Pratikshya Kandel, Ishana Thapa, Nakul Chettri, Rebecca Pradhan Pradhan, Eklabya Sharma. 2018: Birds of the Kangchenjunga Landscape, the Eastern Himalaya: status, threats and implications for conservation. Avian Research, 9(1): 9. DOI: 10.1186/s40657-018-0100-2
Citation: Pratikshya Kandel, Ishana Thapa, Nakul Chettri, Rebecca Pradhan Pradhan, Eklabya Sharma. 2018: Birds of the Kangchenjunga Landscape, the Eastern Himalaya: status, threats and implications for conservation. Avian Research, 9(1): 9. DOI: 10.1186/s40657-018-0100-2

Birds of the Kangchenjunga Landscape, the Eastern Himalaya: status, threats and implications for conservation

Funds: 

core funds of ICIMOD contributed by the governments of Afghanistan, Australia, Austria, Bangladesh, Bhutan, China, India, Myanmar, Nepal, Norway, Pakistan, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom 

the Austrian Development Agency and the German Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development through its German Agency for International Cooperation 

More Information
  • Corresponding author:

    Nakul Chettri, Nakul.Chettri@icimod.org

  • Received Date: 21 Jul 2017
  • Accepted Date: 04 Mar 2018
  • Available Online: 24 Apr 2022
  • Publish Date: 15 Mar 2018
  • Birds are reliable and widely used indicators for conservation planning and monitoring. We reviewed birds of the Kangchenjunga Landscape, a transboundary complex shared by Bhutan, India and Nepal in the Eastern Himalaya. Using 119 literature, we analyzed the bird survey efforts in the landscape, their taxonomic representation, global threat status, distribution patterns, and habitat preferences. We also discussed the potential threats and conservation challenges and documented current conservation efforts and government policies. Most of the bird surveys are carried out in India followed by Nepal and Bhutan. A total of 618 bird species belonging to 19 orders and 77 families are recorded. Passeriformes is the dominant order that constitutes 62% of the total records listed from the landscape. Among the families, Muscicapidae is the most common and diversely represented family. There are 41 species of birds that are categorized as threatened under IUCN Red List. Of the total birds occurring in the landscape, the highest number of bird species (95%) was documented from India, followed by Nepal (55%) and Bhutan (34%). Of them, 24% of the species were found to occur in the tropical zone. Forested habitat is widely used by 63% of the total species followed by wetlands (16%). Despite promising policies and legal provisions, the landscape faces numerous challenges including habitat loss and fragmentation, hunting and trapping, unsustainable extraction of natural resources, invasive alien species, unregulated tourism and global climate change. We suggest protection and management of birds through strengthening Important Bird and Biodiversity Areas, reduction in forest encroachment and habitat destruction, conservation awareness programmes and comprehensive bird surveys with long term monitoring to assess the impact of environmental change as some of the approaches to conserve the rich avifaunal diversity of the landscape.

  • Australia is home to one of the most diverse groups of parasitic cuckoos in the world, ranging from one of the world's smallest cuckoos, the Little Bronze-cuckoo (Chalcites minutillus, 17 g, Fig. 1, Brooker and Brooker, 1989) to the enormous Channel-billed Cuckoo (Scythrops novaehollandiae), which, at 610 g, is the world's largest parasitic cuckoo (Fig. 2, Brooker and Brooker, 1989). Overall, eleven species of cuckoo belonging to five genera occur in Australia (Table 1), although one of these, the Oriental Cuckoo (Cuculus optatus), does not breed in Australia and will not be discussed further.

