SocLap sap – working draft
Yüklə 292,11 Kb.
|
- Bu səhifədəki naviqasiya:
- CMS Technical Series No. xx
- Country
| Final draft, December 2012                          
INTERNATIONAL SINGLE SPECIES ACTION PLAN FOR THE CONSERVATION OF THE SOCIABLE LAPWING (Vanellus gregarius) Final draft December 2012 Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals (CMS) Agreement on the Conservation of African-Eurasian Migratory Waterbirds (AEWA) International Single Species Action Plan for the Conservation of the Sociable Lapwing
1 RSPB, The Lodge, Sandy, Bedfordshire, SG19 2DL, UK 2 UNEP/AEWA Secretariat, African-Eurasian Waterbird Agreement, UN Campus, Hermann-Ehlers-Str. 10, 53113 Bonn, Germany 3 ACBK, 40, Orbita-1, off. 203, 050043 Almaty, Republic of Kazakhstan 4 Ecosystem Research Group, Institute of Landscape Ecology, University of Münster, Robert-Koch-Str. 28, 48149 Münster, Germany 5 Birdlife Middle East, Building No. 2, Salameh Al Maa’yta Street, Kahlda, Amman- Jordan, PO Box 2295, Amman 11953, Jordan E-mail: robert.sheldon@rspb.org.uk; sdereliev@unep.de
Stakeholder workshop: 30th March – 1st April 2009, Almaty, Kazakhstan First draft: June 2009, presented to experts Stakeholder workshop: 18th – 20th March 2011, Palmyra, Syria Second draft: August 2011, presented to the Range States, the CMS Scientific Council and the AEWA Technical Committee Final draft: October 2011, submitted to the 10th CMS Conference of the Parties in November 2011 Final draft: May 2012, submitted to the AEWA Meeting of the Parties
This International Single Species Action Plan should be reviewed and updated every 10 years (first revision in 2022) Geographical scope This Single Species Action Plan shall be implemented in the following countries: Eritrea, Ethiopia, India, Iraq, Kazakhstan, Oman, Pakistan, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Syria, Turkey and Uzbekistan. Credits We would like to thank the following people for providing data, support and assistance to the preparation of this action plan: May Abidou, Ahmad Aidek, Nabegh Asswad, Özge Balkiz, Michael Brombacher, Will Cresswell, Aidar Darbayev, Akram Darwich, Gadzhibek Dzhamirzoyev, Omar Fadel, Elisrag Fadlalla, Akarsu Ferdi Vitaly Gromov, Reema Hamdan, Samir Hani, Ibrahim Al Hasani, Ibrahim Hashim, Adam Hassan, Süreyya Isfendiyaroglu, Ibrahim Khader, Guido Keijl, Anna Korotkova, Marina Koshkina, Yasin Köycü, Jolanta Kremer, Anmol Kumar, Jim Lawrence, Dhananjai Mohan, Vladimir Morozov, David Murdoch, Paul Ndang’ang’a, Osama Al Nouri, Andreas Pittl, Richard Porter, Asad Rahmani, Mohammad Al Salameh, Mudhafar Salim, Ali Salman, Mohammed Shobrak, Shri Yogendra Pal Singh, Sergey Sklyarenko, Jose Tavares, Ruslan Urazaliyev, Geoff Welch Recommended citation: Sheldon, R.D., Koshkin, M.A., Kamp, J., Dereliev, S., Donald, P.F., & Jbour, S. (Compilers). 2012. International Single Species Action Plan for the Conservation of the Sociable Lapwing Vanellus gregarius. CMS Technical Series No. XX, AEWA Technical Series No. XX. Bonn, Germany. Picture on the front cover: Drawing on the inner cover: CONTENTS
0 - EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1 – BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT 1.1 Taxonomy and biogeographic populations 1.2 Distribution throughout the annual cycle 1.3 Habitat requirements 1.3.1 Breeding habitat selection and use 1.3.2 Habitat selection and use at stopover sites 1.3.3 Winter habitat selection and use 1.4 Survival and productivity 1.4.1 Nest survival and causes of nest loss 1.4.2 Fecundity and annual survival 1.5 Population size and trend
2.1 Overview of species threat status 2.2 Description of key threats 2.3 Problem tree analysis 3 – POLICIES AND LEGISLATION RELEVANT FOR MANAGEMENT 3.1 International conservation and legal status of the species 3.2 National policies, legislation and ongoing activities
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Sociable Lapwing – a species under threat The Sociable Lapwing (Vanellus gregarius) is globally threatened, being recognised as Critically Endangered by IUCN. It is listed in Column A of the action plan under the African-Eurasian Migratory Waterbird Agreement (AEWA) and in Annex I of the Bonn Convention. The Sociable Lapwing is a migratory species. It breeds in the central steppes of Kazakhstan with small numbers in Russia. The majority of the population migrate through south-west Russia, into Turkey and through a number of countries in the Middle East, before spending the winter in north-east Africa and the Arabian Peninsula. A small number of birds migrate south-east into Pakistan and north-west India. On the breeding grounds, the species is strongly associated