Chuanwu Chen, Di Zeng, Yuhao Zhao, Yiru Wu, Junfeng Xu, Yanping Wang. 2019: Correlates of extinction risk in Chinese endemic birds. Avian Research, 10(1): 8. DOI: 10.1186/s40657-019-0147-8
Citation: Chuanwu Chen, Di Zeng, Yuhao Zhao, Yiru Wu, Junfeng Xu, Yanping Wang. 2019: Correlates of extinction risk in Chinese endemic birds. Avian Research, 10(1): 8. DOI: 10.1186/s40657-019-0147-8

Correlates of extinction risk in Chinese endemic birds

More Information
  • Corresponding author:

    Yanping Wang, wangyp214@gmail.com

  • Received Date: 03 Nov 2018
  • Accepted Date: 10 Mar 2019
  • Available Online: 24 Apr 2022
  • Publish Date: 15 Mar 2019
  • Background 

    China has a relative high degree of endemism of birds due to its large area, diversified topography, and varied climates and habitats. Among the 77 Chinese endemic birds, 29 species are classified as threatened according to the officially released China Biodiversity Red List in 2015. Chinese endemic birds should be the focus of conservation because their local extinction in China means complete global extinction. However, to date, no study has explicitly examined the patterns and processes of extinction and threat in Chinese endemic birds.

    Methods 

    We obtained eleven biological traits and four extrinsic factors that are commonly hypothesized to influence extinction risk. After phylogenetic correction, these factors were used separately and in combination to assess their associations with extinction risk.

    Results 

    We found that 37.7% of Chinese endemic birds were listed as threatened (Vulnerable, Endangered and Critically Endangered). Small range size, high hunting vulnerability, and high human population density were important predictors of high extinction risk in Chinese endemic birds.

    Conclusions 

    Our study is the first to systematically investigate the patterns and processes of extinction risk in Chinese endemic birds. We suggest that endemic species with small range size and living in area with high human densities require conservation priorities. Conservation efforts should also focus on the reduction of human threats, such as human hunting and habitat degradation, for the effective preservation of Chinese endemic birds.

  • The Double-banded Sandgrouse (Pterocles bicinctus) has been hunted in the North West province of South Africa for about the last 170 years (Haagner, 1914; Delegorgue, 1997). They are still hunted today but not at the same commercial level as Burchell's P. burchelli or Namaqua P. namaqua Sandgrouse (Viljoen, 2005; Little and Crowe, 2011). Despite its sporting potential, this species has received very little scientific scrutiny and therefore very little attempt was made to assess it as a sustainable game bird (Little and Crowe, 2011).

    I have visited six farms in the North West province that fall within the distribution range of Double-banded Sandgrouse on a regular basis during the past 20 years. In all the cases, group sizes were generally small (2–4 birds). The birds were sparsely distributed compared to the areas where Namaqua and Burchell's Sandgrouse occur and their visits to these farms were at irregular times of the year. Particularly, on the farms Zandfontein, about 50 km northwest of Johannesburg and La Boheme, 40 km north of Rustenburg, Double-banded Sandgrouse have been observed for 15 and six years respectively at a waterhole, with the largest group size of six, but usually more in the order of twos and fours and their visits were unpredictable in terms of annual arrival times (H. Bronkhorst personal communication and J.H. van Niekerk personal observations). Tarboton et al. (1987) described Double-banded Sandgrouse as rare vagrants in this area.

    In view of the limitations of small groups and erratic movement patterns in the North West province, an effort was made to observe Double-banded Sandgrouse in Borakalalo National Park, where their visits appeared more consistent during 10 years of casual observations and where Double-banded Sandgrouse were observed in twos and fours about 100 years ago (Haagner, 1914). The main purpose of this study is to describe the intrinsic (breeding) and extrinsic factors (rainfall/vegetation) that may be responsible for the movements of Double-banded Sandgrouse. This is required to gather baseline data in order to conserve the species since it is hunted.

