Journal of Threatened Taxa |
www.threatenedtaxa.org | 26 August 2021 | 13(9): 19293–19301
ISSN 0974-7907 (Online) | ISSN 0974-7893
(Print)
https://doi.org/10.11609/jott.6503.13.9.19293-19301
#6503 | Received 30 July 2020 | Final
received 23 July 2021 | Finally accepted 07 August 2021
Population status and
distribution of the Critically Endangered Bengal Florican Houbaropsis
bengalensis in the grassland of Koshi Tappu Wildlife Reserve,
Nepal
Ritika Prasai
1, Hemanta Kafley
2, Suraj Upadhaya 3, Swosthi Thapa 4, Pratistha
Shrestha 5, Alex Dudley 6 & Yajna Prasad Timilsina 7
1,4,5,7 Institute of Forestry, Hariyokharka, Pokhara 33700, Nepal.
1,2 Wildlife, Sustainability, and
Ecosystem Sciences, Tarleton State University, Stephenville, TX 76402, USA.
1 Nepal Nature Foundation, Koteshwor, Kathmandu 44622, Nepal
3 Himalayan Conservation and
Research Institute, Thulibheri-3, Dunai Bazar, Dolpa
21400, Nepal.
3 Department of Natural Resource
Ecology and Management, Iowa State University, Ames, IA 50010, USA.
6 Katie Adamson Conservation Fund,
8156 South Wadsworth Blvd, Suite E174, Littleton, Colorado 80128, USA.
1 ritikaprasai3@gmail.com
(corresponding author), 2 kafley@tarleton.edu, 3 surajupadhaya99@gmail.com,
4 swosthinani@gmail.com,
5 pratistha.shrestha5@gmail.com, 6
alex.dudley50@gmail.com, 7 yptimilsina@iofpc.edu.np
Abstract: The Bengal Florican Houbaropsis bengalensis
is one of the most threatened terrestrial bird species, listed as ‘Critically
Endangered’ by the IUCN. This species is protected globally and locally due to
very low population (global population is approximately 250–999 individuals),
and little is known about its distribution and habitat use. We assessed
population status and distribution of floricans in Koshi
Tappu Wildlife Reserve, Nepal (KTWR). We surveyed 57
1-km2 randomly distributed blocks across the reserve to record as
many individuals as possible during their breeding season (March–May). We
walked 2,964 transects (52 transects on each block) each of length 1 km on 57
blocks of 1-km2 to estimate their population. We surveyed when the
birds are most active during early morning (0600–0930 h) and later afternoon
(1530–1900 h). We calculated grass importance value index (IVI), grass species
composition, grass height, relative frequency of grass species, relative density
of grass species, percent of grass ground coverage, presence/absence of human
activity, and presence/absence of livestock to assess the habitat condition. We
recorded 18 individuals (16 males and 2 females) inside the core of the
reserve, where the habitat is dominated by Imperata
cylindrica. Human disturbance had a negative
impact on occurrence of the florican. We recommend implementing a Bengal
Florican-specific conservation action plan to promote community-based
conservation and restrict human encroachment in the grassland habitat.
Keywords: Conservation, human-wildlife
interaction, importance value index, species composition, threatened species.
Editor: P.A. Azeez, Salim Ali Centre For
Ornithology And Natural History, Coimbatore, India. Date
of publication: 26 August 2021 (online & print)
Citation: Prasai,
R., H. Kafley, S. Upadhaya,
S. Thapa, P. Shrestha, A. Dudley & Y.P. Timilsina
(2021). Population status and
distribution of the Critically Endangered Bengal Florican Houbaropsis
bengalensis in the grassland of Koshi Tappu Wildlife Reserve,
Nepal. Journal of
Threatened Taxa 13(9): 19293–19301. https://doi.org/10.11609/jott.6503.13.9.19293-19301
Copyright: © Sagar
& Mrunmayee 2021. Creative Commons Attribution
4.0 International License. JoTT allows unrestricted use, reproduction, and
distribution of this article in any medium by providing adequate credit to the
author(s) and the source of publication.
Funding: This project was funded
by Rufford Foundation, UK.
Competing interests: The authors
declare no competing interests.
Author details: Ritika Prasai is a MS graduate and currently working as a Data Specialist at Baylor
University, Waco, Texas. She has expertise in geospatial data science and
involved in research related to remote sensing, species distribution modelling,
habitat modelling, land use land cover. She is actively involved in projects
related to wildlife conservation of Nepal.
