Figure - available from: GeoJournal
This content is subject to copyright. Terms and conditions apply.
Source publication
This paper discusses how competing value systems of different interest groups, help the obscure and lesser known species to become a part of a global conservation project. We analyse two community-based conservation initiatives where two littleknown bird species Bugun liocichla (Liocichla bugunorum) and Amur falcon (Falco amurensis) have transforme...
Citations
... To discourage trapping and trade of birds, we suggests that 1) the government and conservation agencies should provide alternate means of income to the people who rely significantly on the Bagedi business, particularly the trappers and the middlemen; 2) bird identification and awareness initiatives on the status, ecology and ecosystem provided by birds to local trappers, as well as to school children, the community, and consumers through newspaper/magazine programs. Additionally, Bagedi can also be promoted and linked with cultural (e.g., initiating the friends of Bagedi), conservation (e.g., ecological significance), and commercial values (e.g., ecotourism) in order to boost popularity among the general public to discourage trapping and eating, similar to the initiatives taken for the most trapped Amur Falcon (Falco amurensis) in Northeast India (see Aiyadurai and Banerjee, 2020); 3) provide information regarding the penalties for trapping, trading, and consuming wild birds in Nepal; 4) initiate programs to change the attitudes and behaviors of consumers, such as shifting to farmed species (e.g., quail species); 5) detail survey on Madhesh and other provinces of Nepal to estimate the national scale of Bagedi trapping and its impact on bird populations. ...
Worldwide defaunation is being accelerated by wildlife hunting, trapping, and trade. However, there is little knowledge of bird hunting or trapping in South Asia, including Nepal. Despite being illegal, trapping and eating wild birds (locally called Bagedi, i.e., bunting species - small passerine birds that are declining globally) is popular in lowland Nepal. However, it has received little research interest. We identified the potential bird species that could be trapped under the name Bagedi. We also interviewed 24 trappers, 26 middlemen, 65 hoteliers, and 105 customers to understand the trapping, trade, and eating practices of Bagedi and the impacts on the farmland bird population in Madhesh Province, Nepal. By following trappers and middlemen and based on our Farmland Bird Survey Program in lowland Nepal, we identified 25 farmland bird species that are most likely to be trapped, killed, and sold in the name of Bagedi. We confirmed six of them including true buntings, such as Black-headed Bunting (Emberiza melanocephala), Crested Bunting (Emberiza lathami) and other similar-sized species like Scaly-breasted Munia (Lonchura punctulata) and Baya Weaver (Ploceus philippinus), among others. Trade in Bagedi has increased over the past ten years due to high prices and the customers’ belief that consuming Bagedi produces heat in the body in winter and has aphrodisiac properties. Winter (December–February) is the peak Bagedi eating season and based on interviews with hoteliers (n = 55) during the survey period, we estimated that 115,200 to 129,600 birds were killed. During this period, the surveyed hoteliers would make an estimated business of around Nepalese Rupees 7488,000 to 8424,000 (USD 65,113–73,252). More than 70% of the people interviewed claimed that they did not know that trapping, trading, or eating wild birds is illegal. Around 50% of the trappers, 92% of the middlemen, 56% of the hoteliers, and 54% of the customers showed an unwillingness to stop this activity. Our study shows that bird trapping in our study area is highly market-driven and is a serious, understudied, and overlooked conservation threats to farmland birds in Nepal.
... It is well known that wild birds are widely hunted across Indo-Burma for human consumption and various other uses such as medicines (Evans et al., 2000;Liang et al., 2013;Srikosamatara et al., 1992). Thus far, studies assessing wildlife hunting and the wild meat trade have focused on particular forest taxa such as gamebirds, pigeons (e.g., Treron sp., Ducula sp.), and hornbills (Bhupathy et al., 2013;Liang & Zhang, 2011;Rao et al., 2005), as well as migratory species such as shorebirds (Gallo-Cajiao et al., 2020), Yellow-breasted Bunting Emberiza aureola (Heim et al., 2021), and Amur Falcon Falco amurensis (Aiyadurai & Banerjee, 2019;Dalvi et al., 2013). Indeed, the extirpation of the Vietnamese Pheasant Lophura edwardsi and the drastic decline of the Crested Argus Rheinartia ocellata and several hornbills, among the region's most charismatic species, may be the outcome of indiscriminate trapping at large scales (BirdLife International, 2021;Eames & Mahood, 2017;Liang et al., 2018), facilitated by the availability of new hunting tools and techniques (Chang et al., 2017;Gray et al., 2018). ...
... Against this backdrop, the implementation of conservation programs to create alternative livelihoods and encourage behavioral changes (of hunters) can be scaled-up in rural areas and among indigenous or minority communities, and in the vicinity of protected areas (e.g., Chang et al., 2019;Steinmetz et al., 2014). There is much scope to encourage community-led conservation initiatives already successfully pursued in some parts of the region (e.g., Aiyadurai & Banerjee, 2019;Steinmetz et al., 2014;Taufiqurrahman et al., 2019), taking into consideration local livelihoods and complex socio-cultural factors (Johnson et al., 2003). Given limitations in capacity to enforce wildlife laws in the countryside outside protected areas, the active participation of local people, women, and ethnic minorities is critical (e.g., Chowdhury, 2010;Zöckler et al., 2010;Dalvi et al., 2013;Rao et al., 2011;Loke et al., 2020), especially in many parts of Indo-Burma where enforcement resources are limited, local hunting traditions are strong (e.g., in Lisu, Hmong, and Katu communities, among others, see Johnson et al., 2003;MacMillan & Nguyen, 2014;Zack, 2018) and relationships between local people and centralized authorities often strained. ...
