Conservation of Hornbills in Thailand

Abstract

CONSERVATION ISSUES IN THAILAND Over the past century, the natural resources of Thai-land have been depleted continuously and rapidly, driven by such pressures as population growth, poverty, and globalization, including economic expansion that places overriding importance on the size of the coun-try ' s gross domestic product. By 1985, the government had set a national forest policy target whereby no less than 40% of the country ' s area was to be protected, 15% as conservation forests and 25% as economic forests (RFD, 1985). In the Seventh National Economic and Social Development Plan (1993–1996), the target for conservation of national forest was changed to 25% for conservation forest and 15% for economic forest (NESDB, 2008), still a total of 40% of the total area. By 1989, however, only 28% of the total land area remained forested. To sustain Thailand ' s exceptional species diversity, the government has put a major effort into protecting the forest and its animal inhabitants by various conser-vation measures. Wild animals and their habitats are now completely protected by the National Park Acts (1961) and the revised Wild Animals Reservation and Protection Act (1992). A total of 123 national parks and 58 wildlife sanctuaries have been established in the

Full text

CHAPTER 19
Conservation of Hornbills in
Thailand
Pilai Poonswad 1 , Vijak Chimchome 2 , Narong Mahannop and Sittichai Mudsri 3
1 Department of Microbiology , Faculty of Science, Mahidol University , Bangkok , Thailand
2 Department of Forest Biology , Faculty of Forestry, Kasetsart University , Bangkok , Thailand
3 Department of National Park s , Wildlife and Plant Conservation , Bangkok , Thailand
CONSERVATION ISSUES IN THAILAND
Over the past century, the natural resources of Thai-
land have been depleted continuously and rapidly,
driven by such pressures as population growth, poverty,
and globalization, including economic expansion that
places overriding importance on the size of the coun-
try ’ s gross domestic product. By 1985, the government
had set a national forest policy target whereby no less
than 40% of the country ’ s area was to be protected,
15% as conservation forests and 25% as economic
forests ( RFD, 1985 ). In the Seventh National Economic
and Social Development Plan (1993–1996), the target
for conservation of national forest was changed to 25%
for conservation forest and 15% for economic forest
( NESDB, 2008 ), still a total of 40% of the total area.
By 1989, however, only 28% of the total land area
remained forested.
To sustain Thailand ’ s exceptional species diversity,
the government has put a major ef fort into protecting
the forest and its animal inhabitants by various conser-
vation measures. Wild animals and their habitats are
now completely protected by the National Park Acts
(1961) and the revised Wild Animals Reservation and
Protection Act (1992). A total of 123 national parks
and 58 wildlife sanctuaries have been established in the
INTRODUCTION
In Thailand, as in other developing countries in Asia,
the state of conservation has not kept pace with devel-
opment. The management of natural resources is the
responsibility of several government agencies, but they
are often in confl ict. Partly in consequence of this divi-
sion of responsibility, Thailand has lost more than 40%
of its forested areas, which are the richest terrestrial
habitats in biodiversity within the past fi ve decades
(1961–2010), partly because of poor coordination
between and execution of policies in the areas of eco-
nomic, social, and political development ( FAO, 2010 ).
In 1951, Dr Boonsong Lekagul and his colleagues
founded the Association for Conservation of Wildlife,
the fi rst non-governmental organization established in
Thailand for conservation. Through its immense strug-
gle to attract attention from the government, this
group helped to establish laws concerning the conser-
vation of wildlife and their habitats, including the Wild
Animals Reservation and Protection Act (1960) and
the National Park Act (1961). For his efforts, Dr Boon-
song was named “Father of Conservation” in Thailand.
The protection and conservation of natural resources
in Thailand really only began with the formation of the
Association in 1951.
Conservation Biology: Voices from the Tropics, First Edition. Navjot S. Sodhi, Luke Gibson, and Peter H. Raven.
© 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Published 2013 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

158 Conservation Biology
and intrinsic value of these ancient birds and the
threats they are facing.
