Processing math: 100%
Volume 4 Issue 3
Aug.  2013
Turn off MathJax
Article Contents
Abstract
Introduction
Study area and methods
Results
Discussion
Acknowledgements
References
Related Articles
James HARRIS, Claire MIRANDE. 2013: A global overview of cranes: status, threats and conservation priorities. Avian Research, 4(3): 189-209. DOI: 10.5122/cbirds.2013.0025
Citation: James HARRIS, Claire MIRANDE. 2013: A global overview of cranes: status, threats and conservation priorities. Avian Research, 4(3): 189-209. DOI: 10.5122/cbirds.2013.0025
shu

A global overview of cranes: status, threats and conservation priorities

  • International Crane Foundation, Baraboo, WI 53913, USA

More Information
  • Corresponding author:

    James HARRIS, E-mail: harris@savingcranes.org

  • Received Date: 09 Apr 2013
  • Accepted Date: 29 Jul 2013
  • Available Online: 23 Apr 2023
    Graphical Abstract
    • Abstract

  • This paper reviews the population trends and threats for the 15 species of cranes, and comments on conservation priorities for the family as a whole. Cranes occur on five continents, with greatest diversity in East Asia (nine species) and Sub-Saharan Africa (six species). Eleven crane species are threatened with extinction according to the IUCN Red List, including one species Critically Endangered, three species Endangered, and seven species Vulnerable. Of the four species of Least Concern, population sizes for the Demoiselle (Anthropoides virgo) and Brolga (Grus rubicunda) are not well known but these species are declining in some areas. The Sandhill (G. canadensis) and Eurasian Cranes (G. grus) are the most abundant cranes and have rapidly increased in part due to their flexible selection of foraging habitats and use of agriculture lands and waste grain as a food source. Status for six species—Grey Crowned (Balearica regulorum), Blue (Anthropoides paradise), Black-necked (G. nigricollis), Red-crowned (G. japonensis), Sandhill, and Siberian (G. leucogeranus)—are summarized in more detail to illustrate the diversity of population shifts and threats within the crane family. A crane threat matrix lists the major threats, rates each threat for each species, and scores each threat for the crane family as a whole. Four of the five greatest threats are to the ecosystems that cranes depend upon, while only one of the top threats (human disturbance) relates to human action directly impacting on cranes. Four major threats are discussed: dams and water diversions, agriculture development, crane trade, and climate change. Conservation efforts should be strongly science-based, reduce direct threats to the birds, safeguard or restore habitat, and strengthen awareness among decision makers and local communities for how to safeguard cranes and wetlands. Especially for the most severely threatened species, significantly stronger efforts will be needed to incorporate our understanding of the needs of cranes and the ecosystems they inhabit into decisions about agriculture, water management, energy development and other human activities.

    • FullText(HTML)

  • Similarities and differences for resource requirements are key factors affecting coexistence of sympatric species (Johnson, 2000). When resources are rich different species, completely overlapping in their niche, might be found in the same area (Zhang and Jiang, 1997). However, sympatric species might separate at least in one niche for coexistence if resources were to become scarce (Munday et al., 2001), resulting in coexisting species developing their own strategies for niche separation, such as spatial separation (May, 1973; Jenni, 1993).

    Roosting strategies of birds show how they select and use spatial resources at night, including roosting behavior and roost selection (Cody, 1985). Birds, daily active, cannot be aware of potential dangerous situations, which lead them often to be exposed to dangers during nighttime because of poor visibility (Chamberlain et al., 2000). A suitable roosting habitat not only retains a desirable temperature for birds, but also protects them from predation (Cody, 1985). Therefore, the selection of a roosting habitat affects the fitness of birds (Cody, 1985; Elmore et al., 2004). So far, many studies reporting roosting site selection of rare pheasants, have focused primarily on roosting behavior and site selection. Some characteristics have been commonly recognized for avian roosting, i.e., birds prefer to stay in areas with steep terrain and high tree cover (Kelty and Lustick, 1977; Cody, 1985). However, there are obvious interspecific differences in tree species for roosting, height of perching branch and canopy of perching position (Ding et al., 2002; Jia et al., 2005; Shao and Hu, 2005; Jiang et al., 2006; Lu and Zheng, 2007). From the study of roosting habitat selection by Tetraonidae, it has been shown that the structure of trees, microhabitat of perching position and terrain characteristics are factors mainly affecting roosting habitat selection in avian species (Godfrey, 1970; Korhonen, 1980). But few of these studies compared the roosting strategies of different species in the same area.

    Hume's Pheasant (Syrmaticus humiae), listed as globally near-threatened (Birdlife International, 2008) and the Silver Pheasant (Lophura nycthemera), which is not threatened, are found in sympatry in the Dazhong Mountain of Yunnan Province, southwestern China (Li et al., 2006). So far, no comparative analysis of roosting site of the sympatric pheasants has been described in detail. In this study, we investigated the night roosting habitat characteristics of Hume's Pheasant and Silver Pheasant and compared their roosting site strategies. Multiple statistics, Matryoshka and habitat classification-tree were used to analyze roosting habitat selection in the spring. We also discuss the mechanism how the pheasants choose roosting sites at night.

    Study area

    Dazhong Mountain (24°43′32″–25°01′10″N, 100°44′28″–100°57′42″E) is a part of the Ailaoshan National Nature Reserve, located in the southwestern part of Nanhua County, Chuxiong Prefecture in central Yunnan Province, China (Fig. 1). This area lies at the juncture of the central Yunnan Plateau, Hengduan mountains and the southern tip of the Qinghai-Tibetan Plateau, comprising mid-alpine mountains and valleys caused by age-old movements in the earth's crust. These upward movements of the earth led to modified soils and climate regimes which in turn have affected vegetation and species diversity and distribution. Pinus yunnanensis and scrub forests dominate in areas below 1500 m, semi-moisture broadleaf evergreen forests and deciduous broadleaf forests are found at elevations between 1500–2400 m and the vegetation above 2400 m comprises mid-alpine broadleaf evergreen and Pinus armandii forests (Wang, 2000).