Dr. Hemanta
Kafley PhD is an assistant professor of
wildlife science at the Tarleton State University, Stephenville, Texas. His
research focusses on broader aspects of species-habitat relationships. Dr. Kafley’s current research includes predictive distribution
modeling of rare plants in Texas, developing habitat suitability index of
giraffe, and habitat occupancy modeling of predators and prey populations in
South Africa, and bio-cultural conservation issues in Bhutan. Suraj Upadhaya PhD, is a postdoctoral research associate
in the Department of Natural Resource Ecology and Management, Iowa State
University, and director at Himalayan Conservation and Research Institute. He
conducts research and teaches in the areas of socio-ecological systems and
human dimensions of natural resource management. His academic
and professional’s goals are to explore the dynamic relationship
between natural resources and people, ensure the sustainability of natural
resources in developed and developing countries, and channel his research to
benefit the underprivileged population. Swosthi Thapa, interested in conducting research in the areas of
natural resource management, forest governance, socio-ecological system, human
environment interactions, and remote sensing, Swosthi
Thapa is a graduate from Institute of Forestry, Tribhuvan University, Nepal,
and Research Assistant at Southasia Institute of
Advanced Studies(SiAS). She has strong interest in
identifying human geography and connecting it with natural resources, exploring
relationship between environmental components, and expand research areas in
forestry sector. After working in different environmental projects, she has
developed her professionalism and is continuously working in nature
conservation sector. Pratistha Shrestha, a forestry graduate. An early career civil
servant with a technical know-how. Area of interest includes research-based
policy analysis and governance. Aims to channelize her learnings and knowledge
in appropriate use of diplomacy, diaspora and development operations. Alex
Dudley is Conservation Liaison for the Katie Adamson Conservation Fund
(KACF), a nonprofit organization providing financial support and volunteer
manpower to community-based endangered species initiatives worldwide. He also
is a wildlife journalist whose work has appeared in Mongabay.
In these roles, Alex has evaluated firsthand, and written about, new
community-based endangered species partners for the KACF in Tanzania, Kenya,
Uganda, Nepal, India, and Costa Rica. He holds a Bachelor of Arts Degree in
African Studies from the University of Colorado at Boulder and a Master of
Science in Conservation Leadership from Colorado State University. Yajna
Prasad Timilsina is a Professor of statistics
at Institute of Forestry, Pokhara, Nepal and mentors Statistics, Experimental
design and Research methodology for undergraduate and graduate students. His
interest area is natural resource modeling and sampling .He has also well
expertized of data management and statistical analysis. He has published more
than four dozens of articles in national and international peer reviewed
journals.
Author contributions: Ritika Parsai:
Conceptualization, Methodology, Data Cleaning, Formal Analysis,
Writing-original Draft, Funding Acquisition.Hemanta Kafley: Conceptualization, Formal Analysis. Suraj Upadhaya: Conceptualization, Formal Analysis,
Writing-original Draft. Swosthi Thapa: Field work,
Data Analysis, Writing-original Draft. Pratistha
Shrestha: Field work, Data Analysis, Writing-original Draft. Alex Dudley: Data
Cleaning, Data Analysis, Writing-review & Editing. Yajna Timilsina: Writing-review & Editing, Supervision
Acknowledgements: We extend our heartfelt gratitude
to Rufford Foundation, UK who funded this entire
project for two years (2017–2019). We would also like to thank the Department
of National Parks and Wildlife Reserves, Nepal and Koshi
Tappu Widlife Reserve, Sunsari, Nepal for providing research permit in the study
area and supporting us throughout the project.
Thanks to the members of eco-clubs and locals of Koshi
Tappu areas who participated in the survey and helped
us tremendously. We would like to thank Anish Timsina
(Koshi Bird Society), Prem
Adhikari (homestay owner), Laxmi Rai (ranger), Kumar Paudel,
and Shivish Bhandari for their continuous assistance
throughout the project.
INTRODUCTION
Bengal Florican Houbaropsis bengalensis
is a ‘Critically Endangered’ bird species under the IUCN Red List (Brahma et
al. 2013). A small and rapidly declining population due to widespread loss of
habitat (Baral et al. 2013) renders it highly
susceptible to extinction. BirdLife International
estimated a global population of 250–999 individuals across the species’
geographic range - India’s Uttar Pradesh state towards the west through the
northern range encompassing the Terai of Nepal to
Assam and Arunachal Pradesh in India and historically up to Bangladesh ( Collar
& Inskipp 1984; Baral
et al. 2002; Gray et al. 2009; Collar et al. 2017). Owing to the small population
size this species is legally protected globally and locally (Brahma et al.
