Distribution of Green Peafowl Pavo muticus in Dry Season in Wiang

Available online at www.buu.ac.th/BUUConference
ST-O-025
Burapha University International Conference 2015
“Moving Forward to a Prosperous and Sustainable Community”
Distribution of Green Peafowl Pavo muticus in Dry Season in
Wiang Lor Wildlife Sanctuary, Northern Thailand
Ghan Saridniruna, Wina Meckvichaib, Pongchai Dumrongrojwatthanab,*
a
Master student in Zoology Program, Department of Biology, Faculty of Science, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok 10330, Thailand
b
Department of Biology, Faculty of Science, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok 10330, Thailand
Abstract
The studies of distribution and habitat types of green peafowl Pavo muticus Linnaeus, 1766 in dry season were conducted
in Wiang Lor Wildlife Sanctuary, Chun District, Phayao Province. The green peafowl distribution were surveyed based on
grid system cover 4.1 x 4.5 km2 area, consisted of 100 x 100 m2 sub grid. Each sub grid was visited once a month.
Numbers of green peafowl, group size, sex, age, and tracts (foot prints, feathers, feces and calling) were recorded. The
positions of green peafowl and forest type were recorded by global positioning system. The results of these studies in dry
season showed that most of the green peafowl were distributed in dry-dipterocarp forest (44.44%) along mountain ridge,
where the males are establishing their territory and containing displaying ground to females’ attraction. The second
abundance found in mixed-deciduous forest (39.68%) around water reservoir. This forest type had dense groundcover
which could provide food resources such as seeding plants, arthropods and small invertebrates. The least distribution
found in the community forest (11.11%) and agricultural area (4.76%), respectively, because the green peafowl used the
secondary forest as a temporary habitat before access to agricultural area for seed foraging. Moreover, these two last areas
are usually disturbed by human activities. The findings from our study shall be useful for green peafowl conservation and
management in this area.
© 2015 Published by Burapha University.
Keywords: Distribution; Green Peafowl; Pavo muticus; Dry season.
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +6-622-185-360 ; fax: +6-622-185-386 .
E-mail address: [email protected], [email protected] .
655
1. Introduction
Green peafowl Pavo muticus Linnaeus, 1766 is a beautiful large bird (Fig. 1) in family Phasianidae
(Johnsgard, 1986). It is listed as an endangered species by IUCN (2014) and protected bird of Thailand by
Office of Natural Resources and Environmental Policy and Planning Thailand (2014). Formerly, green
peafowl had high abundance with widespread from Yunan Province of China (Han et al., 2009; Liu et al.,
2009), Thai (Ponsena, 1988; Meckvichai, 2008; Pinthongand Meckvichai, 2009), Myanmar, Lao (IUCN,
2014; Bird Life International, 2014), Vietnam (Brickle, 2002), to Javan Island of Indonesia (Balen et al.,
1995; Hernowo et al., 1997, 1999, 2006, 2011). But since last two decades, green peafowl have been
dramatically declining due to habitat destruction, habitat fragmentation, over hunting and eggs poaching.
Recently, local green peafowl populations in Malaysia and southern part of Thailand were extinct and
remaining population are restricted to some reserved areas. In Thailand, there are two (western and northern)
largest populations of green peafowl. The western population is the biggest. They live in Huai Kha Kheang
and Thung-Yai Naresuan Wildlife Sanctuary. They could be found along main stream of Huai Kha Kheang,
Huai Tab Salao, Huai Song Tang and Mae Klong (Ponsena, 1988; Meckvichai, 2008). The northern
population found along Ping, Ing, Yom and Nan main rivers (Arrathrakorn, 2001; Meckvichai, 2008). Many
studies were conducted in the western population, but there is limited research in the northern population.
This might because of the difficulty to access to the mountainous area in the past.
