ArticlePDF Available

Tracking the Movement Pattern of Bar-Headed Goose Anser indicus Captured from the Gharana Conservation Reserve, India

Authors:

Abstract and Figures

Bar-headed Goose Anser indicus is a long distance migrant to the Indian subcontinent, with the major population breeding in China. There is a small breeding population in Ladakh, Mongolia, and Kyrgyzstan. To gain an understanding of their movement pattern and home range, we monitored two PTT tagged Bar-headed Geese (BG111847 & BG111848) captured from the Gharana Conservation Reserve, Jammu & Kashmir, India, during March to August 2012. The origin of the tagged birds, whether from Ladakh or extralimital, could not be ascertained as both the PTTs functioned only for 5-6 months; also, the birds did not move to their breeding grounds till the signals were received in August. During the tracking period, the PTT fitted geese used the Tawi river floodplains of India and Pakistan, in Jammu and Sialkot districts respectively. BG111847 used a 431 km long stretch of the Tawi floodplains, while BG111848 used only a 54 km stretch. The home range of BG111847 was 52.60 sq. km [85% MCP (Minimum Convex Polygon)] and the core area was 7 sq. km (50% MCP), while the home range for BG111848 was 29.68 sq. km (85% MCP) and the core area was 2 sq. km (50% MCP). Post winter, the two geese used around 17 small wetlands in the Tawi river floodplains, moving between India and Pakistan intermittently, indicating the need for cross-border efforts for the long-term conservation of the species in this region. Our results are preliminary and further studies are needed to understand the migration pattern and habitat use of the Bar-headed Goose wintering in the Gharana Conservation Reserve and adjoining areas.
Content may be subject to copyright.
Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society, 112(1), Jan-Apr 2015 14-22
TRACKING THE MOVEMENT PATTERN OF BAR-HEADED GOOSE ANSER INDICUS CAPTURED
FROM THE GHARANA CONSERVATION RESERVE, INDIA
Neeraj Mahar
1,3
, Bilal haBiB
1,4
, Tahir Shawl
2,7
, Gopi GoviNdaN veeraSwaMi
1,5
, iNTeSar Suhail
2,8,
jiGMeT Takpa
2,9
aNd Syed aiNul huSSaiN
1,6,*
1Wildlife Institute of India, P.O. Box #18, Chandrabani, Dehradun 248 001, Uttarakhand, India.
2Department of Wildlife Protection, Government of Jammu & Kashmir, Rajbagh, Silk Factory Road, Pollution Control Board Campus,
Srinagar 190 001, Jammu & Kashmir, India.
3Email: neerajmahar@wii.gov.in
4Email: bh@wii.gov.in
5Email: gopigv@wii.gov.in
6Email: hussain@wii.gov.in
7Email: tahirshawl@yahoo.com
8Email: intesar.suhail@gmail.com
9Email: jiksmet@gmail.com
*Corresponding author
doi: 10.17087/jbnhs/2015/v112i1/92194
Bar-headed Goose Anser indicus is a long distance migrant to the Indian subcontinent, with the major population breeding
in China. There is a small breeding population in Ladakh, Mongolia, and Kyrgyzstan. To gain an understanding of
their movement pattern and home range, we monitored two PTT tagged Bar-headed Geese (BG111847 & BG111848)
captured from the Gharana Conservation Reserve, Jammu & Kashmir, India, during March to August 2012. The origin
of the tagged birds, whether from Ladakh or extralimital, could not be ascertained as both the PTTs functioned only
for 5–6 months; also, the birds did not move to their breeding grounds till the signals were received in August. During
the tracking period, the PTT tted geese used the Tawi river oodplains of India and Pakistan, in Jammu and Sialkot
districts respectively. BG111847 used a 431 km long stretch of the Tawi oodplains, while BG111848 used only a
54 km stretch. The home range of BG111847 was 52.60 sq. km [85% MCP (Minimum Convex Polygon)] and the core
area was 7 sq. km (50% MCP), while the home range for BG111848 was 29.68 sq. km (85% MCP) and the core area was
2 sq. km (50% MCP). Post winter, the two geese used around 17 small wetlands in the Tawi river oodplains, moving
between India and Pakistan intermittently, indicating the need for cross-border efforts for the long-term conservation
of the species in this region. Our results are preliminary and further studies are needed to understand the migration
pattern and habitat use of the Bar-headed Goose wintering in the Gharana Conservation Reserve and adjoining areas.
Keywords: Bar-headed Goose, satellite telemetry, migration, home range, wetland, Platform Transmitter Terminal,
Important Bird Area
INTRODUCTION
The Bar-headed Goose Anser indicus occurs in
Afghanistan, Pakistan, Tajikistan, Russia, Bhutan, China,
India, Mongolia, Nepal, Bangladesh, Vietnam, Thailand,
Uzbekistan, and Kyrgyzstan (IUCN 2014). The major
breeding population inhabits China, with smaller populations
in Mongolia and Kyrgyzstan (Koppen et al. 2010; Takekawa
et al. 2009). In India, breeding Bar-headed Goose has been
reported from Ladakh (Ali and Ripley 1987) where about 500
pairs breed around several lakes and marshes (Hussain and
Pandav 2008; Hussain et al. 2008; Prins and Wieren 2004).
Migrating Bar-headed Geese have been reported from many
protected and non-protected wetlands of Assam, Himachal
Pradesh, Jammu & Kashmir, Uttar Pradesh, Rajasthan,
Andhra Pradesh, Odisha, Karnataka, Tamil Nadu, Kerala,
and Maharashtra (Ali and Ripley 1987; Neelakantan et al.
1993; Rahmani 1992; Rahmani and Arora 1992; Rahmani
and Islam 2008; Rahmani et al. 2010).
The Bar-headed Goose is listed as a Schedule I species
under the Indian Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 and J&K
Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1978. Globally, it is a “Least
Concern” species (BirdLife International 2002; Collar et al.
1994), though it is believed that its population is declining
rapidly due to habitat loss, illicit egg collection, and hunting
(Koppen et al. 2010). Its global population is estimated to be
<60,000 (Miyabayashi and Mundkur 1999), with estimates
of around 20,000–30,000 wintering in India (Li et al. 2009).
Over 30,000 birds are reported during winter in China and
the Tibet Autonomous Region (Bishop and Drolma 2007;
Bishop et al. 1997).
Scientists and naturalists have always been fascinated
by the Bar-headed Goose due to its ability to y over the
Himalaya during migration to the Indian subcontinent and
back (Hawkes et al. 2010, 2013; Javed et al. 2000; Kalra et al.