2013). An early status survey of Bengal Florican in Nepal in 1982 showed the
presence of 56–82 birds (Inskipp & Baral 1970; Collar & Inskipp
1984).
Bengal Florican males are territorial
during their breeding season (Gray et al. 2009; Baral et al. 2013) and are easily detected as they perform
frequent territorial flight displays (Gray et al.
2009). The breeding season of Bengal Florican starts during early February and
lasts till July (MoEF 2011). During the breeding
season, male floricans establish individual territories (40–60 m) in open areas
of short grasslands (Baral et al. 2002; Brahma et al. 2013; Packman
et al. 2014; Collar et al. 2017). In one clutch, Bengal Floricans
lay one to two eggs (Gray et al. 2009). The females
raise their young alone without any help from males (Baral
et al. 2002).
The Bengal Florican has been
recorded in different national parks of Nepal including Koshi
Tappu Wildlife Reserve (KTWR), Bardia
National Park, Shuklaphanta National Park, and
Chitwan National Park (Baral et al. 2020). However,
rapidly changing habitat condition calls for urgent conservation action and
research examining the vulnerability and resilience of this species to the
environmental changes (Baral et al. 2013). Extensive
loss and modification of habitat due to anthropogenic activities (Aaranyak 2009), over-grazing (Gray
et al. 2009), increased poaching (Baral et al. 2002; Poudyal 2008), inappropriate grass fires (Collar & Inskipp 1984), burning and ploughing regimes (Jha et al.
2018), and increasing dominance of invasive species like Mikania micrantha (Baral et al. 2020)
comprise the major immediate threats to this species within their preferred
habitat inside protected areas (Baral et al. 2013).
KTWR holds the highest population
of Bengal Florican (around 40) among the protected areas of Nepal (Baral et al. 2020). Furthermore, the recorded density of
adult male florican in KTWR is highest on the Indian subcontinent (Baral et al. 2020). As 46.6 % of its area, primarily
grasslands, comprises suitable florican habitat, appropriate management of Koshi
Tappu’s grassland is essential for the conservation
of the species (Baral et al. 2013). Therefore, the
objectives of this study were to: (i) assess the
biophysical condition of the Bengal Florican’s habitat in the Koshi Tappu Wildlife Reserve and
(ii) understand the relationship between the habitat attributes and the
population status of the species.
MATERIALS
AND METHODS
Study area
KTWR harbors the
highest population of Bengal Florican among the protected areas of Nepal (Baral et al. 2013). KTWR is located between 26.65° N,
87.00° E in the lowland Terai region of Nepal
(Figure 1). Our study area comprised 175 km2 of the Saptakoshi river floodplains spanning 75–81 m from the mean
sea level. The Saptakoshi river floodplain is the
most northeasterly extension of the Gangetic Plain
(Convention on Migratory Species 2020). It covers parts of Sunsari,
Saptari, and Udayapur
districts of the Eastern Development Region of Nepal. KTWR is divided into
three management divisions - core area (CA), buffer zone (BZ), and outside
protected area (OPA) (Poudyal et al. 2008) which are
unequal in size.
An estimated 70% of the reserve’s
land area is covered by ‘phantas’ (patches of short
grasslands) (Jha et al. 2018), water and riverine forests and 46.6% of the KTWR
is suitable for florican population distribution (Baral
et al. 2020). Typha spp. and Saccharum
spp. are the dominant plant species here, although patches of Imperata spp. and Phragmites spp. are
also seen (Baral et al. 2013). Riverine vegetation
dominated by Dalbergia sissoo
and Acacia catechu trees dominates the islands and edges of the reserve
(Convention on Migratory Species 2020).
More than 50% of the area in KTWR
is covered by wetland, and the remaining area is intensively cultivated
throughout the year (Baral et al. 2013). During the
dry season (October–March), several islands are vegetated with Saccharum spp., Imperata
cylindrica, and Typha elephantina
which are collected by locals for household purposes (Poudyal
2008). The climatic condition of this area is tropical monsoonal type and
experiences three distinct seasons, i.e., summer (February–May), monsoon
(June–September), and winter (October–January) (MoEF
2008). The reserve is the first Ramsar site of Nepal
declared in 1987 primarily for supporting more than 20,000 waterbird
population and 200 species of fish (Baral et al.
