Stilt 50 Final 16-04-07

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

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. INTRODUCTION If residents are not receiving research attention, then this is of particular concern because resident shorebirds appear to The Australasian Wader Studies Group (AWSG) has be more threatened in terms of international conservation stimulated a good deal of research and conservation on many status. While 19 species that regularly use the East Asian– species of shorebirds in eastern Asia and Australasia. Both Australasian Flyway (EAAF) are considered Globally migratory and resident (non-migratory) shorebirds fall within Threatened, only four of these species are migratory (Milton the scope of the AWSG’s mission and have attracted et al. 2005). It is also possible that resident shorebirds may research and conservation attention from the group. While be more effective as bioindicators in Australia, because they State-based wader study groups also exist, some of which are possibly occupy a wider range of habitats and a greater very active and productive, the AWSG is the pre-eminent th geographical range. national Australian shorebird study group. This 50 edition This paper examines the question as to whether there has of Stilt stands testament to the success of the AWSG. been a bias in effort toward migratory species of shorebirds At various meetings of the AWSG over the last five or so by the AWSG. It is hoped that this paper will either put the years, there has been a lively debate about the differing matter to rest, or flag a group of shorebirds that might amounts of research and conservation effort directed at deserve more attention in the next 25 years. In doing so, it is resident and migratory species of shorebird. Specifically, it hoped this paper can flag research opportunities, whether it has been suggested that resident species are being neglected be for the AWSG or for other workers. in favour of migratory species. There is some evidence for this view. Piersma et al. (1997) reviewed the state of METHODS knowledge of plovers and sandpipers of the world, and noted that species with restricted distributions were poorly known The general approach I have used is to: in many areas. If only regular Australian species are considered (after Priest et al. 2002), then all resident species 1. determine the ratio of migratory to resident species within the EAAF by: (i) defining the EAAF, (ii) were classified by Piersma et al. (1997) as ‘not or poorly determining which shorebirds occur within the EAAF, studied’, ‘little studied’ or they had received ‘some study’. and (iii) assigning a movement status to those species; While most regular Australian migrants (68.6%) also fell 2. quantify the research and conservation effort which has into the same categories, the remaining 31.4% were regarded as ‘well’, ‘very well’ or ‘extensively’ studied (Figure 1). been directed towards resident and migratory shorebirds Clearly, migrants have broad distributions which overlap by: (i) examining published articles in Stilt and (ii) where possible classifying them with respect to their with more investigators, and many of the studies reviewed subject matter; and by Piersma et al. (1997) were not conducted in Australia, or 3. compare the actual representation of resident versus indeed, on populations which visit Australia. Nevertheless, the overall global state of knowledge at the species level migratory shorebirds in EAAF (Step 1) with the effort seems somewhat higher for Australian migrants over directed at them (Step 2). Such a comparison should reveal whether any bias exists (either towards residents residents, albeit in the context that most species were or migrants). understudied. 215 Stilt 50 ( 2006 ): 215–223 Are we neglecting non-migratory shorebirds? Figure 1 . The percentage of plover and sandpiper species that regularly occur in Australia (after Priest et al. 2002) classified according to how well studied they are (after Piersma et al. 1997). Migrants are shown as black bars ( n=35) and residents ( n=7) as open bars. The approach used is described in more detail below, and The ratio of resident to migratory species within the relies on a series of assumptions, which are also documented EAAF below. Defining the East Asian–Australasian Flyway Flyways are relatively arbitrary with respect to their Assumptions boundaries, both because of poor knowledge of actual My analysis and approach is based on a number of migration routes and because it appears that flyways overlap assumptions. It assumes: with one another. Here, I use the definition of EAAF provided in Howes and Bakewell (1989), although I also • That the pre-1981 (i.e. pre-AWSG) state of knowledge include Alaska which is in their written description but not on residents and migrants was equivalent and poor. their diagram. This definition contains countries east of c. • That there has been no significant enhancement in the 85°E, and west of the Pacific rim ( c. 140–160°E). I define knowledge of residents or migrants, published the flyway according to Table 1, although several countries elsewhere, which may have influenced the opportunity