On the current status of Indian Peafowl Pavo cristatus (Aves:
Galliformes: Phasianidae): keeping the common species common
K.
Ramesh1,2 & Philip McGowan 2
1Wildlife
Institute of India, Post Box 18, Chandrabani, Dehradun, Uttarakhand 248001,
India
2World
Pheasant Association, 7/9 Shaftesbury Street, Fordingbridge, SP6 1JF, United
Kingdom
E-mail: 1 ramesh@wii.gov.in
Date
of online publication 26 February 2009
ISSN 0974-7907
(online) | 0974-7893 (print)
Editor: Sanjay Molur
Manuscript
details:
Ms # o1845
Received 28
August 2007
Final revised
received 26 December 2007
Finally accepted
16 January 2008
Citation: Ramesh, K.
& P. Mcgowan (2009). On the current status of Indian Peafowl Pavo
cristatus (Aves: Galliformes: Phasianidae): keeping the common species
common. Journal of Threatened Taxa 1(2): 106-108.
Author Details: Dr. K. Ramesh is a faculty member with
Wildlife Institute of India and is involved in the landscape analysis of
Galliformes distribution in northwestern India. His doctoral thesis was on the
ecology of three sympatric pheasant species in the Great Himalayan National
Park, Himachal Pradesh. Dr. Philip McGowan researched on the
Malaysian Peacock Pheasant for his Ph.D. and is currently the Director of World
Pheasant Association, U.K., an organization devoted to the conservation of the
world’s Galliformes species.
Author
contributions:
The first author conceived the idea and prepared the manuscript, while the
second author provided necessary conceptual and technical inputs.
Copyright: © K. Ramesh
& P. McGowan 2009. Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License. JoTT
allows unrestricted use of this article in any medium for non-profit purposes,
reproduction and distribution by providing adequate credit to the authors and
the source of publication.
Acknowledgements: The
authors are thankful to the Director, Wildlife Institute of India and the two
reviewers for their useful inputs.
Abstract:It is ironic that while all efforts to save the Tiger (Panthera
tigris) are underway, another species of national importance, the Indian
Peafowl, (Pavo cristatus) is still to receive adequate attention. Illegal trade for train-feathers and mass
mortality due to indiscriminate application of pesticides and herbicides in
crop-fields are major causes of the recent decline in peafowl numbers. Though
there has been increasing concern over the declining peafowl population, it is
difficult to arrive at a realistic plan unless the current population size, the
rate of decline and the causes of decline are scientifically quantified.
Considering the need for conservation initiatives for peafowl, one must look
beyond the ‘fire-fighting approach’ towards ‘keeping the common species common’
in order to be efficient with conservation investments and instill greater
public participation.
Keywords:Conservation, distribution, peafowl, pheasant, population estimation
Introduction
The
Indian Peafowl (Pavo cristatus), also called Blue or Common
Peafowl, is the largest of the pheasants. It was justifiably declared as the National Bird of India in 1963 due to
its ‘flagship’ value founded on its glorious position in mythology and its
widespread distribution and grandeur. The peacock’s large body size, brilliantly ornamented plumage and long
train-feathers are surely attractive to predators, and it remains a puzzle why
such an extravagant trait has developed despite being a handicap to escape
predation pressure, among other things. One explanation is that of Zahavi’s (1975) ‘handicap hypothesis’ which
suggests that a peacock’s long train-feathers are an honest signal of fitness
as the individual has demonstrated its survival ability even with the
disadvantage of having to carry around such a heavy and conspicuous
burden. Consequently, females would
consciously choose the male to mate with precisely because of its ‘handicap’,
rather than in spite of it (Gadagkar 2003) and thus pass on the genes to the
next generation. Though the peafowl’s
physical appearance and behaviour have always interested and intrigued
naturalists, there are very few studies of its ecology, population status and
conservation threats. The aim of this
note is to highlight this huge gap in our understanding of this species and to
suggest some action plans.
Distribution
The
natural range of Indian Peafowl is essentially the Indian subcontinent, with
India covering a vast majority of its range from the outer Himalaya (up to
2000m) through much of the country including the peninsula. Other countries where the species still
survives in good numbers are Nepal and Sri Lanka; while there are only two
populations in Pakistan, it is rare in Bhutan and possibly extinct in
Bangladesh. It has been introduced in
Andaman Islands (Ali & Ripley 1980). Peafowls have been maintained in captivity for centuries across the
world and there are introduced populations in USA, Europe, Hawaii Islands, West
Indies, South Africa, New Zealand, Australia etc. (Madge & McGowan 2002).