2002). It serves as a breeding ground for many winter migratory birds due to favorable environmental and habitat characteristics. As
nearly 20 globally threatened bird species have been recorded in this Reserve (Baral et al. 2013).
Data collection
Study area was divided into three
categories based on the geographical locations and practiced conservation
policies. CA is the innermost part of the reserve, where disturbance from
external agents like people and livestock is restricted and wildlife policies
and regulations are effectively implemented. BZ is partially restricted for
locals to aid in conservation of CA. OPA is the area outside BZ and CA and is
open to locals to conduct their daily activities and living.
Primary data was collected using
1 x 1 km random grids in the study area map using the fishnet tool in ArcGIS
10.9.1 software (ESRI Inc. year) (Figure 1). Nineteen grids from each
management zones (CA, BZ, and OPA) were chosen for the survey. Those grids were
named as blocks for our research study. Thus, 57 blocks were selected from the
randomly designed grids to survey the grassland habitat condition and Bengal
Florican population status in KTWR.
Bengal Florican survey and
population estimation
A sweep count method (Baral et al. 2002) was used to survey presence/absence of
the birds in each block. In the sweep count method, team members
walked on total 2,964 transects (52 transects on each block) each of 1 km
length on 57 blocks; 52 transects on each block were designed in such a way
that 50 transects were spaced 20 m apart and the remaining two transects were
walked on diagonals of the blocks. Only one member of the team walked a
transect due to limited resources and there were 11 team members so in one
survey occasion, 11 team members completed 11 transects. The survey team
consisted of experienced observers and all observers used binoculars to confirm
correct identification of the species and sex of the birds. All GPS locations
and pictures of the birds were recorded for each sighting.
The study area was surveyed early
in the morning (0600–0930 h) and later in the afternoon (1530–1900 h). In
general, Bengal Floricans are active during dusk and dawn (Gray
et al. 2009). Moreover, during the breeding season, male individuals are very
conspicuous due to the active territorial displays (Gray
et al. 2009). Male and female florican were distinguished from their physical
appearance. Males have black plumage and appear completely white during their
flight (MoEF 2008) (Image 1) except for the dark primary
remiges, while females are buff brown and slightly larger than males (Poudyal 2008). In addition, only males show display
characteristics during breeding season (Baral et al. 2002; Poudyal 2008; Jha et
al. 2018; Convention on Migratory Species 2020) and their movements helped team
members to count their population. Females are larger than males and easily
distinguishable from males due to their body colour and size. Immature birds
look like females but the experts can distinguish those from females based on
their size and weight (Baral et al. 2002).
The total population was recorded based on
equal sex ratio, i.e., 1:1 because female birds are extremely difficult to
locate (Poudyal 2008; Brahma et al. 2009) and we had
limited resources. However, for the future study we suggest to use the method
as adopted by Baral et al. (2020).
Habitat survey
Six plots each spaced 200 m apart
were made by dividing each block with the help of a measuring tape and a
compass (Figure 2). This process was repeated inside every block. Further, 50 m
radius circle was drawn inside each plot and the vegetation status inside each
50 m radius circle was studied to make the vegetation survey easier as well as
representative of each sample block. Information regarding grass height (cm),
grass ground coverage (%), tree number, presence/absence of people,
presence/absence of livestock, and dominant bird species were used to assess
the habitat condition inside each 50 m radius vegetation plot. To measure the
habitat disturbance due to humans and livestock we observed their movements
within each block during the survey. If human or livestock movement was
recorded inside the block it was recorded as a disturbed (Table 1). As
floricans are extremely habitat specific and habitat sensitive birds, habitat
disturbance due to external agents like people and livestock could impact in
their occurrence (Baral et al. 2013).
Similarly, density, relative
density, frequency, relative frequency, cover, and relative cover were used to
compute important value indices of the grass species using the following
standard formula (Thapa et al. 2020).
-
Density of species A= Total number of individuals of species A in all
sampling plots/ Total sampling plots
-
Relative density of species A= Total number of individuals of species A
/ Total number of individuals of all species
-
Frequency of species A= (Number of plots in which species A occurs x
100) / Total number of plot samples
-
Relative Frequency of species A= (Frequency value of species A x 100) /
Total frequency value of all species
-
Cover %= (Approximate area covered by individual species) / (Total
number of plots sampled) x 100
-
Relative cover= (cover of individual species) / (Total cover of all
species) x 100
Importance Value index
(IVI)
-
For grasses IVI = Relative density + Relative frequency + Relative cover
RESULTS
Altogether nine species of grass
were recorded inside the CA, where ‘Siru’ Imperata cylindrica
was the dominant grass with importance value index of 110.9. Pater Samyda dodecandra had
importance value index of 87.3 followed by Kash Saccharum spontaneum
80.2, Banso Digitaria
ciligara 78.5 (Figure 3). Likewise, seven different grass species
were observed inside the BZ, among which Kash Saccharum spontaneum
had the highest IVI of 94.2, followed by Siru Imperata cylindrica
86.5, Banso Digitaria
ciligara 84.3, and Pater Samyda
dodecandra 82.4 (Figure 4).