with domestic grazing animals. This association is due to the short sward that is the preferred nesting habitat, and possibly higher invertebrate availability on grazed steppe. Breeding attempts on ploughed fields have been infrequently recorded, and then with poor breeding success. Habitat selection during migration is poorly understood but there does appear to be a link to tilled land and short grazed steppe for feeding, with wetlands used for resting. Similar habitat preferences are reported from the wintering areas. The Sociable Lapwing occurs in 13 Principal Range States that comprise the geographical scope of this single species action plan. The key threat for the species has been identified as hunting on the eastern migration route, with trampling of clutches through domestic livestock on the breeding grounds being a likely further threat. The development of legislation and enforcement of hunting regulations are the key measures that this Action Plan needs to implement. The loss and degradation of habitat across the breeding grounds, migration routes and wintering areas are an important but secondary threat to the species. The importance of potential future habitat loss and degradation should not be underestimated. Action plan goal To restore the Sociable Lapwing to favourable condition status and remove it from the threatened categories of the IUCN Red List, CMS Annex I and Column A of the AEWA Table 1. Action plan objective The objective of this Single Species Action Plan is to reverse the recent negative population trend leading to a population increase in the range of 8,000 – 10,000 breeding pairs by 2022. Results required to deliver the Goal and Objective Result 1. Baseline annual survival rate identified and increased by 2022 Result 2. Reproductive success is maximised through maintained nest survival rates higher than 35% (5 year rolling mean) and overall productivity higher than 0.75 fledged chicks per female (5 year rolling mean). Result 3. All key sites along the flyways are protected and adequately managed Result 4. All identified knowledge gaps are filled by 2022 Result 5. International co-operation is maximised through the full engagement of all principal range states in the framework of the Single Species Action Plan and AEWA
Class: Aves Order: Charadriiformes Family: Charadriidae Tribus: Vanellinae Species: Vanellus gregarius (Pallas 1771) Synonyms: Sociable Plover Charadrius gregarius (Pallas 1771) Chaetusia gregaria (Agassiz 1846) Tringa keptuschka (Lepekhin 1774) Tringa fasciata (Gmelin 1774) Vanellus pallidus (Heuglin 1856) (nomen nudum) Chettusia wagleri (Gray 1871) Chettusia gregaria (Hartert 1920) Monotypic species. No studies have been conducted on the level of genetic variation across the distribution range, and there is no scientific evidence for distinct subpopulations. However, there are two distinct wintering areas (Figure 1). Birds wintering in NE Africa and on the Indian subcontinent, respectively, have been assumed to originate from different populations in the West and East of the breeding range (assuming that an implicit migratory divide exists). However, recent satellite tagging work (Figure 2) suggests that there is exchange between populations across the breeding range; therefore the existence of migratory divide seems unlikely. 1.2. Distribution throughout the annual cycle In January, birds are on their wintering grounds in Sudan, Oman and NW India. Single birds and small flocks are regularly observed in Israel, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Iran. In February, most birds stay in the wintering areas as mentioned above until mid-month and depart thereafter. They reach Iraq, Syria and N Pakistan towards the end of the month. In March, the last birds leave the wintering sites. In Syria and Turkey, important concentrations build up at stopover sites between 01–20 March, peaking around 10 March. In Iraq and Pakistan, birds pass through until the end of the month, with first birds observed in Kazakhstan in the last ten days. In April, the first birds arrive on the breeding grounds in the first days of the month, while passage in Azerbaijan and Uzbekistan peaks and small numbers reach S Russia and W Kazakhstan. Around mid-April, good numbers arrive in the southern breeding areas in Kazakhstan, starting incubation around the 20th of the month. By late April, birds are present throughout the breeding range. In May, new birds arrive on the breeding grounds until the middle of the month, while significant numbers are already incubating in Kazakhstan. The first chicks hatch around 20 May in Central Kazakhstan. In June, many birds are still on nests