    Figure  1.  Map showing landform of Dazhong Mountain, a part of the Ailaoshan National Nature Reserve, Yunnan Province. The red irregular rectangle shows the study area.
    DownLoad: Full-Size Img PowerPoint

    Data collection

    Field data were collected from February to April, 2004 in the Dazhong Mountain.

    Three transects (at elevations of 2400, 2450 and 2500 m), 4–6 km long (the transects were often beyond the boundary of the natural reserve) were established in the study area where Hume's Pheasant and Silver Pheasant occur in sympatry. Both pheasants often appeared near roosting sites at dawn and dusk (06:30–09:30 and 17:00–19:00 hours) (Li et al., 2006). When they came to roost or flew away from the roosting tree, a loud sound, "pu…pu…" caused by fanning their wings, could be heard and their roost could be identified easily. If these sounds could not be heard, we used flashlights to look directly for the pheasants and confirmed roosting trees at night, or indirectly identify the roosting trees by searching for faecal in the morning according to the amount and their freshness under the roosting trees. The faecal of the two pheasants could be distinguished by visual observations: the faecal of Hume's Pheasant is a cone-shaped black leptospira with white uric acid crystals at the larger ends; in comparison, that of the Silver Pheasant is blank and columnar with white uric acid crystals covering the surface. The faecal volume of the Silver Pheasant is larger than that of Hume's Pheasant.

    Following the methods of Young et al. (1991), plots of 10 m × 10 m were established with roosting trees as centers. Twenty-two factors, referring to bird roost selection, were measured, given the instructions of Zheng (1995). These factors can be categorized into three groups:

    1) Macro-habitat characteristics. Elevation (EL), aspect (AS), slope (SL), vegetation types (VT), distance to water (DSW) and distance to roads (DSR). EL, AS and SL were measured by compass and DSW and DSR by a measuring tape.

    2) Vegetation characteristics. Canopy tree density (CTD), canopy tree cover (CTC), average height of canopy tree (AHCT), average diameter at breast height of canopy tree (ADBH), shrub density (SD), shrub cover (SC), average height of shrubs (AHS), herb cover (HC) and leaf litter cover (LLC).

    3) Perch characteristics. Tree species (TS), tree height (TH), diameter at breast height (DBH), perch height (PH), obtained by tape measure, angle between perching branch and stock (APS), obtained by goniometer, cover over perch (COP), crown size (CS) (i.e., umbriferous crown area of roost tree, assumed to be elliptical or round).

    Data processing

    Resource selection index

    A chi-square test and Ivlev's Resource Selection Index (RSI) were used to analyze the selection by the pheasants of two factors, i.e., roost tree species and vegetation type (Ivlev, 1961; Manly et al., 2002). Ivlev's Resource Selection Index is defined as:

    Ei=(Ri−Ni)/(Ri+Ni)
    		 (1)

    where resource utilization (Ri) represents the actual frequency of utilization of resource i by animals (here referring to birds) in a given period, resource availability (Ni) represents the availability of resource i by birds and the resource selection index (Ei) indicates whether the bird selects the resource i. If Ei = 0, the birds have no preferential selection for resource i and is expressed as "0"; if Ei < 0, birds avoid resource i, expressed as "−"; if Ei > 0, the birds prefer to select resource i and is expressed as "+" (Ivlev, 1961).

    Principal component analysis for roosting habitat factors

    The other 20 quantitative factors were analyzed by t-test to compare mean differences between the two species. Since the data should be normally distributed, slope and aspect have been transformed either by an arcsine or a logarithmic transformation before analysis (Manly et al., 2002). Principal component analysis (PCA), a multivariate technique that produces a simplified, reduced expression of the original data with complex relationships, has been widely applied in studies of wildlife habitats (Fowler et al., 1998). All quantitative variables were analyzed via PCA based on their correlation matrix with a varimax rotation to screen out the key factors in roosting habitat selection of Hume's Pheasant and Silver Pheasant.

    All statistics were analyzed by SPSS 13.0 for windows.

    Habitat classification-tree

    A habitat classification-tree was constructed from the result of multiple statistics for roosting habitat and the theory of Matryoshka, who developed a system of habitat classification for a complete multi-scale habitat study. Habitat selection in birds can be divided in several levels, from macrohabitat to microhabitat (Hanski, 2006). This kind of system not only shows species requirements at each layer but also reveals which layer is destroyed. Simultaneously, the definition of habitat layer can be used for comparing the differences and similarities of congeneric species, which provides evidence to ascertain whether habitats overlap or are separated in any given layer.

    Twenty roosting trees for each pheasant species were found in the field; in total forty utilization plots were established.

    Vegetation type and roosting trees

    For vegetation type, both pheasants selected moist evergreen broadleaf forests in the middle-mountain as their roosting sites (Table 1). In the twenty trees, chosen by Hume's Pheasant for roosting, ten (50%) were oak species (Lithocarpus xylocarpus, L. truncates and L. cleistocarpus), five (25%) were Pinus armandi trees, two (10%) were Ternstroemia gymnanthera and the others (15%) were Lyonia ovalifolia, Gaultheria leucocarpa var. crenulata and Alnus nepalensis, in total eight tree species. For Silver Pheasant, twelve roosting trees (60%) were oak species (Lithocarpus xylocarpus, L. truncatus and L. echinophorus), two (10%) were Camellia oleifera and the other six (30%) were Castanopsis megaphylla, Lyonia ovalifolia, Rhododendron delarayi, Gaultheria forrestii var. forrestii, G. leucocarpa var. crenulata and Cerasus serrulate trees, i.e., ten species in total. Oak was the main tree species for roosting. There were no significant difference in the preference for oak as roosting tree between the two pheasants (χ2 = 0.4, df = 1, p > 0.05).