2011; Lee et al. 2008; Swan 1970; Scott and Milsom 2007).
Kasambe et al. (2008) recovered neck-collared Bar-headed
Geese in Maharashtra and Karnataka which were tagged in
15J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 112(1), Jan-Apr 2015
Mongolia. Similarly, a neck-collared Goose from Mongolia
was reported in Tamil Nadu during winter (Van der Ven et
al. 2010). The species was found to migrate c. 780 km over
the Himalaya from India to China (Javed et al. 2000). Kalra
et al. (2011) also recorded their migration between India and
China. Platform Transmitter Terminal (PTT) deployed geese
in China, Mongolia, and Kyrgyzstan have been reported
from Keoladeo National Park (Rajasthan) and Pong Dam
(Himachal Pradesh) in India. Bar-headed Geese have been
identied as carriers of the highly pathogenic H5N1 virus
(Bourouiba et al. 2010; Chen et al. 2005; Prosser et al. 2011;
Zhou et al. 2006), which necessitates monitoring of their
movement pattern at international and regional levels. Hence,
we undertook this study to examine the movement pattern and
habitat use of the Bar-headed Goose frequenting the Gharana
Conservation Reserve using satellite telemetry.
Capture site
The Gharana Conservation Reserve is an ‘Important
Bird Area’ (Islam and Rahmani 2004), situated near Gharana
village in Ranbirsinghpora tehsil in the Tawi oodplains
(32o 32′ 26″ N; 74o 41′ 24″ E) of Jammu & Kashmir State. It
is c. 500 m from the India-Pakistan international border and
is a small wetland with an area of c. 100 ha surrounded by
agricultural lands. The wetland is covered with Water Hyacinth
Eichhornia crassipes and Typha sp. (Islam and Rahmani
2004). The Tawi river, agricultural lands, and several small
wetlands adjacent to Gharana offer habitats for waterbirds
in the oodplains. A study reported 21 species of waterbirds
from this wetland (Sharma and Saini 2012) with around 20,000
birds reported during winter, which includes more than 2,000
Bar-headed Geese (Islam and Rahmani 2004). The adjacent
oodplains of Indus, Degh, Panynad, and Ravi rivers in
Pakistan also have wintering population of Bar-headed Geese
numbering around 5,000 (Koppen et al. 2010; Van der Ven et al.
2010). The nearest breeding ground for the Bar-headed Goose
from Gharana is Ladakh, c. 300 km to its north. The breeding
sites in Ladakh mainly comprise lacustrine (e.g., Tso Kar,
Tso Morriri) and palustrine (e.g., Dungti, Chushul) wetlands
(Chandan et al. 2005; Islam and Rahmani 2004; Prins and
Weiren 2004). In China, their breeding sites are steppes, saline
meadows, swamp meadows, alpine meadows, and cropland
habitats, while preferred stopover sites are lakes, marshes, and
shallow wetlands (Zhang et al. 2011).
METHODS
Capture and deployment of PTTs
On March 19, 2012, seven adult Bar-headed Geese were
captured from the Gharana Conservation Reserve using noose
snares by trained professional bird trappers of the Bombay
Natural History Society. After biometric measurements, two
individuals were randomly selected for the deployment of
pre-designed PTTs. The PTT model TAV-2630, with around
nine months of battery life, was attached onto the backs of
the birds with a backpack harness. The weight of PTT was
29 gm, which is around 1% of the total body weight of the
geese and is within the recommended 3% weight limit (Wilson
and McMahon 2006). Unique identication numbers were
given to the birds, viz. BG111847 and BG111848, for receiving
data from ARGOS (ARGOS 2007). PTTs were set to receive
ve xes per 24 hour cycle. Generally, ARGOS provides x
(location) classes of different accuracies; the high accuracy
x classes are 3, 2, 1 and 0. Low accuracy classes A, B, and
Z are also transmitted from the PTT. The high accuracy x
classes provide a range of error as follows: 3 = <150 m, 2 =
150–350 m, 1 = 350–1,000 m and 0 = >1,000 m. As classes
A, B, and Z indicate poor satellite connection (ARGOS 2007),
only classes 3 to 0 were used for analysis (Ueta 2000).
Data analysis
We used adehabitatHR for home-range and
movement pattern analysis in R core 3.0.2 version software
(R Development Core Team 2014). Conventional Minimum
Convex Polygon (MCP) method was used for home range
analysis and core area was calculated with 50% MCP.
ARGOS xes received from both individuals were overlaid
on Land Use Land Cover (LULC) maps using ArcGIS Version
9.3 (ESRI 2008). Habitat types were broadly divided into ve
categories, namely water (river and waterbodies), vegetation
(largely grass-dominated areas), settlement (village and town),
agriculture, and open areas (uncultivated and riverbed). We
used Google Earth images Version 6.1 (Google, Mountain
View, California, USA) to identify wetlands utilized by the
geese and the potential wetlands in the region suitable for
geese and other waterbirds.
RESULTS
Performance of PTTs
We received 647 xes between March and August
2012, with maximum xes during April, and minimum during
August 2012 (Fig. 1). We analyzed 205 high class xes [from
both geese, Location Class (LC) 3 (33%), followed by LC
2 (32%), LC 1 (26%) and LC 0 (9%)], of which 176 xes
were of BG111847 and 29 were of BG111848. The PTT
on BG111847 functioned till August 2012 while that on
BG111848 provided irregular xes till July 2012 (Table 1).
Both the PTTs functioned for 5–6 months below the expected
life of 9 months.
TRACKING THE MOVEMENT PATTERN OF BAR-HEADED GOOSE CAPTURED FROM GHARANA CONSERVATION RESERVE
16
J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 112(1), Jan-Apr 2015
Spatial Distribution
We computed 85% MCP after excluding the outliers. As
depicted in Fig. 2, 90% MCP for BG111847 was justiable,
unlike BG111848. As prominent increase in home range of
BG111848 till 90% was ineffective, we determined home
range using an acceptable average of 85% MCP, and core
range was computed with 50% MCP. Average home range
of the two birds was calculated as 41 sq. km (85% MCP),
and core area as 4 sq. km (50% MCP).