Habitat and behaviour
It
is a bird of scrub-jungles and forest edges, showing affinity to moist and dry
deciduous and semiarid biomes. It is
also found in agriculture fields, along streams with good vegetation and close
to human habitations in a semi-feral condition (Johnsgard 1986). It roosts on trees and also uses tall
buildings where trees are scarce. It
generally prefers a habitat mosaic of scrub and open areas, with adequate sites
for ‘dust bathing’ and ‘lekking’, a phenomenon where males are known to
congregate in open areas for displaying to attract females (Yasmin & Yahya
1996). Dust bathing is critical as this
bird has to condition its feathers and remove feather-degrading bacteria and
other external parasites. It is likely
that the availability of such habitats partly explains the relatively high
abundance of this species in semi arid and flood plains.
Population
status
In
the absence of reliable information and data, it is hard to place the current
distribution status and population size of the species; although a conservative
‘guesstimate’ suggests that the population may exceed 100,000 (Madge &
McGowan 2002). While the species is
becoming locally extinct from several parts of its former range due to habitat
conversion and changes in the cropping pattern (Imam 2005), poaching, and
pesticide-related issues, there is no estimate of the size of surviving
populations and the rate of loss from the entire country. Only recently the states of Himachal Pradesh,
Uttarakhand and Gujarat have initiated statewide surveys for these birds, but
the estimates are not yet available. These estimates would reflect
only the minimum population size, requiring further investigation to fully
understand the population status in these areas. Population estimates could
also be derived from the recently-concluded tiger population estimation
project, which gathered data on peafowl numbers as a part of prey estimation
(Jhala et al. 2005). However, this was mostly carried out in the forested areas
of tiger habitat and thus covered only a small portion of the actual peafowl
habitat. The Wildlife Institute of India
has conducted a questionnaire survey on population status of Indian peafowl
(Choudhury & Sathyakumar 2007), and this again would only be a pointer for
further investigation unless the estimates are substantiated with empirical
data. Other sources of information could
be the dissertation studies carried out by some universities and projects on
carnivores and their prey estimation, wherein peafowl abundance also figures in
terms of available prey densities and biomass. However, such efforts are not many, and have also been carried out over
varying time scales making it difficult to draw general conclusions. Though compiling this data would be useful to
understand the population size in given localities, it is certainly
insufficient to make any extrapolation to population estimates for large
regions of the country as a whole.
In short, there
is no reliable estimate of the current population status of Indian Peafowl for
the country, and it is important to carry out intensive field sampling if one
is to arrive at a reliable estimate of the population.
Conservation
status
The Indian
Peafowl is listed as Least Concern species in the Red List of International
Union for Conservation of Nature (BirdLife International 2008), probably owing
to its widespread distribution, occurrence of locally abundant semi-feral
populations, and protection from people on religious grounds. In India, it is given the utmost protection
by inclusion in the Schedule I of Indian Wildlife Act, 1972. Although the train feathers of the Indian
Peafowl are traded for various reasons, it is not included on any Appendix of
the Convention on International Trade of Endangered Species perhaps on the
claim that these feathers are naturally fallen ones during annual molt of the
species, and also that the scale of trade across international border is still
to be understood.
Threats
The Indian
Peafowl is under threat from various quarters that include the demand for
feathers and wild meat, conflict with farmers during cropping season, increased
use of chemical fertilizers and pesticides, and habitat degradation. An adult peacock has about 200 tail feathers,
which it sheds from August onwards; fully-developed new feathers appear in
February (Sharma 1974; Ali & Ripley 1980). The fallen feathers are collected and sold in local markets and the
birds are also reportedly killed to increase revenue return. Other threats
include habitat degradation and loss - more significantly from conversion of
their habitat to agriculture, habitation and industrial growth, poisoning to
counter crop damage, consumption of eggs and fat extracts for alleged medicinal
values, and killing for wild meat (del Hoyo et al. 1994; Chakkaravarthy 2002). Although these threats are believed to be
causing an alarming decline in populations, the magnitude and pattern of the
effects in different parts of the country are yet to be quantified.
What has to be
done?