    Table  1.  Comparison of roosting habitat vegetation type between the two pheasants based on Resource Selection Index
    Factor i Ni Ri Ei Selective
    S L S L S L
    Vegetation type MEBF 0.49 0.78 1.00 0.23 0.34 + +
    DBF 0.05 0.00 0.00 −1.00 −1.00 − −
    PYF 0.46 0.22 0.00 −0.35 −1.00 − −
    Note: S, Syrmaticus humiae; L, Lophura nycthemera; DBF, deciduous broadleaf forest; MEBF, middle-mountain, moist evergreen broadleaf forest; PYF, Pinus yunnanensis forest; +, observed usage is significantly higher than expected; 0, observed usage is almost equal to expected; −, observed usage is significantly lower than expected; other abbreviations are the same as in Eq. (1).
     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV

    Comparison of roosting habitat factors

    There were highly significant differences in the height of roosting trees, perch height and elevation (Table 2). The differences of diameter at breast height, canopy tree density, herb coverage and distance to water were significant (Table 2). Except for these seven habitat factors, there were no clear statistical differences in the other thirteen factors (Table 2).

    Table  2.  Roosting habitat characteristics and their comparison between two pheasants
    Habitat characteristics Factor types Roosting habitat (mean ± SE) t-test (two-tailed)
    S L t p
    Roost tree DBH 18.5±5.3 27.5±5.1 −2.586 0.014*
    Crown size 32.2±5.6 31.2±12.6 0.099 0.922
    Height 8.1±1.5 11.3±1.5 −3.100 0.004**
    Roost branch Height 3.6±0.6 6.4±0.8 −5.894 0.000**
    APS 94.7±5.6 92.0±5.0 0.765 0.449
    COP 79.3±5.9 76.5±7.5 0.624 0.537
    Tree layer Density 25.0±8.0 38.9±10.7 −2.180 0.036*
    AHCT 8.2±1.1 9.3±0.8 −1.747 0.089
    ADBH 11.4±2.0 12.6±1.9 −0.876 0.387
    Cover 60.7±6.3 66.8±5.2 −1.557 0.128
    Shrub layer Cover 17.7±7.4 11.9±4.8 1.374 0.177
    AHS 1.5±0.3 1.7±0.2 −1.216 0.231
    Density 9.9±6.5 4.9±0.9 1.613 0.123
    Herb layer LLC 82.2±4.7 86.3±3.5 −1.466 0.151
    HC 10.5±7.0 2.3±3.3 2.214 0.035*
    Macrohabitat DSR 34.4±7.9 57.4±29.9 −1.561 0.133
    DSW 39.3±11.2 72.5±23.8 −2.642 0.014*
    Aspect 11.8±34.8 29.3±12.3 −0.993 0.331
    Slope 31.2±4.8 30.1±3.5 0.371 0.712
    Elevation 2421.6±16.8 2465.3±23.3 −3.189 0.003**
    Note: S, Syrmaticus humiae; L, Lophura nycthemera; ADBH, average diameter at breast height of canopy trees; AHCT, average height of canopy trees; AHS, average height of shrubs; APS, angle between perching branch and stock; COP, cover over perch; DBH, diameter at breast height; DSR, distance to road; DSW, distance to water; HC, herb coverage; LLC, leaf litter coverage; * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01; other abbreviations are the same as for Table 1.
     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV

    Principal component analysis for roosting habitat factors

    Given the results of PCA, the unique factors affecting only the roosting habitat of Hume's Pheasant were slope, aspect, angle between perch and stock, shrub density and distance to water. Elevation and canopy tree cover were unique factors only affecting the Silver Pheasant. Two factors, leaf litter coverage and distance to roads, had roughly the same effect on roosting of the two pheasants; the values of these factors were reversed. Furthermore, only five factors of roosting trees and shrubs that affected the roosting habitat of the two pheasants are ordered in the same sequence, while the sequence of the other eight factors contributed alternately (Table 3).

    Table  3.  Principal component analysis for roosting habitat factors used by the two pheasants
    Factor Factor type Factor loading
    PC1 PC2 PC3 PC4 PC5 PC6
    S L S L S L S L S L S L
    Roost tree DBH 0.92 0.84 0.02 0.11 −0.09 0.01 −0.08 0.15 0.21 0.14 −0.02 −0.24
    Crown size 0.89 0.82 −0.01 −0.26 −0.09 −0.02 −0.07 0.24 0.21 0.16 0.14 0.11
    Height 0.83 0.84 −0.09 0.39 −0.20 0.15 −0.16 0.16 0.26 −0.07 −0.24 0.05
    Roost branch Height 0.64 0.40 −0.07 0.54 −0.37 0.62 −0.26 0.00 0.19 0.07 −0.09 −0.21
    APS 0.00 −0.16 0.83 0.00 0.10 −0.15 0.22 0.11 −0.12 −0.01 0.15 −0.20
    COP 0.13 −0.16 0.48 −0.01 −0.08 0.60 −0.10 0.08 0.34 0.61 0.71 0.25
    Tree layer Density −0.27 −0.07 0.17 −0.55 0.80 −0.12 0.05 −0.22 −0.42 0.73 0.04 −0.15
    AHCT 0.27 0.17 −0.06 0.92 0.14 0.04 −0.05 0.21 0.89 0.02 0.09 −0.22
    ADBH 0.40 −0.14 −0.04 0.65 −0.16 0.59 0.02 0.32 0.84 0.02 0.04 0.18
    Cover 0.49 0.17 0.22 −0.01 0.43 0.81 −0.22 0.27 −0.36 −0.04 0.42 −0.29
    Shrub layer Cover −0.18 0.30 −0.06 0.02 0.07 0.21 0.94 0.89 −0.11 0.02 −0.02 0.01
    AHS −0.08 0.29 0.20 0.14 0.12 0.09 0.83 0.78 0.23 0.28 0.04 −0.32
    Density −0.12 0.56 −0.51 −0.11 0.04 0.36 0.75 0.33 −0.22 0.13 0.07 0.12
    Herb layer LLC −0.22 0.00 −0.22 −0.75 0.83 0.06 0.14 0.19 0.14 −0.05 0.04 0.18
    HC −0.02 −0.61 0.13 −0.15 0.00 −0.13 −0.12 −0.16 0.12 0.33 −0.88 0.55
    Macrohabitat DSR 0.08 0.02 −0.82 −0.17 −0.13 −0.08 0.15 −0.08 0.10 −0.09 0.04 0.92
    DSW −0.06 −0.45 0.18 −0.29 0.72 −0.10 0.08 −0.31 0.20 −0.17 −0.23 0.46
    Aspect −0.34 0.43 0.27 −0.40 −0.11 0.51 0.03 −0.33 0.17 0.41 0.74 −0.19
    Slope −0.03 −0.23 0.70 0.22 −0.47 0.26 −0.17 −0.37 0.14 0.32 0.28 −0.41
    Elevation 0.31 −0.19 −0.11 0.04 0.05 0.04 0.00 −0.08 −0.08 0.89 −0.07 0.26
    Percentage of variance explained (%) 18.1 18.6 13.3 15.1 12.8 11.8 12.2 11.6 11.9 11.4 11.3 10.9
    Cumulative percentage (%) 18.1 18.6 31.4 33.7 44.2 45.5 56.3 57.1 68.2 68.5 79.5 79.4
    Abbreviations are the same as for Tables 1 and 2.
     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV

    Habitat classification-tree

    Based on the results of RSI, t-tests and PCA, a habitat classification-tree for the two pheasants at Dazhong Mountain was established. There are several separations in the roosting habitat of the two pheasants, from macrohabitat to microhabitat (Table 4).

    Table  4.  Habitat classification-tree for roosting habitat of two pheasants
    Habitat factors Classification feature of habitat
    Macrohabitat 1. MEBF ………………………………………………….. 2
    2a. Slope 31.2, Aspect 11.8, DSW 39.3 m,
    DSR 34.4 m …………………………………………. S
    2b. Elevation 2465 m, DSR 57.4 m ………….. L
    Tree layer 3. AHCT > 8.2 m, ADBH > 11.4 m …………… 4
    4a. Density 25 tubes per m2 …………………… S
    4b. Density 39 tubes per m2, Cover 66.8 … L
    Shrub layer 5. Cover > 11.9, AHS > 1.5 ……………………… 6
    6a. Density 10 tubes per m2 …………………… S
    6b. Density 5 tubes per m2 …………………….. L
    Herb layer 7a. HC 10.5, LLC big ……………………………….. S
    7b. HC 2.6, LLC small ………………………………. L
    Roost tree 8. Oak, Crown size > 31.2 ……………………….. 9
    9a. DBH 18.5 cm, Height 8.1 m ……………….. S
    9b. DBH 27.5 cm, Height 11.3 m …………….. L
    Roosting branch 10. COP > 76.5 ……………………………………… 11
    11a. Height 3.6 m, APS 94.7 ………………….… S
    11b. Height 6.4 m …………………………………… L
    Abbreviations are the same as for Tables 1 and 2.
     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV

    Selection and separation in roosting trees and habitat

    The reason for the two pheasants roosting together was that they have the same crucial requirements and selection in habitat factors. In the spring, both Hume's Pheasant and the Silver Pheasant prefer roosts in moist evergreen broadleaf forests in the middle-mountain (Table 1) over other vegetation types. Deciduous broadleaf and Pinus yunnanensis forests in the Dazhong Mountain could not supply suitable coverage and temperatures for avian roosts, because dominant trees are sparse and crown closure is low. Therefore, these two pheasants simultaneously choose the same vegetation type and roosting trees in this area. The fact that birds favor trees which supply suitable shelter for safety and warmth as roosting place in their distribution area had been shown in previous studies (Ding et al., 2002; Jia et al., 2005; Shao and Hu, 2005; Jiang et al., 2006; Lu and Zheng, 2007).

    Based on the results of t-tests, there were significant differences in tree diameters at breast height, height of trees and perch height (Table 2). The values of these three factors selected by the Silver Pheasant were much larger than those of Hume's Pheasant. These separations avoided their competition for roosting in the same tree; thus the optimal spatial use of roosting trees by the two species was established. Moreover, there are still some other separations of habitat factors, such as canopy tree density, herb coverage, elevation and distance to water (Table 3), which reflect the different responses of the two pheasants to the same vegetation structure and terrain. For example, the Silver Pheasant seems to prefer denser tree canopy, higher herb coverage, farther distance to water and higher elevation than Hume's Pheasant. Although Hume's Pheasant and the Silver Pheasant lived sympatrically, their ecological niches separated in spatial dimensions and the habitat classification-tree reflects this separation (Table 4). Therefore, the same macrohabitat can accommodate several species with similar niches.

    Interspecific differences in pheasant roosting strategy

    The requirements of the two birds for safety differ in their roosting strategy. Safe shelters for roosts were composed of trees and shrubs of high density, perching position of high cover and terrain (Cody, 1985). Based on PCA, the position of roosting trees and shrub characteristics selected by the two pheasants were in the same or similar selection sequence; but characteristics of roosting branch selection in the two pheasants had different sequences. Slope was a unique factor only affecting Hume's Pheasant and tree canopy was unique only to the Silver Pheasant. The different requirements of pheasants for safety are reflected by selection of ecological factors and their order of priority (Table 3). Higher roosting branches and larger distances greatly decreases attacks from nocturnal animals (Prionailurus bengalensis, Mustela sibirica), which reflects an anti-predator strategy on a vertical spatial scale, used for roosting by both pheasants in Dazhong Mountain. However, the selection of other habitat factors reflects a difference in safety strategy of the two pheasants, i.e., slope was a unique factor only affecting Hume's Pheasant. The steeper the slope, the more chances for birds to escape by gliding. Therefore, the means for easy escape is one of the important factors affecting security of Hume's Pheasant. This fact was confirmed by the study of roost site selection in Chrysolophus pictus (Cong and Zeng, 2008). Tree canopy is a factor only affecting the Silver Pheasant. The higher the tree canopy, the smaller the danger for pheasants from predation. Hence, increasing the height of cover in the environment is still the main strategy for roost security of the Silver Pheasant. Briefly, for its safety strategy, Hume's Pheasant adopted primarily a way of "uneasily found habitat cover plus easy escape". The Silver Pheasant employed solely a way of "uneasily found habitat cover".