Understanding distribution of animals and their habitats are reflected to animals adaptation for their
survival in difference landscape (Block and Brennan, 1993), and the studied of this rare bird will provide their
current status, habitat selection which are influenced by various factors and can be predicted the suitable area
for birds to conservation management in specific area (Morris, 2003). Therefore, this study was aimed to
present the preliminary results (dry season) of distribution and habitat use of green peafowl in the Wiang Lor
Wildlife Sanctuary located in the north of Thailand.
Fig 1. (a) Male green peafowl; (b) female green peafowl.
656
2. Methodology
2.1. Study area: Wiang Lor Wildlife Sanctuary
This fieldwork was carried out in the Wiang Lor Wildlife Sanctuary (WLWS), Chun district, Phayao
Province (100º3´–100 º 19´E , 19 º 4´–19 º 28´N) (Fig. 2a).Total study area is 371 km2. The area is influenced
by South west monsoon in May to October and north east monsoon in November to April. Vegetation covers
in study area are mainly dry-dipterocarp and mixed-deciduous forest. The study area has 4 habitat types which
are classed by plant community as follow: i) Dry-diptercarp forest contained Siamese Sal (Shorea obtuse) and
Burmese Sal (Shorea siamensis), ii) Mixed-deciduous forest with broad leaves tree species, iii) Community
forest, contained mainly Burmese Sal (Shorea siamensis) and disturbed by human activities such as nontimber forest product collection, and iv) Agricultural area is an arable land at boundary of the forest edge near
villages with annually grown crops such as cotton, rice, vegetables and rubble tree and temporarily bare lands.
2.2. Distribution study
Field study was carried out in dry season from March 2013 - May 2013, in 4.1 x 4.5 km2 area. Dry season
starts from November to April which is the same period as breeding season of green peafowl. (Arrathrakorn,
2001; Meckvichai, 2008; Dumkaew et al., 2009).
Fig 2. (a) Wiang Lor Wildlife Sanctuary location; (b) study area with grid system, Wiang Lor Wildlife Sanctuary is on the left hand
side of the boundary.
The distribution study was conducted based on a grid system with gid size 100 x 100 m2. (total of 1,791
grid) (O’Donnell, 1988; Sutherland, 2004; Wildlife Conservation Society Thailand, 2012) (Fig. 2b). Number
sex and group of sighted green peafowl and other traces including foot prints (number and size), feathers, and
droplet were recorded by Global Positioning System (GPS). The study sites were visited once a month, and
657
twice a day during 6.30-10.30 am and 02.00-06.30 pm. During these two periods, green peafowl has high
activity that increases chance to detect (Ponsena, 1988; Arrathrakorn, 2001; Meckvichai, 2008; Dumkaew et
al., 2009). The recorded GPS points were transferred to a geographic information system program for the
distribution and habitat use analysis.
3. Results and Discussion
3.1. Distribution and habitat use
The green peafowl distribution in March, April and May 2013 were mapped as shown in Figure 3.
Distribution area covers 63 out of 1,791 total grids which are 3.51% of the studying area. The distribution
area of total green peafowls sighting or traces detected from the highest to the lowest are shown as follows:
dry-dipterocarp forest (28 grids), mixed-deciduous forest (25 grids), community forest (7 grids) and
agricultural area (3 grids) which are 44.44 %, 39.68 %, 11.11 % and 4.76 %, respectively (Table 1, Table 2).
In dry season with an average rainfall of 47.9 mm (data from the Thai Meteorological Department Chun
district precipitation station, 5 km from the study area), the highest frequencies of green peafowl sightings and
traces were detected on hill ridge in dry-dipterocarp forest. They can be easily spotted because male green
peafowls defended their territory and breeding ground at mountain ridge where it has cleared ground cover
vegetation and open canopy cover (Arrathrakorn, 2001). Unmated females found mainly in secondary forest
and agricultural area during their foraging while mating females were found more easier in mixed -deciduous
forest as they required dense and concealment ground cover for nesting and incubation as well as secured area
for their newly hatchlings (Ponsena, 1988; Arrathrakorn, 2001; Dumkaew et al., 2009).