Hunting for the wild meat trade, medicines and other human uses has decimated Indo-Burma's vertebrate biota and has led to widespread defaunation. Yet, there is surprisingly little data on how hunting impacts wild bird assemblages in different landscapes here. Based on concurrent snapshot surveys of bird hunting, food markets and hunting attitudes across six Indo-Burma countries , we found that hunting threatens species not only in forested landscapes but also wetlands and farmlands such as orchards and paddy fields-ecosystems overlooked by past studies, with at least 47 species associated with wetlands and agricultural lands identified from market surveys across the region. High rates of mortality are suffered when hunting tools such as nets are used to exclude perceived bird pests in both aquaculture and agricultural landscapes, with over 300 individual carcasses of at least 29 identifiable species detected in one aquaculture landscape sampled in Thailand. We warn that the potentially unsustainable trapping of species for consumption and trade in Indo-Burma, coupled with high incidental mortalities, could decimate the populations of erstwhile common and/or legally unprotected species. There is an urgent need for stronger regulatory oversight on the hunting take of wild birds and the use of hunting tools such as nets. Alongside this, conservation practitioners need to better engage with rural communities to address unsustainable hunting practices, especially outside of protected areas.
Bird watching hobbyists will often go to great lengths to observe wild birds around the world, traveling to tropical rainforests, beaches, and even mountains. As birds may serve as cultural symbols in which their songs and other sounds are important in various activities, local communities can use a cultural approach to protect birds in close proximity. The results of this study show that endemic bird species are used as cultural symbols by indigenous people on the Indonesian island of Halmahera, a tourist destination for local and foreign visitors. The study used a random survey method which involved interviewing farmers in four regions: Loloda Kepulauan, Maba, Buli, and Wangongira, as well as research respondents residing in forest fringes around the village. Interviews were conducted in local languages. The research findings reveal that the endemic birds most sought after by photographers and tourists belong to eight families: Paradisaeidae, Alcedinidae, Pittidae, Rallidae, Megapodiidae, Columbidae, Aegothelidae, and Meliphagidae. Furthermore, this study demonstrates how indigenous knowledge can be used to protect local birds by making a species a cultural symbol. These results emphasize the importance of building partnerships with indigenous communities and will hopefully encourage government programs to increase the role of local communities in biodiversity conservation. An ecotourism approach based on indigenous knowledge is the key to sustainable development as it combines ecological, economic, and cultural dimensions. Finally, the involvement of women in ecotourism may be especially important, based on the evidence that women play a significant role in conservation activities in our study communities.
Full text at: http://www.huveta.hu/handle/10832/3108
Avian Lice (Phthiraptera: Amblycera, Ischnocera) are common, low pathogenic ectoparasites of birds. Their long coevolutionary history with their hosts make them worthy subjects for studying the ecology and evolution of parasitism.
Ecology of Avian lice
The abundance and population dynamics of lice are mainly affected by their host’s defensive efforts, life cycle, individual and species-specific traits. The host’s body size and development stage has been known to influence their louse load. Seasonal changes have also been long observed and suspected to be related to the host’s breeding season or moulting. Small falcon species are good subjects to study these questions as they are frequently infected with lice. They are also in the focus of many scientific and conservation programmes that provide valuable data on the birds.
Our studies aimed to investigate how individual traits of falcons affect their louse load at different stages of their life. The first one investigated how the sex, maturity, and clutch size of Common Kestrel (Falco tinnunculus) nestlings affect the abundance of their lice. Our second study investigated how static and dynamic traits of colonial Red-footed Falcons (Falco vespertinus) interplay with the dynamics of their louse subpopulations during the breeding period and how they affect the colonisation of new hosts by lice. Lastly, we investigated the effect of Amur Falcons’ (Falco amurensis) sex, age and body size on the abundance of their lice at a vast autumn migratory stop-over site.
We collected ectoparasite samples from Common Kestrels in Hungary. We analysed the effect of the host’s sex, wing length and clutch size on the abundance of their lice.
We sampled Red-footed Falcon (Falco vespertinus) nestlings in two and adults in one breeding season. On the nestlings, we modelled the mean abundance of their louse species using the clutch size and host sex in interaction with wing length. For the adults, we used wing length and the number of days after laying the first egg, both in interaction with sex, as explanatory variables.
We sampled Amur Falcons in Nagaland, India, at major roosting sites. We modelled the abundance of their lice using the host age category (juvenile or adult) and wing length, both in interaction with sex, as explanatory variables.
We collected all ectoparasite samples with dust ruffling. We analysed the data using generalised linear (mixed) models with negative binomial distribution and log-link.
The ischnoceran Degeeriella rufa (Burmeister, 1838) and the amblyceran Colpocephalum subzerafae (Tendeiro, 1988b) occurred on all three studied bird species frequently. We analysed the abundance of these species in detail. Laemobothrion (Laemobothrion) tinnunculi Linnaeus, 1758 was only rarely found on Red-footed and Amur Falcons.
On Common Kestrel nestlings, none of the investigated variables had a significant effect on C. subzerafae abundance. Contrarily, clutch size had a significant effect on D. rufa abundance. In small clutches (3–4 nestlings), the mean abundance of D. rufa was 3.7 times higher than in large (5–6 nestlings) clutches.
On Red-footed Falcons, D. rufa abundances increased with the nestlings’ wing length. In one year, this trend was steeper on females. Initially, both louse species exhibited higher abundances on adult, breeding females, but it decreased subsequently through the breeding season. Contrarily, abundances were constantly low on adult males.
On Amur Falcons, host age significantly affected the abundance of C. subzerafae, being nearly four times higher on juveniles than adults. Juveniles were also more infested with D. rufa than adults. Additionally, the abundance of the latter species was lower on adult male Falcons than on adult females.
We can think of two non-exclusive explanations why Common Kestrel nestlings in larger broods are more parasitised with lice. First, parental quality is known to affect the clutch size. If low-quality parents are also more heavily infested with lice, this could explain the higher louse load of their nestlings. According to the dilution hypothesis, lice can be considered long life-cycle ectoparasites. These are incapable to significantly raise their subpopulation size till the fledging of the chicks. This results in lower per nestling louse counts in larger clutches. According to our results, both the breeding parameters and the parents’ quality may affect their offsprings’ ectoparasite load.