    The requirement for optimum temperature cannot be neglected in the roosting strategy of the two birds. A suitable roosting temperature is maintained by trees and shrubs by avoiding wind and rain (Kelty and Lustick, 1977; Cody, 1985). According to our PCA, shrub characteristics selected by the two pheasants were in the same order of selection and tree factors alternately appeared in their selection order. Aspect was a unique factor affecting the roosting selection only in Hume's Pheasant (Table 3). The function of tree factors contributed the same effects to both pheasants, which might imply that tree factors are the most important for keeping warm when roosting. Shrub density contributed to maintaining roosting temperatures (Moore, 1945), so these factors were selected by both pheasants. Different slope aspects provided different macroclimates. The leeward aspect provides more suitable temperatures for roosting than the windward aspect during the night (Cody, 1985). The aspect selected by Hume's Pheasant was leewards. Aspect seems therefore an auxiliary factor for keeping warm, used by Hume's Pheasant except for vegetation. In brief, for the tactics of keeping warm, Hume's Pheasant selected mainly a method of suitable vegetation, supplemented by topography. The Silver Pheasant chose uniquely the manner of suitable vegetation.

    We are specially thankful to the entire staff of Dazhong Mountain Station and the Nanhua Administration Bureau of the Ailaoshan National Nature Reserve, which supplied logistical support for the field investigation. Mr. D. Ji, a student of Southwest Forestry College, helped with the collection of some field data. This study was financed by the Wildlife Conservation Program of the State Forestry Administration of China in 2009.