in Russia and Kazakhstan, while most of the successful breeding pairs guard chicks. Throughout the month, flocks of moulting males gather at the breeding grounds. First chicks fledge towards the end of the month. In July, fledged chicks and moulting adults gather in post-breeding flocks in the breeding areas, with first dispersal movements observed around mid-month. Around 20 July, strong migration starts with medium to large flocks passing through Central Kazakhstan. In August, most birds leave the breeding grounds; movements through Kazakhstan are slow and protracted, with first birds observed in Uzbekistan and at key Russian stopover sites (such as Manych lowlands). In September, large numbers gather during the first two weeks at Manych in SW Russia, with significant passage observed in the Caucasus region. Birds arrive at key stopover sites in Turkey and Uzbekistan during the second half of the month. The last birds depart from the breeding grounds, some are observed in S Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan. In October, some birds are still in SW Russia, while large concentrations build up in Turkey, where the birds stop over until around 15 October. A few birds arrive at the wintering sites in India and Sudan in the last days of the month, and there is significant passage in Pakistan. In November, the wintering areas are occupied during the whole month, with most of the records from the Indian subcontinent gathered in this period. In December, birds are rather mobile at their wintering grounds in Sudan, Oman and NW India. Single birds and small flocks appear in Israel, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Iran. Figure 1. Current and historic breeding and winter distribution of the Sociable Lapwing, based on more than 2,000 records collected from various sources (RSPB unpublished data). Figure 2. Main autumn migration routes of nine Sociable Lapwings fitted with satellite tags in 2007, 2008 and 2010. Dashed lines connect locations along a known flyway, but these routes are hypothetical. 
Key stopover sites are marked by circles: 1) Tengiz-Korgalzhyn region, Kazakhstan 2) Torghay lowlands, Kazakhstan 3) Manych depression, Russia 4) Muş Plain,Turkey 5) Ceylanpınar IBA, Turkey and Northern Syrian steppes. 1.3. Habitat requirements 1.3.1. Breeding habitat selection and use A detailed study on habitat selection and use in Kazakhstan has been conducted (Kamp et al. 2009). Across the breeding range, Sociable Lapwings are strongly associated with domestic livestock (especially cattle, sheep and goats), as large grazers create suitable habitat conditions. Grazing intensity and density of Sociable Lapwing nests are strongly correlated in Central Kazakhstan. Current grazing patterns are very much influenced by the fact that livestock is concentrated within a radius of 4–5 (max. 10) km around human settlements, thus most Sociable Lapwing colonies are found within this radius. A small number of birds were also recorded on recently burnt feather grass (Stipa) steppe and fallow or abandoned cereal fields. Habitat is selected more often in the vicinity of wetlands and especially along rivers. This might be due to the fact that the birds migrate along rivers and thus discover suitable breeding habitat by rivers first, but also by the need for adults and chicks to drink and bathe on hot days. On a smaller scale (colony level), vegetation height (very short, strongly grazed swards preferred), the cover of bare soil (optimum around 50%) and a high cover of animal dung (around 10%) are the most influential factors in habitat selection. The pronounced preference for strongly grazed areas may be driven mainly by vegetation height. Nests are often placed in dung piles. A possible camouflaging or insulating effect of the dung has been suggested, but food availability (dung beetles, Diptera) might also be higher where dung is abundant. Formerly occupied habitats, such as ungrazed steppe and sparsely vegetated saltpans (‘solonchaks’), seem to be virtually vacated now, possibly due to an absence of large grazing animals after the collapse of the nomadic pre-Soviet and later semi-nomadic Soviet livestock breeding system in 1991, which left vast expanses of steppe virtually ungrazed. Co-evolution with wild ungulates has been suggested repeatedly, but it seems unlikely that these animals were able to create the preferred short swards at least during the last 50 years judging from their migration phenology, numbers and foraging behaviour (Bekenov 1998). Breeding attempts on ploughed fields have been infrequently recorded (mostly in Russia and N Kazakhstan), and then with poor breeding success.
