we still managed an impressive 189 bird species. We did particularly well on mammals this year, seeing 2 giant flying-squirrels, Formosan Serow, Formosan Rock Macaque and a surprise Chinese Ferret-Badger. We spent some time enjoying the wonderful butterflies and identified 31 species, including the spectacular Magellan Birdwing, Chinese Peacock and Paper Kite. Our trip to the island of Lanyu (Orchid Island) adds a distinct flavour to the trip with its unique culture and scenery. With some particularly delicious food, interesting history and surely some of the most welcoming people in Asia, Taiwan is an unmissable destination.
  • India L M S Palni, Director, GBPIHED

    India L M S Palni, Director, GBPIHED

    Lead Coordinator - India L M S Palni, Director, GBPIHED Nodal Person(s) – India R S Rawal, Scientist, GBPIHED Wildlife Institute of India (WII) G S Rawat, Scientist Uttarakhand Forest Department (UKFD) Nishant Verma, IFS Manoj Chandran, IFS Investigators GBPIHED Resource Persons K Kumar D S Rawat GBPIHED Ravindra Joshi S Sharma Balwant Rawat S C R Vishvakarma Lalit Giri G C S Negi Arun Jugran I D Bhatt Sandeep Rawat A K Sahani Lavkush Patel K Chandra Sekar Rajesh Joshi WII S Airi Amit Kotia Gajendra Singh Ishwari Rai WII Merwyn Fernandes B S Adhikari Pankaj Kumar G S Bhardwaj Rhea Ganguli S Sathyakumar Rupesh Bharathi Shazia Quasin V K Melkani V P Uniyal Umesh Tiwari CONTRIBUTORS Y P S Pangtey, Kumaun University, Nainital; D K Upreti, NBRI, Lucknow; S D Tiwari, Girls Degree College, Haldwani; Girija Pande, Kumaun University, Nainital; C S Negi & Kumkum Shah, Govt. P G College, Pithoragarh; Ruchi Pant and Ajay Rastogi, ECOSERVE, Majkhali; E Theophillous and Mallika Virdhi, Himprkrthi, Munsyari; G S Satyal, Govt. P G College Haldwani; Anil Bisht, Govt. P G College Narayan Nagar CONTENTS Preface i-ii Acknowledgements iii-iv 1. Task and the Approach 1-10 1.1 Background 1.2 Feasibility Study 1.3 The Approach 2. Description of Target Landscape 11-32 2.1 Background 2.2 Administrative 2.3 Physiography and Climate 2.4 River and Glaciers 2.5 Major Life zones 2.6 Human settlements 2.7 Connectivity and remoteness 2.8 Major Land Cover / Land use 2.9 Vulnerability 3. Land Use and Land Cover 33-40 3.1 Background 3.2 Land use 4.
  • India's National Action Plan for Conservation of Migratory Birds and Their Habitats Along Central Asian Flyway

    India's National Action Plan for Conservation of Migratory Birds and Their Habitats Along Central Asian Flyway

    India’s National Action Plan for Conservation of Migratory Birds and their Habitats along Central Asian Flyway (2018-2023) CAF National Action Plan 2018 -India Drafting Committee: The Draft India National Action Plan for Conservation of Migratory Birds in Central Asian Flyway was prepared by the following committee constituted by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change: Dr. Soumitra Dasgupta, IG F (WL), Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (Chairman) Dr. Nita Shah, Bombay Natural History Society (Member) Dr. Ritesh Kumar, Wetlands International South Asia (Member) Dr. Suresh Kumar, Wildlife Institute of India (Member) Mr. C. Sasikumar, Wildlife Division, Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change The Committee met at Keoladeo National Park, Bharatpur on December 12-13, 2017 and at the office of IG F (WL) on March 15, 2018 and April 12, 2018 to review drafts. The final draft National Action Plan was submitted by the Committee on April 14, 2018. Final review of the draft was done in the office of IG (WL) on May 8, 2018. [1] CAF National Action Plan 2018 -India Contents Abbreviations .................................................................................................................................... 3 Preamble ........................................................................................................................................... 4 Goal and Objectives .........................................................................................................................
  • North East - Eagle’S Nest & Beyond 7Th April to 20Th April 2022 (14 Days)

    North East - Eagle’S Nest & Beyond 7Th April to 20Th April 2022 (14 Days)