It
is critical that urgent efforts are made to understand the habitat and
population status of the species through field based research and in situconservation projects. A meeting of the
Indian Board for Wild Life (held on 19 June 2006) underlined the need for such
efforts. The actions required are: (1)
mapping of habitat and distribution status of the species across the country,
inside and outside protected areas; (2) time series analysis of habitat change
to quantify the rate of change and identify high-risk areas and potential sites
for further affirmative action; (3) estimation of population size by
established count methods such as line transect, call counts and roost counts;
(4) intensive ecological investigations in representative sites in major
biogeographic zones with focus on the effects of threats in relation to
breeding success and survival probability; (5) quantification of trade, with
details on source and people involved; and (6) undertaking outreach activities
to sensitize local communities, which may be carried out by a network of ‘student
clubs’ (e.g. National Green Corps) throughout the country. These people could be trained to collect
population data and undertake monitoring within their localities, and the
reliability of the results could be ensured by adopting rigorous
protocols. These ambitious initiatives
should be executed through consultative processes involving various research
and conservation agencies in the country.
The
reason for the precarious status of many species including peafowl is the
consistent bias towards endangered species and conservation interventions that
are based on restrictive models (protected area-centric conservation). This approach overlooks common species when
planning and implementing research and conservation schemes. Though this policy was essentially triggered
by limited resources and a desire to safeguard a few charismatic species
thought to be highly threatened, it has remained the major conservation policy
even though our understanding of biodiversity conservation issues has increased
substantially. In practice, this does
not encourage imaginative thinking about alternative options and mobilising
resources for a broader plan. This
myopic approach often results in common species becoming threatened, and thus
requiring greater human and fiscal resources than would have been the case if
some thought had been given to broader conservation issues. Therefore, while concentrating on threatened
species management, efforts should simultaneously be made to mobilize resources
and develop strategies for ‘keeping the common species common’. The Indian
Peafowl - the National Bird of India - is a clear case in this direction, and
if full-fledged efforts are not taken up now it may soon follow the trail of
the vanishing vultures of the subcontinent.
References
Ali, S. &
S.D. Ripley (1980).Handbook of The Birds of Indian and Pakistan, Volume 2: Magapodes to Crab
Plover. Oxford University Press, New Delhi, 347pp.
BirdLife
International (2008).Pavo cristatus. In: IUCN 2008. 2008 IUCN Red List of Threatened
Species. <www.iucnredlist.org>. Downloaded on 03 February 2009.
Chakkaravarthy,
Q.A. (2002).Call to save our national bird, Indian Peafowl (Pavo cristatus).
Proceedings of the National Symposium on Galliformes, Division of Wildlife
Biology, AVC College, Bharathidasan University, Tamil Nadu, 77-78.
Choudhury, B.
& S. Sathyakumar (2007). Current status of the Indian peafowl. Mor,Newsletter of World Pheasant Association-India 7pp.
del
Hoyo, J., A. Elliot & J. Sargatal (1994). Handbook of The
Birds of The World. New World Vultures to Guineafowl - Volume 2. Lynx
Edicions, Barcelona, pp.434-552.
Gadagkar,
R. (2003).Is the peacock merely beautiful or also honest? Current Science 85(7):
1012-1020.
Imam, E. (2005). Population
status and conservation of Indian Peafowl Pavo cristatus in Aligarh,
northern India, pp.191-193. In: Fuller, R.A. & S.J. Browne (eds). Galliformes
2004. Proceedings of the 3rd International Galliformes Symposium. World
Pheasant Association, Fordingbridge, United Kingdom.
Jhala, Y.V., Q.
Qureshi & R. Gopal (2005). Monitoring Tiger, Co-predators, Prey
and Their Habitat. Technical publication of Project Tiger Directorate, New
Delhi and Wildlife Institute of India, Dehradun, 55pp.
Johnsgard, P.A.
(1986). The Pheasants of The World. Oxford University Press, New York, 295pp.
Madge, S. &
P. McGowan (2002). Pheasants, Partridges and Grouse, Including Buttonquails, Sandgrouse and
Allies. Helm Identification Guides, Christopher Helm, London, 488pp.
Sharma, I.K.
(1974).Ecological studies of the plumes of the peacock (Pavo cristatus).Condor 76(3): 344-346.
Yasmin, S. &
H.S.A. Yahya (1996).Correlates of mating success in Indian Peafowl. The Auk 113(2): 490-492.
Zahavi, A.
(1975).Mate selection - a selection for a handicap. Journal of Theoretical Biology53: 205-214.