    Figure  1.  A little Bronze-cuckoo (Chalcites minutillus), one of the world's smallest cuckoos (photo by John Grant)
    Figure  2.  A Channel-billed Cuckoo (Scythrops novaehollandiae), the largest parasitic cuckoo in the world (photo by Adam Jenkins)
    Table  1.  Australian cuckoos and their major hosts. Sources: Brooker and Brooker (1989), Erritzøe et al. (2012), webpage: lesmikebrooker.com/hosts.htm.
    Cuckoo Major hosts
    Pallid Cuckoo
    (Cacomantis pallidus)
    Red Wattlebird (Anthochaera carunculata), Yellow-throated Miner (Manorina flavigula), Lichenostomus spp., Black-headed Honeyeater (Melithreptus affinis)
    Fan-tailed Cuckoo
    (Cacomantis flabelliformis)
    White-browed Scrubwren (Sericornis frontalis), Brown Thornbill (Acanthiza pusilla), Inland Thornbill (Acanthiza apicalis)
    Brush Cuckoo
    (Cacomantis variolosus)
    Ramsayornis spp., Scarlet Robin (Petroica boodang), Leaden Flycatcher (Myiagra rubecula), Grey Fantail (Rhipidura fuligonosa)
    Chestnut-breasted Cuckoo
    (Cacomantis castaneiventris)
    Large-billed Scrubwren (Sericornis magnirostra), Tropical Scrubwren (Sericornis beccarii), Lovely Fairy-wren (Malurus amabilis)
    Black-eared Cuckoo
    (Chalcites osculans)
    Redthroat (Pyrrholaemus brunneus), Speckled Warbler (Chthonicola sagittata)
    Horsfield's Bronze-cuckoo (Chalcites basalis) Fairy-wrens (Malurus spp.)
    Shining Bronze-cuckoo
    (Chalcites lucidus)
    Thornbills (Acanthiza spp.)
    Little Bronze-cuckoo
    (Chalcites minutillus)
    Gerygones (Gerygone spp.)
    Pacific Koel
    (Eudynamis scolopacea)
    Red Wattlebird (Anthochaera carunculata), Philemon spp., Magpie-lark (Grallina cyanoleuca), Figbird (Sphecotheres viridis)
    Channel-billed Cuckoo
    (Scythrops novaehollandiae)
    Pied Currawong (Strepera graculina), Corvus spp.
    Oriental cuckoo
    (Cuculus optatus
    Non-breeding vagrant
     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV

    The Australian cuckoos belong to the family Cuculinae, the Old World parasitic cuckoos. In all, there are 54 species belonging to 12 genera in the Cuculinae, distributed across Europe, Africa, Asia and Australasia (Davies, 2000). None of the five genera in Australia is endemic. The large Channel-billed Cuckoo is the only member of its genus and it occurs in Australia, New Guinea and Indonesia (Higgins, 1999). The Koels (Eudynamys spp.) are large cuckoos (120–360 g) that occur in Asia and Australasia. The medium-sized Cuculus cuckoos (52–150 g) are distributed throughout Europe, Africa, Asia and Australia. The Cacomantis cuckoos are smaller (22–44 g) and occur in Asia, New Guinea and Australia. The Chalcites cuckoos are the smallest cuckoos (17–35 g) and occur in Asia and Australasia (Davies, 2000).

    Parasitic cuckoos lay their eggs in the nests of other bird species. The female typically removes one of the host eggs and lays a single egg in the nest of the host. Thereafter, the female cuckoo abandons all interest in her offspring and the task of rearing the young cuckoo is borne entirely by the hosts (Fig. 3). In Australia, all except the Channel-billed Cuckoo (Scythrops novaehollandiae) are evicting species, meaning that the cuckoo chick evicts the host eggs or chicks from the nest soon after hatching (Fig. 4). Channel-billed Cuckoo chicks are reared alongside the chicks of their corvid hosts, although host young rarely survive to fledging (Higgins, 1999).

    Figure  3.  A fledgling Pallid Cuckoo (Cuculus pallidus) receiving a feed from its foster parent, a White-plumed Honeyeater (Lichenostomus penicillatus) (photo by Julian Robinson)
    Figure  4.  A Horsfield's Bronze-cuckoo (Chalcites basalis) chick shows the 'push up' posture used to evict host eggs and chicks from the nest (photo by Michelle Hall)

    Some cuckoos are specialists and parasitize only a single host species, but the Australian cuckoos all parasitize more than one host. Brooker and Brooker (1989) conducted an exhaustive survey of the hosts of Australian cuckoos and this remains the most comprehensive and detailed examination of cuckoo parasitism in Australia. The most commonly-used, successful hosts were identified as 'major hosts'. The Brookers' survey revealed that most Australian cuckoos target different major hosts (Table 1). The only exceptions were the Fan-tailed Cuckoo (Cacomantis flabelliformis) and the Shining Bronze-cuckoo (Chalcites lucidus) which shared two of the same major hosts.