Individually, the home range of BG111847 was
52.60 sq. km with a core area of 7 sq. km that mainly consisted
of wetlands/waterbodies. The core area for BG111847 was
in Chaprar, Pakistan, and near Ranbirsinghpora, India. The
home range of BG111848 was 29.68 sq. km between March to
July (Fig. 3), with a core area of 2 sq. km in and around Tawi
river within Indian territory, c. 12 km away from Gharana
(Fig. 4). Both the individuals did not return to Gharana after
tagging; they moved towards the north and used the Tawi
oodplains extensively. There was an overlap of 10 sq. km
area between the home ranges of these two birds, but no
interaction was recorded since very few xes were received
from the overlapping area (Fig. 3).
Movement Pattern
Instead of migrating towards Ladakh/Central Asia/
China, the geese that were tagged in March 2012 remained
in Tawi oodplains till July–August 2012. The birds moved
extensively within areas of the Tawi oodplains in Jammu
(India) and Sialkot (Pakistan). For BG111847, the total
movement was computed as c. 431 km and the average
movement was 2.69 km/day (Table 1), while the maximum
distance between two consecutive xes was 25 km. The
PTT-tted goose occasionally visited nearby areas of River
Chenab in Pakistan (Fig. 5). Eventually, BG111847 settled
in Chaprar (Pakistan) till we received the last x in August
2012. BG111848 moved c. 54 km, and the average distance
travelled was 0.46 km/day with a maximum of 13 km between
two consecutive xes on March 21, 2012; the last x for this
bird was received in July 2012.
Habitat Use
Most of the xes were received from open areas (a
combination of open barren lands, empty crop lands and
riverbeds), followed by vegetation (mostly grass-dominated
areas), agriculture and wetlands (Fig. 6). Fixes were not
received from any human settlements, indicating that the
geese avoided such areas. The least number of xes were
received in water/wetland habitats, most of the x clusters in
other habitat types were within 1–2 km of the Euclidean ight
distance from the wetlands. The total area used by the two
Table 1: Home range (50% & 85% MCP) and movement pattern of two PTT-tted Bar-headed Geese
captured in Gharana Conservation Reserve
Bird ID Start Date Total
Fixes
Fixes used for
analysis
End Date 50% MCP
(sq. km)
85% MCP
(sq. km)
Movement
(km/day)
BG111847 March 19, 2012 550 176 August 25, 2012 7 52.60 2.69
BG111848 March 19, 2012 97 29 July 7, 2012 2 29.68 0.46
Fig. 1: Monthly xes received from ARGOS for two PTT-tted
geese captured in Gharana Conservation Reserve
Fig. 2: Saturation in home ranges of two PTT-tted Bar-headed
Geese captured in Gharana Conservation Reserve
TRACKING THE MOVEMENT PATTERN OF BAR-HEADED GOOSE CAPTURED FROM GHARANA CONSERVATION RESERVE
17J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 112(1), Jan-Apr 2015
Fig. 3: Home ranges (85% MCP) of two PTT-tted Bar-headed Geese captured in Gharana Conservation Reserve
Table 2: Wetlands in Tawi oodplain of India and Pakistan
Wetland
ID (see
Fig. 7)
Area (sq. km) Perimeter
(km)
Type Country
1 0.005 0.15 Canal P
2 0.004 0.292 Pond I
3 0.006 0.418 Pond P
4 0.001 0.146 Pond P
50.431 4.5 Pond, Canal I & P
6 0.001 0.19 Pond P
7 0.014 0.057 Pond P
80.002 0.21 Pond P
9 0.002 0.246 Pond P
10 0.019 0.781 Pond P
11 0.014 0.712 Pond P
12 0.023 0.7 Pond P
13 0.0008 0.126 Pond P
14 0.125 5.6 Stream P
15 0.014 0.797 Canal I
16 0.004 0.666 Pond P
17 0.0006 0.13 Pond P
Source: - Google Earh Image; I - India and P – Pakistan
birds was c. 72 sq. km, of which open area constituted 31.78
sq. km, followed by areas with grass-dominated vegetation
(25.58 sq. km), agriculture (10.41 sq. km), and river/wetland
(3.21 sq. km). The home range, however, encompassed 0.47
sq. km human settlements.
Important wetlands in the Tawi oodplain
The birds used around 17 small wetlands in the Tawi
oodplain (Fig. 7; Table 2), varying in size from c. 0.0006
to 0.431 sq. km with a total available area of c. 0.66 sq.
km, of which c. 0.44 sq. km was in India and c. 0.22 sq.
km in Pakistan. Most of these wetlands served as optional
habitats for the geese. Occasionally, stagnant water canals
were used. In Chaprar (Pakistan), c. 0.20 sq. km cluster of
wetlands were utilized by BG111847 in July and August.
Among these clusters, smaller wetlands of size 0.0008 sq.
km also served as staging sites (Table 2). Apparently, these
are potential habitats for waterbirds in the Tawi and Chenab
river oodplains in India and Pakistan (Fig. 7).
DISCUSSION
Neck-banded Bar-headed Geese have been reported
TRACKING THE MOVEMENT PATTERN OF BAR-HEADED GOOSE CAPTURED FROM GHARANA CONSERVATION RESERVE
18
J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 112(1), Jan-Apr 2015
to visit the Gharana Conservation Reserve (Agency India
Press, December 23, 2011; DNA December 27, 2011),
which are believed to have been tagged in Mongolia, the
Qinghai province of China, or possibly Himachal Pradesh
(A.R. Rahmani, pers. comm.). Earlier satellite tracking
studies reported the maximum migration distance of the
Bar-headed Goose to be 3,000 km, from Mongolia to India
(Hawkes et al. 2013; Takekawa et al. 2009). PTT-tted Bar-
headed Geese from Keoladeo National Park (Rajasthan) and
Sur Sarovar (Uttar Pradesh) moved to their breeding grounds
in the Tibetan Autonomous Region and Xizang Province
(China) by March–April (Javed et al. 2000; Kalra et al. 2011).
However, our study showed a comparatively short movement
(maximum 431 km) and the birds were recorded in the Tawi
oodplains of India and Pakistan till August (Table 3). This
indicates that either the PTT-tted birds are from a resident
population of nearby areas, such as Ladakh, or they did not
return to their breeding sites because of some other reason,
which needs further investigation.
