Declines and Conservation of Himalayan Galliformes Thesis submitted to the School of Biology, Newcastle University in fulfilment for the requirements of the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Jonathon Charles Dunn December 2014 Abstract The Greater Himalaya has been identified as a key conservation region that supports high levels of biodiversity but has exceptionally high proportions of threatened species. One taxonomic group that is thought to be of particular concern is the bird order Galliformes. The Greater Himalaya is home to 24 species of resident Galliformes with a variety of ecological characteristics, geographical distribution patterns and abundance levels. Our current knowledge of South Asian Galliformes and Himalayan species in particular, contains many gaps. For example, it is suspected that many Himalayan Galliformes have undergone marked population declines but as to what extent they have declined and even the current status of some species is not fully known. There is a similar paucity of knowledge regarding both the distributions of the rarest of Himalayan Galliformes species and how well the current protected area network represents such distributions. Here I provide new insights into the distribution of the rarest Himalayan Galliform, the Critically Endangered Himalayan Quail (Orphrysia superciliosa) by using two proxy species with similar habitat preferences to create an environmental niche model. I show that by calculating an estimate of extinction likelihood, we have good reason to believe that the Himalayan quail to be extant and that recent searches in Nepal would be better targeted in North East India. Moving from single species to multiple species, I then examine long-term population changes across all Himalayan Galliformes by using changes in geographic range size as a proxy. I show that population changes for this suite of species both within and outside the Himalaya can help us to set conservation priorities and baselines. In addition, it can help us to identify species that have undergone large population changes that are not reflected in contemporary IUCN Red List statues. Species with small geographic ranges are currently top priorities for conservation efforts because they are thought to be at a greater risk of extinction. However, because it is also easier to track long term population changes over smaller spatial scales, concern exists that we may have underestimated the declines and therefore the extinction risk of more i widespread species. I show that across the entire Galliformes taxon, geographic range size does not predict the rate of geographic range decline. Finally, I move from population declines across all Galliformes to distributions of Himalayan Galliformes and assess how well the current protected area network represents such species. Using a combination of species distribution modelling and spatial prioritisation software, I show that the current protected area network in the greater Himalayas could be improved to offer better coverage for Himalayan Galliformes. I conclude by discussing the generality of my results and how they can be applied to other taxa and localities. Finally I make a series of recommendations for future Galliformes research and conservation within the Himalaya. ii Dedication This thesis is dedicated to Granny and Grampy Dunn. RIP. iii Acknowledgements Warm thanks go to my supervisors Mark Whittingham and Philip McGowan. I would not have completed this thesis without you! You have provided much support, encouragement and endless patience and it has been a pleasure to work with you both. Thanks also go to Mark Shirley, who provided much support in the initial stages of the PhD, especially regarding modelling and GIS and to Lizzie Boakes, who helped me enormously in getting to grips with the GALLIFORM database. I am much obliged to Graeme Buchanan and Richard Cuthbert at the RSPB, who have collaborated with me on Chapters 2 and 5. It has been enjoyable to work with them and I am grateful to the insights that they have provided me. Thanks also go to Will Stein at Simon Fraser University for his phylogenetic contributions to Chapter 5. Peter Garson provided many interesting chats and insights about both the Himalaya and Galliformes and I am extremely grateful to past and present members of Mark’s research group for letting me pick their brains. Thanks go to Matt, Ailsa, Jeroen, Claudia, Caroline, Richard, Ibrahim, Nadheer and especially, Mieke. It has been great getting to know you all and my PhD experience has been all the richer because of you. Special thanks go to Mum and Dad who inspired me with their love of nature and for their generous help with my flat, and to Callum whose continued support and encouragement has kept me going even when I wanted to give up! Also, thanks go to my other family and friends