    Borakalalo National Park (14000 ha) (25°09.262 S, 27°48.522 E) is situated 80 km north of Pretoria and 30 km north of Jericho in the North West province. Its vegetation is described as Western Sandy Bushveld including tree species such as Acacia erubescens, Combretum apiculatum, Terminalia sericea and Burkea africana (Mucina and Rutherford, 2006). Figure 1 shows the location of the park in South Africa and Fig. 2 the focal study area, which is the southern-most portion of Borakalalo National Park from the southern shoreline of the Klipvoor Dam further south. The study site was divided into a 'hinterland' section that denotes sandgrouse habitat 400–5000 m south from the shoreline of the dam and a 'dam area' where sandgrouse were observed 50–400 m from its shoreline. The veld was burnt by park officials in July 2010 (Fig. 2). Various large herbivores in herding groups occur in the park including Impala (Aepyceros melampus), White Rhinocerous (Ceratotherium simum), Kudu (Tragelaphus strepsiceros), Zebra (Equus quagga), Blue Wildebeest (Connochaetes taurinus) and Sable Antelope (Hippotragus niger).

    Figure  1.  Location of Borakalalo National Park in South Africa
    Figure  2.  Southern portion of the Borakalalo National Park, selected for monthly surveys including the southern Klipvoor dam area, mainly depicted by late afternoon sightings of Double-banded Sandgrouse groups (green markings) and the hinterland which is more or less indicated by the orange markings which depict sightings of sandgrouse in the mornings. Each grid represents 500 × 500 m. The scale represents 2 km. The red circle encapsulates the area that was burnt during July 2010.

    Data collection was based on traversing the park for two days per month during 2010 along a set route (32 km) with a vehicle at 10 km·h−1. Traversing was done in the mornings from 06:30–09:30 and in the afternoons from 15:30–18:30 and on the following day another morning session, totalling 108 hours (1152 km) during 2010. In the focal study area of the park about two hours were spent in the hinterland and one hour near the dam during each trip (Fig. 2). All sightings of sandgrouse were recorded on a Garmin Colorado 300 GPS and downloaded onto a computer with MapSource. MapSource was used to determine the direct distance from a sandgrouse group to the nearest watering point, i.e., the edge of the Klipvoor Dam. For the purpose of calculating group sizes, sandgrouse recorded outside of the focal study area (Fig. 2) of the park, were also included. Upon encountering sandgrouse, group size, sex and age were recorded with the aid of binoculars. Males possess a prominent transverse black and white band across the forehead and young birds were smaller and possessed female features (Little and Crowe, 2011). At each sighting the distance was also estimated between the male and female of a pair and where applicable, the distance between two pairs. The substrate beneath every sandgrouse sighted was also noted and recorded as 1) open road, 2) short trampled grass or 3) burnt veld. The height of the observer in the vehicle above ground level during traversing was 160–180 cm. This position allowed the observer to search for sandgrouse in relatively thick grass up to 20 m away from the vehicle on either side of the road. Rainfall data was provided by the North West Parks and Tourism Board (Jericho). Statistical analysis included One-way ANOVA, Pearson correlation coefficients and chi-squares.

    The mean group size of Double-banded Sandgrouse was 2.47 (n = 38, range = 1–5 and SD = 1.22). The largest group was recorded in March which was 3.7 birds (n = 7), mainly consisting of adults. Out of 36 groups recorded, 69.4% (25 groups) were pairs, 16.6% (6 groups) were family groups and 13.8% (5 groups) were single birds. Two groups were not identified. Family groups were observed during March–August 2010 and each family had only one offspring. Double-banded Sandgrouse offspring remained with parents but it is not clear at which age offspring left the natal group. The single birds might have been young birds that left the natal group. Out of 38 groups 25% were groups of four birds, always consisting of two pairs each. Pairs were males and females that foraged or sat at a mean distance of 1.93 m (SD = 196.3, n = 16, range = 0–5 m) apart while the mean distance between pairs in a group was 5.5 m (SD = 206.5, n = 7 and range = 0.2–8 m) (ANOVA: F = 15.605, df = 21, p < 0.05). The short distances between a male and female shows that they formed monogamous bonds throughout the study period. The male to female ratio in the population was 1:0.87 (males = 48, females = 42). This ratio remained more or less constant throughout all months during 2010 revealing a significant positive correlation between numbers of males and females in the population (r = 0.97, df = 11, p < 0.05) (Fig. 3). Thus, groups with one sex (e.g. males only) did not dominate in the population and neither were any groups recorded that only contained offspring.