    Several species of cuckoo are known to destroy the nests of hosts during late incubation or chick rearing (reviewed in Davies, 2000). This forces the host to renest, providing a ready supply of host nests at the right stage for the cuckoo to lay in. Only the female cuckoo destroys host nests, indicating that this is a strategy to increase parasitism success, rather than a simple predation event. In Australia, this behavior has been observed in the Shining Bronze-cuckoo (Morris and Catchpole, 1978) and the Fan-tailed Cuckoo (Guppy et al., unpublished data). There is also circumstantial evidence of this behavior in Horsfield's Bronze-cuckoo, because predation rates were significantly higher in weeks when the cuckoos were laying than at other times (Brooker and Brooker, 1996).

    Few Australian cuckoos have been observed in the act of laying their eggs in host nests. Exceptions are Horsfield's Bronze-cuckoo (Chalcites basalis), the Shining Bronze-cuckoo, and the Black-eared Cuckoo (Chalcites osculans), all of which laid their eggs in just a few seconds (Brooker et al., 1988; Higgins, 1999). The Horsfield's Bronze-cuckoos laid after the host female had laid her own eggs and laying was very rapid, ranging from 1.5 to 5.3 s (Brooker et al., 1988). Rapid laying reduces the chances that the host will detect the cuckoo and launch defenses such as mobbing of the cuckoo (Fig. 5, Langmore et al., 2012), abandonment of the nest (Langmore et al., 2003), or abandonment of the cuckoo chick (Langmore et al., 2009a).

    Figure  5.  Mobbing by Superb Fairy-wrens (Malurus cyaneus) of a Shining Bronze-cuckoo (Chalcites lucidus) mounted specimen (photo by William Feeney)

    In the Asian Koel (Eudynamis scolopacea), a close relative of the Pacific Koel (E. orientalis) in Australia, collaboration between the male and female has been observed during egg laying (Lamba, 1966). The male flies to the host nest first, inducing the hosts to attack it, then lures them away allowing the female to access the nest and lay her egg. It is not known whether this behavior also occurs in the Pacific Koel in Australia.

    Many cuckoos around the world have evolved egg mimicry; eggs that mimic the pattern and color of the eggs of their host (Kilner, 2006; Stoddard and Stevens, 2011). This reduces the likelihood that the cuckoo egg will be rejected by the host (Spottiswoode and Stevens, 2010). However, parasitism of more than one host species creates a problem for the cuckoo, if different hosts lay different egg types. Australian cuckoos have evolved several ingenious means of fooling their hosts through egg morphology. Some species, such as Horsfield's Bronze-cuckoo, lay a single egg type that is a good match of the eggs of both its major hosts, Fairywrens (Malurus spp.) (Fig. 6; Langmore et al., 2003; Langmore and Kilner, 2009), and its secondary hosts, thornbills (Acanthiza spp.). Other species have evolved polymorphic egg types, each of which resembles the egg of a different host. For example, the Brush Cuckoo (Cacomantis variolosus) lays three egg types, each of which matches its major host in a particular region of its distribution (Beruldsen, 2003). Similarly, the Pallid Cuckoo (Cacomantis pallidus), which primarily parasitizes honeyeaters, has evolved multiple egg types, each of which is a close match of the egg of a different host (Starling et al., 2006). However, the color differences between these host-specific egg types are so subtle that they had not been detected by human observation, and the use of reflectance spectometry was needed to quantify their color and differentiate between them (Starling et al., 2006).

    Figure  6.  A Horsfield's Bronze-cuckoo (Chalcites basalis) egg (below) with two eggs of its host, a Superb Fairy-wren (Malurus cyaneus) (photo by Naomi Langmore)

    Rather than relying on egg mimicry, the Shining Bronze-cuckoo and Little Bronze-cuckoo have evolved an alternative disguise for their eggs. They lay dark brown or olive-green eggs that look quite unlike the eggs of their hosts (Fig. 7). The eggs are so thickly coated with dark pigment that the pigment can be wiped off a freshly laid egg. These cuckoos lay their eggs in dark, dome-shaped nests (Fig. 8) and the color and luminance of the eggs are indistinguishable to a bird's eye from those of the nest lining inside the dark nest, effectively rendering the eggs invisible to the host (Langmore et al., 2009b). Rejection of cuckoo eggs by the hosts of these cuckoos is virtually unknown (Gill, 1983; Brooker and Brooker, 1989; Langmore et al., 2005, 2009).