In recent years, larger flocks of birds stopping over in Central Kazakhstan (up to 523 in July 2011) have been observed on sown wheat fields (J. Kamp, M. Koshkin pers. obs.). At the Russian stopover sites N of the Caucasus, the birds feed on grazed steppe and ploughed and tilled fields, but depart to freshwater and salt lakes to rest and roost (Field et al. 2007, Koshkin et al. 2010). In Turkey, most birds were observed on arable fields with 10–12 cm high wheat seedlings or on ploughed fields without vegetation (some following ploughing tractors and feeding on invertebrates brought to the surface). Some birds also used extensively grazed steppe and lentil fields (Biricik et al. 2009). In some years, fallow cereal fields are used by large numbers of birds (Bozdogan et al. 2007). In N Syria, mostly heavily grazed steppe areas with very sparse vegetation are visited (Hofland & Keijl 2008), rarely also semi-desert habitat and stony wadis (S. Jbour pers. comm.). Sociable Lapwings were frequently observed near seasonal pools (fedahs) with lush vegetation (partly grazed) after frequent rains during survey work in Syria in spring 2010 (H. Hmidan pers. comm.) Smaller stopover sites in Russia and Kazakhstan were also found in pristine, mostly ungrazed steppe habitat. Little is know of the stop-over sites en route for the birds that winter in the Indian sub-continent. Data collected from the recent satellite tracking suggest that the Indus Valley and surrounding areas with agricultural habitats and a mosaic of wetlands could be important. 1.3.3. Winter habitat selection and use Most information on winter habitat selection is anecdotal or old. In Africa, in the second half of the 19th century, birds wintered mainly on burnt savannah and steppe, harvested cultivation (e.g. Sorghum) and cattle pastures (Heuglin 1871). Surveys in Sudan in January 2009 suggest that habitat use has not changed much since then. Flocks were discovered on rain-fed cultivated land, stubble fields, moderately grazed to severely overgrazed pastures and at road margins. Insects, but also seeds and watermelon pieces (falling from passing lorries) have been identified as food sources (I.M. Hashim and M.S. Fadlalla pers. comm.). The current wintering areas in Sudan as revealed by satellite telemetry and field surveys coincide with areas of the highest livestock densities in Africa (Wint & Robinson 2007) suggesting a high importance of grazed habitat for the species also in the wintering areas. In India, mostly arable land (ploughed, fallow, or with young cereal plants) is used, but birds are also observed wintering at wetlands (A. Rahmani pers. comm.). 1.4. Survival and productivity 1.4.1. Nest survival and causes of nest loss Like most waders, Sociable Lapwings lay on average 4 (mean of 3.8 0.1) eggs in a shallow scrape on the ground and tend to nest in small colonies (range of 1-8 nests) (Watson et al. 2006). There are few robust estimates of nest survival from large enough sample sizes to allow comparison with current studies of Sociable Lapwing nesting biology. Gordienko (1991) reports a nest loss of 44% (from 26 nests) during the 1980s in Naurzum Reserve, Kazakhstan. More recently, in 2004, Watson et al. (2006) report an overall Mayfield nest survival rate of 19.3% from 58 nests in a study area centred on the settlement of Korgalzhyn, central Kazakhstan (50 35’ N, 70 01’ E). Percentage survival estimates reported by Gordienko (1991) and Watson et al. (2004) are not directly comparable. However, Gordienko (1991) found that 44% of nests with eggs (n = 26) failed. Watson et als equivalent rate is 61% failure of nests found with eggs before hatch (n = 56); the difference in frequencies between the two studies is not significant (χ2 = 2.4, P = 0.12). Thus, there appears to have been little change in nest survival between the 1980s and the present. Monitoring of nest survival has continued in the Korgalzhyn study area of Watson et al. between 2005 – 2012, with 1078 nests located, for which the outcome was determined for 1032 (Sheldon et al. in press). The overall daily nest survival rate across all nests in all years was 0.956 (95% CL: 0.952-0.959), equating to an overall nest survival rate of 28.4% across the 28-day laying and incubation period. However, survival rate varies greatly from year to year (Figure 3). One hypothesis currently being investigated is that nest survival rates fluctuate in a cycle with vole numbers; in years of high vole numbers, nest survival rates are higher than in years when vole numbers are low since predators have an abundant alternative source of food. In the long-term study of Sheldon et al. (in press) of 331 recorded nest failures, predation accounted for the greatest number of losses (63%) with trampling accounting