    Figure  3.  Number of monthly males and females of Double-banded Sandgrouse recorded in Borakalalo National Park

    Figure 4 shows that Double-banded Sandgrouse were mainly present in the park in two relatively dry periods, from February–March and again from July–September 2010. In other words, their movement was affected by short wet/dry spells. Their absence during the wet summer period was generally also the pattern during the previous 10 years. However, a few birds were observed in a Teminalia sericea bush in the park during December 2003, which means they are not necessarily entirely absent during wet conditions.

    Figure  4.  Monthly Double-banded Sandgrouse populations recorded in Borakalalo National Park during 2010 correlated with mean monthly rainfall figures (from four stations)

    Table 1 and Fig. 2 shows that Double-banded Sandgrouse were more regularly observed in the hinterland in the mornings and conversely, during the late afternoons they were more regularly observed closer to water (χ2 = 7.22, df = 3, p < 0.05). The mean distance of sandgrouse to the edge of the water in the morning was 1979.1 m (SD = 1265.9, n = 11, range = 50–3500 m) and in the late afternoons 334.06 m (SD = 304.68, n = 18, range = 50–800 m) (ANOVA: F = 12.19, df = 26, p < 0.05). From here they moved closer to drink water after sunset (also see Hockey et al., 2005).

    Table  1.  Diurnal movement of Double-banded Sandgrouse between the Klipvoor Dam area and the hinterland of the study area in the Borakalalo National Park
    Morning Afternoon
    Hinterland Dam area Hinterland Dam area
    Hours traversing 48 24 24 12
    Number of sandgrouse 16 4 2 39
    Number of sandgrouse per hour 0.3 0.16 0.08 3.25
     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV

    Overall, Double-banded Sandgrouse were recorded in areas where open basal grass cover conditions prevailed. Table 2 shows that they were observed on the road, on short trampled/grazed grass or in burnt velds with green sprouts in a thornveld (Acacia spp. and grass). In fact, just after burning from July–September, Double-banded Sandgrouse were often recorded in burnt velds (Table 2). In previous years they have also been observed in burnt areas in other parts of the park on three occasions but also under the canopy of bushes with high trees such as Terminalia sericea and Burkea africana, where the grass and shrub cover under these trees were sparse (J.H. van Niekerk, unpublished).

    Table  2.  Number of Double-banded Sandgrouse recorded in different basal cover conditions in Borakalalo National Park. The veld was burnt in July and remained short until the end of September.
    Road Short trampled grass Burnt grass Chi-squares
    Overall 50 (59%) 9 (10.70%) 25 (29.70%) χ2 = 133.23, df = 3, p < 0.001
    During July–September 15 (35.70%) 2 (4.76%) 25 (59.52%) χ2 = 62.1, df = 3, p < 0.001
     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV

    The small group size of 1–5 birds that was recorded in Borakalalo National Park is similar to the small group sizes of twos and fours that were recorded in this area more than 100 years ago (Haagner, 1914). This is also consistent with the small groups generally observed in many parts of the North West province during the past 20 years. Reports of this species towards the east of South Africa, in the lowveld of Mpumalanga province and in Kruger National Park, show that they gather in larger groups of 30–50 birds to drink water (Horsbrugh, 1912; Hockey et al., 2005). Payne (1968) also reported that Double-banded Sandgrouse were recorded in twos and fours in scrubby mopane woodlands but flew in groups of dozens to water at dusk in the Hans Merensky Nature Reserve in the lowveld.

    Similar to Burchell's Sandgrouse in the Molopo Game Reserve, the Double-banded Sandgrouse also sits in open roads in small groups that are closely knitted, but in Burchell's Sandgrouse these road sitters were generally in groups of 4–8 during winter and in pairs during summer, while in Double-banded Sandgrouse these groups varied between 1–5 (J.H. van Niekerk, unpublished; Little and Crowe, 2011). Unlike Burchell's and the Yellow-throated Sandgrouse (P. gutturalis) in the North West province, Double-banded Sandgrouse in Borakalalo National Park did not undertake flights in groups of 20–30 birds to watering points in the late mornings, but instead, flew closer to water in smaller groups during late afternoons and when it was dark they moved for a second time to the edge of the water (J.H. van Niekerk, unpublished). Indeed, Double-banded Sandgrouse formed larger drinking parties after sunset but in this park it is certainly less than 10 (also see Hockey et al., 2005).

    This preliminary survey suggests that five factors could trigger the movement of Double-banded Sandgrouse:

    1) Double-banded Sandgrouse were absent or fewer in the park during wet summer conditions; this corresponds with lower reporting rates for this species in this area during the wet season (Maclean and Herremans, 1997). This suggests that Double-banded Sandgrouse disperse to more watering points.