It seems D. rufa postpones transmission until Red-footed Falcon nestlings develop juvenile plumage and choose the more feathered individual among siblings. On adult birds, the sexual difference in abundance could either be caused by the different plumage or the females’ preference for less parasitised males. Moreover, females likely have more time to preen during the incubation period, lowering their louse burdens. Thus sex-biased infestation levels probably arise due to parasite preferences in the nestlings and host behavioural processes in the adult falcons.
Both louse species showed juvenile bias on Amur Falcons. Juvenile bias in ectoparasite infestation is common in nature, probably due to juveniles being immunologically naïve, more resource-limited, and may be inexperienced in body maintenance behaviours. Again, we found evidence of female-biased infestations. Being sister species, the reasons for this could be similar for both Amur and Red-footed Falcons.
In conclusion, we have seen that the louse load of small falcons is a subject of various traits starting from the early days of their life. Longitudinal studies could reveal more on this phenomenon if they could overcome the associated methodological hurdles.
Evolution of sexual body size dimorphism in Avian lice
Rensch’s rule (RR) postulates that in comparisons across closely related species, male body size relative to female size increases with the average size of the species. This holds true in several vertebrate and also in certain free-living invertebrate taxa.
We studied the validity of RR in avian lice in three families (Philopteridae, Menoponidae, and Ricinidae). We used published data on the body length of 989 louse species, subspecies, or distinct intraspecific lineages. We applied phylogenetic reduced major axis regression to analyse the body size of females vs males while accounting for phylogenetic non-independence.
Our results indicate that philopterid and menoponid lice follow RR, while ricinids exhibit the opposite pattern. In the case of philopterids and menoponids, we argue that larger-bodied bird species tend to host lice that are both larger in size and more abundant. Thus, sexual selection acting on males makes them relatively larger, and this is stronger than fecundity selection acting on females. Ricinids exhibit converse RR, likely because fecundity selection is stronger in their case. Body size is under strong selective pressure to escape preening, while the sexes’ relative size should still facilitate mating. However, it seems on a grander scale there are other selection forces at play as well. These are most likely not related to ectoparasitism since RR and converse RR occur in many free-living animal taxa.
Deforestation and Raptors
Deforestation is one of many aspects of habitat loss and fragmentation that is negatively affecting raptor populations globally. This Conservation Letter provides a scientific review of deforestation's effects on raptors, highlighting lessons learned and potential solutions. This letter is not intended as an exhaustive literature review. Rather, the intent of the Raptor Research Foundation (RRF) is to provide evidence-based examples of deforestation's impacts on raptors so that readers can appreciate the scope and prevalence of the issue, understand some of the challenges associated with addressing deforestation's impacts on raptor populations, and gain insight from an example of how including local Indigenous communities in forest management can benefit raptor populations.
Although deforestation discussions are most often concerned with climate change and biodiversity, the impact on raptor conservation is profound and that linkage has the potential to create partnership synergies for conservation and sustainability. Sandker et al. (2017) estimated global deforestation at 39–46% prior to 1990, and additional losses by 2005 of 7% in the tropics, 4% in the subtropics, and under 2% elsewhere. Although only 13% of the Amazon rainforest has been deforested to date (Aleixandre-Benavent et al. 2018), over 30,000 km² of forest are removed annually. More than other areas of the globe, Asia has experienced a recent four-fold increase in deforestation rates (Rosa et al. 2016). In Southeast Asia, where we highlight the Philippine Eagle (Pithecophaga jefferyi) as a case study, deforestation has exceeded 90% (Ong et al. 2002).
In a significant proportion of the world's ecologically intact forest landscapes, deforestation is initiated by direct local and/or Indigenous attempts to mitigate protein-food and financial insecurity (Arroyo-Rodríguez et al. 2020), which can be both acute and chronic, even in North America (Sarkar et al. 2019). Specifically, Geist and Lambin (2002) determined that 96% of global deforestation is linked to agricultural expansion driven by local synergies of economics, institutions, technology, culture, and demographics. Curtis et al. (2018) recognized the significance of global forest practice issues but emphasized specific tropical deforestation drivers of commodity-driven agriculture expansion, including row crops, palm oil production, and cattle grazing. Although urban sprawl pressures agricultural expansion into forest areas (van Vliet 2019), urban sprawl does not explain much of the deforestation occurring globally; this knowledge gap underscores the need to understand localized deforestation drivers (Geist and Lambin 2002, Jung and Polasky 2018). Strategies that advocate the use of raptors as indicator species (Björklund et al. 2020) have global potential for monitoring deforestation drivers and biodiversity. As we describe below, understanding and addressing local drivers of deforestation requires the inclusion of Indigenous peoples in conservation discussions.
Effects of Deforestation on Raptor Populations. Deforestation has caused range reductions, isolations of subpopulations, reduced gene flow, extirpation and even extinction of raptors. Concepcion et al. (2018) concluded deforestation may be more detrimental to raptors than to other birds due to raptors' large home ranges and low population densities. In Africa for example, deforestation threatens the African Crowned Eagle (Stephanoaetus coronatus) in Uganda (BirdLife International 2018) and has reduced the habitat of many large eagles, such as the Cassin's Hawk-Eagle (Aquila africana) and the Ayres's Hawk-Eagle (Hieraaetus ayresii). In Madagascar, where 40% of the forests were removed in the 20th century, deforestation threatens the Eleonora's Falcon (Falco eleonorae; Kassara et al. 2017). In French Guinea, raptor presence is inversely linked to a deforestation gradient (Jullien and Thiollay 1996).