Hornbills originated at least 50 million years ago in
the Eocene Period. The living species are unique and
attractive birds, not only in their appearance but also
in their intriguing nesting habits. Thai hornbills are
very large (body mass 680–3,400 g) and very noisy,
which makes them conspicuous in the forest. Although
the birds are omnivorous, fruits are the main compo-
nent in their diet ( Poonswad, Tsuji and Jirawatkavi,
2004 ); therefore, hornbills are characterized as large
frugivorous birds. To satisfy their needs, they require
intact primary forest that provides suitable nest sites
and suffi cient food resources.
Hornbills have intimate relationships with forest
plants as food, and probably coevolved with many of
these plants as seed-dispersal agents of primary impor-
tance. In ecological terms, hornbills are often consid-
ered “keystone” species whose essential service is to
move seeds away from parent trees and spread them
over a larger area. By doing this they help to regenerate
the forest and maintain the diversity of plants within
their habitat. Past studies have shown the signifi cance
of hornbills in dispersing seeds, particularly of those
plants with large seeds ( > 25 mm) that rely almost
entirely on the large bills of hornbills. By combining
existing information on their home range, number of
fruit species consumed, and their habits of regurgitat-
ing a few seeds while perching and in fl ight, some esti-
mates are possible. Great Hornbills ( Buceros bicornis )
move seeds around their home range of 30 km
2 and
over a distance of 15 km daily, while Wreathed Hornbill
( Rhyticeros undulatus ) move around over 35 km
2 ( Poon-
swad and Tsuji, 1994 ). Hornbills are undoubtedly
important in forest regeneration, particularly to estab-
lish connections between forest patches along their
fl yways or within their nomadic range ( Holbrook,
Smith and Hardesty, 2002 ; Kinnaird and O ’ Brien,
2007 ). It is no exaggeration that Kinnaird and O ’ Brien
( 2007 ) name hornbills as “farmers of the forest.”
THREATS TO AND THE CONSERVATION
STATUS OF HORNBILLS
Since hornbills rely entirely on the availability of
natural tree cavities for reproduction and depend very
much on fruit as their food resource, any loss of habitat
means loss not only of breeding sites but also of food
resources. Because of their rigid requirement for breed-
past 50 years, but they cover only 15% of the country ’ s
area, still well short of the goals stated through the
years. Thailand has also ratifi ed some international
conventions related to natural resource conservation
and management, including the Convention on the
International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild
Fauna and Flora (CITES) in 1983 and the Convention
on Biological Diversity (CBD) in 2003 ( ICEM, 2003 ).
All of these treaties support wildlife conservation not
only in Thailand but also in trans-boundary areas and
at a global scale. However, despite the existence of good
laws, enforcement mechanisms do not always seem to
work, so that there is often further depletion of primary
forest. In an evaluation of forest resources in 2004,
only about 18% out of the target of 25% of total land
areas were protected ( Trisurat, 2007 ).
The protected areas in Thailand are highly frag-
mented, but they can be grouped into 19 complexes
that include 17 forest areas and two marine and coastal
habitats. To connect these fragmented areas, a Biodi-
versity Conservation Corridors Initiative (BCI; Phase 1:
2006 –2008) was set up, with a pilot project, “Wildlife
and its Habitat Assessment in the Corridor Zone in the
Tenasserim Western Forest Complex (WEFCOM), Thai-
land” run by the Wildlife Conservation Society (Thai-
land). Seven landscape-wide species, including tiger,
elephant, gaur, sambar deer, barking deer, serow, and
great hornbill, were monitored in the complex. In
Phase II (2009–2011), the Department of National
Parks, Wildlife and Plant Conservation has raised the
corridor program to the national level so as to evaluate
and prioritize potential areas for connectivity within
and between complexes. This program will be not only
a response to the CBD, but will also serve the goal
of reducing biodiversity loss from its 2000 level, as
declared by the World Biodiversity Summit 2002 in
Johannesburg, South Africa. Although the poaching
of wildlife and collection of wild plants for illegal trade
violate both national and international laws, the cost
of this trade is still severe: between 2005 and 2008, it
was estimated at more than US$1 million.
WHY CONSERVE HORNBILLS?
