Ardeotis nigriceps

Taxonomy

Assessment Information

Geographic Range

Population

Habitat and Ecology

Threats

Conservation Actions

View Printer Friendly

Taxonomy [top]

Kingdom	Phylum	Class	Order	Family
ANIMALIA	CHORDATA	AVES	GRUIFORMES	OTIDIDAE

Scientific Name:

Ardeotis nigriceps

Species Authority:

(Vigors, 1831)

Common Name/s:

English	–	Great Indian Bustard, Indian Bustard
Spanish	–	Avutarda India, Avutarda Índica

Assessment Information [top]

Red List Category & Criteria:

Critically Endangered A2a+4acd;C1 ver 3.1

Year Published:

2012

Assessor/s:

BirdLife International

Reviewer/s:

Butchart, S. & Symes, A.

Contributor/s:

Dutta, S., Lechleiter, B. & Patil, P.

Justification:
This species is listed as Critically Endangered because it has an extremely small population that has undergone an extremely rapid decline owing to a multitude of threats including habitat loss and degradation, hunting and direct disturbance. It now requires an urgent acceleration in targeted conservation actions in order to prevent it from becoming functionally extinct within a few decades.

History:

2011	–	Critically Endangered
2008	–	Endangered
2004	–	Endangered
2000	–	Endangered
1996	–	Endangered
1994	–	Endangered

Geographic Range [top]

Range Description:	Ardeotis nigriceps occurs in the Indian Subcontinent, with former strongholds in the Thar desert in the north-west and the Deccan tableland of the Peninsula (BirdLife International 2001). It has been extirpated from 90% of its former range: now principally confined to Rajasthan (c.175 birds), with smaller populations (fewer than 30 birds) in Gujarat, Maharashtra and Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka, and fewer than 5 birds in Madhya Pradesh, India. Recent declines have been noted in several areas, including Maharashtra (Kasambe et al. 2006, P. Patil in litt. 2011) and Kachchh (Dutta in litt. 2012). In Maharashtra, the latest population estimates suggest a population as low as 30 individuals (Kasambe et al. 2006) and numbers have been falling in the Bustard Sanctuary since at least the late 1980s, with the 2010 census recording only 9 individuals, and breeding has not been recorded there since 2007 at least (P. Patil in litt. 2011). Whilst in Kachchh the latest population estimate is fewer than 20 birds at densities of 0.05 per km² in ~400 km² suitable habitat (Dutta in litt. 2012). The species is likely to be close to disappearing from Karnataka (Kumara and Mohan Raj 2007), and it is thought to have completely disappeared from the states of Haryana, Punjab, Orissa, Uttar Pradesh and Tamil Nadu, India, but some apparently survive, and are hunted, in Sind, Pakistan (Khan et al. 2008, Dutta et al. 2010, B. Lechleiter in litt. 2011). Its total population has declined from an estimated 1,260 individuals in 1969 to c.300 individuals in 2008 (Dutta et al. 2010), equivalent to a reduction of c.82% over 47 years (three generations), assuming an exponential trend. The results of a recent genetic study, in which the effective population size was estimated from the diversity of mitochondrial DNA, provide support for an estimate of fewer than 1,000 birds, and likely about 500 during the period 2006-2010, when samples were collected (Ishtiaq et al. 2011). This study found very low genetic diversity for such a widespread species, probably owing to a bottleneck event caused by its widespread extermination possibly even before the mid 19th century (Ishtiaq et al. 2011). Population viability analysis predicts a high probability of local extinction within 50 years for populations numbering fewer than 30 individuals, with the more secure population of over 100 individuals showing sensitivity to the loss of one additional adult each year to human causes, indicating that present levels of off-take are unsustainable (Dutta et al. 2010). Current levels of hunting may result in the extinction of even the largest western Indian population in the next 15-20 years (Dutta et al. 2010).
Countries:	Native: India; Pakistan
Range Map:	Click here to open the map viewer and explore range.