Deforestation is particularly problematic in the Neotropical region, where related range reductions have led to Critically Endangered status for the White-collared Kite (Leptodon forbesi; BirdLife International 2018) and the Cuban Hook-billed Kite (Chondrohierax uncinatus wilsonii; BirdLife International 2020). Other species with formerly vast distributions, such as the Harpy Eagle (Harpia harpyja), the Crested Eagle (Morphnus guianensis), and the Orange-breasted Falcon (Falco deiroleucus), have disappeared from large areas with deforestation and although they are Near Threatened globally (BirdLife International 2016, 2017a, 2017b), the latter two are extirpated or endangered at national or regional levels (Ministério do Meio Ambiente do Brasil and Aves Argentinas 2017). The loss of former range for the Harpy Eagle is at least 41% (Miranda et al. 2019), and the Crested Eagle is probably similar considering their shared habitats (J. M. Grande unpubl. data). The Orange-breasted Falcon's range reduction could be up to 30% in the Amazon Basin alone (Bird et al. 2011), but there are likely further losses in other areas such as Central America and the Atlantic forest in South America.
In Asia, home to over 40% of the world's raptor species, 36 of 41 globally threatened raptor species are found in forests (Concepcion et al. 2018). Forest raptors are more likely to be threatened than non-forest species (Thiollay and Rahman 2002, Anoop et al. 2018, McClure et al. 2018).
Mitigating Deforestation's Effects on Raptor Populations. Preventing deforestation is a primary goal in global biodiversity conservation, where partnership efficacy is increasingly recognized as being linked to local and Indigenous rights (Gavin et al. 2018, Baldauf 2020, Ogar et al. 2020). For example, the reported decline in Amazon deforestation rates between 2005 and 2010 (Rosa et al. 2016) may in part be due to broad application of forest and biodiversity conservation partnerships such as local market-driven partnerships between nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) and corporate soybean (protein) producers (Jung and Polasky 2018). Involving local/Indigenous communities can help minimize deforestation (driven by local protein insecurity) through emphasis on partitioning management zones to optimize both production and conservation (Arroyo-Rodríguez et al. 2020). Primary raptor conservation considerations include the balancing of local protein-food security with forest values and optimizing the use of Indigenous traditional knowledge. Critically, worldwide raptor conservation efforts need to focus on the preservation and expansion of current intact forest landscapes, of which 36% are on Indigenous lands (Fa et al. 2020). Considering the reforestation potential of fringe areas around these landscapes, the development of forest conservation strategies with local Indigenous People has the potential to conserve and enhance perhaps half or more of the remaining prime raptor habitat, globally.
Globally, raptors are intricately linked to many Indigenous cultures (The Peregrine Fund 2011), providing potential for collaborative conservation. For example, in India local people turned from large-scale hunting to a caretaker role (Aiyadurai and Banerjee 2020) for the Amur Falcon (Falco amurensis). Further, Indigenous communities have been linked to improvements in Forest Owlet (Athene blewitti) habitat (Yosef et al. 2010), and local conservation engagement on the White-rumped Vulture (Gyps bengalensis) is considered important (Pande et al. 2013). Indigenous traditional knowledge of nature also supports conservation efforts in understanding raptor migration flight paths in North America (Tedlock 2014). Sacred areas identified by Indigenous Peoples are usually associated with high levels of biodiversity and intact forest landscapes, providing important habitat for forest-dwelling raptors. For example, in Africa, sacred areas that are also intact forest landscapes are critical for the African Goshawk (Accipiter tachiro) and the Gabar Goshawk (Micronisus gabar) and are significant for other forest raptors (Kühnert et al. 2019).
The Philippine Eagle Sierra Madre Case Study
With between 82 (Bueser et al. 2003) and 500 (Luczon et al. 2014) breeding pairs, the Philippine Eagle is Critically Endangered (BirdLife International 2018b) and is a prime example of a species decimated by deforestation (Salvador and Ibanez 2006, Watson 2018). In a country with <10% of mature forest remaining (Ong et al. 2002), the majority of the Philippines' intact forest landscape is on Indigenous lands extending across and beyond Aurora Province (Fig. 1), and associated with Indigenous Ancestral Domains (De Vera 2007). The Sierra Madre Biodiversity Corridor (SMBC), the focus of this case study, is also home to four other forest raptors that could be threatened by deforestation; the Endangered North Philippine Hawk-Eagle (Nisaetus philippensis), as well as the more common Philippine Honey-Buzzard (Pernis steerei), Philippine Serpent-Eagle (Spilornis holospilus) and the Philippine Falconet (Microhierax erythrogenys; International Union for Conservation of Nature [IUCN] 2021).
Figure 1
Philippine Eagle (Pithecophaga jefferyi) occurrence in the forests of the central Sierra Madre Biodiversity Corridor (SMBC). Note: DENR-NAMRIA is the Department of Environment and Natural Resources-National Mapping and Resource Inventory Authority.
Historically, commercial logging has been the primary threat to Philippine Eagle habitat. However, with a national logging ban in place (Presidential Executive Order No. 23, s. 2011), current challenges have shifted to agricultural expansion and small-scale illegal logging, even within government-run protected areas (van der Ploeg et al. 2011). The driver for these current challenges in this section of the SMBC is that Indigenous Dumagat-Alta settlements depend on forest, marine, and agricultural ecosystems for food and livelihood security. A recent report sponsored by the World Health Organization suggested that the Dumagat-Alta maternal protein intake may be as low as 20% of recommended levels (Partnership for Maternal Newborn and Child Health 2018). A coherent strategy to protect Philippine Eagle habitat must continue to consider mitigating protein insecurity in the settlements, reversing deforestation through planting and enforcement, and supporting the personal security of Forest Guards. In 2018, the Philippines was considered the most dangerous country in the world for environmental defenders, based on 30 reported homicides (Global Witness 2019). The year 2019 was even more deadly with 43 Philippine environmental defenders murdered (Global Witness 2020).