The extent of area utilized by the two PTT-tted birds
in our study varied perhaps due to the availability of suitable
habitats or inter/intra-specic competition among species
(Schoener 1968; Nudds and Ankney 1982). However, from
the small sample size, we could not make any denitive
conclusion in the difference observed in the extent of area
used by these two birds. Gharana is a very small wetland,
so, agricultural land around it and other smaller wetlands
serve as an obligate habitat for wintering waterbirds such
as Bar-headed Geese. The PTT-tted birds did not return to
Gharana, but used nearby wetlands and agriculture elds and
Fig. 6: Percentage of ARGOS xes of two PTT-tted
Bar-headed Geese captured in Gharana Conservation Reserve
in different habitats
Note: Vegetation here denotes grass-dominated areas
Fig. 4: Core areas (50% MCP) of two PTT-tted Bar-headed Geese captured in Gharana Conservation Reserve
TRACKING THE MOVEMENT PATTERN OF BAR-HEADED GOOSE CAPTURED FROM GHARANA CONSERVATION RESERVE
19J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 112(1), Jan-Apr 2015
Fig. 5: Movement pattern of two PTT-tted Bar-headed Geese captured in Gharana Conservation Reserve
Fig. 7: Important wetlands outside Gharana Conservation Reserve, India
Source: Google Earth accessed 12 September 2014
TRACKING THE MOVEMENT PATTERN OF BAR-HEADED GOOSE CAPTURED FROM GHARANA CONSERVATION RESERVE
20
J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 112(1), Jan-Apr 2015
Table 3: Migration and movement pattern of satellite-tracked Bar-headed Geese
Reference Type of
Transmitter
Total distance
covered (km)
Individuals
tagged
Countries recorded Type of migration Stopover
sites
Total
days of
movement
Total
Fixes
Javed et al. 2000 PTT ~780 2 India, China Spring 3 137 192
Takekawa et al. 2009 PTT 500–3,000 60 China, India,
Mongolia, Nepal
Winter, Fall,
Spring, Breeding,
Moult
NA 1-213 93,009
Koppen et al. 2010 PTT 790–1,550 4 Uzbekistán,
Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistán,
India, Pakistán
Autumn and
Spring
4 1–53 5000
Guo-Gang et al.
2011
PTT 1,270–1,470 10 China Autumn 4 50–90 NA
Cui et al. 2011 PTT 17.89–404.41 21 China Moult, Autumn
and Breeding
NA 185–298 16,342
Prosser et al. 2011 PTT 260–2,330 15 China, India Breeding and
Spring
7 1–154 NA
Kalra et al. 2011 PTT 807–1,305 4 China, India Winter 2 193–263 4663
Zhang et al. 2011 PTT 1,300–1,500 11 China Autumn 5 73–83 NA
Hawkes et al. 2013 PTT 3,000 91 India, China Autumn and
Spring
NA 135–1,216 NA
This Study PTT 54–431 2 India, Pakistan Winter NA 115–160 647
*NA= Not Available
grasslands in India and Pakistan, indicating that this landscape
as a whole is important for migratory birds.
In the last few decades, hunting and anthropogenic
pressures have adversely affected the population of the Bar-
headed Goose in Kyrgyzstan (Koppen et al. 2010). Even
if these birds do not migrate to other countries, there still
exists a potential threat of avian inuenza via interaction with
migratory populations of other species. Hotspots of interaction
must be located and prioritized for national and trans-boundary
conservation efforts, since there might be possibilities of
uncertain conservation status in other countries. For instance,
in India, population loss of Siberian Crane was attributed to
population decline during migration (Meine and Archibald
1996). Thus, the conservation of migratory Bar-headed Goose
populations would be uncertain without trans-boundary
collaborations. Additionally, studies with a landscape approach
are needed for the identication and conservation of multiple
stopover sites, since waterbirds migrate long distances within
different geographic regions and countries seasonally.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We extend our sincere gratitude to the Chief
Wildlife Wardens, Government of Jammu & Kashmir
(J&K) for providing support during the study. We would
like to thank the Director and Dean, Wildlife Institute of
India, for their support and guidance. We are grateful to
Mr. Asif Mehmood, Regional Wildlife Warden, Jammu, and
Dr. Samina Amin Charoo, Research Officer, Department
of Wildlife Protection, J&K, for providing the necessary
support. We thank Dr. Asad R. Rahmani, Director, BNHS,
for permitting us to use tags and bands, and the services
of Mr. Ali Hussain. We take this opportunity to thank
Mr. Ali Hussain and Mr. Md. Sikandar for capturing
the birds. We acknowledge the support of the field staff
in the Gharana Conservation Reserve. We also thank
Shivam, Pariva, Upma, Amanat, and Aditi for their
valuable help during the analysis and in writing the
manuscript.
REFERENCES
ali, S. & S.d. ripley
(1987): Compact Handbook of the Birds of India
and Pakistan. 2nd edn. Oxford University Press, Mumbai. 737 pp.
arGoS
(2007): User Manual Service Argos. Toulouse. Downloaded
on 12 March 2014, from <https://argos-system.org/documents/
userarea/argos_manual_en.pdfCLS/>.
Birdlife iNTerNaTioNal
(2002): Threatened Birds of the World. Lynx
TRACKING THE MOVEMENT PATTERN OF BAR-HEADED GOOSE CAPTURED FROM GHARANA CONSERVATION RESERVE
21J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 112(1), Jan-Apr 2015
kalra, M., S. kuMar, a.r. rahM aNi, j.a. khaN, S.M. Belal &
a.M. khaN
(2011): Satellite tracking of Bar-headed Geese Anser
indicus wintering in Uttar Pradesh, India. J. Bombay Nat. Hist.
Soc. 108(2): 79–94.
kaSaMBe, r., a. joShi, a. Shivkar, M. NiraNjaN & S. BhuSari
(2008):
Re-sighting of Mongolian tagged Bar-headed Geese Anser indicus
in India. Newsletter for Birdwatchers 48(2): 24–25.
köppeN, u., a.p. yakoviev, r. BarTh, M. kaaTz & p. BerThold
(2010):
Seasonal migrations of four individual bar-headed geese Anser
indicus from Kyrgyzstan followed by satellite telemetry. Journal
of Ornithology 151(3): 703–712.
lee, S.y., G.r. ScoTT & w.k. MilSoM
(2008): Have wing morphology
or ight kinematics evolved for extreme high altitude migration in
the bar-headed goose? Comparative Biochemistry & Physiology
148: 324–331.
li, z.w.d., a. BloeM, S. delaNy, G. MarTakiS & j.o. QuiNTero
(2009):
Status of waterbirds in Asia. Results of the Asian Waterbird
Census: 1987–2007. Wetlands International, Wageningen, The
Netherlands.