    2) Their presence/absence in the reserve was also affected by short spells of high/low rainfall periods and not only changing seasons (Fig. 4).

    3) They showed a propensity towards short trampled grass as well as recently burnt grass with green sprouts in thornvelds. Double-banded Sandgrouse were suddenly observed back in the park again just after veld burning in July 2010 and remained there for a few months (Fig. 3). Their preference for burnt grass areas was also observed in Kruger National Park (A. Kemp personal communication) which could be a matter of food availability. Their occurrence in relatively open substrates in this survey is coherent with descriptions of their habitat preferences, presented in other publications, such as in tussocky grass and on gravel plains as opposed to dense bush or thick grass (Little and Crowe, 2011). Also, at La Boheme and Magaliesberg, where searches were carried out on foot, they were not observed in thick grassy areas but on open patches (rocky outcrops) or on roads.

    4) Double-banded Sandgrouse was observed in the park when they had offspring during late summer and winter, which suggests that they bred outside the park. However, although no signs of breeding was observed in the park during 2010, parents with chicks were certainly observed in April in 2007 in the hinterland of the park (n = 3, J.H. van Niekerk personal observations) which suggests that there is not necessarily a cyclic movement between breeding and foraging areas. On the other hand, where Double-banded Sandgrouse visited a farm near Magaliesberg for the last 15 years, no breeding signs were observed.

    5) Finally, daily water intake certainly causes movements over a distance of at least 4 km.

    Movements were not affected by demographic pressures such as juvenile flocks being rejected to move away from parents or batchelor flocks moving around while breeding takes place. The birds remained in monogamous bonds or family groups throughout. Medium grazing pressure, regular cattle/game watering points and some veld burning during late winter may favor the Double-banded Sandgrouse and are aspects that can be managed in favor of grazing and for the benefit of sandgrouse by landowners.