Although historic records include rare Philippine Eagle sightings in several parts of the Philippines, the breeding population is generally considered to be isolated within the southern one-third of the country, in a group of islands called the Mindanao. Deforestation in the Mindanao Islands is almost complete, and the species is supported by the Philippine Eagle Foundation through a captive breeding program. The few reported Philippine Eagle sightings in the remote SMBC mountains (Abate 1992, Abaño et al. 2016) are associated with Indigenous ancestral domains and sacred areas (Fig. 1), although the domain's inaccessibility (due to thick rainforest undergrowth and steep mountainous terrain) may mask additional nesting territories. Following documented survey strategies (Ibañez 2009), a partnership involving local guides and a Philippine NGO (the Haribon Foundation) located one new nesting territory on Mingan Mountain in the Municipality of Dingalan, near the border of Aurora Province (Fig. 1). This finding led to the development of a program called Indigenous Communities Saving the Philippine Eagle, based in the San Luis Municipality of Aurora province and involving local Indigenous settlements.
Critically, as suggested by Arroyo-Rodríguez et al. (2020), a second local NGO (Daluhay) works with the Indigenous People across the Philippine Province of Aurora to mitigate deforestation through GIS-based management that focuses on balancing protein access with agriculture (Amatorio et al. 2020). This program includes building local capacity for sustainable harvest of adjacent marine protein resources, reducing deforestation, and conducting forest restoration. A previous cycle of the Dumagat-Alta program resulted in 20 ha of reforestation involving 10,000 seedlings of threatened tree species and a localized 20% increase in marine fish protein harvest under sustainable management strategies (Daluhay 2018). A Participatory Action Research and Learning (PARL) cycle collaboration through Daluhay established the Indigenous and collaborative Save the Philippine Eagle project. This involved partnerships between local/national government agencies, settlements, and NGOs, which initiated resource assessment, forest protection, and enforcement. PARL is an iterative transdisciplinary approach to influencing policy and engaging the public while advancing development and conservation (Watts and Pajaro 2014) through four stages: Plan–Do–Evaluate–Analyze. As suggested elsewhere (Corrigan et al. 2018, Joa et al. 2018), the project began with the NGOs first learning about local conservation by considering the Indigenous perspective on values, goals, issues, strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats. Traditional knowledge (historical sightings, local eagle food preferences, and preferred habitat) was combined with the ornithological expertise of the Haribon Foundation to create a local education strategy focused on resource assessments and training. The resultant collaboration verified the breeding Philippine Eagle population in the SMBC by confirming one nesting territory and initiated a certification process for local training on raptor habitat assessment and forest protection enforcement for more than 40 Indigenous Forest Guards. The program broadly supports the sustainable future of the community and the forest ecosystem. Formal local conservation plans, founded on the Philippine Eagle as an indicator species, are now recognized at various levels of government and internationally. As a result of regular monitoring and eagle sightings, surveys are now being planned to investigate a possible second Philippine Eagle nesting area. In addition, the international Forest Conservation Foundation has subsequently agreed to support an expanded long-term program titled: Philippine Eagle Ancestral Forest.
Lessons Learned: Future Conservation Directions. Raptor conservationists and NGOs can help others help raptors by including Indigenous communities. Considerations should include addressing protein insecurity as a priority in interventions on the poverty faced by local Indigenous communities, as well as Forest Guard safety and security. Adaptations within the participatory approach require both a knowledge and respect for the local context as well as conservationists being prepared to take different roles during phases of the project cycle. In the current PARL cycle, NGOs facilitated decision-making through “training while doing” and codeveloped monitoring, evaluation, and analysis regimens aimed at future priorities and potentials. The “Do” phase of this PARL cycle involved further facilitation to expand the local culture in a reflective manner that addresses the goals of both local food security and conservation. Priority is now placed upon forest sustainability, overcoming the concept of open access to resources, and development of a legal enforcement strategy through partnerships that optimize environmental defender safety. The program led to the first ever in-forest local apprehension of illegal loggers (Daluhay 2020) through volunteer Indigenous Forest Guards who risk their lives to protect the future of their people, forests, biodiversity, and raptors.
Conservation action (Gavin et al. 2018) for raptors can be improved by including local and Indigenous rights-based designs (Ogar et al. 2020) in the Philippine Eagle habitats as outlined herein, and in other linked habitats where similar participatory programs have not yet been initiated (Hagen and Minter 2020). Local livelihoods have also been improved through limited Forest Guard honorariums and a recently initiated 500-km forest trail system designed to support ecotourism. Future goals for the program to save the Philippine Eagle include an Aurora Province-based wildlife rehabilitation center that will highlight Indigenous traditional knowledge in partnership with government. If the Save the Philippine Eagle paradigm were implemented with other Indigenous Peoples throughout Asia, raptor conservation directly focused on preventing deforestation could offer substantial benefits throughout the region, while also helping to mitigate climate change.
In the Neotropics where the loss of forest area is highest, Indigenous lands are extensive (e.g., as much as 12.5% of Brazil and up to 21% of Bolivia) and traditional knowledge of raptors has led to conservation success stories. For example, Indigenous land management has successfully protected forests from logging and deforestation more efficiently than nationally protected Neotropical areas (Schleicher et al. 2017). Furthermore, several raptor rainforest research projects have benefited from local Indigenous engagement and knowledge. Harpy Eagle nest searches and monitoring in the Cuyabeno Reserve in eastern Ecuador, in Darien in Panamá, in Infierno community in Madre de Dios, Peru, and in Reserva Forestal de Imataca in Venezuela, were effective due largely to the participation of local Indigenous communities (Álvarez-Cordero 1996, Vargas González and Vargas 2011, Muñiz 2016). The same strategies could be used to search for nests of other elusive endangered species such as the Black-and-chestnut Eagle (Spizaetus isidori), the Crested Eagle, or the Orange-breasted Falcon. Considering these examples, the expanded use of Indigenous partnerships to conserve raptors and combat deforestation has significant global conservation potential.