MeiNe, c.d. & G.w. archiBald
(1996): The Cranes: Status Survey and
Conservation Action Plan. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland.
MiyaBayaShi, y. & T. MuNdkur
(1999): Atlas of Key sites for Anatidae
in the east Asian yway. http://www.jawgp.org/anet/aaa1999/
aaaendx.htm. Wetlands International Japan, Tokyo and Wetlands
International Asia Pacic, Kuala Lumpur.
NeelakaNTaN, k.k., c. SaShikuMar & r. veNuGopalaN
(1993): A Book
of Kerala Birds. Part 1. WWF., Kerala State Ofce. Pp. 146.
NuddS, T.d. & c.d. aNkNey
(1982): Ecological correlates of territory
and home range size in North American dabbling ducks. Wildfowl
33: 58–62.
priNS, h.h.T. & S.e. wiereN
(2004): Number, population structure
and habitat use of bar-headed goose Anser indicus in Ladakh
(India) during the brood rearing period. Acta Zoologica Sinica
50(5): 738–744.
proSSer, d.j., p. cui, j.y. Takekawa, M. TaNG, y. hou, B.M. colliNS,
B. yaN, N.j. hill, T. li, y. li, f. lei, S. Guo, z. XiNG, y. he, y.
zhou, d.c. douGlaS, w.M. perry & S.h. NewMaN
(2011): Wild
bird migration across the Qinghai-Tibetan Plateau: A transmission
route for highly pathogenic H5N1. PLoS ONE 6(3): 1–14.
r developMeNT core TeaM
(2014): R: A Language and Environment
for Statistical Computing. A Foundation for Statistical Computing,
Vienna, Austria. R core 3.0.2 version software (www.r-project.org/).
rahMaNi , a.r.
(1992): The Wetlands of Uttar Pradesh – Part III.
Newsletter for Birdwatchers 32(1&2): 3–5.
rahMaNi, a.r. & v.M. arora
(1992): The Wetlands of Uttar Pradesh
– Part II. Newsletter for Birdwatchers 32(3&4): 5–6.
rahMaNi, a.r. & M.z. iSlaM
(2008): Ducks, Geese and Swans of India:
their distribution. Indian Bird Conservation Network: BNHS,
RSPB, BirdLife International, Oxford University Press. 374 pp.
rahMaNi, a.r., S. kuMar, p. deori, j.a. khaN, M. kalra, M.S. Belal,
a.M. khaN, N.i. khaN, a. GeorGe, N. SrivaSTava, v.p. SiNGh,
f. rehMaN & S. MuraleedharaN
(2010): Migratory Movements
of Waterbirds through Uttar Pradesh and the Surveillance of Avian
Diseases. Final Project Report. Bombay Natural History Society,
Mumbai. 405 pp.
SchoeNer, T.w. (1968):
Sizes of feeding territories among birds. Ecology
49(1): 123–141.
ScoTT, G.r. & w.k. MilSoM
(2007): Control of breathing and adaptation
to high altitude in the bar-headed goose. American Journal of
Physiology-Regulatory Integrative and Comparative Physiology
293(1): 379–391.
SharMa, k.k. & M. SaiNi
(2012): Impact of anthropogenic pressure on
habitat utilization by the waterbirds in Gharana Wetland (Reserve),
Jammu (J&K, India). International Journal of Environmental
Sciences 2(4): 2050–2062. doi: 10.6088/ijes.00202030089
Edicions and BirdLife International, Barcelona and Cambridge.
BiShop, M.a
. & T.
drolMa
(2007): Tibet Autonomous Region January
2007 survey for Black-necked Crane, Common Crane and Bar-
headed Geese. China Crane News 11(1): 24–25.
BiShop, M.a., y. SoNG, z. caNjue &
B. Gu (1997): Bar-headed Geese
(Anser indicus) wintering in south-central Tibet. Wildfowl 48:
118–126.
Bourou iBa , l., j. wu, S. NewMa N, j. Tak ekawa, T. NaTdor j,
N. BaTB ayar, c.M. BiSh op , l.a. haw keS , p.j. BuT ler &
M. wikel Ski
(2010): Spatial dynamics of Bar-headed Geese
migration in the context of H5N1. Journal of the Royal Society
Interface 7(52): 1627–1639.
chaNdaN, p., a. chaTTerjee, p. GauTaM, c.M. SeTh, j. Takpa, S.u. haQ,
p. TaShi & S. vidya
(2005): Black-necked Crane – Status, Breeding
Productivity and Conservation in Ladakh, India 2000–2004.
WWF-India and Department of Wildlife Protection, Government
of Jammu & Kashmir.
cheN, h., G.j.d. SMiTh, S.y. zhaNG, k. QiN, j. waNG, k.S. li,
r.G. weBSTer, j.S.M. peiriS & y. GuaN
(2005): H5N1 virus
outbreak in migratory waterfowl. Nature 436: 191.
collar, N.j., M.j. croSBy & a.j. STaTTerSfield
(1994): Birds to watch
2 – the World List of Threatened Birds. BirdLife Conservation
Series No. 4. BirdLife International, Cambridge, UK.
cui, p., y. hou, M. TaNG, h. zhaNG, y. zhou, z. yiN, T. li, S. Gou,
z. XiNG, y. he, d.j. proSSer, S.h. NewMaN, j.y. Takekawa, B.
yaN & f. lei
(2011): Movement pattern of Bar-headed Geese
Anser indicus during breeding and breeding periods at Qinghai
Lake, China. Journal of Ornithology 152(1): 83–92.
ESRI (2008): ArcGIS version 9.3. Environmental Systems Research
Institute, Inc., Redlands, California, USA.
Guo-GaNG, z., l. doNG-piNG, h. yuN-Qiu, j. hoNG-XiNG, d. MiNG,
Q. fa-weN, l. juN, X. zhi & l. feNG-ShaN
(2011): Migration
routes and stop-over sites determined with satellite tracking of
bar-headed geese Anser indicus breeding at Qinghai Lake, China.