This question is the one asked most frequently by
people living in concrete habitats! The answer to this
question is not easy, but it is challenging to help people
living in cities, who are familiar only with pigeons,
sparrows, and crows, to understand the uniqueness

Asia: Conservation of Hornbills in Thailand 159
ing sites, hornbills are inevitably threatened by any
human activities within forests, besides such natural
phenomena as storm and decomposition processes that
are also considered important threats to hornbill popu-
lations (Table 19.1 ).
Human activities have altered the environment of
other vertebrate species to an immense degree. Popula-
tion growth coupled with rapid economic growth is
profoundly important as a driver in the exploitation of
natural resources, particularly forest resources. Unlim-
ited demand, poor planning, and unsustainable use of
this valuable and natural capital resource have resulted
in a great depletion of forest resources and hence of
hornbill habitat. The depletion of forest resources
results from a range of activities, the most obvious of
which are now discussed.
Deforestation and l ogging
Deforestation poses the most serious threat to horn-
bills. The 13 species of hornbills that occur in Thailand
inhabit various types of forests, the most important
being evergreen forest, which ranges from lowland
plains up to 1500 m above sea level and which exists as
dry evergreen, semi-evergreen ( Santisuk, 2007 ;
Corlett, 2009 ), and hill evergreen forest subtypes. Ever-
green forests dominate the forested area in Thailand
(43%) but are also the most threatened forest type. Cul-
tivation is the major human activity altering these
forests, which destroys primary forest in Thailand at an
estimated rate of 0.7% annually ( FAO, 2005 ). The most
obvious consequence of evergreen forest destruction is
the loss of dominant large trees, particularly trees in
the genera Dipterocarpus , Hopea and Shorea (Dipterocar-
paceae). Losses of primary forests have impacts on
hornbill populations by reducing their potential breed-
ing sites and depleting their food resources. Diptero-
carp trees are the predominant hornbill nest trees,
accounting for 40% of nest sites ( Poonswad, 1995 ).
Deforestation has already extirpated three sympatric
hornbill species, the Great, Wreathed and Rufous-
necked Aceros nipalensis Hornbills from parts of their
range in northern Thailand ( Poonswad, 1993 ).
Hunting
Hunting is another major threat to wildlife, including
hornbills. Although hornbills are canopy-living species,
their large size and noisy behavior make them con-
spicuous so that they make an easy target for hunters.
Even their secretive nesting behavior cannot elude
hunters. The purposes for hunting hornbills include for
food and the pet trade. Hunting them depends on the
existence of areas where laws are not effective, with the
hunting often linked to tribes and villagers who live in
or near the forest. Hill tribes in northern and western
Table 19.1 Nest cavity information (a) and chick production (b) at Khao Yai National Park (KY) and Budo Mountain
(Budo), with national status of hornbill species
(a)
KY (1981–2008) Budo (1994–2008)
Total Annual Total Annual
No. recorded nest trees 226 8.7 188 12.5
No. nest loss 95 4.1 44 2.9
% nest loss 42.0 4.9 23.4 2.7
No. bad cavities 123 5.1 25 1.7
% bad cavities 54.4 6.2 10.6 13.6
No. repair/improved
(1994-2008)
77 4.7 20 –
No. cavities available 120 70.8 119 90.3
(Continued )

160 Conservation Biology
Table 19.1 (Continued)
(b)
KY (1994–2008) Budo (1994–2008)
Total Annual From repair Total Annual From repair
Great Hornbill (near threatened) **
No. sealed 312 20.8 134 263 17.5 –
% success 77.9 78.4 42.9 83.6 84.2 –
No. chicks (x1/pair) 243 16.2 134 220 14.6 –
Rhinoceros Hornbill
(endangered) **
No. sealed – – – 158 10.5 –
% success – – – 72.8 71.8 –
No. chicks (x1/pair) – – – 115 7.7 –
Helmeted Hornbill (endangered) **
No. sealed – – – 43 2.8 –
% success – – – 75 82.1 –
No. chicks (x1/pair) – – – 32 2.3 –
Wreathed Hornbill (near
threatened) **
No. sealed 148 9.9 56 55 4.2 –
% success 89.7 87.9 33.6 73.5 72.2 –
No. chicks (x1/pair) 133 8.9 49 40 3.0 –
Brown Hornbill (Vulnerable) **
No. sealed 119 7.9 36 – – –
% success 90.6 87.3 27.4 – – –
No. chicks (x2.3/pair) * 248 16.6 74 – – –
Bushy-crested Hornbill (near
threatened) **
No. sealed – – – 35 2.5 –
% success – – – 65.5 67.9 –
No. chicks (x2.3/pair) * – – – 53 3.5 –
White-crowned Hornbill
(endangered) **
No. sealed – – – 12 1.7 –
% success – – – 80 – –
No. chicks (x1.5/pair) * – – – 15 1.4 –
Oriental Pied Hornbill (not
determined) **
No. sealed 371 24.7 53 – – –
% success 92.2 91.8 12.4 – – –
No. chicks (x1.5/pair) * 513 34.2 69 – – –
All species
No. sealed 950 63.3 312 566 37.7 –
% success 86.9 86.5 27.6 77.8 77.8 –
No. chicks 1,137 75.8 326 440 29.3 –
* Average number of chicks per breeding pair derived from Poonswad ( 1993 )
** National status from Sanguansombat ( 2005 ) and ONEP ( 2007 )
Source: (a and b) Based on data from Poonswad (1993) Sanguansombat (2005) and ONEP (2007).