As a leading professional society for raptor researchers and raptor conservationists, the RRF is dedicated to the accumulation and dissemination of scientific information about raptors, and to resolving raptor conservation concerns (RRF 2020). Impacts of deforestation on raptor species, local settlements, biodiversity, and climate remain an ongoing conservation concern, presenting a global threat to raptor populations. Based on the science summarized herein, engaging Indigenous communities to combat deforestation and to conduct collaborative research and management while seeking sustainable solutions to address their basic needs will foster long-term co-occurrence of raptor populations with human populations.
Acknowledgments
The authors thank the Raptor Research Foundation's Conservation Committee and Board of Directors for comments which improved this work. The Indigenous Communities Saving the Philippine Eagle Program cosponsored through Daluhay and the Rainforest Trust Foundation is grateful for the support provided by the Municipalities of San Luis, Dingalan, and Gabaldon, as well as the provinces of Aurora and Nueva Ecija. Haribon thanks the EDGE of Existence Program of the Zoological Society of London and their other affiliates for their project support in the Sierra Madre Biodiversity Corridor. This initiative was also a direct result of efforts to harmonize mandates and proactive participation of federal Philippine government agencies, specifically the National Commission on Indigenous Peoples and the Department of Environment and Natural Resources.
Literature Cited
1.
Abaño, T. R. C., D. J. Salvador, and J. C. Ibanez (2016). First nesting record of Philippine Eagle Pithecophaga jefferyi from Luzon, Philippines. Forktail 32:86–88. Google Scholar
2.
Abate, T. (1992). Into the northern Philippines rainforest. BioScience 42:246–251. Google Scholar
3.
Aiyadurai, A., and S. Banerjee (2020). Bird conservation from obscurity to popularity: A case study of two bird species from northeast India. GeoJournal 85:901–912. Google Scholar
4.
Aleixandre-Benavent, R., J. L. Aleixandre-Tudó, L. Castelló-Cogollos, and J. L. Aleixandre (2018). Trends in global research in deforestation. A bibliometric analysis. Land Use Policy 72:293–302. Google Scholar
5.
Álvarez-Cordero, E. (1996). Biology and conservation of the Harpy Eagle in Venezuela and Panamá. Ph.D. dissertation. University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA. Google Scholar
6.
Amatorio, R., M. Dela Torre, M. Pajaro, M. Raquino, P. Watts, and E. Zafra (2020). Egongot tribal development and an NGO as a catalyst for sustainability. Fourth World Journal 19:25–43. Google Scholar
7.
Anoop, N. R., S. Babu, S. Bharathidasan, and R. Nagarajan (2018). Status of raptors in the Moyar River Valley, Western Ghats, India. Journal of Threatened Taxa 10:12317–12327. Google Scholar
8.
Arroyo-Rodríguez, V., L. Fahrig, M. Tabarelli, J. I. Watling, L. Tischendorf, M. Benchimol, and J. C. Morante-Filho (2020). Designing optimal human-modified landscapes for forest biodiversity conservation. Ecology Letters 23:1404–1420. Google Scholar
9.
Baldauf, C. (2020). Participatory Biodiversity Conservation: Concepts, Experiences, and Perspectives. Springer. Cham, Switzerland. Google Scholar
10.
Bird, J. P., J. M. Buchanan, A. C. Lees, R. P. Clay, P. F. Develey, I. Yépez, and S. H. M. Butchart (2011). Integrating spatially explicit habitat projections into extinction risk assessments: A reassessment of Amazonian avifauna incorporating projected deforestation. Diversity and Distributions 18:273–281. Google Scholar
11.
BirdLife International (2016). Falco deiroleucus. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2016: e.T22696516A93569126. https://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2016-3.RLTS.T22696516A93569126.en . Google Scholar
12.
BirdLife International (2017a). Morphnus guianensis. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2017: e.T22695991A118209977. https://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2017-3.RLTS.T22695991A118209977.en . Google Scholar
13.
BirdLife International (2017b). Harpia harpyja (amended version of 2017 assessment). The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2017: e.T22695998A117357127. https://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2017-3.RLTS.T22695998A117357127.en . Google Scholar
14.
BirdLife International (2018a). Stephanoaetus coronatus. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2018: e.T22696201A129914678. https://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2018-2.RLTS.T22696201A129914678.en . Google Scholar
15.
BirdLife International (2018b). Pithecophaga jefferyi (amended version of 2017 assessment). The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2018: e.T22696012A129595746. https://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2017-3.RLTS.T22696012A129595746.en . Google Scholar
16.
BirdLife International (2018c). Leptodon forbesi. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2018: e.T22724659A132176387. https://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2018-2.RLTS.T22724659A132176387.en . Google Scholar
17.
BirdLife International (2020). Chondrohierax wilsonii. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2020: e.T22728485A181241481. https://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2020-3.RLTS.T22728485A181241481.en . Google Scholar
18.
Bueser, G. L. L., K. G. Bueser, D. S. Afan, D. J. I. Salvador, J. W. Grier, R. S. Kennedy, and H. C. Miranda, Jr. (2003). Distribution and nesting density of the Philippine Eagle Pithecophaga jefferyi on Mindanao Island, Philippines: What do we know after 100 years? Ibis 145:130–135. Google Scholar
19.
Collar, N. J., N. A. D. Mallari, and B. R. Tabaranza, Jr. (1999). Threatened Birds of the Philippines: The Haribon Foundation/BirdLife International Red Data Book. Bookmark, Inc., Makati City, Metro Manila, Philippines. Google Scholar
20.
Concepcion, C. B., K. L. Bildstein, N. J. Collar, and T. E. Katzner (2018). Conservation threats and priorities for raptors across Asia. InBirds of Prey: Biology and Conservation in the XXI Century ( J. H. Sarasola, J. M. Grande, and J. J. Negro, Editors). Springer, Cham, Switzerland. pp. 395–418. Google Scholar
21.