for 20% of failures (Table 1). Causes of nest failure varied from year to year, with a higher than expected proportion of losses to trampling in 2008 and a lower than expected proportion in 2010 and 2011. Across all study sites, nests that were trampled were significantly closer to human settlements than nests that were predated, though nests that were closer to human settlements still did better as predation rates were lower. Data from 29 nest cameras showed that 7 were predated, 3 were trampled and one was deserted (the eggs later taken by Rooks Corvus frugilegus). Of the 7 losses to predation, the predators comprised Red Fox Vulpes vulpes (2), Souslik sp Citellus fulvus and Spermophilis major (2) Long-eared Hedgehog Hemiechinus auritus (2) and Steppe Polecat Mustela eversmanni (1). The previous AEWA Sociable Lapwing International Single Species Action Plan (Tomkovich & Lebedeva 2004) noted that Rooks and/or domestic cats and dogs were key predators contributing to the decline in breeding numbers. However, no instances of predation by Rooks or cats/dogs were recorded on digital cameras, and in 5 years of intensive fieldwork, no nest loss could be attributed to these potential nest predators. It is unlikely that the magnitude of the recent population decline can be wholly explained by low nest survival. However, attempts to manipulate grazing management (particularly sheep) in some key colonies may contribute to enhancing nest survival that may be beneficial at the population level. Figure 3. Annual nest survival rate from the long-term study area in central Kazakhstan.Data presented are model estimates with 95% CL (Sheldon et al. in press). The figure for 2004 indicates the nest survival rate reported by Watson et al. (2004). Table 1. Causes of nest failure by year from the core study population in central Kazakhstan (Sheldon et al. in press).
1.4.2. Fecundity and annual survival No historical data exist on chick survival from hatching through to fledging. The long term study of Sheldon et al. (in press) estimates mean annual fecundity from 0.75 to 1.55 chicks hatched per breeding female (Figure 4). The variation in annual fecundity was explained by the strong annual variation in nest survival rate, other factors such as first egg date, clutch size and partial clutch loss having little influence. Daily chick survival, estimated from 752 chicks ringed at the age of 5 days or less, was estimated at 0.983 (95% CL: 0.979-0.986), an estimate almost identical to that of Watson et al. (2006). Figure 4. Annual estimates of fecundity (chicks produced per female) from a model incorporating nest survival, partial clutch loss and re-nesting probability. The error bars represent the likely extremes rather than specific confidence limits (Sheldon et al. in press). Between 2005 and 2011, 1310 chicks and 132 adults (mostly females caught at the nest) were fitted with unique colour-ring combinations. Of these, 98 birds ringed as chicks (7.5%) and 35 birds ringed as adults (26.5%) were re-sighted in one or more subsequent years. Survival models (see Sheldon et al. in press for details of survival analysis) show that birds ringed as chicks had annually variable first-year survival, and birds ringed as adults had constant survival in the year after ringing, after which annual survival of birds ringed as chicks and as adults shared common annual survival estimates. Post-hatching survival to the following year ranged from 0.11 (95% CL: 0.05-0.23) in 2007-2008 to 0.59 (0.23-0.88) in 2009-2010 (mean across all years: 0.27, 95% CL: 0.16-0.42). Adult annual apparent survival ranged from 0.19 (0.08-0.39) in 2010-2011 to 0.82 (0.25-0.98) in 2009-2010 (mean across all years: 0.55, 95% CL: 0.47-0.62) (Sheldon et al. in press). Estimates of population growth suggest that the Sociable Lapwing population is currently in decline. To reverse this decline changes in fecundity or first-year survival would need to more than double (+125%), whereas adult survival would need to increase by 30% (Sheldon et al. in press). To reverse the downward population trend, conservation measures aimed at tackling low adult survival are required. 1.5. Population size and trend Table 2. Population size and trend by country
1 = satellite tagged birds tracked to these countries but no follow up surveys undertaken to date. Quality: 1 = Good (observed) = based on reliable or representative quantitative data derived from comprehensive measurements 2 = Good (estimated) = based on reliable or representative quantitative data derived from sampling or interpolation 3 = Medium (estimated) = based on incomplete quantitative data derived from sampling or interpolation. 4 = Medium (inferred) = based on incomplete or poor quantitative data derived from indirect evidence.