which I have excluded (New Caledonia and eastern India) or perceived need to publish on either residents or are close to the margins of the flyway and may in some migrants. instances be included in the flyway by other workers. • That residents and migrants require similar research and conservation effort per species. It is possible that Determining which shorebirds occur within the East Asian– species with more complex life cycles or ecologies may Australasian Flyway legitimately require more research effort to reach an I derived the list of shorebirds in the EAAF, and used the adequate state of knowledge. However, it cannot be distributional maps, taxonomy, taxonomic order and argued that migrants necessarily have a more complex nomenclature, of Hayman et al. (1986). I exclude the hybrid, life cycle compared with residents, many of which are Cox’s Sandpiper Calidris paramelanotos and other nomadic and some of which exploit the most Chardriiformes which are generally not considered unpredictable and ephemeral of habitats. shorebirds by Hayman et al. (sheathbills, gulls and terns). I • That the activities of the AWSG are independent of treated the Plains Wanderer Pedionomus torquatus as a other shorebird study groups (unlikely) or at least that shorebird and have added it to Hayman et al. ’s list (after the activities of those groups are either 1) not overly Christidis and Boles 1994), and I have accepted the influential on AWSG activities or 2) are themselves not Australian Painted Snipe Rostratula australis as a full biased between migrants and residents. An analysis of species (after Lane and Rogers 2000). State wader study group bulletins would be interesting, but is beyond the scope of this paper. 216 Stilt 50 ( 2006 ): 215–223 Are we neglecting non-migratory shorebirds? 1 Table 1. Countries regarded as being within the East page check (volumes 1 and 46 ). Thus, classification of Asian - Australasian Flyway (after Howes and articles was based on titles. Articles, regardless of their type Bakewell 1989). Countries are listed roughly in order (Report, Short Communication, Paper etc.), were classified from north to south. as either 1) focussing on migratory species, 2) focussing on Country Qualifier resident species or 3) focussing on a combination of USA (Alaska) Western part migratory and resident species. Book reviews were excluded, Russia East of c. 120°E as were articles specifically dealing with species which I had Mongolia All not defined as shorebirds e.g. terns. I also excluded one China* All article from volume 12 because it focused on the hybrid Japan All Cox’s Sandpiper, and one from volume 25 because its North Korea All subject matter was outside EAAF. The number of articles, South Korea All and the number of pages upon which the articles were Burma All printed, were summed for each volume. Some subjectivity Vietnam All Laos All was required because articles were not always clearly Thailand All bounded (i.e. were not clearly separated one from the other), Philippines All especially in earlier volumes. Obscure titles also caused Cambodia All some difficulty with assigning some articles to the Malaysia All categories. Indonesia All While the vast majority of AWSG research outcomes are Papua New Guinea All published in Stilt , there are some exceptions, most notably Timor Leste All proceedings of conferences (e.g.
Recommended publications
  • Cravens Peak Scientific Study Report
    Geography Monograph Series No. 13 Cravens Peak Scientific Study Report The Royal Geographical Society of Queensland Inc. Brisbane, 2009 The Royal Geographical Society of Queensland Inc. is a non-profit organization that promotes the study of Geography within educational, scientific, professional, commercial and broader general communities. Since its establishment in 1885, the Society has taken the lead in geo- graphical education, exploration and research in Queensland. Published by: The Royal Geographical Society of Queensland Inc. 237 Milton Road, Milton QLD 4064, Australia Phone: (07) 3368 2066; Fax: (07) 33671011 Email: [email protected] Website: www.rgsq.org.au ISBN 978 0 949286 16 8 ISSN 1037 7158 © 2009 Desktop Publishing: Kevin Long, Page People Pty Ltd (www.pagepeople.com.au) Printing: Snap Printing Milton (www.milton.snapprinting.com.au) Cover: Pemberton Design (www.pembertondesign.com.au) Cover photo: Cravens Peak. Photographer: Nick Rains 2007 State map and Topographic Map provided by: Richard MacNeill, Spatial Information Coordinator, Bush Heritage Australia (www.bushheritage.org.au) Other Titles in the Geography Monograph Series: No 1. Technology Education and Geography in Australia Higher Education No 2. Geography in Society: a Case for Geography in Australian Society No 3. Cape York Peninsula Scientific Study Report No 4. Musselbrook Reserve Scientific Study Report No 5. A Continent for a Nation; and, Dividing Societies No 6. Herald Cays Scientific Study Report No 7. Braving the Bull of Heaven; and, Societal Benefits from Seasonal Climate Forecasting No 8. Antarctica: a Conducted Tour from Ancient to Modern; and, Undara: the Longest Known Young Lava Flow No 9. White Mountains Scientific Study Report No 10.