Waterbirds 34: 112–116.
hawk eS, l.a., S. Ba la cha Nd raN , N. BaT Bayar , p.j. Bu Tler,
p.B. frappell, w.k. MilSoM, N. TSeveeNMyadaG, S.h. NewMaN,
G.r. ScoTT, p. SaThiyaSelvaM, j.y. Takekawa, M. wikelSki &
c.M. BiShop
(2010): The trans-Himalayan ights of Bar-headed
Geese (Anser indicus). Proceedings of National Academy of
Sciences 108(23): 9516–9519.
hawkeS, l.a., S. BalachaNdraN, N. BaTBayar, p.j. BuTler, B. chua,
d.c. douGlaS, p.B. frappell, y. hou, w.k. MilSoN, S.h. NewMaN,
d.j. proSSer, p. SaTh iyaSelvaM, G.r. ScoTT, j.y. Takekawa,
T. NeTSaGdroj, M. wikelSki, M.j. wiTT, B. yaN & c.M. BiShop
(2013): The paradox of extreme high altitude migration in bar-
headed geese Anser indicus. Proceedings of the Royal Society B
280: 1–8.
huSSaiN, S.a. & B. paNdav
(2008): Status of breeding waterbirds in
Changthang Cold Desert Sanctuary, Ladakh. Indian Forester
134(4): 469–480.
huSSaiN, S.a., r.k. SiNGh & r. Badola
(2008): An ecological survey
of the Trans-Himalayan wetlands of the proposed Changthang
Biosphere Reserve, India, for conservation planning. Biosphere
Conservation 9(1): 53–63.
iSlaM, M.z. & a.r. rahMaNi
(2004): Important Bird Areas of India:
Priority sites for conservation. Indian Bird Conservation Network,
Bombay Natural History Society, BirdLife International and
Oxford University Press. 1133 pp.
IUCN (2014): <www.iucn.org.in>downloaded on 27 February 2014.
javed, S., j.y. Takekawa, d.c. douGlaS, a.r. rahMaNi, y. kaNai,
M. NaGeNdraN, B.c. choudhury & S. SharMa
(2000): Tracking
the spring migration of a Bar-headed Goose (Anser indicus)
across the Himalaya with satellite telemetry. Global Environment
Research 4(2): 195–206.
TRACKING THE MOVEMENT PATTERN OF BAR-HEADED GOOSE CAPTURED FROM GHARANA CONSERVATION RESERVE
22
J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 112(1), Jan-Apr 2015
SwaN, l.w
. (1970): Goose of the Himalayas. Natural History 79:
68–75.
Takekawa, j.y., S.r. heaTh, d.c. douGlaS, w.M. perry, S. javed,
S.h. NewMaN, r.N. Suwal, a.r. rahMaNi, B.c. choudhury,
d.j. proSSer, B. yaN, y. hou, N. BaTBayar, T. NaTSaGdorj,
c.M. BiShop, p.j. BuTler, p.B. frappell, w.k. MilSoM, G.r. ScoTT,
l.a. hawkeS & M. wikelSki
(2009): Geographical variation in
Bar-headed Geese Anser indicus: Connectivity of wintering
areas and breeding grounds across a broad front. Wildfowl 59:
100–123.
ueTa, M.
(2000): Satellite tracking of bird migration and its
effectiveness for the research of Black-faced Spoonbills. Pp. 31–38.
In: Ueta, M., R. Kurosawa & D. Allen (Eds): Conservation and
research of Black-faced Spoonbills and their habitats. 2nd edn.
Wild Bird Society of Japan, Tokyo, Japan.
vaN der veN j., p. Gole & G. ouweNeel
(2010): Bar-headed Geese
Anser indicus: notes from breeding and wintering areas. Goose
Bulletin 10: 7–17.
wilSoN, r.p. & c.r. McMahoN
(2006): Measuring devices on wild
animals: what constitutes acceptable practice? Frontiers of Ecology
and Evolution 4(3): 147–154.
zhaNG, y., M.T. hao, j.y. Takekawa, f. lei, B. yaN, d.j. proSSer,
d.c. douGlaS, z. XiNG & S.h. NewMaN
(2011): Tracking the
autumn migration of the Bar-headed Goose (Anser indicus) with
satellite telemetry and relationship to environmental conditions.
International Journal of Zoology 2011(323847): 1–10.
zhou, j.y., h.G. SheN, h.X. cheN, G.z. ToNG, M. liao, h.c. yaNG &
j.X. liu
(2006): Characterization of a highly pathogenic H5N1
inuenza virus derived from Bar-headed geese in China. Journal
of General Virology 87: 1823–1833.
  
TRACKING THE MOVEMENT PATTERN OF BAR-HEADED GOOSE CAPTURED FROM GHARANA CONSERVATION RESERVE
... The mosaic of agricultural fields and wetlands in Jammu and Punjab regions are hotspots for such an approach and can guarantee the agricultural security of the region, which is greatly dependent on water regulated by wetlands. Mahar et al. 2015 4 Great Indian Bustard Ardeotis nigriceps Once a contestant for the tag of India's National bird, the Great Indian Bustard is now critically endangered with ca. 200 individuals struggling to survive in the deserts of the Indian subcontinent. ...
Article
Full-text available
Unlike humans, political and physical boundaries do not limit animals that are long ranging. However, due to political, economic and social conflicts between countries, it is the wildlife that takes a hit. This has been recognized by many countries and effective measures of trans-boundary conservation have successfully been implemented. This has not only paved the way for the conservation of species that range in multiple countries but has also enhanced cooperation between countries on several fronts. In this article, we highlight the need for similar trans-boundary measures between India and Pakistan and focus on a few species which can act as potential flagship species in this regard. In the background of global commitments by India and nations for conserving the freedom of movement, and for securing the services offered by these ecological flows to the people of both nations, we propose a scientific discussion for establishing trans-boundary peace parks.
Article
Full-text available
Wetlands in Nepal support an agrarian socio-economy and form the religious-cultural foundation of various communities. There are about 21 indigenous communities in the country that depend on wetland resources for their livelihoods. These communities have been using their traditional knowledge and practices from time immemorial. However, due to economic changes and rapidly changing natural environment, their knowledge is becoming lost. An effort was made to document wetland indigenous knowledge in Ghodaghodi Lake Area (GLA) and Koshi Tappu Wildlife Reserve (KTWR), Ramsar sites of Nepal in 2012 based on the methodology developed by the Ministry of Forests and Soil Conservation in terms of resource (plants and animals) utilization and practicing different wetland management techniques. A total of 44 different wetland products were utilized by Chaudhary/Tharu communities in GLA while in KTWR, a wide range of products were utilized by five different indigenous communities. Similarly, 14 and 25 different types of indigenous knowledge contributed to sustainable wetland management in GLA and KTWR respectively. Most importantly, indigenous communities conserve the wetlands and some of their resources as religious symbols which significantly contributes to sustainable wetland management. Indigenous knowledge is largely limited to the older generation, and the younger generation is less motivated to practice such knowledge. The problem can be addressed by supporting such communities to derive economic benefits from their knowledge.