    India North East - Eagle’s Nest & Beyond 7th April to 20th April 2022 (14 days) Himalayan Cutia by Markus Lilje This exotic birding adventure takes us to many seldom-visited and remote destinations in north-east India. We will have the rare opportunity to search for a host of Asia’s most tantalising and desirable species, including the stunning Temminck’s Tragopan, Bengal Florican, Black-breasted Parrotbill, Ward’s Trogon, exquisite Beautiful Nuthatch, Bugun Liocichla, incredible Grandala, rare and endangered White-winged Duck, and dazzling Fire-tailed Myzornis – to name just some of the many exciting possibilities! This exciting tour takes us to some of Asia’s best birding sites where few birders have ever ventured and we will no doubt encounter many rarely-seen species! RBL India - North-Eastern Itinerary & Extensions 2 THE TOUR AT A GLANCE… THE ITINERARY Day 1 Guwahati to Nameri National Park Day 2 Nameri National Park Day 3 Nameri to Dirang (Sangti Valley) Days 4 to 6 Mandala Phudung and Sela Pass areas Day 7 Dirang to Eagle’s Nest Wildlife Sanctuary Days 8 to 12 Eagle’s Nest Wildlife Sanctuary Day 13 Eagle’s Nest to Tezepur Day 14 Tezepur to Guwahati and depart TOUR ROUTE MAP… RBL India - North-Eastern Itinerary & Extensions 3 THE TOUR IN DETAIL… Day 1: Guwahati to Nameri National Park. The tour will start with a drive from Guwahati to Nameri National Park. This wonderful reserve is contiguous with the Pakhui Wildlife Sanctuary in Arunachal Pradesh, together constituting an area of over 1 000km² (390 mi²) of semi-evergreen forests, moist deciduous forest and narrow strips of grassland along the beautiful crystal-clear, boulder-strewn rivers.
  • An Updated Checklist of Globally Threatened Species in Bhutan As Listed in IUCN Red List of Threatened Species

    An Updated Checklist of Globally Threatened Species in Bhutan As Listed in IUCN Red List of Threatened Species

    Preprints (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 3 February 2021 doi:10.20944/preprints202102.0124.v1 An Updated Checklist of Globally Threatened Species in Bhutan as listed in IUCN Red List of Threatened Species Tej Kumar Nepal1,* & Manita2 1Student, M.Sc. in Ecology and Environment Studies, Nalanda University, Bihar, India 2Student, B.A. in English & Media Studies, Sherubtse College, Royal University of Bhutan, Trashigang, Bhutan *Corresponding author: [email protected] Abstract Bhutan lies to the East of Himalaya and it hosts around 11,248 species in all taxa. Bhutan’s lush and green forest covers 71 percent of land which comes under the five National Parks, four Wildlife Sanctuaries, 1 Strict Nature Reserve, Community Forests and biological corridors connecting different protected areas. More than half (51.44 percent) is protected by law and activities are restricted under certain circumstances. It is home to Takin (Budorcas taxicolor whitei), White-bellied Heron (Ardea insignis), Black-necked Crane (Grus nigricollis), Red Panda (Ailurus fulgens), Great Hornbill (Buceros bicornis) and Chinese Pangolin (Manis pentadactyla) that are globally threatened. Bhutan contributed around 23 new species between 2017 and 2020 which were new to science, and Bhutan’s biodiversity holds immense opportunities for researchers and environmental scientists as its biodiversity is in early stage of discovery. To date, Bhutan records 1 species as Extinct (EX), 1 species as Extinct in the Wild (EW) and 134 species as Vulnerable (VU), Endangered (EN) and Critically Endangered (CR) under International Union of Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List of Threatened Species. This paper aims to report a checklist of globally threatened species listed in IUCN Red List of Threatened Species from Bhutan.
  • Birds of Nepal an Official Checklist 2018

    Birds of Nepal an Official Checklist 2018

    Birds of Nepal An Official Checklist Department of National Parks Bird Conservation Nepal and Wildlife Conservation 2018 Species Research and Contribution Anish Timsina, Badri Chaudhary, Barry McCarthy, Benzamin Smelt, Cagan Sakercioglu, Carol Inskipp, Deborah Allen, Dhan Bahadur Chaudhary, Dheeraj Chaudhary, Geraldine Werhahn, Hathan Chaudhary, Hem Sagar Baral, Hem Subedi, Jack H. Cox, Karan Bahadur Shah, Mich Coker, Naresh Kusi, Phil Round, Ram Shahi, Robert DeCandido, Sanjiv Acharya, Som GC, Suchit Basnet, Tika Giri, Tim Inskipp, Tulsi Ram Subedi and Yub Raj Basnet. Review Committee Laxman Prasad Poudyal, Dr. Hem Sagar Baral, Carol Inskipp, Tim Inskipp, Ishana Thapa and Jyotendra Jyu Thakuri Cover page drawing: Spiny Babbler by Craig Robson Citation: Department of National Parks and Wildlife Conservation and Bird Conservation Nepal (2018). Birds of Nepal: An Official Checklist, Kathmandu, Nepal. Great Thick-knee by Jan Wilczur 1 Update and taxonomy note This official checklist is based on “Birds of Nepal: An official checklist” updated and published by Department of National Parks and Wildlife Conservation and Bird Conservation Nepal in year 2016. New additions in this checklist are as below, New recorded species Sooty Tern Onychoprion fuscatus Rufous-tailed Rock- thrush Monticola saxatilis Himalayan Grasshopper-warbler Locustella kashmirensis New species after split (HBW and BirdLife International 2017) Indian Scops-owl Otus bakkamoena, split from Collared Scops-owl Otus lettia Eastern Marsh-harrier Circus spilonotus, split from western Marsh-harrier Circus aeruginosu Indochinese Roller Coracias affinis, split from Indian Roller Coracias benghalensis Indian Nuthatch Sitta castanea, split from Chestnut-bellied Nuthatch Sitta cinnamoventris Chinese Rubythroat Calliope tschebaiewi, split from Himalayan Rubythroat Calliope pectoralis This checklist follows the BirdLife International’s taxonomy; HBW and BirdLife International (2017) Handbook of the Birds of the World and BirdLife International digital checklist of the birds of the world.