  • Barbaro L, van Halder I. Linking bird, carabid beetle and butterfly life-history traits to habitat fragmentation in mosaic landscapes. Ecography. 2009;32:321-33.
    Beauchamp G. Reduced flocking by birds on islands with relaxed predation. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2004;271:1039-42.
    Bennett PM, Owens IPF. Variation in extinction risk among birds: chance or evolutionary predisposition? Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 1997;264:401-8.
    Bi J, He X. An investigation on the trade of wild birds market in Huhhot. J Inner Mongolia Normal Univ (Nat Sci). 2005;34:93-101 (in Chinese).
    Böhm M, Williams R, Bramhall HR, McMillan KM, Davidson AD, Garcia A, Bland LM, Bielby J, Collen B. Correlates of extinction risk in squamate reptiles: the relative importance of biology, geography, threat and range size. Glob Ecol Biogeogr. 2016;25:391-405.
    Brashares JS, Arcese P, Sam MK. Human demography and reserve size predict wildlife extinction in West Africa. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2001;268:2473-8.
    Burnham KP, Anderson DR. Model selection and multimodel inference: a practical information-theoretic approach. 2nd ed. New York: Springer; 2002.
    Cardillo M, Purvis A, Sechrest W, Gittleman JL, Bielby J, Mace GM. Human population density and extinction risk in the world's carnivores. PLoS Biol. 2004;2:909-13.
    Cardillo M, Mace GM, Gittleman JL, Jones KE, Bielby J, Purvis A. The predictability of extinction: biological and external correlates of decline in mammals. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2008;275:1441-8.
    Collen B, Bykova E, Ling S, Milner-Gull EJ, Purvis A. Extinction risk: a comparative analysis of Central Asian vertebrates. Biodivers Conserv. 2006;15:1859-71.
    Cooper N, Bielby J, Thomas GH, Purvis A. Macroecology and extinction risk correlates of frogs. Glob Ecol Biogeogr. 2008;17:211-21.
    Dai C, Zhang G. Status of local bird trade in Guiyang city during the breeding season. Sichuan J Zool. 2015;34:306-11 (in Chinese).
    Darlington PJ. Zoogeography: the geographical distribution of animals. New York: Wiley; 1957.
    Davies RG, Orme CDL, Olson V, Thomas GH, Ross SG, Ding T-S, Rasmussen PC, Stattersfield AJ, Bennett PM, Blackburn TM, Owens IPF, Gaston KJ. Human impacts and the global distribution of extinction risk. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2006;273:2127-33.
    Drummond AJ, Rambaut A. BEAST: Bayesian evolutionary analysis by sampling trees. BMC Evol Biol. 2007;7:214.
    ESRI (Environmental Systems Research Institute). ArcGIS desktop 10.2. Redlands: Environmental Systems Research Institute; 2016.
    Fisher DO, Bloomberg SP, Owens IPF. Extrinsic versus intrinsic factors in the decline and extinction of Australian marsupials. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2003;270:1801-8.
    Gaston KJ. Rarity. London: Chapman & Hall; 1994.
    Gaston KJ, Blackburn TM. Birds, body size and the threat of extinction. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 1995;347:205-12.
    Isaac NJB, Cowlishaw G. How species respond to multiple extinction threats. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2004;271:1135-41.
    Isik K. Rare and endemic species: why are they prone to extinction? Turk J Bot. 2011;35:411-7.
    IUCN. IUCN red list categories and criteria: version 3.1. 2nd ed. Gland: IUCN; 2012a.
    IUCN. Guidelines for application of IUCN red list criteria at regional and national levels, version 4.0. Gland: IUCN; 2012b.
    Jetz W, Thomas GH, Joy JB, Hartmann K, Mooers AO. The global diversity of birds in space and time. Nature. 2012;491:444-8.
    Jones KE, Purvis A, Gittleman JL. Biological correlates of extinction risk in bats. Am Nat. 2003;161:601-14.
    Keane A, de Brooke ML, McGowan PJK. Correlates of extinciton risk and hunting pressure in gamebirds (Galliformes). Biol Conserv. 2005;126:216-33.
    Lawton JH. Population dynamic principles. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 1994;344:61-8.
    Lee TM, Jetz W. Unravelling the structure of species extinction risk for predictive conservation science. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2011;278:1329-38.
    Lei F, Qu Y, Lu J, Liu Y, Yin Z. Conservation on diversity and distribution patterns of endemic birds in China. Biodivers Conserv. 2003a;12:239-54.
    Lei F, Qu Y, Tang Q, An S. Priorities for the conservation of avian biodiversity in China based on the distribution patterns of endemic bird genera. Biodivers Conserv. 2003b;12:2487-501.
    Lei F, Lu T. China endemic birds. Beijing: Science Press; 2006.
    Li BV, Pimm SL. China's endemic vertebrates sheltering under the protective umbrella of the giant panda. Conserv Biol. 2016;30:329-39.
    Li L, Jiang Z. International trade of CITES listed bird species in China. PLoS ONE. 2014;9:e85012.
    Li Y, Li D. The dynamics of trade in live wildlife across the Guangxi border between China and Vietnam during 1993-1996 and its control strategies. Biodivers Conserv. 1998;7:895-914.