Asia: Conservation of Hornbills in Thailand 161
species are required to ascertain the actual status,
density, and potential of the remaining habitats for
target species. Twelve out of 19 protected area com-
plexes have potential as hornbill habitats. The remain-
ing seven complexes are too small and severely
fragmented, and no hornbills have been recorded in
them for the past two decades ( Poonswad, 1993 ).
Intensive surveys using point-count transects in three
complexes of different sizes in which extensive research
and conservation activities are continuously con-
ducted (WEFCOM, Dong Phayayen-Khao Yai, and
Hala-Bala) indicate that these complexes still support
viable populations of Great, Wreathed, Rufous-necked,
Rhinoceros and Oriental-Pied Hornbills, while other
species do not have adequate data for analysis (Thai-
land Hornbill Project, unpublished data; see also Table
19.1 ). Increasing connectivity of suitable habitat between
and within complexes to facilitate hornbill movement,
as being practiced for conservation planning in
WEFCOM, is a promising approach to maintain popu-
lation viability of hornbills ( Trisurat et al ., 2010 ).
The degree of threats mentioned earlier may differ
by area or region. The goal of the conservation efforts
is to increase hornbill populations to minimum viable
sizes and so sustain them for long-term survival. To
achieve this goal, clear identifi cation of threats or prob-
lems in each area or region is very important in order
to implement the most suitable strategy. According to
our knowledge and experience, we recommend our two
most successful strategies: research- and community-
based conservation.
Research- b ased c onservation
Initiation of h ornbill r esearch p roject
Some 30 years ago, knowledge on the biology of Thai
hornbills was limited to general information on distri-
bution, habitat, and anecdotes about food and behavior
( Lekagul and Cronin, 1974 ). Given the very large size
of the birds, one could imagine the magnitude of
requirements – they need large nest cavities and large
amounts of food. But, how large must the cavities be?
Being secondary-cavity nesters that are unable to exca-
vate their own nests, hornbills do not have much
choice. Finding a suitable cavity is a principal factor
that limits hornbill reproduction, but what attracts
them in seeking out a nest cavity? Ground-breaking
research to reveal the basic requirements of four
Thailand hunt hornbills mainly for food, and this
hunting might have an important impact on the resil-
ience of certain species, such as Tickell ’ s Brown Horn-
bill ( Ptilolaemus tickelli ), particularly when the hunting
pressure is exacerbated locally by deforestation.
STATUS OF HORNBILLS IN THAILAND
Evaluation and revision of the conservation status of
Thai fl ora and fauna by various criteria have been
made in the past few decades. Lekagul and Round
( 1991 ) determined the status of Thai birds based on
abundance and habitat restriction. More recently, the
Offi ce of Natural Resource and Environmental Policy
and Planning ( ONEP, 2007 ) revised the Thailand Red
Data status for vertebrates, including birds, based on
the IUCN criteria in their 2001 Red List, version 3.1.