Five different grass species were
recorded in the OPA, and among them maize Zea
mays had the highest IVI of 141.2, followed by Siru
Imperata cylindrica
30.3, Kash Saccharum
spontaneum 29.8, and Banso
Digitaria ciligara
19.3 (Figure 5). A total of 18 floricans (16 males and 2 females confirmed from
regular field visits, previous records and information from local guides
(2017–2019)) were recorded in the study area, and the overall population was
assessed to be 36 assuming equal sex ratio (1:1) (Table 1). Florican were
recorded from 17 blocks out of 57 blocks (29.82%) - 18 in the CA, 12 in the BZ
and 6 in OPA (Figure 2). Other bird species were also recorded in study area
while counting florican’s population. Dominant bird species that were observed
during the florican count were: Black Drongo Dicrurus macrocercus,
Intermediate Egret Mesophoyx intermedia,
Little Egret Egretta garzetta,
and Asian Pied Starling Gracupica contra.
From our field observation we
found that there might not be any relationship between grass height and
florican occurrence. However, the florican numbers may be affected by a
particular grass species’ composition in their habitat. The largest population
(18) was recorded inside the CA among three different habitat conditions (CA,
BZ, OPA). The highest male florican population (9) was recorded inside the CA
where I. cylindrica grass was the dominant grass with the importance value index of
110.9. Fewer population of florican were recorded in the OPA where we recorded
less ground coverage of I. cylindrica.
Human disturbance was impacting
negatively the florican population occurrence as found from our field
observation. The highest florican population was recorded inside the CA, where
human disturbance was less, than the OPA was observed (Table 1). Large
populations of feral cattle were recorded in most of our study areas (CA, BZ,
and OPA) which needs urgent attention from the concerned authority. As we
recorded very few trees growing in the grassland, no relationship could be
ascertained between tree growth and florican occurrence.
DISCUSSION
The distribution of
Bengal Florican in different kinds of grassland habitat within KTWR was
studied. Male and female florican were sighted from the tall grass of height
100–150 cm to the smaller grass height of 8–10 cm. However, female florican
might prefer dense patches of tall grass for nesting purposes (Gray et al. 2009). Habitat selection of any grassland bird
species primarily depends on bare ground exposure, vegetation height, litter
depth (Fisher & Davis 2010). Increased grass height and reduced bare ground
exposure can provide safety from their predators and protection from wind to
the young and adult grassland birds (Fisher & Davis 2010). There are
limited studies on explaining the biological relevance of litter depth in
distribution of grassland bird species, litter depth might be useful for birds
in building nests substrate, regulating soil microclimate, material for
nutrient cycling (Fisher & Davis 2010). Floricans’ preference to the
lesser/no disturbance can be concluded when they have been sighted from the
patches of tall grasses to open areas where there was very little or no
disturbance from external agents/factors during our field surveys.
Bengal Floricans were sighted in 17 blocks out
of 57 blocks and their population was estimated to be around 36. In contrast to
this, the survey conducted by Baral et al. (2020)
estimated the species’ population to be 41 in KTWR. Our study area covered a 57
km2 area of florican habitat (81.55 km2) while the survey
conducted by Baral et al. (2020) covered 168.9 km2
area during the survey. This could be the reason for the variation in estimated
population size. In addition, the total population of floricans recorded in
KTWR in 2012 survey was 47 (Baral et al. 2013) which
demonstrates the trend of decreasing florican numbers even in their most
suitable habitat in Nepal. Habitat degradation is considered as the major
reason for florican population decline (Baral et al.
2013).
Only two out of 18 sightings
during the survey were females. Inskipp and Inskipp’s (1984) survey yielded a similar result when only
5–6 females were encountered among a total of 35–50 birds sighted. Marked
differences between male and female florican’ behaviour and habitat preference
could explain this finding (Narayan 1992). In the site female florican mostly
remain hidden and are rarely sighted during surveys (Baral
et al. 2013).