Chapter
Full-text available
Globally, wetlands are vital elements of the ecosystems and economies and occur extensively in all climatic zones. Himalayan wetlands harbour rich biodiversity and numerous ecosystem services. High-altitude wetlands in the Himalayas include lakes, swamps and seasonal marshes. They are the source of major rivers like the Indus, Brahmaputra and tributaries of the Ganga. India has a great diversity of wetlands owing to its location at the junction of three biogeographic realms. The Indian Himalayas harbour some of the most spectacular and biologically rich wetlands in the world. Some of these wetlands are extensively explored, but most of them are still unknown. At present, these wetlands are under immense pressure due to increasing anthropogenic pressure and underlying natural causes. An assessment on location, characteristics, functions, values, threats and status of wetlands is necessary to develop fundamental knowledge and sustainable wetland conservation programme. Current review discusses the conservation status of wetlands in the Indian Himalayas, particularly the states of Jammu and Kashmir, Himachal Pradesh, Uttarakhand, Sikkim and Arunachal Pradesh, with the objective to consolidate the status of the Indian Himalayan wetlands for conservation prioritization.
Article
Full-text available
Gilgit-Baltistan (GB) is home to freshwater bodies and unique wetlands biodiversity. This study aimed at documenting the socioeconomic and ecological significance of high altitude wetlands while discussing the conservation measures undertaken to mange these and their impacts on human habitation and ecology. In the initial phase of the project, WWF-Pakistan conducted socio-ecological surveys of 18 sites and developed 6 management plans. WWF-Pakistan established a ‘watch and ward’ mechanism in project sites and a strong lobbying and advocacy framework in the GB region. Climate change planning, awareness about wetlands’ importance and pasture management interventions were other key components of conservation measures in the area. Changes or impacts of conservation measures were included; project team developed a comprehensive scientific database for surveyed sites and recorded distribution of new species. In order to conserve natural resources i.e., forests and associated resources, various alternative energy sources were provided to the local communities to overcome pressure faced by these resources. In addition to this, various measures were taken to reduce human-wildlife conflict by introducing improved cattle sheds, vaccination to reduce disease transmission and insurance scheme for predation casualties. Wildlife and bird population showed an increasing trend in project sites after project implementation, and was the main output of awareness given to locals about wetland functions and services. The government of GilgitBaltistan notified first wetlands based national park (Qurumbar), declared Gahkuch marshlands as a ‘no hunting zone’ and notified Ishkoman valley as a community management hunting area. It is not easy to distil effectiveness of conservation measures and their impacts from project documents or reports; however, wetlands conservation measures in Gilgit-Baltistan has great impacts on socioeconomic conditions, scientific knowledge, awareness, conservation and climate change risk reduction planning.
Book
Full-text available
This publication provides a summary of the Regional Expert Symposium on ‘Managing Wetland Ecosystem in the Hindu Kush Himalaya: Securing Services for Livelihoods’, along with a synthesis of scientific papers presented by experts on diverse topics like wetland ecology, status and threats, economic valuation, policies, benefit sharing mechanisms and traditional knowledge prevalent in the HKH region. The analysis clearly indicated that wise management of wetland ecosystems is essential not only for human health and economic prosperity of the HKH people, but also for the environmental sustainability.
Conference Paper
Full-text available
Despite local, national, and global efforts to mitigate undesirable ecosystem change, anthropogenic impacts on Earth’s systems are intensifying. However, the understanding of coupling of ecological and social sciences is limited. Focusing on Koshi Tappu Wildlife Reserve (KTWR) of Nepal, we assessed biophysical, socio-cultural and economic values to understand the coupling of local inhabitants with the surrounding ecosystems. We rationalize the importance of KTWR through assessment of biophysical values as a habitat for 15 globally significant species, socio-cultural values based on dependency on ecosystem services and economic values of some selective services, related with ongoing land use and cover change results of the past 34 years. In the matrix analysis, swamps/marshes scored highest in terms of the number of species (15), followed by forest (14), river and lake (13), grassland (12) and, finally, agriculture (2). Among the forest services, fuelwood is the topmost product for which 91% of the local population are dependent for cooking. In addition, wetland is a source of many commodities such as fish (38%), driftwood (31%) and snails (23%). The overall economic benefit generated from the selected services was estimated to be approximately USD 16 million per year (NPR 1.38 billion), equivalent to a net present value (NPV) of around USD 444 million. However, over the last 34 years, significant changes in land cover and ecosystem types have been observed. The forest ecosystem was reduced by 94% compared to 1976 whereas the grassland has increased by 79%. It is also interesting to note that rivers/streams, which cover 10% of the total area, and swamps/ marshlands, which cover 5%, provide many important services. Therefore, understanding the values in both monetary and non-monetary terms, including people’s dependency on the ecosystem services and the dynamics of the ecosystems, could be important for improving the flow of ecosystem services and management of the reserve
Article
Full-text available
In 2010, 4 Bar-headed Geese were captured and fitted with satellite transmitters at Sur Sarovar Bird Sanctuary in Uttar Pradesh, India, to examine their migration and distribution. The individuals fitted with Platform Transmitter Terminal (PTT) 99072, 99073, 99075 and 99076 spent a total of 30 days, 16 days, 36 days and 23 days respectively, in their wintering range after deployment of PTTs. During wintering, Goose 99073 and 99076 ranged within an area of 48.65 sq. km and 124.37 sq. km. However, Goose 99072 and 99075 ranged within an area of 106.76 sq. km and 149.84 sq. km. They migrated towards their breeding grounds between March 25, and April 12, 2010. During their migration, they flew over the Himalaya, a significant barrier to migration for most birds. The Geese equipped with PTT 99072, 99073, 99075 and 99076 covered a total distance of 877 km, 1,005 km, 807 km and 1,305 km respectively. All 4 birds flew to the breeding areas on the Tibetan Plateau, and stayed there for a period of 153-222 days. Three Geese (99072, 99073 and 99076) made a stopover over Xizang province for 1-2 days. However, Goose 99075 directly flew to the breeding ground. Goose 99073 moved within an area of 3,155 sq. km and used three focal areas of 438 sq. km, 457 sq. km and 510 sq. km. Among the four geese, Goose 99076 established itself in the northernmost part. It moved over an area of 10,866.77 sq. km and used two focal areas of 1,168 and 3,368 sq. km size intensively. Goose 99072 moved over an area of 5,263 sq. km and used four focal areas of 75.19 sq. km, 389.9 sq. km, 253.25 sq. km and 236.21 sq. km. Goose 99075 ranged within an area of 13,932 sq. km and intensively moved in three focal areas of 690.18 sq. km, 2,214.68 sq. km and 852.21 sq. km. Geese 99076, 99072, 99075 and 99073 ascended to 5,520, 5,090, 4,790 and 4,920 m above msl respectively, while crossing the Himalaya.