The Red Data status for the 13 hornbill species found
in Thailand suggest this group requires urgent conser-
vation actions (Figure 19.1 ): two species, the Black
Anthracoceros malayanus and Wrinkled Rhyticeros
corrugatus Hornbills, are critically endangered; four
species, the Rufous-necked, Plain-pouched Rhyticeros
subrufi collis , Helmeted Rhinoplax vigil and Rhinoceros
Buceros rhinoceros Hornbills, are endangered; six more
species, the White-crowned Hornbill Berenicornis
comatus , White-throated Brown Ptilolaemus austeni ,
Tickell ’ s Brown Hornbills, the Bushy-crested Anorrhi-
nus galeritus , Great and Wreathed Hornbills are vulner-
able; only one species, the Oriental Pied Anthracoceros
albirostris , is of least concern. The evaluation of status
is important, providing warning information and basic
guidelines for setting the priority and degree of inten-
siveness of conservation activities. Since Thailand is
situated on the Asian mainland and extends onto the
Thai-Malay Peninsula, it shares hornbill species with
other geographical areas where the conditions for
effective conservation may differ. Working toward the
conservation of Thai hornbills for their long-term
existence, we need to take serious consideration of our
national status level and that of our neighbors.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Loss of forest means loss of habitat for wildlife, particu-
larly for hornbills, which require large trees for both
nesting holes and for food resources. Due to this, inten-
sive survey and study of threatened and endangered

162 Conservation Biology
Figure 19.1 Sketches of 13 hornbill species and their conservation status.
* National status from Sanguansombat (2005) and ONEP (2007).
Source: Based on Sanguansombat (2005) and ONEP (2007).
Male Female National
status* Male Female National
status*
Endangered Vulnerable
Vulnerable Endangered
Vulnerable
Endangered
Vulnerable Critically
endangered
Least concern
Endangered
Critically
endangered
Vulnerable
Vulnerable
White-throated Brown Hornbill
(Anorrhinus austeni)
Rufous-necked Hornbill
(Aceros nipalensis)
Brown Hornbill
(Anorrhinus tickelli)
Bushy-crested Hornbill
(Anorrhinus galeritus)
Oriental Pied Hornbill
(Anthracoceros albirostris)
Black Hornbill
(Anthracoceros malayanus)
White-crowned Hornbill
(Berenicornis comatus)
Great Hornbill
(Buceros bicornis)
Rhinoceros Hornbill
(Buceros rhinoceros)
Helmeted Hornbill
(Rhinoplax vigil)
Wrinkled Hornbill
(Rhyticeros corrugatus)
Plain-pouched Hornbill
(Rhyticeros subruficollis)
Wreathed Hornbill
(Rhyticeros undulatus)

Asia: Conservation of Hornbills in Thailand 163
A consequence of the nest losses is competition for
good cavities, which may subsequently cause nest
abandonment. Competition among animals over a
limited resource is normal and may be enhanced by a
range of factors, such as safe location. In the case of
hornbills at KY, the annual nest abandonment is 36%
of nest cavities (1981–2008), and competition over
nest cavities is as high as 40% ( Poonswad et al ., 2005 ),
with 53% of disputed cavities being abandoned ( Poon-
swad et al ., 1999 ). These two aspects are good clues to
tell us the situation of cavities; we used them when we
began to inspect the condition of the cavities (Table
19.1 ). Of 152 cavities inspected, 123 (80.9%) were
unsuitable and 77 (62.6%) were repaired. The most
serious problems were a sunken nest fl oor (deeper than
15 cm, 50%) and a closed or narrowed entrance (less
than 10 cm wide, 40%). The repair was done prior to
the breeding season, and was a simple operation: soil
fi lling for cavities with deep fl oor, and enlarging the
entrance by chisel for narrowed or closed entrance.
Realizing the shortage of good cavities, the THP
team has improved those natural cavities that have the
potential to be nests and so increase the breeding
opportunities for hornbills. Over 15 years (1994–
2008), an overall breeding success rate of 86% produced
1137 chicks of four species, of which about 30% suc-
cessfully fl edged from repaired and improved cavities
(Table 19.1 ). Among these, the Great Hornbill, the
largest species, benefi ted most by producing 243
sympatric species, Great, Wreathed, White-throated
Brown and Oriental Pied Hornbills, for breeding at
Khao Yai National Park (KY, 2,168 km
2 ) was begun in
1981 on a 150 km
2 study area within semi-evergreen
forest and continues to the present day.