    • References (82)
  • Allan DG. 1993. Aspects of the biology and conservation status of the blue crane Anthropoides Paradiseus, and the Ludwig's Neotis Ludwigii and Stanley's N. Denhami Stanleyi bustards in Southern Africa. M.S. Thesis. University of Cape Town, Cape Town.
    An S, Li H, Guan B, Zhou C, Wang Z, Deng Z, Zhi Y, Lui Y, Xu C, Fang S, Jiang J, Li H. 2007. China's natural wetlands: past problems, current status, and future challenges. Ambio, 36: 335–342.
    Austin JE. 2012. Conflicts between Sandhill Cranes and farmers in the Western United States: evolving issues and solutions. In: Harris J (ed). Procs of the Cranes, Agriculture, and Climate Change Workshop at Muraviovka Park. Russia, 28 May–3 June 2010, pp 131–139.
    Austin JE. In preparation. Threats to cranes related to agriculture. In: Austin J, Morrison K, Mirande C (eds) Cranes and Agriculture — a Practical Guide to Conservationists and Land Managers. International Crane Foundation, Baraboo, Wisconsin.
    Beilfuss R, Bento C, Hancock P, Kamweneshe B, McCann K, Morrison K, Rodwell L. 2003. Water, wetlands, and wattled cranes: a regional monitoring and conservation program for Southern Africa. International Conference on Environmental Monitoring of Tropical and Subtropical Wetlands. Okavango Research Center, Maun, Botswana.
    Beilfuss R, Brown C. 2006. Assessing Environmental Flow Requirements for the Marromeu Complex of the Zambezi Delta: Application of the DRIFT Model (downstream response to imposed flow transformations). Museum of Natural HistoryUniversity of Eduardo Mondlane, Maputo, Mozambique.
    Beilfuss R, Dodman T, Urban E K. 2007. The status of cranes in Africa in 2005. Ostrich, 78: 175–184.
    Beilfuss R. 2009. Securing waters for cranes, ourselves, our world. ICF Bugle, 35: 1–2.
    Beilfuss R. 2010. Modeling trade-offs between hydropower generation and environmental flow scenarios: a case study of the Lower Zambezi River Basin, Mozambique. JRBM, 8: 331–347.
    Beilfuss R. 2012. A Risky Climate for Southern African Hydro: Addressing Hydrological Risks and Consequences for Zambezi River Basin Dams. International Rivers, Berkeley, California.
    Beilfuss R. 2013. Water for whoopers is water for all. ICF Bugle, 39: 1–2.
    Beilfuss RD, Brown C. 2010. Assessing environmental flow requirements and tradeoffs for the Lower Zambezi River and Delta, Mozambique. JRBM, 8: 127–138.
    Bento CM. 2002. The status and prospects of wattled cranes Grus carunculatus in the Marromeu Complex of the Zambezi Delta. M.S. Dissertation. University of Cape Town, South Africa.
    BirdLife International. 2013. IUCN Red List for birds. . Accessed 10 July 2013.
    Bishop MA, Tsamchu D, Li F. 2012. Number and distribution of black-necked cranes wintering in Zhigatse Prefecture, Tibet. Chinese Birds, 3: 191–198.
    Bishop MA, Tsamchu D. 2007. Tibet Autonomous Region. January 2007 survey for black-necked crane, common crane, and bar-headed goose. China Crane News, 11: 24–26.
    Borad CK, Mukherjee A, Patel SB, Parasharya BM. 2002. Breeding performance of Indian sarus crane Grus antigone antigone in the paddy crop agroecosystem. Biodiv Conserv, 11: 795–805.
    Brander L, Raymond M, Florax JGM, Vermaat JE. 2006. The empirics of wetland valuation: a comprehensive summary and a meta-analysis of the literature. Environ Resour Econ, 33: 223–250.
    Chavez-Ramirez F, Dumesnil M, and Smith E. 2013. A thousand whoopers. The Nature Conservancy. . Accessed 10 July 2013.
    Chavez-Ramirez F, Hunt HE, Slack RD, and Stehn TV. 1996. Ecological correlates of whooping crane use of fire-treated upland habitats. Conserv Biol, 10: 217–223.
    Chavez-Ramirez F, Wehtje W. 2012. Potential impact of climate change scenarios on whooping crane life history. Wetlands 32: 11–20.
    Constanza R, d'Arge R, de Groot R, Farber S, Grasso M, Hannon B, Limburg K, Naeem S, O'Neill RV, Paruelo J, Raskin R, Sutton P, van den Belt M. 1998. The value of ecosystem services: putting the issues in perspective. Ecol Econ, 25: 67–72.
    de Leeuw J, Shankman D, Wu G, de Boer WF, Burnham J, He Q, Yesou H, Xiao J. 2010. Strategic assessment of the magnitude and impacts of sand mining in Poyang Lake, China. Region Environ Change, 10: 95–102.
    Dugan P. 1993. Wetlands in Danger — A World Conservation Atlas. Oxford University Press, New York, USA.
    Finlayson CM, Spiers AG. 1996. Global review of wetland resources and priorities for wetland inventory. Supervising Scientist Report 144 / Wetlands International Publication 53, Supervising Scientist, Canberra, Australia.
    Fox AD, Cao L, Zhang Y, Barter M, Zhao MJ, Meng FJ, Wang SL. 2010. Declines in the tuber-feeding waterbird guild at Shengjin Lake National Nature Reserve, China — a barometer of submerged macrophyte collapse. Aquatic Conserv: Mar Freshw Ecosyst. doi: .
    Goroshko O, Tseveenmyadag N. 2002. Status and conservation of cranes in Daurian Steppes (Russia and Mongolia). China Crane News, 6: 5–7.
    Goroshko O. 2012. Global climate change and conservation of cranes in the Amur River Basin. In: Harris J (ed) Cranes, Agriculture, and Climate Change. Abstract in: Proceedings of a workshop organized by the International Crane Foundation and Muraviovka Park for Sustainable Land Use. International Crane Foundation, Baraboo, Wisconsin, p 143.
    Grice T, Nicholas M, Williams P, Collins E. 2010. Using fire to manage para grass in wetlands: a Queensland case study. In: Atkins S, Winderlich S (eds) Kakadu National Park Landscape Symposia Series 2007–2009. Symposium 3: Fire management, 23–24 April 2008, Aurora Kakadu (South Alligator), Kakadu National Park. Internal Report 566, February, Supervising Scientist, Darwin. . Accessed 10 July 2013.
    Guo H, Hu Q, Zhang Q, Feng S. 2012. Effects of the Three Gorges Dam on Yangtze River flow and river interaction with Poyang Lake, China: 2003–2008. J Hydrol, 416–417: 19–27.
    Harris J, Zhuang H. 2010. An ecosystem approach to resolving conflicts between ecological and economic priorities for Poyang Lake wetlands. Unpublished report. IUCN and International Crane Foundation, Baraboo, Wisconsin.
    Harris J. 1992. Managing nature reserves for cranes in China. Proc N Am Crane Workshop, 6: 1–11.
    Harris J. 2009. Safe flyways for the Siberian crane: a flyway approach conserves some of Asia's most beautiful wetlands and waterbirds. International Crane Foundation, Baraboo, Wisconsin.
    Harris J. 2012a. Cranes, Agriculture, and Climate Change. Proceedings of a workshop organized by the International Crane Foundation and Muraviovka Park for Sustainable Land Use. International Crane Foundation, Baraboo, Wisconsin. p 154.
    Harris J. 2012b. Introduction: cranes, agriculture, and climate change. In: Harris J (ed) Cranes, Agriculture, and Climate Change. Proceedings of a workshop organized by the International Crane Foundation and Muraviovka Park for Sustainable Land Use. International Crane Foundation, Baraboo, Wisconsin, pp 1–14.
    Hayes M, Barzen J. In preparation. Territory availability best explains fidelity in sandhill cranes.
    Hudson V. 2000. Captive cranes and trade — A South African perspective. In: Morrison KL (ed) Proceedings of the 12th South African Crane Working Group Workshop 22–23 November 2000. Endangered Wildlife Trust, South Africa.
    Hunt RA, Gluesing EA. 1976. The sandhill crane in Wisconsin. In: Lewis JC (ed) Proceedings of the International Crane Workshop. Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, pp 19–34.
    Johnson DN, Barnes PR. 1991. The breeding biology of the wattled crane in Natal. In: Harris JT (ed) Proceedings of 1987 International Crane Workshop; Qiqihar, 1–10 May 1987, Heilongjiang Province China. International Crane Foundation, Baraboo, Wisconsin, pp 377–386.
    Koga K. 2008. The status review of the Tancho in Hokkaido: current threats. In: Koga K, Hu D, Momose K (eds) The Current Status and Issues of the Red-crowned Crane. Proceedings of the Meeting "Establishment of a Feasible International Project for Protection of the Tancho Grus japonensis in 2007". Tancho Protection Group, Kushiro, Japan, pp 13–20.
    Kong B, Zhang SQ, Zhang B, Na XD, Li, XF, Lu XN. 2007. Analysis of burn severity of wetlands in Zhalong Nature Reserve and impact of fire on red crowned crane habitat. . Accessed 10 July 2013. (in Chinese)
    Korontzi S, McCarty J, Loboda T, Kumar S, Justice C. 2006. Global distribution of agricultural fires in croplands from 3 years of Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) data. Glob Biogeochem Cycle, 20: GB2021.
    Krapu G. In preparation. Eurasian crane species assessment. In: Harris J, Mirande C (eds) WI/IUCN Crane Conservation Plan. International Crane Foundation, Baraboo, Wisconsin.