Article
Full-text available
Effective conservation and management of Bar-headed Geese (Anser indicus) require data to determine migration routes and identify key sites for protection. Ten Bar-headed Geese were banded with satellite transmitters at Qinghai Lake in western China in July 2006 and 2007 to determine their migration routes. Of the tagged geese, eight left Qinghai Lake and began autumn migration. Of these eight, four completed their autumn migration, lasting 50 to 90 days, using one of two migration routes to their wintering grounds near Caohai Lake in Guizhou Province, Yarlung Zangbo valley in Tibet, and Kohima in India. The tagged geese each stopped at three to four sites and traveled 1,270 to 1,470 km from their breeding to wintering grounds. Wetlands at Muli Marsh, Zhaling, Eling and Galalacuo Lakes in Qinghai Province, Nagqu and Damxung in Tibet, and Ruoergai Marsh in Gansu and Sichuan Provinces were used as major stopover sites.
Article
Full-text available
The autumn migration routes of bar-headed geese captured before the 2008 breeding season at Qinghai Lake, China, were documented using satellite tracking data. To assess how the migration strategies of bar-headed geese are influenced by environmental conditions, the relationship between migratory routes, temperatures, and vegetation coverage at stopovers sites estimated with the Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI) were analyzed. Our results showed that there were four typical migration routes in autumn with variation in timing among individuals in start and end times and in total migration and stopover duration. The observed variation may be related to habitat type and other environmental conditions along the routes. On average, these birds traveled about 1300 to 1500 km, refueled at three to six stopover sites and migrated for 73 to 83 days. The majority of the habitat types at stopover sites were lake, marsh, and shoal wetlands, with use of some mountainous regions, and farmland areas.
Article
We collected information on the status and distribution of Bar-headed Geese and Ruddy Shelduck, concurrently with surveys for endangered Black-necked Cranes in south-central Tibet, People's Republic of China. Surveys were conducted during six winters: 1990-91 through 1995-96. The highest estimated count for Bar-headed Geese was in December 1993 when 10,934 geese were observed. However, this survey excluded three known wintering areas. We estimate there are 13,000 - 14,500 Bar-headed Geese wintering in south-central Tibet, representing at least 25% of the estimated world population. Approximately 70% winter in two areas: Shigatse, around the confluence of the Nyang and Yarlung Rivers; and, Penbo River valley, north-east of Lhasa. The distribution of Ruddy Shelduck overlapped with Bar-headed Geese in all areas surveyed. Shelducks occurred in lower numbers than the geese, with the highest survey producing 3,836. The largest concentrations of Ruddy Shelduck occurred along the Penbo River valley.
Article
Litter forms the major portion of the net primary production in natural ecosystems and in most managed forests and grasslands. Litter is the surface layer of the forest floor consisting of freshly fallen leaves, needles, twigs, stems, bark and fruits. Litter biota varies with depth and with stage of decay. Litter contain about 20-50% lignin. Because of the size and complexity of lignin, its decomposition rate is slow. Fungi especially Basidiomycetes are generally recognized as the major group responsible for lignin degradation. The lignolytic enzymes are being used in food, textile, paper industries and in the degradation of lignin rich agro-waste. In the present work lignin degrading fungi were isolated from the litter of evergreen forest of Kodagu D. About 58% of the total fungi isolated were found to be potential lignin degraders. The isolates were tested for enzyme activity and those showing maximum activity were tested for their efficiency to degrade areca and coffee husk. The Chaetomium sp, Penicillium sp, Aspergillus sp and Trichoderma sp were found to degrade areca and coffee husk effectively.
Article
An attempt has been made to study the impact of anthropogenic pressure over the abundance of waterbirds in Gharana Wetland with respect to their habitat utilization at five different stations from March, 2008 to February, 2009. A total of 21 species of waterbirds were identified in the wetland and their annual abundance was observed to be 43, 768, 2750, 1751 and 11386 at St I, II, III, IV and V respectively. The order of utilization of different stations of the wetland by waterbirds was recorded as St V > St III > St IV > St II > St I. The variations in the abundance of waterbirds at different sites were the consequence of severe anthropogenic stress resulting in the highest abundance at the least disturbed site (St V) and lowest at the site (St I) that was under the influence of intense human activities.
Article
This analysis deals with size variations in the breeding territories of land birds which obtain most or all of their food on the territory. For the species studied as a whole, territory size shows a strong positive relationship to body weight. Predators tend to have larger territories than omnivores or herbivores of the same weight, presumably due to the relatively denser food of the latter species. The home ranges of raptors inhabiting two areas were found to be significantly correlated with an index of the numerical density of their prey and in one area with raptor weight. Higher clutch size is not significantly associated with larger territories in any category of birds tested. The number of individuals defending the territory and the number feeding the young are probably not correlated with territory size. The exponential relationships between body weight of the consumer and three dependent variables--food biomass consumed per unit time, average prey weight and territory or home range size--are used to derive three predictions: a) Heavier predators take fewer individuals per unit time than lighter species; b) If certain restrictions are satisfied, the collective biomasses in a given large area increase as individual biomasses become larger for omnivorous species and decrease as individual biomasses increase for predators; c) For predators, the density of acceptable and accessible food in biomass per unit area decreases as the weight of the consumer increases. Territory or home range size increases more rapidly with body weight for predators than for omnivores or herbivores. This relationship holds true for both birds and mammals and presumably reflects a rapidly decreasing food density for predators of increasing weight. Since smaller predators do not feed over a wider range of food size than larger species, and since there are less species or individuals feeding on large food than on small, the predators of the areas studied probably consume food whose distribution of biomass with food size is declining. The habit of feeding on exclusive areas is considerably more widespread among predators than among omnivores and herbivores. The smaller spatial needs for omnivorous and herbivorous birds of a given biomass and perhaps the greater patchiness of their food when compared to predators are used to explain the higher occurrence of gregarious nesting in the former group. Implications of this study for the functions of feeding territories maintained during the breeding season are discussed.