    Liang W, Cai Y, Yang C. Extreme levels of hunting of birds in a remote village of Hainan Island, China. Bird Conserv Int. 2013;23:45-52.
    McKinney ML. Role of human population size in raising bird and mammal threat among nations. Anim Conserv. 2001;4:45-57.
    MEP (The Ministry of Environment Protection) and CAS (the Chinese Academy of Sciences). Redlist of China's biodiversity: birds. 2015. . Accessed 22 May 2015.
    Milner-Gulland EJ, Kreuzberg-Mukhina E, Grebot B, Ling S, Bykova E, Abdusalamov I, Bekenov A, Gärdenfors U, Hilton-Taylor C, Salnikov V, Stogova L. Application of IUCN red listing criteria at the regional and national levels: a case study from Central Asia. Biodivers Conserv. 2006;15:1873-86.
    Murray KA, Verde Arregoitia LD, Davidson A, Di Marco M, Di Fonzo MM. Threat to the point: improving the value of comparative extinction risk analysis for conservation action. Glob Change Biol. 2014;20:483-94.
    Myers N, Mittermeier RA, Mittermeier CG, da Fonseca GAB, Kent J. Biodiversity hotspots for conservation priorities. Nature. 2000;403:853-8.
    Nee S, Read AF, Greenwood JJD, Harvey PH. The relationship between abundance and body size in British birds. Nature. 1991;351:312-3.
    Neter J, Kutner MH, Nachtsheim CJ, Wasserman W. Applied linear statistical model: regression, analysis of variance, and experimental design. Chicago: Irwin Professional Publishing; 1996.
    Newbold T, Scharlemann JPW, Butchart SHM, Sekercioglu CH, Alkemade R, Booth H, Purves DW. Ecological traits affect the response of tropical forest bird species to land-use intensity. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2013;280:2012-131.
    Orme D, Freckleton R, Thomas G, Petzoldt T, Fritz S, Isaac N, Pearse W. CAPER: comparative analyses of phylogenetics and evolution in R. R package version 0.5. 2012. . Accessed 11 Nov. 2017.
    Owens IP, Bennett PM. Ecological basis of extinction risk in birds: habitat loss versus human persecution and introduced predators. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2000;97:12144-8.
    Purvis A, Gittleman JL, Cowlishaw G, Mace GM. Predicting extinction risk in declining species. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2000;267:1947-52.
    Rabitsch W, Graf W, Huemer P, Kahlen M, Komposch C, Paill W, Reischutz A, Reischutz PL, Moser D, Essl F. Biogeography and ecology of endemic invertebrate species in Austria: a cross-taxon analysis. Basic Appl Ecol. 2016;17:95-105.
    Sekercioglu CH, Daily GC, Ehrlich PR. Ecosystem consequences of bird declines. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2002;101:18402-7.
    Sodhi NS, Wilcove DS, Lee TM, Sekercioglu CH, Subaraj R, Bernard H, Yong DL, Lim SLH, Prawiradilaga DM, Brook BW. Deforestation and avian extinction on tropical landbridge islands. Conserv Biol. 2010;24:1290-8.
    Terborgh J. Preservation of natural diversity: the problem of extinction prone species. Bioscience. 1974;24:715-22.
    Thornton D, Branch L, Sunquist M. Passive sampling effects and landscape location alter associations between species traits and response to fragmentation. Ecol Appl. 2011;21:817-29.
    Van Houtan KS, Pimm SL, Bierregaard RO Jr, Lovejoy TE, Stouffer PC. Local extinctions in flocking birds in Amazonian forest fragments. Evol Ecol Res. 2006;8:129-48.
    Van Turnhout CAM, Foppen RPB, Leuven RSEW, Van Strien A, Siepel H. Lifehistory and ecological correlates of population change in Dutch breeding birds. Biol Conserv. 2010;143:173-81.
    Wang J, Ye S, He Y, Xu X. Species and trade of ornamental birds in Shnaghai, Nanjing, Suzhou, Wuxi and Yangzhou. Mod Anim Husb. 2001;4:38-9 (in Chinese).
    Wang Y, Thornton DH, Ge D, Wang S, Ding P. Ecological correlates of vulnerability to fragmentation in forest birds on inundated subtropical land-bridge islands. Biol Conserv. 2015;191:251-7.
    Wang Y, Si X, Bennett PM, Chen C, Zeng D, Zhao Y, Wu Y, Ding P. Ecological correlates of extinction risk in Chinese birds. Ecography. 2018;41:782-94.
    Whittingham MJ, Stephens PA, Bradbury RB, Freckleton RB. Why do we still use stepwise modelling in ecology and behaviour? J Anim Ecol. 2006;75:1182-9.
    Wilcove DS. Nest predation in forest tracts and the decline of migratory songbirds. Ecology. 1985;66:1211-4.
    Woinarski JCZ. Some life history comparisons of small leaf-gleaning bird species of south-eastern Australia. Corella. 1989;13:73-80.
    Woodroffe R. Predators and people: using human densities to interpret declines of large carnivores. Anim Conserv. 2000;3:165-73.
    Zhang Y, Zhang Z, Dong L, Ding P, Ding C, Ma Z, Zheng G. Assessment of red list of birds in China. Biodiv Sci. 2016;24:568-77 (in Chinese).
    Zhao Z. A handbook of the birds of China. Changchun: Jilin Science and Technology Publishing House; 2001 (in Chinese).
    Zheng G. A checklist on the classification and distribution of the birds of China. Beijing: Science Press; 2011 (in Chinese).
    Zheng G. Pheasant in China. Beijing: Higher Education Press; 2015 (in Chinese).
    Zhuge Y. Fauna of Zhejiang: aves. Hangzhou: Zhejiang Science and Technology Publishing House; 1990 (in Chinese).
  • Cited by