    Figure  7.  A triple-parasitized Large-billed Gerygone (Gerygone magnirostris) clutch from Cairns, showing the host egg (top) and three Little Bronze-cuckoo (Chalcites minutillus) eggs (photo by Golo Maurer)
    Figure  8.  A Little Bronze-cuckoo (Chalcites minutillus) chick in the dark, dome-shaped nest of its host, a Mangrove Gerygone (Gerygone levigaster) (photo by Naomi Langmore)

    Although dark, dome-shaped nests constrain cuckoo egg recognition via visual cues, hosts could still use tactile cues to detect an unusually sized egg. The Superb Fairy-wren hosts of Horsfield's Bronze-cuckoo rarely reject an oddly coloured egg, but they are more likely to desert a clutch of eggs containing an egg larger than their own (Langmore et al., 2003). This has selected for a small egg relative to the cuckoo's body mass in Horsfield's Bronze-cuckoo (Krüger and Davies, 2004). Many parasitic cuckoo species have also evolved unusually strong eggshells as adaptations to parasitism, including several Australian species (Picman and Pribil, 1997).

    The chicks of most cuckoo species, including most Australian cuckoos, look quite unlike the host chicks. There has been no selection for chick mimicry because in general hosts do not recognize and reject chicks that look different from their own. However, several hosts of the Australian Bronze-cuckoos (Chalcites spp.) are unusual in that they reject cuckoo chicks, rather than cuckoo eggs (Langmore et al., 2003; Sato et al., 2010; Tokue and Ueda, 2010). This may be a consequence of the poor visibility inside their dark nests, which constrains detection of foreign eggs (Langmore et al., 2005, 2009b). In response to rejection by hosts, Bronze-cuckoo chicks have evolved to be striking visual and vocal mimics of the young of their major hosts (Fig. 9, Langmore et al., 2008, 2011) and non-mimetic nestlings suffer a survival cost (Langmore et al., 2003). Horsfield's Bronze-cuckoo is the most generalist of these cuckoos, and parasitizes a range of different host species (Table 1). This cuckoo faces the problem of how to mimic the young of several distinct species. It has evolved two solutions to this problem. First, to mimic the begging calls of different host young, the cuckoo produces the call of its primary host as the default call soon after hatching. However, if it is in the nest of a secondary host it rapidly modifies its begging call over several days until it becomes indistinguishable from the calls of the host young (Langmore et al., 2008). This is a particularly impressive feat given that the cuckoo chick evicts the host young before hatching and never hears their calls. It seems likely that the calls are refined through reinforcement by host parents, specifically by selective provisioning in response to more accurately mimetic calls (Langmore et al., 2008). This solves the problem of how to prevent detection of the cuckoo chick by hosts through vocal cues. However the cuckoo still faces the problem of how to mimic the appearance of host young of several different species. The hosts of Horsfield's Bronze-cuckoo produce chicks that range in skin colour from pink to grey to black. This appears to have selected for imperfect mimicry of several different host species in the cuckoo chick, which has evolved two-tone coloration. The chick has a grey head, pink upper back and grey lower back (Fig. 9, bottom panel, Langmore et al., 2011). This two-tone coloration probably allows the cuckoo to partially resemble host young, perhaps thereby reducing the probability of rejection by hosts. This cuckoo has evolved a 'jack of all trades' strategy, being an imperfect mimic of several genera rather than a specialist mimic of few closelyrelated species like the other Bronze-cuckoos.

    Figure  9.  Newborn Bronze-cuckoo chicks (left) are visual mimics of their hosts (right). Top: Little Bronze-cuckoo (Chalcites minutillus) and Large-billed Gerygone (Gerygone magnirostris). Middle: Shining Bronze-cuckoo (Chalcites lucidus) and Yellow-rumped Thornbill (Acanthiza chrysorrhoa, below) and Buff-rumped Thornbill (Acanthiza reguloides, above). Bottom: Horsfield's Bronze-cuckoo (Chalcites basalis) and Superb Fairy-wren (Malurus cyaneus) (photos by Naomi Langmore, Golo Maurer).

    Although there have been many fascinating discoveries about Australian cuckoos and the tricks they have evolved to fool their hosts, there is still much to discover. For example, how do hosts of the Little Bronze-cuckoo distinguish the cuckoo chick from their own young when mimicry of host young by the cuckoo is so accurate? Have the cryptic eggs of Bronze-cuckoos evolved to prevent rejection by hosts or by other female cuckoos that parasitize the same nest? Why do not Channel-billed Cuckoo chicks evict the host young from the nest like other Australian cuckoos? These and other questions will stimulate research for many years to come.