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • Natural History of Japanese Birds
    Natural History of Japanese Birds Hiroyoshi Higuchi English text translated by Reiko Kurosawa HEIBONSHA 1 Copyright © 2014 by Hiroyoshi Higuchi, Reiko Kurosawa Typeset and designed by: Washisu Design Office Printed in Japan Heibonsha Limited, Publishers 3-29 Kanda Jimbocho, Chiyoda-ku Tokyo 101-0051 Japan All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means without permission in writing from the publisher. The English text can be downloaded from the following website for free. http://www.heibonsha.co.jp/ 2 CONTENTS Chapter 1 The natural environment and birds of Japan 6 Chapter 2 Representative birds of Japan 11 Chapter 3 Abundant varieties of forest birds and water birds 13 Chapter 4 Four seasons of the satoyama 17 Chapter 5 Active life of urban birds 20 Chapter 6 Interesting ecological behavior of birds 24 Chapter 7 Bird migration — from where to where 28 Chapter 8 The present state of Japanese birds and their future 34 3 Natural History of Japanese Birds Preface [BOOK p.3] Japan is a beautiful country. The hills and dales are covered “satoyama”. When horsetail shoots come out and violets and with rich forest green, the river waters run clear and the moun- cherry blossoms bloom in spring, birds begin to sing and get tain ranges in the distance look hazy purple, which perfectly ready for reproduction. Summer visitors also start arriving in fits a Japanese expression of “Sanshi-suimei (purple mountains Japan one after another from the tropical regions to brighten and clear waters)”, describing great natural beauty.
    [Show full text]
  • GRUNDSTEN Japan 0102 2016
    Birding Japan (M. Grundsten, Sweden) 2016 Japan, January 30th - February 14th 2016 Karuizawa – E Hokkaido – S Kyushu – Okinawa – Hachijo-jima Front cover Harlequin Duck Histrionicus histrionicus, common along eastern Hokkaido coasts. Photo: Måns Grundsten Participants Måns Grundsten ([email protected], compiler, most photos), Mattias Andersson, Mattias Gerdin, Sweden. Highlights • A shy Solitary Snipe in the main stream at Karuizawa. • Huge-billed Japanese Grosbeaks and a neat 'griseiventris' Eurasian Bullfinch at Karuizawa. • A single Rustic Bunting behind 7/Eleven at Karuizawa. • Amazing auks from the Oarai-Tomakomai ferry. Impressive numbers of Rhinoceros Auklet! • Parakeet Auklet fly-bys. • Blakiston's Fish Owl in orderly fashion at Rausu. • Displaying Black Scoters at Notsuke peninsula. • Majestic Steller's Sea Eagles in hundreds. • Winter gulls at Hokkaido. • Finding a vagrant Golden-crowned Sparrow at Kiritappu at the same feeders as Asian Rosy Finches. • No less than 48(!) Rock Sandpipers. • A lone immature Red-faced Cormorants on cliffs at Cape Nosappu. • A pair of Ural Owls on day roost at Kushiro. • Feeding Ryukyu Minivets at Lake Mi-ike. • Fifteen thousand plus cranes at Arasaki. • Unexpectedly productive Kogawa Dam – Long-billed Plover. • Saunders's Gulls at Yatsushiro. • Kin Ricefields on Okinawa, easy birding, lots of birds, odd-placed Tundra Bean Geese. • Okinawa Woodpecker and Rail within an hour close to Fushigawa Dam, Yanbaru. • Whistling Green Pigeon eating fruits in Ada Village. • Vocal Ryukyu Robins. • Good shorebird diversity in Naha. • Male Izu Thrush during a short break on Hachijo-jima. • Triple Albatrosses! • Bulwer's Petrel close to the ship. Planning the trip – Future aspects When planning a birding trip to Japan there is a lot of consideration to be made.