Corrigan, C., H. Bingham, Y. Shi, E. Lewis, A. Chauvenet, and N. Kingston (2018). Quantifying the contribution to biodiversity conservation of protected areas governed by indigenous peoples and local communities. Biological Conservation 227:403–412. Google Scholar
22.
Curtis, P. G., C. M. Slay, N. L. Harris, A. Tyukavina, and M. C. Hansen (2018). Classifying drivers of global forest loss. Science 361(6407):1108–1111. Google Scholar
23.
Daluhay (2018). Synergistic and Ecocentric Capacitation of Indigenous and Artisanal Sierra Madre Communities. Terminal Report, United Nations Development Program—SGP5. Baler, Aurora, Philippines Google Scholar
24.
Daluhay (2020). Guardians of the forest—Success in working together. Daluhay Quarterly 5:6–7. https://daluhay.files.wordpress.com/2020/05/vol-5-2-april-2020-daluhay-q.pd . Google Scholar
25.
Department of Environment and Natural Resources-National Mapping and Resource Inventory Authority (2010). Forest resources and forestry activities. InPhilippine Forest Facts and Figures 2013. Forest Management Bureau-Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Quezon City, Philippines. p. 3. Google Scholar
26.
De Vera, D. E. (2007). Indigenous Peoples in the Philippines: A country case study. Unpubl. report. http://www.iapad.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/devera_ip_phl.pdf . Google Scholar
27.
Fa, J. E., J. E. Watson, I. Leiper, P. Potapov, T. D. Evans, N. D. Burgess, Z. Molnár, Á. Fernández-Llamazares, T. Duncan, S. Wang, B. J. Austin, et al. (2020). Importance of Indigenous Peoples' lands for the conservation of intact forest landscapes. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 18:135–140. Google Scholar
28.
Gavin, M., J. McCarter, F. Berkes, A. Mead, E. Sterling, R. Tang, and N. Turner (2018). Effective biodiversity conservation requires dynamic, pluralistic, partnership-based approaches. Sustainability 10:1846. https://doi.org/10.3390/ su10061846. Google Scholar
29.
Geist, H. J., and E. F. Lambin (2002). Proximate causes and underlying driving forces of tropical deforestation. BioScience 52:143–150. Google Scholar
30.
Global Witness (2019). Enemies of the state. London, UK. https://www.globalwitness.org/en/campaigns/environmental-activists/enemies-state/ Google Scholar
31.
Global Witness (2020). Defending tomorrow. London, UK. https://www.globalwitness.org/en/campaigns/environmental-activists/defending-tomorrow/ Google Scholar
32.
Hagen, R. V., and T. Minter (2020). Displacement in the name of development: How Indigenous rights legislation fails to protect Philippine hunter-gatherers. Society and Natural Resources 33:65–82. Google Scholar
33.
Ibanez, J. C. (2009). Philippine Eagle Pithecophaga jefferyi breeding biology, diet, behavior, nest characteristics, and longevity estimate in Mindanao Island. M.S. thesis, Ateneo de Davao University, Davao City, Philippines. Google Scholar
34.
International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) (2021). The IUCN Red List of threatened species. Version 2020–3. https://www.iucnredlist.org . Google Scholar
35.
Joa, B., G. Winkel, and E. Primmer (2018). The unknown known—A review of local ecological knowledge in relation to forest biodiversity conservation. Land Use Policy 79:520–530. Google Scholar
36.
Jullien, M., and J. M. Thiollay (1996). Effects of rain forest disturbance and fragmentation: Comparative changes of the raptor community along natural and human-made gradients in French Guiana. Journal of Biogeography 23:7–25. Google Scholar
37.
Jung, S., and S. Polasky (2018). Partnerships to prevent deforestation in the Amazon. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 92:498–516. Google Scholar
38.
Kassara, C., L. Gangoso, U. Mellone, G. Piasevoli, T. G. Hadjikyriakou, N. Tsiopelas, and R. Silva (2017). Current and future suitability of wintering grounds for a long-distance migratory raptor. Scientific Reports 7:1–12. Google Scholar
39.
Kühnert, K., I. Grass, and M. Waltert (2019). Sacred groves hold distinct bird assemblages within an Afrotropical savanna. Global Ecology and Conservation 18:e00656. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gecco.2019.e00656. Google Scholar
40.
Luczon, A. U., I. K. C. Fontanilla, P. S. Ong, Z. U. Basiao, A. M. T. Sumaya, and J. P. Quilang (2014). Genetic diversity of the critically endangered Philippine Eagle Pithecophaga jefferyi (Aves: Accipitridae) and notes on its conservation. Journal of Threatened Taxa 6:6335–6344. Google Scholar
41.
McClure, C. J., J. R. Westrip, J. A. Johnson, S. E. Schulwitz, M. Z. Virani, R. Davies, and R. Buij (2018). State of the world's raptors: Distributions, threats, and conservation recommendations. Biological Conservation 227:390–402. Google Scholar
42.
Ministério del Ambiente y Desarrollo Sustentable de la Nación and Aves Argentinas (2017). Categorización de las Aves de la Argentina Según su Estado de Conservación. Ministerio de Ambiente y Desarrollo Sustentable de la Nación and Aves Argentinas BirdLife International, Buenos Aires, Argentina. Google Scholar
43.
Ministério do Meio Ambiente do Brasil (2014). Lista Nacional Oficial das Espécies da Fauna Brasileira Ameaçadas de Extinção. Brasilia, Federal District, Brazil. Google Scholar
44.
Miranda, E. B. P., J. F. S. Menezes, C. C. Farias, C. Munn, and C. A. Peres (2019). Species distribution modeling reveals strongholds and potential reintroduction areas for the world's largest eagle. PLoS ONE 14:e0216323. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0216323. Google Scholar
45.
