The state of Nepal birds 2010.

Inskipp, Carol; Baral, Hem Sagar; Inskipp, Tim; Stattersfield, Alison J.

doi:10.11609/jott.o3276.933

Cited by 16 publications

(20 citation statements)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…While sites in protected areas had the greatest richness of birds, community forests and state managed forests had complementary assemblages, supporting species not represented in formal conservation reserves. In this study 17 species of birds were recorded only in community forests, among which Abbott's babbler Malacocincla abbotti and blue-eared barbet Megalaima australis are nationally threatened (Inskipp 1989, Baral andInskipp 2004;Inskipp et al 2013). In total, 24% of species were found only in forests outside the protected areas, and only 45% of species were common to all forest tenures.…”

Section: Habitat Characteristicsmentioning

confidence: 90%

“…The greater abundance of bark-gleaning insectivores in sites in protected areas and community forests may be linked to both the greater extent of forest surrounding such sites, and the higher density of large trees. Several other studies have found that bark gleaning birds are particularly sensitive to habitat alteration (Adams and Morrison 1993, Zurita and Bellocq 2012, Inskipp et al 2013, and are strongly correlated with large tree density (Cleary et al 2007, Greve et al 2011). …”

Section: Habitat Characteristicsmentioning

confidence: 98%

“…Several studies in the region show that extraction of fodder, firewood and non-timber forest product can negatively influence bird communities (Shahabuddin and Kumar 2007, Dahal et al 2009, Kumar et al 2011Inskipp et al 2013). Disturbance-intolerant species may therefore be benefited by strict forest management that restricts the removal of standing dead trees, fallen timber for firewood and canopies by pruning.…”

Section: Habitat Characteristicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The economy of rural communities in the region is based largely on subsistence agriculture, livestock rearing, and selling of firewood and non-timber forest products (Sharma 1990). Such activities have contributed elsewhere to a decline of many forest bird species (Inskipp et al 2013, Baral et al 2014), particularly species with small home range and/or other ecological requirements (Inskipp 1989). …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Forest loss and degradation are often associated with disproportional loss of critical habitat components such as large trees, fallen logs and woody debris (Inskipp et al 2013). Persistence of many species depends on availability of such critical habitat features in the landscape (Kumar et al 2011).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Effects of habitat extent and forest disturbance on bird communities in lowland nepal

Dahal¹

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Habitat loss and degradation are recognized as the major contributors to species decline and extinction, and therefore represent a key conservation challenge for biodiversity conservation. Key to the protection of biodiversity is acquisition of ecological knowledge about how anthropogenic forest disturbances affect species and how species respond to emergent landscape characteristics.Furthermore, it is also important to assess how different management approaches and land tenures influence retention of the biota of particular sites and of landscapes. However, this crucial ecological knowledge is yet to be obtained for the threatened lowland landscapes of Nepal.Protected areas cover only a small proportion of forests in lowland Nepal; the majority of forests outside the protected areas (off-reserve) have been managed by the state government. However, in recent years, community forestry programs have been increasingly popular as attempts to protect biodiversity while permitting consumptive forest use by people. It is therefore important to understand effectiveness of different forest management tenures for avifaunal conservation. I compared species richness, abundance, diversity and community composition of birds among sites in community forests, state forests and protected areas. Although sites in protected areas had the greatest richness of birds, community forests and state managed forests had complementary assemblages, supporting species not represented in protected areas. Vegetation characteristics such as large tree density, tree canopy cover and shrub density were also greater in community forests than in state-managed forests. The findings suggest that the community forestry approach appears to improve habitat quality compared to state-managed forests, and therefore can be an alternative tenure type for conservation of off-reserve forests and avifauna in the region.Subsistence forestry practices such as logging, lopping, and grazing are sources of forest disturbance in lowland Nepal. Such activities do not reduce forest area, but change habitat characteristics, potentially affecting biodiversity directly, and through interactions with landscape characteristics. I examined effects of forest use practices on species richness and abundance of forest birds, and whether landscape context such as the extent of forest cover moderates disturbance effects on birds. I found that extraction of forest products reduced forest structural complexity and altered the avifaunal community of a site. At the site level, large tree density, tree canopy cover and shrub density were important habitat characteristics, while the extent of forest cover in the landscape had the greatest influence on richness of birds. The effects of forest disturbance (livestock grazing and logging) intensity on birds depended on the extent of forest in the surrounding landscape, with strongest effects in sites with less surrounding forest. Thus, although iii site-level vegetation structure is important, maintenance of forest extent in the lan...

show abstract

Section: Habitat Characteristicsmentioning

confidence: 90%