The second habitat which green peafowl sightings and traces were detected was the mixed-deciduous
forest around water reservoir. It seems that this area may serve as a foraging ground of green peafowls. This
area had moist, fertile soil and dense ground cover vegetation which provided abundance of food resources
such as seeding plants, arthropods and small invertebrates (Ponsena, 1988; Hernowo et al, 2011). Mixeddeciduous forest was also cooler and consist thicker canopy than dry-dipterocarp forest. Therefore, this habitat
is suitable for green peafowl to avoiding the heat in open area (Ponsena, 1988; Dumkaew et al., 2009;
Hernowoet al., 2011).
Table 1. Numbers and percentages of grid which sighting green peafowl and traces were detected in difference habitat types.
Month
Habitat
Total
Dry-dipterocarp forest
Mixed-deciduous forest
Community forest
Agriculture area
March
15
14
3
3
35
April
8
8
3
0
19
May
5
3
1
0
9
Total
28
25
7
3
63
44.44 %
39.68 %
11.11 %
4.76 %
100 %
Percentage (%)
Table 2. Numbers of green peafowl sighting with habitat and gender in each month.
Month
Habitat
Mar-13
Apr-13
Mixed-deciduous forest
Mixed-deciduous forest
Community forest
Mixed-deciduous forest
-
May-13
Total
Male
Gender
Female
Unknown
1
0
1
0
0
2
0
1
0
1
0
2
0
4
0
0
0
4
Note
Sub-adult male
Female with chicks
Sub-adult male
Female
-
658
Fig 3. Distribution of green peafowl in dry season (a) March; (b) April; (c) May.
The third habitat which green peafowl sightings and traces were detected was community forest. The
community forest in the WLWS serves as a corridor between the wildlife sanctuary and the agricultural area,
where there are ponds and irrigation canals. There were reports from local farmers and park rangers that they
usually found green peafowl nearby ponds and irrigation canals, but they escaped rapidly back into the forest
after they heard human voices. Agricultural area was the site that had lowest detection of green peafowls and
traces, only 1 time in March. There was a report that agricultural area provides seeds and other food resources
659
for green peafowl during cultivation and after harvesting period (Arrathrakorn, 2001; Worrapimphongand
Meckvichai, 2009; Meckvichai et al., 2001). Both community forest and agricultural area are usually
influenced by the daily activities of the local villagers in that the birds usually do not use this area during
human presence (Arrathrakorn, 2001; Worrapimphongand Meckvichai, 2009; Meckvichaiet al., 2001).
Green peafowl is a granivorous and insectivorous bird requiring water for their body mechanism and
metabolism (Webb et al., 2006). So, the bird will not inhabit too far from water (Ponsena, 1988; Brickle,
2002; Meckvichai, 2008; Yarrow and Yarrow, 1999). In previous studies, green peafowl distribution was
ranged within of 1.5-2.0 km from permanent water resource (Ponsena, 1988; Meckvichai, 2008; Hernowo et
al., 2011). Sometime, the birds stay far away from stream or permanent reservoir, but they can get water from
man-made ditch which contains water or for agricultural activities.
3.2. Management suggestion
Based on our results we propose a management plan for green peafowl in the WLWS area in terms of
water resource management in the dry season and control/resolution of the local villagers vs. green peafowl
conflict.
Firstly, water source developments are widely used for wildlife management because water is essential for
animals. In the WLWS, there is the large area that is covered with dry-dipterocarp forest, but water is usually
in short supply in the dry season, which makes the birds have to seek water resources elsewhere. Recently,
around the WLWS area there has only been one reservoir available for villagers and animals. Therefore, the
birds sometimes move into the agricultural areas where there are small irrigation canals, and so they risk
confrontation with hunters. Thus, to keep the birds foraging in the protected area water sources should be built
up with more dense vegetation for shelter within the reserve to encourage wild animals to come and use this
water source (O’Brien et al., 2006). We suggest building check dams by simple materials, such as bamboo,
along the stream gradient in the dry season. These dams can decrease the water flow rate, delay evaporation
and help the soil to absorb more water from the stream.