The highest florican population
was recorded inside the CA but the area cannot be claimed as the suitable
habitat/preferred habitat for florican based on the population density only
(Brahma et al. 2013). However, if the human presence/absence and the abundance
of I. cylindrica highly account for florican
occurrence, then the species’ presence in the CA is favored
by low human encroachment and higher dominance of I. cylindrica
as observed from our field visits. Yet, robust investigation and detailed
research focusing on impact of external agents in florican’s occurrence is
required to conclude this field observation. Increasing dominance of invasive
species like Mikania micrantha even inside the
CA is creating serious threats to florican in their present habitat (Baral et al. 2013). Further detailed studies focusing on
other demographic factors (Baral et al. 2020),
competition (Narayan 1992) and predation (Brahma et al. 2013) are necessary in
order to understand the suitable habitat requirement of this species. Floricans
are species with a highly specialized habitat and any severe disturbance in
their habitat condition could cause their local extinction as observed in
Bangladesh (Baral et al. 2013).
We noticed up to four Bengal
Floricans (2 male and 2 female) in one block (1 km2). From our
regular visits and records, we found that this species has zero tolerance for
habitat disturbance; a major reason for its population decline. The bird is
extremely territorial (Gray et al. 2009) and shy and
sensitive to its habitat condition (Narayan 1992). It is thought to occupy the
same location until external disturbance prompts it to abandon its territory (Gray et al. 2009). In addition, detailed data on this
species’ association with other dominant bird species in the region is still
lacking which is essential to understand its interspecific behaviour (Brahma et
al. 2013). These kinds of associations are assumed to provide functional
advantages and evolutionary benefits to the species involved (Brahma et al.
2013). Functional advantages include foraging advantages (to locate food
resources) and anti-predator advantages (to detect and deter predators) (Brahma
et al. 2013). Higher populations of florican were observed in the areas hosting
the good populations of Black Drongo Dicrurus macrocercus,
Intermediate Egret Mesophoyx intermedia,
Little Egret Egretta garzetta,
and Asian Pied Starling Gracupica contra.
We recommend implementation of
effective habitat management policies and restricting anthropogenic activities,
especially inappropriate burning and grass cutting, in the region to help these
declining populations survive in the region. Detailed studies on their habitat
requirements (Brahma et al. 2013), mating behavior (Gray et al. 2009) and intra- and inter-specific
interactions (Narayan 1992) would greatly aid the effective protection of their
remaining population.
Table 1. Florican population and
record of people and livestock movement in studied blocks in Koshi Tappu Wildlife Reserve,