    Kruse KL, Dubovsky JA, Cooper TR. 2012. Status and harvests of sandhill cranes: mid-continent, Rocky Mountain, Lower Colorado River Valley and eastern populations. Administrative Report, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Denver, Colorado. p 14.
    Lacy A, Cullen E, Barzen J, Schramm S. 2010. Protect your corn from cranes. UW Extension Bulletin A3897. University of Wisconsin-Madison.
    Lacy A. In preparation. Developing Anthraquinone (AQ) as a crane deterrent. In: Austin JE, Morrison K, Mirande C (eds) Cranes and Agriculture — A Practical Guide to Conservationists and Land Managers. International Crane Foundation, Baraboo, Wisconsin.
    Li F, Li P. 1991. The spring migration of Siberian cranes at Lindian County, Heilongjiang Province, China. In: Harris J (ed) Proceedings 1987 International Crane Workshop. International Crane Foundation, Baraboo, Wisconsin, pp 133–134.
    Li F, Wu J, Harris J, Burnham J. 2012. Number and distribution of cranes wintering at Poyang Lake, China during 2011–2012. Chinese Birds, 3: 180–190.
    Liu J, Zhang Q, Xu C, Zhang Z. 2009. Characteristics of runoff variation of Poyang Lake watershed in the past 50 years. Trop Geogr, 29: 213–218.
    Liu Q, Li F, Buzzard P, Qian F, Zhang F, Zhao J, Yang J, Yang X. 2012. Migration routes and new breeding areas of blacknecked cranes. Wilson J Ornithol, 124: 704–712.
    Luo J, Wang Y, Yang F, Liu Z. 2012. Effects of human disturbance on the hooded crane (Grus monacha) at stopover sites in northeastern China. Chinese Birds, 3: 206–216.
    McCann K, Theron LJ, Morrison K. 2007. Conservation priorities for the blue crane (Anthropoides paradiseus) in South Africa — the effects of habitat changes on distribution and numbers. Ostrich, 78: 205–211.
    McCann K, Wilkins H. 1995. A study of the annual biology and movement patterns of the three crane species in the KwaZulu-Natal Midlands — for the purpose of aiding the selection of the route for the Ariadne-Venus 400 kV transmission powerline. Unpublished report. Endangered Wildlife Trust, Johannesburg.
    McCann K. 2000. Blue crane. In: Barnes KN (ed) The ESKOM Red Data Book of Birds of South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland. BirdLife South Africa, Johannesburg, p 92–94.
    McCann K. 2003. Population size and distribution of blue, grey crowned and wattled crane in KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa, determined by an aerial survey during July 2003. Indwa, 1: 18–26.
    Meine CM, Archibald GW. 1996. Status Survey and Conservation Action Plan: the cranes. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland.
    Mewes W. 2010. Population development, range of distribution and population density of Common Cranes Grus grus in Germany and its federal states. Vogelwelt, 131: 75–92.
    Mirande C, Lacy R, Seal U. 1992. Whooping crane (Grus americana) conservation viability assessment workshop report. Conservation Breeding Specialist Group, St. Paul, Minnesota.
    Morrison K, Beall F, Friedmann Y, Gichuki C, Gichuki N, Jordan M, Kaita M, Ndang'ang'a P, Muheebwa J. 2007. African Crane Trade Project: Trade Mitigation Planning Workshop. CBSG Southern Africa and International Crane Foundation/Endangered Wildlife Trust Partnership, Johannesburg.
    Morrison K, Botha B, Shaw K. 2012. Climate change threatens the agriculture landscape important for Blue Cranes in South Africa. In: Harris J (ed) Cranes, Agriculture, and Climate Change. Proceedings of a workshop organized by the International Crane Foundation and Muraviovka Park for Sustainable Land Use. International Crane Foundation, Baraboo, Wisconsin, USA, pp 105–108.
    Murphy L, Schad K. 2013. Population Analysis & Breeding and Transfer Plan for Grey-crowned Crane (Balearica regulorum) Yellow Species Survival Plan Program. AZA Population Management Center at Lincoln Park Zoo, Chicago, Illinois.
    Nesbitt SA, Tacha TC. 1997. Monogamy and productivity in sandhill cranes. Proc N Am Crane Workshop, 7: 10–17.
    Nowald G, Fanke J. In preparation a. Why cranes are found on agricultural lands. In: Austin J, Morrison K, Mirande C (eds) Cranes and Agriculture — A Practical Guide to Conservationists and Land Managers. International Crane Foundation, Baraboo, Wisconsin.
    Nowald G, Fanke J. In preparation b. Development of stop-over area for Eurasian cranes and the influence of agriculture in the Rügen-Bock region in northeast Germany. In: Austin J, Morrison K, Mirande C (eds) Cranes and Agriculture — A Practical Guide to Conservationists and Land Managers. International Crane Foundation, Baraboo, Wisconsin.
    Olupot W, Mugabe H, Plumptre AJ. 2010. Species conservation on human-dominated landscapes: the case of crowned crane breeding and distribution outside protected areas in Uganda. Africa J Ecol, 48: 119–125.
    Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). 1996. Guidelines for aid agencies for improved conservation and sustainable use of tropical and subtropical wetlands. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, Paris, France.
    Pshennikov A. 2012. Dynamics of tundra landscapes in areas of Siberian crane reproduction. In: Harris J (ed) Cranes, Agriculture, and Climate Change. Proceedings of a workshop organized by the International Crane Foundation and Muraviovka Park for Sustainable Land Use. International Crane Foundation, Baraboo, Wisconsin, USA, pp 147–148.
    Reisse L, Marti K. 2011. Population Analysis & Breeding and Transfer Plan for Black Crowned Crane (Balearica pavonina) Yellow Species Survival Plan Program. AZA Population Management Center at Lincoln Park Zoo, Chicago, Illinois.
    Shaw JM, Jenkins AR, Smallie JJ, Ryan PG. 2010. Modeling power-line collision risk for blue cranes Anthropoides paradiseus in South Africa. Ibis, 152: 590–599.
    Smallie J. 2002. Cranes and power lines in the Eastern Cape. Crane Link, 12: 8.
    Su L, Harris J, Barzen J. 2004. Changes in population and distribution for greater sandhill cranes in Wisconsin. Passenger Pigeon, 66: 317–326.
    Su L, Zou H. 2012. Status, threats and conservation needs for the continental population of the Red-crowned Crane. Chinese Birds, 3: 147–164.
    Su L. 2003. Habitat selection by sandhill cranes, Grus canadensis tabida, at multiple geographic scales in Wisconsin. Ph. D. dissertation. University of Wisconsin-Madison.
    Su L. 2008. Challenges for red-crowned crane conservation in China. In: Koga K, Hu D, Momose K (eds) The Current Status and Issues of the Red-crowned Crane. Proceedings of the Meeting "Establishment of a Feasible International Project for Protection of the Tancho Grus japonensis in 2007". Tancho Protection Group, Kushiro, Japan, pp 63–73.
    Swengel S. 1996. Red-crowned crane (Grus japonensis). In: Meine CD, Archibald GW (eds). Status Survey and Conservation Action Plan: the Cranes. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland, pp 194–204.
    Teraoka H. 2008. Heavy-metal contamination status of the Tancho in Japan — extensive mercury pollution. In: Koga K, Hu D, Momose K (eds) The Current Status and Issues of the Redcrowned Crane. Proceedings of the Meeting "Establishment of a Feasible International Project for Protection of the Tancho Grus japonensis in 2007". Tancho Protection Group, Kushiro, Japan, pp 21–26.
    Walkinshaw LH. 1949. The Sandhill Cranes. Cranbrook Institute of Science, pp 1–202.
    Wang GX, Li YS, Wu QB, Wang YB. 2006. Impacts of permafrost changes on alpine ecosystem in Qinghai-Tibet Plateau. Science in China, Series D: Earth Sciences, 49: 1156–1169.
    Wetlands International. 2012. Waterfowl Population Estimates, Fifth Edition. Wetlands International, Wageningen, The Netherlands. .
    Wu Z, Han X, Wang L. 1991. Observations of migratory Siberian cranes at Momoge Nature Reserve. In: Harris J (ed) Proceedings 1987 International Crane Workshop. International Crane Foundation, Baraboo, Wisconsin, pp 135–137.
    Yang R, Wu HQ, Yang XJ, Jiang WG, Zuo L, Xiang ZR. 2005. A preliminary observation on breeding behavior of black-necked cranes at Ruoergai, Sichuan Province. In: Li FS, Yang XJ, Yang F (eds) Status and Conservation of Black-necked Cranes on the Yunnan and Guizhou Plateau, People's Republic of China. Yunnan Nationalities Publishing House, Kunming, pp 163– 169. (in Chinese)
    Yang XY, Dai B, Long TL, Zhang RL, Xiong QQ. 1996. Study of influences from land use on waterfowls in Ruoergai wetland. In: Wild Animal and Plant Conservation Department of Ministry of Forestry (ed) Wetland Conservation and Wise Utilization — Proceedings of China's Wetland Conservation Workshop. China Forestry Publishing House, Beijing, pp 266–271. (in Chinese)
    • Related Articles