Secondly, green peafowl and villagers potentially have a serious conflict on land use. Local villagers
access the forest area for harvesting non-timber forest products and in so doing they disturb the green
peafowls, while green peafowls access the agricultural areas for food and water resources as well as damage
some crop production areas. This human-wildlife conflict is a common problem in human-altered landscape
which can occasionally cause man to suffer great economic hardship (Welty and Baptista, 1988) and/or
wildlife populations to decrease due to human killing. Therefore, it is important to mitigate such conflicts. We
suggest several methods, including the management of food resources for green peafowl, promoting
alternative crops and setting up regulations for non-timber forest product gathering with strong punishments
for illegal hunting.
4. Conclusion
The distribution of green peafowl in dry season was studied based on a grid sample technique. The highest
sighting frequency and traces were found in the dry-dipterocarp forest on the hill and mountain ridge. The
second site was the mixed-deciduous forest in lower area around water reservoir. The third site was in the
agricultural area outside the WLWS boundary. Finally, the community forest is the lowest site that green
peafowls and traces were detected in the dry season. To manage this endangered species, we suggest some
management actions, including water management and control of the local villager activities to avoid humanbird conflict. This should be implementing in a collaborative way between WLWS officers and local people.
Acknowledgements
The project was financially supported by The 90th Anniversary of Chulalongkorn University Fund
(Ratchadaphiseksomphot Endowment Fund) No.GCUGR11255725089M, and the Department of Biology,
Faculty of Science, Chulalongkorn University. We would like to thank all staffs from the Wiang Lor Wildlife
Sanctuary for their kind assistance.
660
References
Johnsgard, P.A., 1986. The pheasants of the world. UK Oxford University Press, p. 1.
International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources IUCN. Species factsheet: Pavo muticus [Online], 2014. Available
from http://www.iucnredlist.org/apps: /redlist /details/100600286/0 [2014, August 21].
Office of Natural Resources and Environmental Policy and Planning Thailand. Pavo muticus (Green Peafowl) [Online], 2014. Available
from http://chm-thai.onep.go.th/RedData/Default.aspx?DetailOf=Pavo%20muticus&StatusOf=EN. [2014, August 21].
Han, L., Liu, Y., Han, B., 2009. The status and distribution of Green peafowl Pavo muticus muticus in Yunan Province, China.
International journal of Galliformes Conservation 1, p. 29.
Liu, Y., Han, L., Xie, L., Wen, Y., Zhang, R., 2009. The status and habitat use of Green peafowl Pavo muticus in Shuangbai Konglonghe
Nature Reserve, China. International journal of Galliformes Conservation 1, p. 29
Ponsena, P., 1988. Biological characteristic and breeding behaviours of Green peafowl (Pavo muticus Linnaeus) in Huai Kha khaeng
Wildlife Sanctuary, Thai Journal of Forestry 7, p. 303.
Meckvichai, W., 2008. Manual for academic training on green peafowl conservation, 1 st., Department of biology, Faculty of science,
Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Thailand.
Pinthong, T., Meckvichai, W., 2009. “Influence of predator abundance and human activities on Green peafowl (Pavo muticus) abundance
in Huai Kha Khaeng Wildlife Sanctuary.” 35th Congress on Science and Technology of Thailand 15-17 October 2009, Chonburi,
Thailand.
BirdLife International. Species factsheet: Pavo muticus [Online], 2014, Available from: http://www.birdlife.org
/datazone/speciesfactsheet.php?id=286 [2014, August 21].