Implementation of k nowledge
From long-term research at KY, we have amassed a
great sample of nests under observation, and have
proved the success of implementation of fi eld knowl-
edge to refurbish nesting cavities. Between 1981 and
2008, we located a total of 226 dif ferent nest trees
(Table 19.1 and Figure 19.2 a). Hornbills used mainly
trees of the genera Dipterocarpus of the family Diptero-
carpaceae (40%) followed by Syzygium of the Myrta-
ceae (20%). Nest trees are very large, with a diameter
at breast height (dbh) of, on average, over 100 cm; tall
and emergent above the forest canopy; and hence
mainly aged or over-mature trees. These trees are prone
to damage by wind storms that cause irreversible
breakage to this rare resource. Over 26 years, 42% of
nest trees were lost to strong winds (Table 19.1 ). Nest
cavities that form in these aged trees are also subject to
gradual decay by rot fungi and 50% of those we exam-
ined had become unsuitable for this reason (Table
19.1 ). Losses of nest trees and poor cavity condition
can be a natural threat to breeding hornbills and their
populations.
Figure 19.2 Study areas and location of nests at (a) Khao Yai National Park and (b) Budo Mountain.
Permission from the Department of National Parks, Wildlife and Plant Conservation (DNP).
(a)
(a)
(b)
(b)

164 Conservation Biology
most desired species could fetch up to US$750 per bird.
Early in 1994, the immediate goal of stopping poach-
ing and increasing hornbill populations was estab-
lished as Phase I. Intensive efforts were undertaken
promptly to convince and persuade villagers to partici-
pate in research and conservation activities, wherein
they became guides and later research assistants.
The project did not develop without some unex-
pected problems. At fi rst, some villagers had reserva-
tions about dealing with non-Muslim strangers, but
these were overcome through person-to-person contact,
ethical project operation and principles, and develop-
ment of mutual respect. In 1997 there was a severe
economic crisis in Thailand, which reduced many local
corporate sources of funds and the resumption of
poaching became a risk. Withdrawal of the project
would have been considered a failure, implying lack of
determination of our part and potentially impairing
the trust we had gained. It was imperative to keep the
project running, despite the economic crisis.
Hornbill f amily a doption
In response to the crisis, fundraising to run the Budo
hornbill conservation program through a program of
“Hornbill Family Adoption” was initiated in 1997. This
successful effort has become recognized as a win-win
program more widely. The program encouraged people
outside BSNP, particularly those living in urban areas,
to participate by making an annual donation for each
hornbill nest that was adopted. All donations went into
training and hiring villagers as guides and assistants,
since overheads for the project were borne inter nally by
the THP. In return, the adopter(s), who chose the
species they preferred, gained knowledge by receiving
an annual report, prepared by THP ’ s staff, with details
of the nest tree, breeding cycle, breeding success, food,
and feeding behavior. They also received pictures of horn-
bills at their nests, hornbill foods, and the villager(s)
who protected and collected data at their nests. Those
who wished to visit the species they had adopted were
welcomed and guided by the villagers, so that the
parties met and conversed. In this way, the practice led
to the initiation of ecotourism related to the project.
On achievement of Phase I, a fur ther goal to increase
and sustain the hornbill populations to reach minimum
viable population size was set as Phase II. An intensive
and continuous community-collaborative campaign of
research and conservation has proven highly success-
ful in eradicating poaching and signifi cantly increasing
chicks, of which 134 (55%) successfully fl edged (Table
19.1 ). Without cavity monitoring and management,
hornbills at KY, particularly Great Hornbills, would
undoubtedly have declined.
Community- b ased c onservation
The s ignifi cance of Budo Mountain
Unlike KY, which is much larger in size and well pro-
tected and managed, Budo Sungai Padi National Park
(BSNP: only 340 km
2 ) was designated as a national
park only in 1999, following 12 years of preparation.