Grazing pressure has significantly increased since the year 2000, and large areas of apparently suitable habitat are unoccupied each year, thus reduced habitat availability is no longer considered a threat in Kazakhstan (Kamp et al. 2009). However, in Russia grazing pressure has not been increasing throughout the same period. On the contrary, it has been decreasing especially in western and northern parts of the steppe zone of Russia (Orenburg, Chelyabinsk, Kurgan and Omsk Regions). As a result the former traditional breeding areas of Sociable Lapwing in those regions are largely unsuitable. Predation by corvids has been ruled out as a major threat according to results of recent research on the breeding grounds (1.4.1, 1.4.2). Trampling by livestock (especially sheep) is considered an ongoing threat, however with minor effects on overall breeding success (1.4.1). However, future changes in livestock management could have a significant impact on breeding populations in the future, particularly through reducing breeding success. Since the Tomkovich & Lebedeva (2004), hunting at stopover sites on the migration routes has been identified as a key threat to the species. Of particular concern is hunting during the return migration when birds are returning to breed. Based on our current knowledge, hunting should be treated as the key threat to Sociable Lapwing. 2.2. Description of key threats List of critical and important threats (a) Direct threats, causing reduced hatching success and high mortality of chicks and adults 1. Hunting Stopover/wintering sites Importance: Critical. Large-scale hunting at stopover sites currently appears to be the most important threat influencing the species’ survival. There is evidence from known stopover sites in north-eastern Syria and some areas in Iraq from 2008 and 2009 that Sociable Lapwings are widely hunted by local hunters and visiting falconers from the Gulf States (Hofland & Keijl 2008; A. Aidek, S. Jbour, M. Salim and O. Al-Sheikly pers. comm). The hunting has been reported on spring migration when Sociable Lapwings congregate in large numbers; this is of particular concern as these are birds returning to breed in central Asia. The reasons that Sociable Lapwing are targeted are unclear, but it seems that hunting pressure is a combination of subsistence hunting from locals, to sport for visiting hunters. The species is considered to be quite an easy prey for falcons, probably replacing other bird species traditionally hunted (but now much depleted) such as Macqueen’s (Asian Houbara) Bustard Chlamydotis macqueenii and sandgrouse Pterocles spp. Subsistence hunting of migratory waterfowl could be important in Pakistan, but there is no data to substantiate this. 2. Nest trampling by livestock Breeding areas Importance: Medium Clutch trampling can reduce nest survival significantly in some years (section 1.4.1). Most trampling incidents are likely to be caused by sheep and goats due to the way dense flocks are driven at high speeds often in close proximity to breeding colonies. Horses and cattle seem to be of minor threat as these move mostly in loose herds and appear to avoid stepping on nests (J Kamp pers. obs.). 3. Predation of eggs and chicks Breeding areas. Importance: Low Predation varies from year to year but does not appear to be a limiting factor in either nest or chick survival. Evidence collected from nest cameras suggests that nocturnal mammals are key predators, rather than domestic dogs or cats, and that corvids are not as important as previously thought. (b) Indirect threats causing habitat loss and low reproductive success 1. Reduced habitat availability for the species Breeding areas. Importance: High A strong link between livestock grazing intensity and Sociable Lapwing nest density has been shown recently (Kamp et al. 2009), and livestock numbers are thus considered a proxy for the amount of habitat available for Sociable Lapwings. Animal stocks collapsed after the break-up of the Soviet Union in 1991, but numbers of all herded animals are strongly increasing again in Kazakhstan since the year 2000 (Kazakhstan State Statistics Agency 2009). Habitat modelling has shown that the amount of suitable habitat available for Sociable Lapwings is currently much greater than the area currently occupied (Kamp et al. 2009, Murzakhanov et al. 2008). This is caused by current low livestock mobility and concentration effects around villages, leading to increased grazing intensity compared to Soviet times (Milner-Gulland et al. 2006). High stock densities around villages were made possible by large-scale