    Periodical cited type(16)

    1. Trevor Bak, Steve Mullin, Emilie Kohler, et al. Forest bird population status on Saipan, a small oceanic island. Global Ecology and Conservation, 2024, 56: e03273. DOI:10.1016/j.gecco.2024.e03273
    2. Xiaoyu Duan, Xiongwei Huang, Jingya Zhang, et al. Bird specimen number linked with species trait and climate niche breadth. Avian Research, 2024, 15: 100162. DOI:10.1016/j.avrs.2024.100162
    3. Christopher Cambrone, Aurélie Jean-Pierre, Etienne Bezault, et al. Identifying global research and conservation priorities for Columbidae: a quantitative approach using random forest models. Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution, 2023, 11 DOI:10.3389/fevo.2023.1141072
    4. Kier Celestial Dela Cruz, Sumaira S. Abdullah, Angelo Rellama Agduma, et al. Early twenty-first century biodiversity data pinpoint key targets for bird and mammal conservation in Mindanao, Southern Philippines. Biodiversity, 2023, 24(3): 146. DOI:10.1080/14888386.2023.2210119
    5. Deyun Tai, Chuanwu Chen, Yunfeng Song, et al. Ecological traits and landscape characteristics predicting bird sensitivity to urbanization in city parks. Basic and Applied Ecology, 2022, 58: 110. DOI:10.1016/j.baae.2021.12.004
    6. Hongyan Yao, Pengcheng Wang, Nan Wang, et al. Functional and phylogenetic structures of pheasants in China. Avian Research, 2022, 13: 100041. DOI:10.1016/j.avrs.2022.100041
    7. Yuxi Zhong (钟雨茜), Chuanwu Chen (陈传武), Yanping Wang (王彦平), et al. Biological and extrinsic correlates of extinction risk in Chinese lizards. Current Zoology, 2022, 68(3): 285. DOI:10.1093/cz/zoab040
    8. Binaya Adhikari, Shivish Bhandari, Kedar Baral, et al. Raptors at risk: Attributes of mortality within an anthropogenic landscape in the Mid-Hills region of Nepal. Global Ecology and Conservation, 2022, 38: e02258. DOI:10.1016/j.gecco.2022.e02258
    9. Lingying Shuai, Chuanwu Chen, Wei Liu, et al. Ecological correlates of extinction risk in Chinese terrestrial mammals. Diversity and Distributions, 2021, 27(7): 1294. DOI:10.1111/ddi.13279
    10. Sebastian Acevedo, Brody Sandel. Phylogenetic Endemism Hotspots of North American Birds Are Associated With Warm Temperatures and Long- and Short-Term Climate Stability. Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution, 2021, 9 DOI:10.3389/fevo.2021.645396
    11. Donald B Miles. Can Morphology Predict the Conservation Status of Iguanian Lizards?. Integrative and Comparative Biology, 2020, 60(2): 535. DOI:10.1093/icb/icaa074
    12. Xueting Yang, Yanping Wang, Xingfeng Si, et al. Species traits linked with range shifts of Chinese birds. Global Ecology and Conservation, 2020, 21: e00874. DOI:10.1016/j.gecco.2019.e00874
    13. Gang Feng, Xiongwei Huang, Lingfeng Mao, et al. More endemic birds occur in regions with stable climate, more plant species and high altitudinal range in China. Avian Research, 2020, 11(1) DOI:10.1186/s40657-020-00203-y
    14. Fabricio Reales, Juan Andrés Sarquis, Sebastián Dardanelli, et al. Range contraction and conservation of the endangered Yellow Cardinal. Journal for Nature Conservation, 2019, 50: 125708. DOI:10.1016/j.jnc.2019.125708
    15. Chuanwu Chen, Cangsong Chen, Yanping Wang, et al. Ecological correlates of extinction risk in Chinese amphibians. Diversity and Distributions, 2019, 25(10): 1586. DOI:10.1111/ddi.12961
    16. Chen Chuanwu, Qu Yanfu, Zhou Xianfeng, et al. Human overexploitation and extinction risk correlates of Chinese snakes. Ecography, 2019, 42(10): 1777. DOI:10.1111/ecog.04374

    Other cited types(0)

Catalog

    Figures(1)  /  Tables(4)

    Article Metrics

    Article views (237) PDF downloads (7) Cited by(16)

    /

    DownLoad:  Full-Size Img  PowerPoint
    Return
    Return