It comprises Budo and Sungai Padi, two isolated moun-
tains situated in peninsular Thailand. These moun-
tains are covered with tropical lowland rainforest,
encompassing the rich biodiversity of fauna and fl ora
of the Thai-Malay Archipelago, a Sundaic habitat that
is of limited extent in Thailand and has been much
reduced in Malaysia. The Park incorporates areas in
three provinces where social unrest has continued
since 2003. In effect, these two mountains are discrete
and separate islands of rainforest within a “sea” of
human-modifi ed habitats that are occupied mainly by
villagers and farmers of Muslim faith.
Amazingly, the forest of Budo mountain (190 km
2 ,
about 90 km
2 of primary forest and 100 km
2 of dis-
turbed forest, rubber plantations, and fruit orchards),
supports six species of hornbills. Some of these species
are of conservation concern internationally, including
the Rhinoceros, Helmeted, and White-crowned Horn-
bills. They are also of high concern nationally, particu-
larly the Rhinoceros Hornbill that was previously
thought to have become extinct in Thailand. During
the period 1994–2008, 188 nest trees of these six
hornbill species were located by ex-poachers and
ex-illegal loggers (villagers hereafter) (Table 19.1 ,
Figure 19.2 ). Budo has been under military operations
for most of the years during our research and conser-
vation practices.
Initiation of c ommunity- b ased c onservation
Before 1994, hornbills at Budo were severely poached
for the pet trade and food, and were in jeopardy of
extinction. The discovery of poaching of hornbill
chicks from their nests and their illegal sale into avicul-
ture and the pet trade was an important source of sup-
plementary income in the villagers ’ lives, given that the

Asia: Conservation of Hornbills in Thailand 165
Universities; USA, Woodland Park Zoo, Seattle, WA,
American Association of Zoo Keepers (AAZK); UK,
Chester Zoo, Cheshire.
REFERENCES
Corlett , R.T. ( 2009 ) The Ecology of Tropical East Asia . Oxford
University Press , Oxford .
FAO ( 2005 ) State of the World ’ s Forests 2005 . FAO , Rome, Italy .
FAO ( 2010 ) Global Forest Resources Assessment 2010 . FAO ,
Rome, Italy .
Holbrook , K. M. , Smith , T. B. and Hardesty , B. D. ( 2002 ) Impli-
cation of long-distance movements of frugivorous rain
forest hornbills . Ecography , 25 , 745 – 750 .
ICEM (International Center for Environmental Management)
( 2003 ) Thailand National Report on Protected Areas and Devel-
opment. Review of Protected Areas and Development in the
Lower Mekong River Region . Indooroopilly , Queensland,
Australia .
Kinnaird M. F. and O ’ Brien , T. G. ( 2007 ) The Ecology and Con-
servation of Asian Hornbills: Farmers of the Forest . The Uni-
versity of Chicago Press , Chicago, IL .
Lekagul , B. and Cronin , P. ( 1974 ) Bird Guide of Thailand , 2nd
edn . Kurusapa Ladprao Press , Bangkok, Thailand .
Lekagul , B. and Round , P. D. ( 1991 ) A Guide to the Birds of
Thailand . Saha Karn Bhaet Co., Ltd. , Bangkok, Thailand .
NESDB (Offi ce of the National Economic and Social Develop-
ment Board) ( 2008 ) The Seventh National Economic and
Social Development Plan (1993–1996) . www.nesdb.go.th
(accessed March 19, 2013).
ONEP (Offi ce of Natural Resources and Environmental Policy
and Planning) ( 2007 ) Thailand Red Data: Vertebrates . Minis-
try of Natural Resources and Environment , Bangkok,
Thailand .
Poonswad , P. ( 1993 ) Current status and distribution of horn-
bills and their habitats in Thailand , in Manual to the Conser-
vation of Asian Hornbills (eds P. Poonswad and A. C. Kemp ).
Sirivatana Interprint Co., Ltd. , Bangkok, Thailand , pp.
436 – 475 .
Poonswad , P. ( 1995 ) Nest site characteristics of four sympat-
ric species of hornbills in Khao Yai National Park, Thailand .
Ibis , 137 , 183 – 191 .
Poonswad , P. and Tsuji , A. ( 1994 ) Ranges of males of the
Great Hornbill Buceros bicornis , Brown Hornbill Ptilolaemus
tickelli and Wreathed Hornbill Rhyticeros undulatus in Khao
Yai National Park, Thailand . Ibis , 136 , 79 – 86 .