Population [top]

Population:	The species's total population was estimated at c.300 individuals in 2008, indicating that there are probably fewer than 250 mature individuals remaining, hence the population is placed in the band 50-249 mature individuals.
Population Trend:	Decreasing

Habitat and Ecology [top]

Habitat and Ecology:	It inhabits arid and semi-arid grasslands with scattered short scrub, bushes and low intensity cultivation in flat or gently undulating terrain. Birds congregate in traditional grassland patches (mostly identified) which are less disturbed, to breed during mid-summer and monsoon. It nests in open ground, laying only one clutch (consisting of one and very rarely two eggs) per year. Outside of breeding season, it probably makes local and possibly long distance nomadic movements (largely unknown) in response to various factors, using areas rich in food resources and surrounded by natural grass-scrub habitat for easy navigation. It requires different microhabitat envelopes for different activities, such as grasslands with relatively tall (vegetation 25-100cm) and dense cover, high insect resources and less grazing for nesting; short sparse vegetation (<25 cm vegetation) on slightly elevated ground for display; sparse vegetation (<25 cm vegetation) with minimal scrub for roosting; and moderate (25-50 cm vegetation) shade for resting (Rahmani 1989, Dutta in litt. 2012).
Systems:	Terrestrial

Habitat and Ecology:

It inhabits arid and semi-arid grasslands with scattered short scrub, bushes and low intensity cultivation in flat or gently undulating terrain. Birds congregate in traditional grassland patches (mostly identified) which are less disturbed, to breed during mid-summer and monsoon. It nests in open ground, laying only one clutch (consisting of one and very rarely two eggs) per year. Outside of breeding season, it probably makes local and possibly long distance nomadic movements (largely unknown) in response to various factors, using areas rich in food resources and surrounded by natural grass-scrub habitat for easy navigation. It requires different microhabitat envelopes for different activities, such as grasslands with relatively tall (vegetation 25-100cm) and dense cover, high insect resources and less grazing for nesting; short sparse vegetation (<25 cm vegetation) on slightly elevated ground for display; sparse vegetation (<25 cm vegetation) with minimal scrub for roosting; and moderate (25-50 cm vegetation) shade for resting (Rahmani 1989, Dutta in litt. 2012).

Systems:

Terrestrial

Threats [top]

Major Threat(s):	Historically widespread hunting for sport and food precipitated its decline, accelerated by vehicular access to remote areas. High intensity poaching still continues in Pakistan (which is probably shared with western Rajasthan and Kachchh populations), where 49 birds were hunted out of 63 that were sighted over a period of 4 years (Khan et al. 2008). Some poaching continues in India as well (Sridhar 2005, Dutta et al. 2010, P. Patil in litt. 2011), including one documented case where mine-workers that lost their livelihoods when mines near Gwalior were closed for the creation of the Ghatigaon Bustard Sanctuary hunted bustards to undermine the criteria on which the area was first designated as a sanctuary (Sridhar 2005). Egg-collecting was rampant in many states during early 19th century, and prevails very sporadically in Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh (P. Patil in litt. 2011). However, the current threats are mostly from habitat loss and degradation, caused by; 1) widespread agricultural expansion and mechanization of farming; 2) infrastructural development such as irrigation, roads, electric poles, wind turbines and constructions; 3) mining and industrialization; and 4) well intended but ill-informed habitat management (Anon 2011; Singh et al. 2006). With increased availability of water due to Government irrigation policies, agriculture has spread over vast arid–semiarid grasslands. For example, the Indira Gandhi Nahar Project has caused drastic hydraulic changes and massive agricultural conversion in and around the Desert National Park. Moreover, irrigation facilities and changing lifestyles have led to a shift in the crop pattern from bustard–friendly traditional monsoonal crops (Sorghum, millet etc.) to cash crops (sugarcane, grapes, cotton, horticulture etc.) which are not suitable for the species. Due to ill-defined land distribution policies and the ambiguity arising from segregated ownership between private, community and government bodies, encroachment is a major problem in many bustard areas, especially in and around bustard sanctuaries of Maharashtra and Kachchh. Activities such as mining, stone quarrying, growth of industries and power projects along with the expansion of roads, electric poles, wind turbines and other infrastructures have increased the severity of habitat degradation and disturbance (Anon 2011). Traditionally, grasslands and scrub have been considered as wasteland and the Forest Department policy, until recently, has been to convert them to forests with plantation of fuel/fodder shrub/tree species, even exotics like Prosopis juliflora, Gliricidium and Eucalyptus spp., under social forestry and compensatory afforestation schemes (Forest (Conservation) Act 1988; Indian Forest Act 1927) resulting in further loss of habitat. Overgrazing on unprotected lands has also led to degradation of some areas (Mathew 2007, Dutta et al. 2010, P. Patil in litt. 2011, Anon 2011).