abandonment of arable fields and seed grass land surrounding human habitation in Soviet times after 1991. The current situation is thus rather beneficial for the Sociable Lapwing in Kazakhstan and reduced habitat availability is not considered to be problematic in the short term (5–10 years). However, there is recent evidence for a likely decrease in available habitat within the next decade: Livestock numbers in some regions of Kazakhstan are stagnating or even decreasing due to improving living standard (Kamp et al. 2011, 2012). Furthermore, mitigation measures to avoid overgrazing around settlements are being introduced in Kazakhstan leading to higher stock mobility and less grazing pressure. Kamp et al. (2011) modelled a 30% decline for Sociable Lapwing until 2020 based on quantitative targets to reduce grazing pressure in Korgalzhyn region, Central Kazakhstan. Stopover/wintering sites. Importance: Medium Whilst there appear to be few immediate threats to stopover and wintering sites, there are potential changes that may impact on habitat availability in the future. Continued expansion of urban and agricultural areas in Kazakhstan and Russia may reduce habitat suitability for birds congregating in post-breeding flocks and in the early stages of migration. However, the mobility of Sociable Lapwings suggest that this is not an immediate threat. Indeed, some areas managed intensively for agriculture, for example, arable fields around Manych wetlands in south-west Russia, appear to be well used by both foraging and roosting Sociable Lapwings (Sheldon pers. obs). Increased spread of tree planting on the Asian wintering grounds, India and Pakistan, is a potential threat due to the species’s preference for open habitats in which to forage and roost. For example, there has been significant effort on raising plantations in the northern Pakistan, particularly Gilgit Baltistan Province, since mid-1980’s. Future land use change linked to irrigation schemes could see substantial changes in habitat suitability, however, it is unclear whether some of these changes could be detrimental or indeed beneficial. There is some observational evidence from Turkey, that Sociable Lapwings utilize irrigated crops for feeding, and locations of satellite tagged birds in Saudi Arabia are in areas of irrigated wheat crops. There is the potential threat of increased disturbance from oil and gas exploration across the Sociable Lapwing range. It is likely that there will be increased exploration in the Middle East and parts of Sudan, as well as north-western part of India. 2. Degradation of habitat Stopover/wintering sites Importance: Medium The key threat leading to habitat degradation is a combination of changing rainfall patterns and the subsequent grazing conditions. Notably, in the Syrian steppes some areas where significant numbers of birds were recorded in 2007 appear to have been degraded through intensive grazing and drought conditions, and few birds were located there in 2010 (H. Hmidan pers. comm.). Similarly, on the wintering grounds in Sudan, substantial changes in vegetation cover have been observed between survey years (2008 and 2009) (I. M. Hashim pers. comm.). The impact that this maybe having on Sociable Lapwings is unclear, but could result in birds returning to the breeding grounds in poor condition, this needs further research. The number of irrigation projects has increased in countries such as Turkey, India and Pakistan and this may lead to a change in habitat quality. Conversely, irrigation could be a potential benefit and this needs further monitoring and research. (c) Knowledge limitations Breeding areas 1. Low return rate of colour-ringed birds. High Potentially hunting pressure leads to loss of colour-ringed birds or colour-ringed birds might return to other areas – movements within the breeding range are not fully understood. 2. Future trends in land use and their implications for habitat availability are poorly understood. High Possible scenarios on land use change have been developed recently and linked to Sociable Lapwing population development, but only for a restricted area. 3. The generality of the results on breeding biology and species’ survival based on data collected in a relatively small study area in Central Kazakhstan is not clear. Medium 4. The limits of the species’ distribution are not clear and large knowledge gaps on numbers and distribution still exist. Medium Stopover/wintering sites. 