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • The Birder, No. 255, Spring 2020
    e h T The oBfficial mIagaRzine of BDirds SA SEpring 202R 0 No 255 In this Issue Vale Kent Treloar October Campout Linking people with birds What’s happening to in South Australia Adelaide’s trees? A Colourful Pair A Rainbow Lorikeet pair (Photographed by Jeff Groves on River Torrens Linear Park ,June 2020 ) Contents President’s Message ............................................................................................................ 5 Volunteers wanted ................................................................................................................. 6 Vale Kent Treloar ..................................................................................................................... 7 Conservation Sub-Committee Report ............................................................................... 10 What’s happening to Adelaide’s Trees? ............................................................................. 12 Friends of Adelaide International Bird Sanctuary (FAIBS) ............................................. 16 Your help is still needed ...................................................................................................... 17 Bird Watching is Big Business ............................................................................................ 19 Short-tailed Shearwaters in Trouble ................................................................................. 20 Larry’s Birding Trips .............................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Japan Ryukyu Islands Extension 20Th to 26Th November 2013 (7 Days)
    Japan Ryukyu Islands Extension 20th to 26th November 2013 (7 days) Ryukyu Robin by Glen Valentine Tour Leaders: Glen Valentine & Bryan Shirley Trip Report compiled by: Glen Valentine Trip Report - RBT Japan Ryukyu Islands Ext Nov 2013 2 Tour Summary Our 2013 Rockjumper birding tour of Japan’s Ryukyu Islands was an immense success and produced every single endemic on the beautiful, forested islands of Amami and Okinawa. These small islands make up the southern tip of Japan and were the focus of this pre-tour extension. Highlights were many and included such legendary species as the fairly recently discovered Okinawa Rail (only described in 1981), the impressive and extremely localized and rare Okinawa (Pryer’s) Woodpecker (listed as one of the world’s 300 rarest birds with less than 600 individuals remaining), the noisy and extremely striking Lidth’s Jay, mega Amami Woodcock, seldom-seen Lidth’s Jay by Glen Valentine Amami Thrush, little-known Ryukyu Flycatcher (split from Narcissus Flycatcher by some authorities), Whistling Green Pigeon and the stunning Ryukyu Robin! Our adventure began in the country’s capital, the bustling Tokyo and the world’s most populous city! Starting our birding the next morning at a productive site nearby (the Sakurada Moat) before our flight to Amami-Oshima, we were delighted by the numbers and great, close views of a good assortment of waterfowl. Species included Gadwall, Eurasian Wigeon, Northern Shoveler, Common Pochard, Tufted Duck and at least 14 Falcated Duck that included 11 stunning males, as well as a single American Wigoen, a rather rare bird in Japan.
    [Show full text]
  • Bird Checklists of the World Country Or Region: Ohio
    Avibase Page 1of 15 Col Location Date Start time Duration Distance Avibase - Bird Checklists of the World 1 Country or region: Ohio 2 <b>Note:</b> The AOU checklist only covers North American birds. 