  • Related Articles

    Gulzaman William, Zafeer Saqib, Abdul Qadir, Nisha Naeem, Mehrban Ali Brohi, Asim Kamran, Afia Rafique. 2025: Assessing the vulnerability of wintering habitats for the red-listed Asian Houbara (Chlamydotis macqueenii) using climate models and human impact assessments. Avian Research, 16(1): 100221. DOI: 10.1016/j.avrs.2024.100221
    Zhijun Ma, Chi-Yeung Choi, Xiaojing Gan, Jing Li, Yang Liu, David S. Melville, Tong Mu, Theunis Piersma, Zhengwang Zhang. 2023: Achievements, challenges, and recommendations for waterbird conservation in China's coastal wetlands. Avian Research, 14(1): 100123. DOI: 10.1016/j.avrs.2023.100123
    Guangyao Wang, Jinming Zhao, Weiqiang Li, Xiangrong Song, Yong Zhang, Chunlin Li, Willem F. de Boer. 2023: Responses of breeding waterbird communities to environmental changes in subsidence wetlands in the North China Plain. Avian Research, 14(1): 100110. DOI: 10.1016/j.avrs.2023.100110
    Dawei Wu, Canshi Hu, Mingming Zhang, Zhumei Li, Haijun Su. 2020: Foraging habitat selection of overwintering Black-necked Cranes in the farming area surrounding the Caohai Wetland, Guizhou Province, China. Avian Research, 11(1): 5. DOI: 10.1186/s40657-020-00192-y
    Rubén Moreno-Opo. 2020: Individual and demographic responses of a marsh bird assemblage to habitat loss and subsequent restoration. Avian Research, 11(1): 4. DOI: 10.1186/s40657-020-00190-0
    Kang Luo, Zhaolu Wu, Haotian Bai, Zijiang Wang. 2019: Bird diversity and waterbird habitat preferences in relation to wetland restoration at Dianchi Lake, south-west China. Avian Research, 10(1): 21. DOI: 10.1186/s40657-019-0162-9
    Michelangelo Morganti, Milo Manica, Giuseppe Bogliani, Marco Gustin, Federica Luoni, Paolo Trotti, Vincenzo Perin, Mattia Brambilla. 2019: Multi-species habitat models highlight the key importance of flooded reedbeds for inland wetland birds: implications for management and conservation. Avian Research, 10(1): 15. DOI: 10.1186/s40657-019-0154-9
    Xiaodan Wang, Fenliang Kuang, Kun Tan, Zhijun Ma. 2018: Population trends, threats, and conservation recommendations for waterbirds in China. Avian Research, 9(1): 14. DOI: 10.1186/s40657-018-0106-9
    Hongxing JIANG, Fawen QIAN, Chunyue LIU, Xiaoming LI, Yunqiu HOU, Guogang ZHANG, Ming DAI, Dongping LIU. 2012: Impact of marsh changes on breeding cranes in Sanjiang Plain, northeastern China. Avian Research, 3(3): 165-179. DOI: 10.5122/cbirds.2012.0026
    Liying SU, Hongfei ZOU. 2012: Status, threats and conservation needs for the continental population of the Red-crowned Crane. Avian Research, 3(3): 147-164. DOI: 10.5122/cbirds.2012.0030

Catalog

    Tables(2)

    Get Citation
    PDF
    XML

    Article Metrics

    Article has an altmetric score of 7
    Article has an altmetric score of 7
    Article views (5740) PDF downloads (3993) Cited by()
    Supported by: Beijing Renhe Information Technology Co. Ltd.   Technical support: info@rhhz.net

    /

    DownLoad:  Full-Size Img  PowerPoint
    Return
    Return