    NEL was supported by an Australian Research Council Australian Research Fellowship. I thank William Feeney, John Grant, Michelle Hall, Golo Maurer and Julian Robinson for providing photos, Wei Liang for inviting this article, and two anonymous reviewers for commenting on the manuscript.

  • Acharya BK, Chettri B. Effect of climate change on birds, herpetofauna and butterflies in Sikkim Himalaya: a preliminary investigation. In: Arrawatia ML, Tambe S, editors. Climate change in Sikkim: patterns, impacts and initiatives. Gangtok: Information and Public Relations Department; 2012. p. 141-60.
    Acharya BK, Sanders NJ, Vijayan L, Chettri B. Elevational gradients in bird diversity in the Eastern Himalaya: an evaluation of distribution patterns and their underlying mechanisms. PLoS ONE. 2011;6:e29097. .
    Acharya BK, Vijayan L. Status and distribution of endemic and threatened birds of the Eastern Himalaya in Sikkim, India. JoTT. 2010;2:685-9.
    Acharya BK, Vijayan L, Chettri B. The bird community of Shingba Rhododendron wildlife sanctuary, Sikkim, Eastern Himalaya, India. Trop Ecol. 2010;51:149-59.
    Ali S. The birds of Sikkim. New Delhi: Oxford University Press; 1962.
    Aryal KP, Kerkhoff E, Maskey N, Sherchan R. Shifting cultivation in the Sacred Himalayan Landscape: a case study in the Kanchenjunga Conservation Area. 1st ed. Kathmandu: WWF Nepal; 2010.
    Baral HS. Invasive weed threatens protected area. Danphe. 2002;11:10-1.
    Bhatt D, Joshi KK. Bird assemblages in natural and urbanized habitats along elevational gradient in Nainital district (Western Himalaya) of Uttarakhand state, India. Curr Zool. 2011;57:318-29.
    BirdLife International. Threatened birds of Asia: the BirdLife International Red data book. Cambridge: BirdLife International; 2001.
    BirdLife International. Important Bird Areas fact sheet. 2016. . Accessed on 15 Dec 2016.
    Blandford WT. Notes on collection of birds from Sikkim. JASB. 1871;41:30.
    Blandford WT. Notes on collection of birds from Sikkim. Ibis. 1872;152-70.
    Both C, Bouwhuis S, Lessells CM, Visser ME. Climate change and population declines in a long-distance migratory bird. Nature. 2006;441:81-3.
    Bregman TP, Sekercioglu CH, Tobias JA. Global patterns and predictors of bird species responses to forest fragmentation: implications for ecosystem function and conservation. Biol Conserv. 2014;169:372-83.
    Brooks WE. Ornithological observation in Sikkim, the Punjab and Sind. Stray Feathers. 1880;5:380-7.
    Bulger GF. List of birds obtain in Sikkim, Eastern Himalayas between March and July 1867. Ibis. 1869;2:154-70.
    CEPF. Ecosystem profile: Indo-Burman Hotspot, Eastern Himalayan region. Kathmandu: WWF, US-Asian Programme/Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund; 2005.
    CEPF. Ecosystem profile: Indo-Burma Hotspot, Indochina region. Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund. Cambridge: Birdlife International; 2007.
    Chaudhary RP, Uprety Y, Joshi SP, Basnet K, Basnet G, Shrestha KR, Bhatta KP, Acharya KP, Chettri N. Kangchenjunga Landscape Nepal: from conservation and development perspectives. Kathmandu: Ministry of Forests and Soil Conservation (MoFSC), Government of Nepal; Research Centre for Applied Science and Technology (RECAST), Tribhuvan University; and International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development (ICIMOD); 2015.
    Chettri N. Cross-taxon congruence in a trekking corridor of Sikkim Himalaya: surrogate analysis for conservation planning. J Nat Conserv. 2010;18:75-88.
    Chettri N, Jackson R, Sharma E. Birds of Khecheopalri and Yuksom-Dzongri trekking corridor west Sikkim. J Hill Res. 2005;18:16-25.