including Gran and Grampy Seward, Nicole, Jordan, Christine and Claire. Finally, I am indebted to NERC, whose financial support (grant number 3000021024) enabled me to carry out the project. Collaborations The following people made specific contributions to my thesis, which are outlined below: Graeme M. Buchanan, RSPB (Chapters 2 and 5) provided species distribution modelling advice and read through a draft of my chapter two manuscript; Richard J. Cuthbert, RSPB (Chapter 2) provided field insights iv into the Himalayan monal and read through a draft of my chapter two manuscript; R. Will Stein, Simon Fraser University (Chapter 5) provided phylogenetic distinctiveness scores. Everything else was written and analysed by Jonathon Dunn. Mark Whittingham and Philip McGowan oversaw and directed the research and read drafts of the thesis chapters. v Contents Abstract i Dedication iii Acknowledgements iv List of Figures xiii List of Tables xvi 1 Introduction 1 1.1 Global biodiversity in crisis . 1 1.2 How to halt and reduce biodiversity loss? . 3 1.3 Which species to conserve? . 6 1.3.1 Geographic range: a central concept for species declines and local rarity . 8 1.4 Which areas to conserve? . 9 1.5 Data and decision-making . 11 1.5.1 Data shortfall: species distributions . 11 1.5.2 Data shortfall: species extinction risk . 11 1.5.3 Historical data: part of the solution? . 12 1.6 Greater Himalayan biodiversity in crisis . 13 1.7 Himalayan Galliformes . 15 1.8 The central challenge: how to conserve Himalayan Galliformes . 16 1.9 Aims of thesis . 17 1.10 Thesis outline . 17 2 Mapping the potential distribution of the Critically Endangered Himalayan Quail (Ophrysia superciliosa) using proxy species and species distribution modelling 19 2.1 Abstract . 19 2.2 Introduction . 19 2.3 Methods . 21 2.3.1 Bird records . 21 2.3.2 Calculating the likelihood of extinction . 22 vi 2.3.3 Modelling approach for climate envelopes and species distribution models . 23 2.3.4 Comparing climate envelopes . 25 2.3.5 Identifying overlap between climate and niche envelopes 25 2.4 Results . 25 2.4.1 Creating niche envelopes . 28 2.5 Discussion . 32 2.6 Appendix . 35 2.6.1 Further details of historical records used in modelling procedures . 35 2.6.2 Further details relating to Optimal Linear Estimation technique and results . 36 2.6.3 Further details relating to niche modelling procedures . 37 3 Long-term relative range declines of Himalayan Galliformes show discordance with global Red List categories 45 3.1 Abstract . 45 3.2 Introduction . 45 3.2.1 Species declines and temporal scale . 46 3.2.2 Species declines and spatial scale . 47 3.2.3 Challenges in examining species declines over both long time periods and sub-global scales . 47 3.3 Methods . 49 3.3.1 Galliform dataset . 49 3.3.2 Calculating the Telfer index . 50 3.3.3 Weighting regional range changes by regional endemism . 50 3.3.4 Comparing conservation priorities identified by relative range declines to priorities identified by the IUCN Red List . 51 3.4 Results . 52 3.4.1 Which Himalayan Galliformes species have declined in relative terms the most both within the Himalaya and globally; and are there any differences between the two? . 52 3.4.2 Does weighting regional RRC scores by regional endemism change our regional conservation priorities? . 57 3.4.3 Are our measures of global and regional range changes aligned with IUCN’s Red List threat categories? . 59 3.5 Discussion . 59 3.6 Appendix . 62 3.6.1 Further details of the study region and database used . 62 vii 3.6.2 Further details on calculating the Relative Range Change (RRC) index . 64 3.6.3 Further details on how we assessed both regional and global patterns of relative range declines . 66 4 Are widespread species that have undergone long-term range contraction overlooked in global assessments of likelihood of extinction? 69 4.1 Abstract . 69 4.2 Introduction . 69 4.3 Methods . 72 4.3.1 Database information . 72 4.3.2 Assessing declines: using changes in geographic range as a proxy for changes in population size . 72 4.3.3 Correction factor techniques . 72 4.3.4 Time bins . 73 4.3.5 Threshold definitions . 74 4.3.6 Statistics . 74 4.4 Results . 75 4.4.1 Have geographically widespread species declined at similar rates as geographically range restricted species? . 75 4.4.2 Have historical declines been reflected in current Red List categories? . 78 4.5 Discussion . 78 4.6 Appendix . 81 4.6.1 Details of the sighting data used and network of well-sampled cells . 81 4.6.2 Range measures . 82 4.6.3 Additional categorical results when different threshold definitions were used and species with <5 cells in the early period were included or excluded . 83 4.6.4 Additional continuous results when species with <5 cells in the early period were included in the analysis . 86 4.6.5 Additional results relating to the Telfer method .