3 Number of species: 449 4 Number of endemics: 0 5 Number of breeding endemics: 0 6 Number of introduced species: 7 7 Date last reviewed: 2019-12-25 8 9 10 Recommended citation: Lepage, D. 2021. Checklist of the birds of Ohio. Avibase, the world bird database. Retrieved from .https://avibase.bsc-eoc.org/checklist.jsp?lang=EN&region=usoh [28/09/2021]. Make your observations count! Submit your data to ebird.org - Legend: [x] accidental [ex] extirpated [EX] extinct [EW] extinct in the wild [E] endemic [e] endemic (country/region) Common name Scientific name Synonym Status 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ANSERIFORMES: Anatidae Black-bellied Whistling-Duck Dendrocygna autumnalis Rare/Accidental Fulvous Whistling-Duck Dendrocygna bicolor Rare/Accidental Snow Goose Anser caerulescens Ross's Goose Anser rossii Greater White-fronted Goose Anser albifrons Brant Branta bernicla Cackling Goose Branta hutchinsii Canada Goose Branta canadensis Mute Swan Cygnus olor Introduced species Trumpeter Swan Cygnus buccinator Tundra Swan Cygnus columbianus Wood Duck Aix sponsa Garganey Spatula querquedula Rare/Accidental Blue-winged Teal Spatula discors Cinnamon Teal Spatula cyanoptera Rare/Accidental Northern Shoveler Spatula clypeata Gadwall Mareca strepera Eurasian Wigeon Mareca penelope American Wigeon Mareca americana Mallard Anas platyrhynchos American Black Duck Anas
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • Citizen Science and Red Knots Calidris Canutus - Richard Smith
    Volume 6 Issue 4 SUPPORTING Jan 2020 SHOREBIRD Wader Quest the newsletter CONSERVATION DO YOU LOVE YOUR WADERS? Confirmed talks by Rick and Elis Simpson: all ‘Wader Quest’ unless THEN WHY NOT JOIN THE WADER QUEST TEAM? otherwise stated. WE ARE LOOKING FOR VOLUNTEERS WHO WOULD LIKE TO BECOME 21/02/2020 (19.15) Marylebone INVOLVED IN THE RUNNING OF WADER QUEST AS PART OF A WORKING Birdwatching Society (An Inspiration of Waders) GROUP, WHICH WOULD OPERATE INDEPENDENTLY OF THE TRUSTEES. 02/04/2020 (19.45) Sevenoaks WE WOULD BE LOOKING FOR HELP IN ROLES SUCH AS I.T. SUPPORT, WEBSITE RSPB local group 09/04/2020 (19.45) North Bucks. POPULATION, MEMBERSHIP, WADER CONSERVATION WORLD WATCH RSPB local group (An Inspiration of PROMOTION, MARKETING ETC. Waders) 14/04/2010 (tba) Shoreham District IF YOU ARE INTERESTED AND WOULD LIKE TO BE INVOLVED IN ANY ASPECT OF Ornithological Society WADER QUEST, THEN PLEASE GET IN TOUCH EITHER AT 28/04/2020 (19.30) Shrewsbury RSPB local group [email protected] OR [email protected] 29/04/2020 (19.30) Huntingdonshire RSPB local group 07/05/2020 (19.30) Sheffield RSPB local group (Confessions of a Bird Editorial - Rick Simpson Guide) As we welcome in the New Year continued to grow, albeit slowly. 21/05/2020 (19.30) Wensum Valley let us spare a thought for all We have welcomed 56 Birdwatching Society those regions devastated by dis- new Friends or Sponsors during For a complete listing with times asters, natural and man-made, the year, but of course this is and venue, visit the website Talks political turmoil and conflict.
    [Show full text]
  • Identification of Slender-Billed Curlew
    Identification of Slender-billed Curlew i -; "il John H. Marchant ike all eight species of curlew Numenius, the Slender-billed Curlew LN. tenuirostris breeds only in the temperate zone of the northern hemi• sphere and is a strong migrant. The smaller members of the genus penetrate as far as the tips of the southern continents as non-breeding migrants. Unusually, however, its migration from its west Siberian breeding grounds is oriented not roughly southwards as in the sympatric eastern race of Curlew N. arquata orientalis, but WSW towards wintering grounds in the Mediterranean basin, chiefly Tunisia and Atlantic Morocco. The range of vagrancy includes Oman in the south, the Canaries and Azores in the west, and the Netherlands, Germany and Poland in the north. There are also two undated specimens from Japan. Six specimens from Britain were all reported in The Handbook as taken between 1910 and 1919 in continued.... [Brit. Birds 77: 135-140, April 1984] 135 136 Identification of Slender-billed Curlew a small area ofcoastal East Sussex and Kent; they have now been dismissed along with the other 'Hastings Rarities' (Brit. Birds 55: 281-384). Other sightings have been reported here, but with insufficient detail to establish the species on the British and Irish list. Surprisingly, there are no fully authenticated sightings or specimen records outside the Palearctic faunal region, although there have been unsubstantiated reports from Aldabra, Chad and Somalia. Thus, Slender- billed Curlew is a wader endemic to the Palearctic, a distinction shared incidentally with only the little-known Amami Woodcock Scolopax mira of the extreme southeast of the region.
    [Show full text]