Muñiz López, R. (2016). Biología y conservación del águila harpía (Harpia harpyja) en Ecuador. Ph.D. dissertation. Universidad de Alicante, San Vicente del Raspeig, Alicante, Spain. Google Scholar
46.
Ogar, E., G. Pecl, and T. Mustonen (2020). Science must embrace traditional and Indigenous knowledge to solve our biodiversity crisis. One Earth 3:162–165. Google Scholar
47.
Ong, P. S., L. E. Afuang, and R. G. Rosell-Ambal (2002). Philippine Biodiversity Conservation Priorities: A Second Iteration of the National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan. Philippine Department of the Environment and Natural Resources, Quezon City, Philippines. Google Scholar
48.
Pande, S., P. Mestri, P. Deshpande, A. Warange, and A. Mahabal (2013). Promising trend of in situ breeding of Oriental White-rumped Vulture Gyps bengalensis in Raigad District, Maharashtra, India: Conservation implications for re-introduction of ex situ populations. Journal of Threatened Taxa 5:4106–4109. Google Scholar
49.
Partnership for Maternal Newborn and Child Health (2018). Multisectoral collaborations for women's, children's and adolescents' health: Country examples. https://custom.cvent.com/844E6E8B32B64D1AA32DC45C8802523C/files/23d337209a6e46e6bf66336ce8332e99.pdf . Google Scholar
50.
Raptor Research Foundation (RRF) (2020). https://raptorresearchfoundation.org/about/history/ . Google Scholar
51.
Rosa, I. M. D., M. J. Smith, O. R. Wearn, D. Purves, and R. M. Ewers (2016). The Environmental Legacy of Modern Tropical Deforestation. Current Biology 26:2161–2166. Google Scholar
52.
Salvador, D. J., and J. C. Ibanez (2006). Ecology and conservation of Philippine Eagles. Ornithological Science 5:171–176. Google Scholar
53.
Sandker, M., Y. Finegold, R. D'annunzio, and E. Lindquist (2017). Global deforestation patterns: Comparing recent and past forest loss processes through a spatially explicit analysis. International Forestry Review 19:350–368. Google Scholar
54.
Sarkar, D., J. Walker-Swaney, and K. Shetty (2020). Food diversity and indigenous food systems to combat diet-linked chronic diseases. Current Developments in Nutrition 4:3–11. Google Scholar
55.
Schleicher, J., C. A. Peres, T. Amano, W. Llactayo, and N. Leader-Williams (2017). Conservation performance of different conservation governance regimes in the Peruvian Amazon. Scientific Reports 7:1–10. Google Scholar
56.
Tedlock, B. (2014). Honoring Indigenous knowledge: Linking Native American cultural astronomy with meteorology and raptor migration. International Journal of Education and Social Science 1:123–130. Google Scholar
57.
The Peregrine Fund (2011). Raptors—An Environmental Education Guide for Teachers. The Peregrine Fund, Boise, ID, USA. Google Scholar
58.
Thiollay, J. M., and Z. Rahman (2002). The raptor community of Central Sulawesi: Habitat selection and conservation status. Biological Conservation 107:111–122. Google Scholar
59.
van der Ploeg, J., M. van Weerd, A. B. Masipiqueña, and G. A. Persoon (2011). Illegal logging in the Northern Sierra Madre Natural Park, the Philippines. Conservation and Society 9:202–215. Google Scholar
60.
van Vliet, J. (2019). Direct and indirect loss of natural area from urban expansion. Nature Sustainability 2:755–763. Google Scholar
61.
Vargas González, J. de J., and F. H. Vargas (2011). Nesting density of Harpy Eagles in Darien with population size estimates for Panama. Journal of Raptor Research 45:199–210. Google Scholar
62.
Watson, R. T. (2018). Raptor conservation in practice. InBirds of Prey: Biology and Conservation in the XXI Century ( J. H. Sarasola, J. M. Grande, and J. J. Negro, Editors). Springer, Cham, Switzerland. pp. 373–498. Google Scholar
63.
Watts, P. D., and M. G. Pajaro (2014). Collaborative Philippine-Canadian action cycles for strategic international coastal eco-health. Canadian Journal of Action Research, 15:3–21. Google Scholar
64.
Yosef, R., S. A. Pande, A. P. Pawashe, R. Kasambe, and L. Mitchell (2010). Interspecific interactions of the critically endangered Forest Owlet (Athene blewitti). Acta Ethologica 13:63–67. Google Scholar
Visitation patterns across protected areas of Uttarakhand, India reflect a unique amalgamation of natural, cultural and religious aspects of vulnerable mountain tourism destinations. These aspects act as predictors in determining visitation rates and identifying destination specific tourism models. Using the mixed methods approach based on field surveys, geotagged photographs and InVEST recreation tool, this study (1) maps the spatio-temporal movement of visitors across ten sampled protected areas of Uttarakhand (2) identifies predictor variables contributing to visitation across Binsar Wildlife Sanctuary (BWLS) of Uttarakhand (3) explores the visitors’ decision to recreate at specific locations across BWLS based on four tourism models and (4) determines the prevalent tourism model across BWLS. The visitation pattern assessment suggest Rajaji
National Park as the most visited protected area in Uttarakhand, but the highest density of photographed location existed within the Corbett National Park. That, visitation to National Park outnumbers visitation to wildlife sanctuaries in Uttarakhand and preferably over the months of March–April (Spring) and October–November (Winter). Binomial logistic regression analysis on Flickr generated photographs reveals community-based ecotourism as the prevalent tourism model across Binsar. Human settlements and natural water springs of the sanctuary were key predictors affecting visitation in Binsar. The grounded nature of this research presents the ecotourism interacting variables addressing spatial movement of visitors across protected areas of critical importance, to manage tourism destinations sustainably.