Brickle N.W., 2002. Habitat use, predicted distribution and conservation of green peafowl (Pavo muticus) in Dak Lak Province, Vietnam,
Biological Conservation 105, p. 189.
Balen, S.V., Prawiradilaga, D.M., and Indrawan, M., 1995. The distribution and status of Green peafowl Pavo muticus in Java, Biological
Conservation 71, p. 289.
Hernowo, J.B., 1997. Population study of Javan Green Peafowl (Pavo muticus muticus Linnaeus 1758) with three different methods in
Baluran national park, East Java Indonesia, Media Konservasi 6, p. 61.
Hernowo, J.B., 1999. Habitat and local distribution of Javan Green peafowl (Pavo muticus muticus Linnaeus 1758) in Baluran National
Park, East Java, Media Konservasi 6, p. 15.
Hernowo, J.B., Wasono, D.W.T., 2006. Population and habitat of Javan Green peafowl (Pavo muticus muticus Linnaeus 1758) at Alas
Purwo National Park, East Java. Media Konservasi 11, p. 83.
Hernowo, J. B., Alikodra, H. S., Mardiastuti, A., Kusmana, C., 2011. Population analysis of the Javan Green Peafowl (Pavo muticus
muticus Linnaeus 1758) in Baluran and Alas Purwo National Park, East Java. Biodiversitas 12, p. 99.
Arrathrakorn, S., 2001. Breeding ecology and agricultural field utilization of green peafowl Pavo muticus Linnaues, 1766 at Doi Phu
Nang National park, Master Thesis, Chulalongkorn University, Thaialnd.
Block, W.M., and Brennan, L.A., 1993. The Habitat concept in ornithology Theory and Applications. Current Ornithology 11, p. 35.
Morris, D.W., 2003. How can we apply theories of habitat selection to wildlife conservation and management? Wildlife Research 30, p.
303.
Dumkeaw, J., Meckvichai, W., Parriyanonth., 2009. “Seasonal distribution of Green peafowl (Pavo muticus) in Pa Miang sub- distric,
Doi Saket district, Chiang Mai Province,” 35th Congress on Science and Technology of Thailand, p 15-17, October 2009, Chonburi,
Thailand.
O’Donnell, C.F.J., Dilks, P.J., 1988. Mapping the distribution of forest birds. Science & Research series 1, p. 1.
Sutherland, J.W. 2004. Bird ecology and conservation. New York, Oxford University Press, p. 17.
Wildlife Conservation Society Thailand. Restoring Tenasserim corridor for living connectivity; [Online]. 2012 Available from
http://www.wcsthailand.org/main/downloads/Corridor/RestoringTenasserim-eng.pdf [2014, August 21].
Worrapimphong, K., and Meckvichai, W., 2001. Agricultural field at forest edge influence on some ecology of Green peafowl (Pavo
muticus) in Doi Phu Nang National Park, Phayao Province. Senior’s project, Department of Biology, Faculty of Science,
Chulalongkorn University.
Meckvichai, W., Siripong, A., Srikwan, S., 2001. “Biodiversity and management guideline approach for conservation of pheasants at
upper north of Thailand,” Proceeding of 6th BRT annual meeting 8-11 October 2001 in Phisanuloak Province.
Webb S.L., Zabransky C.J., Lyons R.S., Hewitt D.G., and Jones C.A., 2006. Water quality and summer use of sources of water in Texas,
Southwest Nat 51, p. 368.
Yarrow, G., Yarrow, D.T., 1999. Alabama Wildlife, Federation: Managing Wildlife, Sweetwater Press, Los Angeles, USA.
O'Brien, C.S., Waddell, R.B., Rosenstock, S.S., Rabe, M.J. 2006. Wildlife use of water catchments in Southwestern Arizona. Wildlife
Society Bulletin 34, p. 582.
Welty, J.C., Baptista, L.F. 1988. The life of birds. 4th Ed. Saunders College Publishing, New York.
661