Nepal.
|
Block |
Plot descriptions |
Status OPA, CA, BZ |
Sighted Florican |
Estimated Florican |
People’s presence/absence |
Livestock’s presence/absence |
|
1 |
Northern Radhabas |
OPA |
1 |
2 |
No |
No |
|
2 |
Jabdi waari |
OPA |
1 |
2 |
No |
No |
|
3 |
Jabdi paari |
OPA |
1 |
2 |
No |
No |
|
4 |
Jabdi |
OPA |
0 |
0 |
Yes |
Yes |
|
5 |
Jabdi paari |
OPA |
0 |
0 |
Yes |
Yes |
|
6 |
Chakadghatti Western |
OPA |
0 |
0 |
Yes |
Yes |
|
7 |
Chakadghatti |
OPA |
0 |
0 |
Yes |
Yes |
|
8 |
Srilanka Tapu |
OPA |
0 |
0 |
No |
No |
|
9 |
Srilanka Tapu |
OPA |
0 |
0 |
No |
No |
|
10 |
Srilanka Tapu |
OPA |
0 |
0 |
Yes |
Yes |
|
11 |
Bhakalpur |
OPA |
0 |
0 |
Yes |
Yes |
|
12 |
Bhakalpur |
OPA |
0 |
0 |
Yes |
Yes |
|
13 |
Bhakalpur |
OPA |
0 |
0 |
Yes |
Yes |
|
14 |
Bhakalpur |
OPA |
0 |
0 |
Yes |
Yes |
|
15 |
Bhakalpur (Bandhdanda) |
OPA |
0 |
0 |
Yes |
Yes |
|
16 |
Bhakalpur (Bandhdanda) |
OPA |
0 |
0 |
Yes |
Yes |
|
17 |
Bhakalpur (Bandhdanda) |
OPA |
0 |
0 |
Yes |
Yes |
|
18 |
Bhakalpur (Bandhdanda) |
OPA |
0 |
0 |
No |
Yes |
|
19 |
Bhakalpur (Bandhdanda) |
OPA |
0 |
0 |
Yes |
Yes |
|
20 |
Patthari, Saptari |
CA |
0 |
0 |
No |
Yes |
|
21 |
Patthari, Saptari |
CA |
0 |
0 |
No |
Yes |
|
22 |
Hawa Mahal |
CA |
0 |
0 |
No |
Yes |
|
23 |
Kushaha west |
CA |
0 |
0 |
No |
No |
|
24 |
Kushaha Katan |
CA |
1 |
2 |
No |
No |
|
25 |
Hawa Mahal |
CA |
2 |
4 |
No |
Yes |
|
26 |
Prakashpur Army post |
CA |
1 |
2 |
No |
No |
|
27 |
Madhuban Aapghanchi Western |
CA |
1 |
2 |
No |
No |
|
28 |
Madhuban Aapghanchi Western |
CA |
1 |
2 |
No |
No |
|
29 |
Hawa Mahal |
CA |
1 |
2 |
No |
No |
|
30 |
Bhakalpur |
CA |
0 |
0 |
No |
No |
|
31 |
Bhakalpur |
CA |
0 |
0 |
No |
No |
|
32 |
Bhakalpur |
CA |
0 |
0 |
No |
No |
|
33 |
Bhakalpur |
CA |
0 |
0 |
No |
No |
|
34 |
Bhakalpur |
CA |
1 |
2 |
No |
No |
|
35 |
Bhakalpur |
CA |
1 |
2 |
No |
No |
|
36 |
Patthari, Saptari |
CA |
0 |
0 |
No |
No |
|
37 |
Patthari, Saptari |
CA |
0 |
0 |
No |
No |
|
38 |
Patthari, Saptari |
CA |
0 |
0 |
No |
No |
|
39 |
Srilanka Tapu |
BZ |
0 |
0 |
No |
No |
|
40 |
Srilanka Tapu |
BZ |
1 |
2 |
No |
No |
|
41 |
Prakashpur |
BZ |
1 |
2 |
No |
No |
|
42 |
prakashpur |
BZ |
1 |
2 |
No |
No |
|
43 |
Radhabas West |
BZ |
0 |
0 |
No |
No |
|
44 |
Radhabas Western |
BZ |
0 |
0 |
No |
No |
|
45 |
Koshi-Barrage |
BZ |
0 |
0 |
Yes |
Yes |
|
46 |
Koshi-Barrage |
BZ |
0 |
0 |
Yes |
Yes |
|
47 |
Haripur |
BZ |
1 |
2 |
Yes |
Yes |
|
48 |
Haripur |
BZ |
0 |
0 |
Yes |
Yes |
|
49 |
Dakshin Duban, Saptari |
BZ |
0 |
0 |
Yes |
Yes |
|
50 |
Dakshin Duban, Saptari |
BZ |
1 |
2 |
Yes |
Yes |
|
51 |
Dakshin Duban, Saptari |
BZ |
0 |
0 |
Yes |
Yes |
|
52 |
Srilanka Tapu, Sunsari |
BZ |
0 |
0 |
Yes |
Yes |
|
53 |
Srilanka Tapu, Sunsari |
BZ |
0 |
0 |
Yes |
Yes |
|
54 |
Srilanka Tapu, Sunsari |
BZ |
1 |
2 |
No |
Yes |
|
55 |
Srilanka Tapu, Sunsari |
BZ |
0 |
0 |
No |
Yes |
|
56 |
Srilanka Tapu, Sunsari |
BZ |
0 |
0 |
No |
Yes |
|
57 |
Srilanka Tapu, Sunsari |
BZ |
0 |
0 |
No |
Yes |
OPA— outside protected area |
CA—core area | BZ— buffer zone.