    Chettri N, Shakya B, Sharma E. Biodiversity conservation in the Kangchenjunga Landscape. Kathmandu: ICIMOD; 2008.
    Chettri N, Sharma E. Assessment of natural resources use patterns: a case study along a trekking corridor of Sikkim Himalaya. Resour Energy Dev. 2006;3:21-34.
    Chettri N, Sharma E, Deb DC. Bird community structure along a trekking corridor of Sikkim Himalaya: a conservation perspective. Biol Conserv. 2001;102:1-16.
    Chettri N, Sharma E, Deb DC, Sundriyal RC. Effect of firewood extraction on tree structure, regeneration, and woody biomass productivity in a trekking corridor of the Sikkim Himalaya. Mt Res Dev. 2002;22:150-8.
    Chettri N, Sharma E, Shakya B, Bajracharya B. Developing forested conservation corridors in the Kangchenjunga Landscape, Eastern Himalayas. Mt Res Dev. 2007a;27:211-4.
    Chettri N, Thapa R, Shakya B. Participatory conservation planning in Kangchenjunga transboundary biodiversity conservation landscape. Trop Ecol. 2007b;48:163-73.
    Conservation International. Hotspots. Targeted investment in nature's most important places. 2017. . Accessed 7 April 2017.
    Crosby M. Threatened birds in the eastern Himalayas. OBC Bull. 1996;23:21-3.
    Dahal BR. Effects of Water Hyacinth Eichhornia crassipes on aquatic birds at Koshi Tappu Wildlife Reserve, south-east Nepal. Danphe. 2007;16:64-5.
    Fjeldså J, Bowie RC, Rahbek C. The role of mountain ranges in the diversification of birds. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst. 2012;43:249-65.
    Gammie JA. Occasional notes on birds from Sikkim. Stray Feathers. 1877;5:482-7.
    Ganguli-Lachungpa U, Islam MZ, Rahamani AR. Important bird areas of Sikkim: priority sites for conservation. Gangtok: Department of Forest Environment and Wildlife Management; 2007.
    Grimmett R, Inskipp C, Inskipp T. Birds of the Indian subcontinent. London: Christopher Helm; 1998.
    ICIMOD, WCD, GBPNIHESD, RECAST. Kangchenjunga Landscape Conservation and Development Initiative feasibility assessment report—regional synthesis. ICIMOD working paper 2017/9. Kathmandu: ICIMOD; 2017.
    Inskipp C, Baral HS, Inskipp T, Stattersfield A. The state of Nepal birds 2010. JoTT. 2013;5:3473-503.
    Inskipp C, Inskipp T, Winspear R, Collin P, Robbin A, Pandey P, Thakuri J. Bird survey of the Kanchenjunga Conservation Area, April 2008. Report to Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund. Kathmandu: Bird Conservation Nepal; 2008.
    Inskipp T, Lindsey N, Duckworth W. An annotated checklist of birds of oriental region. Sandy: Oriental Birds Club; 1996.
    Jathar GA, Rahmani AR. Endemic birds of India. Buceros. 2006;11:5-53.
    Kandel P, Gurung J, Chettri N, Ning W, Sharma E. Biodiversity research trends and gap analysis from a transboundary landscape, Eastern Himalayas. J Asia-Pac Biodivers. 2016;9:1-10.
    Kattan GH, Franco P. Bird diversity along elevational gradients in the Andes of Colombia: area and mass effects. Glob Ecol Biogeogr Lett. 2004;13:451-8.
    Keane A, Brooke MDL, McGowan PJK. Correlates of extinction risk and hunting pressure in gamebirds (Galliformes). Biol Conserv. 2005;126:216-33.
    Kremen C. Assessing the indicator properties of the species assemblages for natural areas monitoring. Ecol Appl. 1992;2:203-17.
    Laiolo P. Diversity and structure of the bird community overwintering in the Himalayan subalpine zone: is conservation compatible with tourism? Biol Conserv. 2004;115:251-62.
    Law SC. Occurrence of the Smew [Mergellusalbellus (Linn.)] in West Bengal. J Bombay Nat Hist Soc. 1953;51:508-9.
    Ludlow F, Kinnear NB. The birds of Bhutan and adjacent territories of Sikkim and Tibet. Ibis. 1937a;79(1):1-46.
    Ludlow F, Kinnear NB. Systematic results of birds collected at high altitude in Ladak and Sikkim. Ibis. 1937b;79(3):467-504.