Major Threat(s):

Historically widespread hunting for sport and food precipitated its decline, accelerated by vehicular access to remote areas. High intensity poaching still continues in Pakistan (which is probably shared with western Rajasthan and Kachchh populations), where 49 birds were hunted out of 63 that were sighted over a period of 4 years (Khan et al. 2008). Some poaching continues in India as well (Sridhar 2005, Dutta et al. 2010, P. Patil in litt. 2011), including one documented case where mine-workers that lost their livelihoods when mines near Gwalior were closed for the creation of the Ghatigaon Bustard Sanctuary hunted bustards to undermine the criteria on which the area was first designated as a sanctuary (Sridhar 2005). Egg-collecting was rampant in many states during early 19th century, and prevails very sporadically in Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh (P. Patil in litt. 2011). However, the current threats are mostly from habitat loss and degradation, caused by; 1) widespread agricultural expansion and mechanization of farming; 2) infrastructural development such as irrigation, roads, electric poles, wind turbines and constructions; 3) mining and industrialization; and 4) well intended but ill-informed habitat management (Anon 2011; Singh et al. 2006). With increased availability of water due to Government irrigation policies, agriculture has spread over vast arid–semiarid grasslands. For example, the Indira Gandhi Nahar Project has caused drastic hydraulic changes and massive agricultural conversion in and around the Desert National Park. Moreover, irrigation facilities and changing lifestyles have led to a shift in the crop pattern from bustard–friendly traditional monsoonal crops (Sorghum, millet etc.) to cash crops (sugarcane, grapes, cotton, horticulture etc.) which are not suitable for the species. Due to ill-defined land distribution policies and the ambiguity arising from segregated ownership between private, community and government bodies, encroachment is a major problem in many bustard areas, especially in and around bustard sanctuaries of Maharashtra and Kachchh. Activities such as mining, stone quarrying, growth of industries and power projects along with the expansion of roads, electric poles, wind turbines and other infrastructures have increased the severity of habitat degradation and disturbance (Anon 2011). Traditionally, grasslands and scrub have been considered as wasteland and the Forest Department policy, until recently, has been to convert them to forests with plantation of fuel/fodder shrub/tree species, even exotics like Prosopis juliflora, Gliricidium and Eucalyptus spp., under social forestry and compensatory afforestation schemes (Forest (Conservation) Act 1988; Indian Forest Act 1927) resulting in further loss of habitat. Overgrazing on unprotected lands has also led to degradation of some areas (Mathew 2007, Dutta et al. 2010, P. Patil in litt. 2011, Anon 2011).

Conservation Actions [top]

Conservation Actions:	Conservation Actions Underway CITES Appendix I. In India it is legally protected and there are severe penalties for killing an individual. It has been the focus of several publicity initiatives aimed at reducing hunting. Since 1981, extensive fieldwork has investigated its status, distribution and ecology, and a detailed conservation strategy has been published. Protected areas have been specifically established for the species (Sonkhaliya-Sorson, Lala-Naliya, Gaga-Bhatiya, Karera, Ghatigaon, Nanaj and Ranibennur), and populations occur in some others (Desert National park and Rollapadu Wildlife Sanctuary). Despite some failures (local extinctions in Karera, Gaga-Bhatiya and Ranibennur), there have been some success as well. Rehabilitation of grasslands has also benefited the species in some areas. The Indian government has provided financial support to conservation actions for this species in some regions (Anon. 2009). Meetings and processions with local communities have been carried out in the past by the Bombay Natural History Society (Rahmanin2006) to generate support for birds among local people. More recently (March 2011), the Great Indian Bustard Foundation held a two-day meeting with communities within and around the Great Indian Bustard Sanctuary at Nannaj (Patil 2011). Nearly 600 villagers attended and discussions covered the problems of local people and threats to the species (Patil 2011). The Great Indian Bustard Foundaton along with Maharashtra Forest Department, is conducting a school awareness programme and large-scale community awareness programme. Conservation Actions Proposed The Ministry of Environment and Forests, Government of India have set up a Task Force to guide field implementation of bustard conservation actions (Anon 2011). Through meetings and workshops involving many parties (officials, experts, common citizen), site specific recovery plans have been drafted. Broadly speaking, the proposed conservation actions are: 1) To consolidate core breeding areas identified across the species’ range by creating strict refuges during prime breeding months (July–September). This will require acquiring government lands that are not owned by Forest Departments; making all core areas inviolate by chain-link-fencing and patrolling guards; and removing nest predators (dogs & cats) therein. Consumptive human use should not be permitted during breeding months but allowed under regulations outside of it. 2) To formulate landscape conservation strategies in priority areas (informed by telemetry research) for accommodating species’ non-breeding needs. Research informed habitat management should be planned herein (Dutta et al. 2012) that excludes any construction of road and tall shrub/tree plantation. Unfriendly infrastructure (road, electricity network and wind turbines) should be curtailed within 2km radius of core breeding areas or replaced by bustard-friendly forms (underground electric cables and passes). This can be done by declaring priority areas as community or conservation reserves or Eco-sensitive zone through legislation. Additionally, local livelihoods should be linked with bustard conservation in priority areas by subsidy/ incentive driven Agro-environmental Schemes that promote bustard–friendly farming practices, such as pesticide–free farming of short palatable crops separated by long fallow periods, and stall feeding of livestock during peak monsoon months. 3) To commence ex-situ conservation breeding programme as an insurance against extinction. Since in-situ conservation measures will require at least 5-10 years to be implemented and the rapidly declining species’ trend provides a window of <5 years for procuring eggs from the wild, the implementation of conservation breeding should be taken up urgently. However, this is not an alternative to effective habitat management, and is only a mechanism to repopulate extinction-prone small stocks after their habitats have been restored. 4) To assess the efficacy of these conservation actions by systematic, country-wide population monitoring on alternate years for the next 10 years.