For figures
& image - - click here
REFERENCES
Baral, H.S., T.R. Bhatt, S.R. Giri, A.K. Ram, S.K. Shah, L.P. Poudyal,
D. Chaudhary, G. Bhattacharya & R. Amin (2020). Status of the critically
endangered Bengal Florican Houbaropsis bengalensis (Gmelin, 1789) in
Koshi Tappu Wildlife
Reserve, Nepal. Journal of Threatened Taxa 12(9): 16006–16012. https://doi.org/10.11609/jott.4832.12.9.16006-16012
Baral, H.S., A.K. Ram, B. Chaudhary,
D. Chaudhary, A. Timsina, S. Acharya, K. Bidari,
S. Acharya, B. Acharya, A. Karki & K.P. Acharya (2013). Survey of Bengal Florican Houbaropsis bengalensis
bengalensis (Gmelin,
1789) (Gruiformes: Otididae)
in the Koshi Tappu Wildlife
Reserve and adjoining areas, Nepal. Journal of Threatened Taxa 5(7):
4076–4083. https://doi.org/10.11609/jott.o3240.4076-83
Baral, N., B. Tamang & N. Timilsina (2002). Status of Bengal Florican Houbaropsis Bengalensis
in Royal Bardia National Park, Nepal. Journal of
the Bombay Natural History Society 99: 413–417.
Brahma, N.,
P.C. Bhattacharjee & B.P. Lahkar (2013). Association of critically
endangered Bengal Florican with other bird species in two sites of Manas, Assam, India. Asian Journal of Conservation
Biology 2(1): 48–51.
Brahma, N.,
K. Choudhury, K.R. Sharma & M. Basumatary (2009).
Bengal
Florican conservation and research initiative in BTAD, India. Final Report,
64pp.
Collar, N.,
R. Burnside & P. Dolman (2017). Averting the extinction of
bustards in Asia. Forktail 33: 1–26.
Collar, N.J.
& C. Inskipp (1984). The Bengal florican: Its
conservation in Nepal. Oryx 18(1): 30–35. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0030605300018561
Convention on
Migratory Species (2020). Proposal for the inclusion of the Bengal Florican (Houbaropsis bengalensis bengalensis) in Appendix I of the convention.
Gandhinagar, India.
Fisher, R.J.
& S.K. Davis (2010). From Wiens to Robel: A review of grassland-bird habitat selection. Journal
of Wildlife Management 74(2): 265–273. https://doi.org/10.2193/2009-020
Gray, T.N.E.,
N.J. Collar, P.J.A. Davidson, P.M. Dolman, T.D. Evans, H.N. Fox, H. Chamnan, R. Borey, S.H. Kim &
R.N. van Zalinge (2009). Distribution, status and
conservation of the Bengal Florican Houbaropsis
bengalensis in Cambodia. Bird Conservation
International 19(1): 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1017/S095927090800765X
Inskipp, C. & H.S. Baral (2010). Potential impacts of agriculture on Nepal birds. Our
Nature 8: 270–312. https://doi.org/10.3126/on.v8i1.4339
Jha, R.R.S.,
J.J. Thakuri, A.R. Rahmani,
M. Dhakal, N. Khongsai,
N.M.B. Pradhan, N. Shinde, B.K. Chauhan, R.K. Talegaonkar, I.P. Barber, G.M.
Buchanan, T.H. Galligan & P.F. Donald (2018). Distribution, movements, and
survival of the critically endangered Bengal Florican Houbaropsis
bengalensis in India and Nepal. Journal of
Ornithology 159(3): 851–866. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10336-018-1552-1
Jones, J.
(2001). Some uncubation and fledging periods of African birds. The
Auk 118(2): 557–562. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1474-919X.1942.tb03424.x
MoEF (2011). Guidelines for the Bengal
Florican recovery programme Ministry of Environment
and Forests, Government of Indiapp. 1–34
Packman,
C.E., D.A. Showler, N.J. Collar, S. Virak, S.P. Mahood, M. Handschuh,T.D. Evans, H. Chamnan
& P.M. Dolman (2014). Rapid decline of the largest
remaining population of Bengal Florican Houbaropsis
bengalensis and recommendations for its
conservation. Bird Conservation International 24(4): 429–437.; https://doi.org/10.1017/S0959270913000567
Poudyal, L.P., P.B. Singh & S. Maharjan (2008). Status and Distribution of Bengal
Florican Houbaropsis bengalensis
in Nepal, 2007: Report to the Oriental Bird Club, UK and the Club 300
Foundation for Bird Protection, Sweden. Kathmandu, Nepal, 2–40pp.
Poudyal, L.P., P.B. Singh & S. Maharjan (2008). The decline of Bengal Florican
Houbaropsis bengalensis
in Nepal. Danphe 17: 4–6.
Thapa, R., B. Neupane,
S. Ranabhat, M. Poudel & S. Panthi
(2020). Habitat
suitability of Wild Water Buffalo (Bubalus arnee) in Babai flood plain
of Bardia National Park, Nepal. Global Ecology and
Conservation 23: e01172. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gecco.2020.e01172