    Maclaren PIR. Short birds notes from S. F. Sikkim. J Ben Nat Hist Soc. 1947;9:92-7.
    Maclaren PIR. Notes from Darjeeling and Sikkim. December 1945. J Ben Nat Hist Soc. 1948;22:112-20.
    McLaughlin DW. Land, food, and biodiversity. Conserv Biol. 2011;25(6):1117-20.
    Mills JD. An ornithologist's trip to Sikkim. J Ben Nat Hist Soc. 1944;19:57-70.
    Mittermeier RA, Gils PR, Hoffman M, Pilgrim J, Brooks T, Mittermeier CG, Lamoreux J, Fonseca GA. Hotspots revisited. Earth's biologically richest and most endangered terrestrial ecoregions. Mexico City: CEMEX/Agrupación Sierra Madre; 2004.
    Narwade S, Kalra M, Jagdish R, Varier D, Satpute S, Khan N, Talukdar G, Mathur VB, Vasudevan K, Pundir DS, Chavan V. Literature based species occurrence data of birds of northeast India. ZooKeys. 2011;150:407-17.
    Pakkala T, Lindén A, Tiainen J, Tomppo E, Kouki J. Indicators of forest biodiversity: which bird species predict high breeding bird assemblage diversity in boreal forests at multiple spatial scales? Ann Zoo Fen. 2014;51:457-76.
    Pandit MK, Sodhi NS, Koh LP, Bhaskar A, Brook BW. Unreported yet massive deforestation driving loss of endemic biodiversity in Indian Himalaya. Biodivers Conserv. 2007;16:153-63.
    Pierson JC, Barton PS, Lane PW, Lindenmayer DB. Can habitat surrogates predict the response of target species to landscape change? Biol Conserv. 2015;184:1-10.
    Sathyakumar S, Poudyal K, Bhattacharya T, Bashir T. Galliformes of Khangchendzonga Biosphere Reserve, Sikkim, India. In: Arrawatia ML, Tambe S, editors. Biodiversity of Sikkim—exploring and conserving a global hotspot. Gangtok: Information and Public Relation Department; 2010. p. 301-15.
    Sen S. Identification notes on Sikkim Yellow-Billed Blue Magpie. J Ben Nat Hist Soc. 1948;29:169-71.
    Sen S. An ornithological visit to Changu. J Ben Nat Hist Soc. 1957;29:1-5.
    Singh R, Kour DN, Ahmad F, Sahi DN. Species diversity, relative abundance and habitat use of the bird communities of Tehsil Chenani, District Udhampur, Jammu and Kashmir, India. Indian J Life Sci. 2013;2:81-90.
    Stattersfield AJ, Crosby MJ, Long AJ, Wege DC. Endemic bird areas of the world: priorities for biodiversity conservation., BirdLife Conservation series No. 7Cambridge: BirdLife International; 1998.
    Uprety Y, Poudel RC, Gurung J, Chettri N, Chaudhary RP. Traditional use and management of NTFPs in Kangchenjunga Landscape: implications for conservation and livelihoods. J Ethnobiol Ethnomed. 2016;12:1-59.
    Urfi AJ. Climate change and its impacts on Indian birds: monsoon phenology and monitoring heronry birds. Curr Sci. 2011;101:1140-2.
    Velho N, Karanth KK, Laurance WF. Hunting: a serious and understudied threat in India, a globally significant conservation region. Biol Conserv. 2012;148:210-5.
    Vielliard JM. Bird community as an indicator of biodiversity: results from quantitative surveys in Brazil. An Acad Bras Ciênc. 2000;72:323-30.
    Wiens JA. Habitat fragmentation: island v landscape perspectives on bird conservation. Ibis. 1995;137:S97-104.
    WWF. Mai Pokhari, Ilam: samrakchen ma dharma, sankirti ra paramparako mahatyo (in Nepali). Importance of religion, culture, and tradition in conservation (unofficial translation). Kathmandu: WWF-Nepal; 2007.
    Yonzon PB. Opportunities in ecoregion based conservation in the Kanchenjunga region, eastern Nepal. Biodiversity assessment and conservation planning in Kanchenjunga mountain complex. Kathmandu: WWF-Nepal; 2000.
  • Related Articles

Catalog

    Figures(6)  /  Tables(4)

    Article Metrics

    Article views (612) PDF downloads (9) Cited by()

    /

    DownLoad:  Full-Size Img  PowerPoint
    Return
    Return