1. The current hunting pressure has not been quantified reliably, future trends in hunting pressure are not clear. Critical 2. Locations of potential further wintering and stopover sites are unknown, especially on the eastern flyway. Critical 3. The migration strategy is not fully understood especially regarding differences in spring and autumn migration. High 4. Knowledge on movements within the wintering areas is poor. High 5. Knowledge of the species’ ecology during migration and wintering is poor. Medium 6. The species has not been identified as high priority conservation species in all range states. Critical Demographic parameters are insufficiently known to undertake PVA (High) 1. Robust population estimate is missing 2. Estimates of annual survival of adults and juveniles are currently lacking due to a low number of resightings of marked individuals 3. Generation length is not known 4. The existence and size of a non-breeding population is unknown. 2.3 Problem tree analysis Recent rapid decline of Sociable Lapwing population Reduced breeding productivity Increased mortality of young and adults Reduced habitat availability Decreased survival of nests Predation of nests and chicks Hunting on stop over sites Habitat loss & degradation on flyway Habitat loss & degradation in wintering areas Change in livestock management Increase in livestock numbers Predator abundance Subsistence hunting Development (industrial) Plantations Sport hunting Irrigation Overgrazing Drought Hunting laws not enforced Lack of legislation Agricultural intensification Land-use change Climate change Agricultural intensification Level 1: Mechanism through which the threats operate Level 2: Specific threats Level 3: Immediate causes of threats Level 4: Root causes of threats
Ongoing conservation activities are focussed on two areas at present:
Much of the ongoing monitoring and research activity is summarised in section 1 of this Action Plan. This work has largely been funded through two significant grants from the UK Government’s Darwin Initiative. From 2006-2009, the project, ‘conserving a flagship steppe species: the critically endangered Sociable Lapwing,’ focussed on the breeding grounds of Kazakhstan with low level work in some range states. Between 2009-2011, the project, ‘tracking the Sociable Lapwing: conservation beyond the breeding grounds,’ concentrated efforts on the migration routes and wintering grounds. Monitoring and research work is continuing through support of Birdlife International’s Preventing Extinctions Programme. Swarovski Optik and RSPB have been Species Champions for the Sociable Lapwing since 2008 and will continue until at least 2013. Regular monitoring has been undertaken in Kazakhstan, Russia, Turkey, Syria, Iraq, Sudan and India since 2006. Some work has been undertaken in Eritrea. Much of this work is ongoing with support from Swarovski Optik and is being expanded to other countries within the species’s range
Through the above mentioned Darwin Projects a large amount of public awareness raising has been undertaken and is ongoing. One key tool is the use of the Amazing Journey web-site that is tracking satellite tagged birds from Kazakhstan to the wintering grounds. This interactive web-site encourages bird-watchers and the general public to submit their own records of Sociable Lapwing. This web-site is supported through Swarovski Optik and it’s management and upkeep is ongoing. Publicity material has been produced in local languages in Turkey, Syria, Iraq and India, and more is planned as part of ongoing activities Table 3. Summary of the International conservation and legal status of Sociable Lapwing.
Source
1Birdlife International (2004). Threatened Birds of the World 2004. CD-ROM, Cambridge, UK 2(insert web-link) 3Migratory species that have been categorized as being in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant proportion of their range. For more details see the Convention text (insert web-link) 4Give special attention to the protection of areas that are of importance (Article 4) and ensure the special protection of the species (Article 6). For more details see the Convention text (insert web-link) 5The species shall be subject to special conservation measures concerning their habitat in order to ensure their survival and reproduction in their area of distribution. For more details see the Directive text (insert web-link) Table 4. Summary of applicability of major international conservation instruments to principal range states for Sociable Lapwing
4. FRAMEWORK FOR ACTION This section identifies and defines the overall conservation Goal, and the Objectives, the Results and the Actions of the Plan. Yüklə 292,11 Kb. Dostları ilə paylaş:
|