Conservation Actions:

Conservation Actions Underway
CITES Appendix I. In India it is legally protected and there are severe penalties for killing an individual. It has been the focus of several publicity initiatives aimed at reducing hunting. Since 1981, extensive fieldwork has investigated its status, distribution and ecology, and a detailed conservation strategy has been published. Protected areas have been specifically established for the species (Sonkhaliya-Sorson, Lala-Naliya, Gaga-Bhatiya, Karera, Ghatigaon, Nanaj and Ranibennur), and populations occur in some others (Desert National park and Rollapadu Wildlife Sanctuary). Despite some failures (local extinctions in Karera, Gaga-Bhatiya and Ranibennur), there have been some success as well. Rehabilitation of grasslands has also benefited the species in some areas. The Indian government has provided financial support to conservation actions for this species in some regions (Anon. 2009). Meetings and processions with local communities have been carried out in the past by the Bombay Natural History Society (Rahmanin2006) to generate support for birds among local people. More recently (March 2011), the Great Indian Bustard Foundation held a two-day meeting with communities within and around the Great Indian Bustard Sanctuary at Nannaj (Patil 2011). Nearly 600 villagers attended and discussions covered the problems of local people and threats to the species (Patil 2011). The Great Indian Bustard Foundaton along with Maharashtra Forest Department, is conducting a school awareness programme and large-scale community awareness programme.

Conservation Actions Proposed
The Ministry of Environment and Forests, Government of India have set up a Task Force to guide field implementation of bustard conservation actions (Anon 2011). Through meetings and workshops involving many parties (officials, experts, common citizen), site specific recovery plans have been drafted. Broadly speaking, the proposed conservation actions are: 1) To consolidate core breeding areas identified across the species’ range by creating strict refuges during prime breeding months (July–September). This will require acquiring government lands that are not owned by Forest Departments; making all core areas inviolate by chain-link-fencing and patrolling guards; and removing nest predators (dogs & cats) therein. Consumptive human use should not be permitted during breeding months but allowed under regulations outside of it. 2) To formulate landscape conservation strategies in priority areas (informed by telemetry research) for accommodating species’ non-breeding needs. Research informed habitat management should be planned herein (Dutta et al. 2012) that excludes any construction of road and tall shrub/tree plantation. Unfriendly infrastructure (road, electricity network and wind turbines) should be curtailed within 2km radius of core breeding areas or replaced by bustard-friendly forms (underground electric cables and passes). This can be done by declaring priority areas as community or conservation reserves or Eco-sensitive zone through legislation. Additionally, local livelihoods should be linked with bustard conservation in priority areas by subsidy/ incentive driven Agro-environmental Schemes that promote bustard–friendly farming practices, such as pesticide–free farming of short palatable crops separated by long fallow periods, and stall feeding of livestock during peak monsoon months. 3) To commence ex-situ conservation breeding programme as an insurance against extinction. Since in-situ conservation measures will require at least 5-10 years to be implemented and the rapidly declining species’ trend provides a window of <5 years for procuring eggs from the wild, the implementation of conservation breeding should be taken up urgently. However, this is not an alternative to effective habitat management, and is only a mechanism to repopulate extinction-prone small stocks after their habitats have been restored. 4) To assess the efficacy of these conservation actions by systematic, country-wide population monitoring on alternate years for the next 10 years.

Citation:	BirdLife International 2012. Ardeotis nigriceps. In: IUCN 2012. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2012.2. <www.iucnredlist.org>. Downloaded on 24 May 2013.
Disclaimer:	To make use of this information, please check the <Terms of Use>.
Feedback:	If you see any errors or have any questions or suggestions on what is shown on this page, please fill in the feedback form so that we can correct or extend the information provided