Poonswad , P. , Tsuji , A. and Jirawatkavi , N. ( 2004 ) Estimation
of nutrients delivered to nest inmates by four sympatric
species of hornbills in Khao Yai National Park, Thailand .
Ornithological Science , 3 , 99 – 112 .
Poonswad , P. , Chimchome , V. , Plongmai , K. and Chuailua , P.
( 1999 ) Factors infl uencing the reproduction of Asian
hornbill populations, particularly those of two of the
endangered species (Table 19.1 ). Over 16 years, under
this community-based conservation, there were no less
than 440 hornbill chicks of six species fl edged, 50%
being Great and 26% Rhinoceros Hornbills (Table
19.1 ).
Despite the poor economic conditions, exacerbated
by regional unrest, which has a pervasive effect on
community lives and livelihoods around Budo, the
hornbills remain under this form of community care.
Around Budo, the annual outreach campaign among
school children and teachers about hornbills and
nature conservation shows a progressive increase in
numbers from 200 individuals in 2006 to 1600 in
2010. Even though a nest cavity is an important factor
for hornbills to reproduce, at Budo the future of horn-
bills relies on community concern as the prime factor.
With limiting natural resources in a conservation
context, it is a challenge to transform an economically
based community into an altruistic community. If a
community does realize the intrinsic value of their
natural heritage with pride, as a gift to future genera-
tions, as a responsibility, rather than focusing on eco-
nomic benefi t, then conservation in these forests will
truly bloom. Partnerships with outsiders who may help
to support the effort fi nancially can also be extremely
helpful.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We are deeply indebted to the late Professor Sodhi, who
inspired and kindly included a part of our research in
this valuable book. We would like to thank the Depart-
ment of National Parks, Wildlife and Plant Conserva-
tion for granting permission to conduct research in
Khao Yai and Budo Sungai Padi National Parks. We
extend our thanks to park superintendents, park staff,
THP staff, and villagers of Budo Mountain for data col-
lection and excellent cooperation. We are grateful to Dr
Alan Kemp for his unlimited assistance. Our special
thanks go to Preeda Thiensongrusme for illustrations
of hornbills and to Porntip Poolswat for preparation of
this manuscript. Research and conservation activities
are supported by various organizations and private
sectors: Thailand, National Center of Genetic Engi-
neering and Biotechnology, Hornbill Research Founda-
tion, the Siam Cement Group, I.C.C International
Public Company Limited, PTT Exploration and Produc-
tion Public Company Limited, Mahidol and Kasetsart

166 Conservation Biology
Santisuk , T. ( 2007 ) Forests of Thailand . Department of National
Parks, Wildlife and Plants Conservation , Bangkok, Thailand .
Trisurat , Y. ( 2007 ) Applying gap analysis and comparison
index to evaluate protected areas in Thailand . Environmen-
tal Management , 39 ( 2 ), 235 – 245 .
Trisurat , Y. , Pattanavibool , A. , Gale , G. A. and Reed , D. H.
( 2010 ) Improving the viability of large mammal popula-
tions using landscape indices for conservation planning .
Wildlife Research , 36 , 401 – 412 .
hornbills , in Proceedings of 22nd International Ornithological
Congress, Durban (eds N. J. Adams and R. H. Slotow ), 1740 –
1755 . BirdLife South Africa , Johannesburg, South Africa .
Poonswad , P. , Sukkasem , C. , Phataramata , S. , Hayeemuida ,
S. , Plongmai , K. , Chuailua , P. , Thiensongrusame , P. and
Jirawatkavi , N. ( 2005 ) Comparison of cavity modifi cation
and community involvement as strategies for hornbill
conservation in Thailand . Biological Conservation , 122 ,
385 – 393 .
RFD (Royal Forest Department) ( 1985 ) National Forest Policy .
Royal Forest Department , Bangkok, Thailand .
Sanguansombat , W. ( 2005 ) Thailand Red Data: Birds . Offi ce of
Natural Resources and Environmental Policy and Planning
(ONEP) , Bangkok, Thailand .