Woolly-necked Stork -a species ignored

Abstract

Provides a detailed background to the conservation status and ecological understanding available on Woolly-necked Storks, and showcases the value of replacing assumptions with field data. Underscores some incorrect assumptions regarding the conservation needs of the species, provides an update (with references from the Special Section of the same issue, and additional references), and provides a roadmap for improving the understanding of this species.

Full text

Articlehistory
Received:10November2020,
Publishedonline:24November2020
©2020TheAuthors.SISConservation.Publishedby:IUCNStork,IbisandSpoonbillSpecialistGroup www.storkibisspoonbill.org/sisconservationpublications/
SISConservation,2020,2,33‐41
SPECIALSECTIONEDITORIAL
ISSN2710‐1142(online)
Woolly-necked Stork - a species ignored
K.S.GopiSundar1
1NatureConservationFoundation,1311,“Amritha”12thMain,Vijayanagar1stStage,Mysuru570017,Karnataka,India.
E‐mail:gopi@ncf‐india.org
Introduction
Storks, Ibises and Spoonbills (SIS) are most
diverseinAfricaandAsia,butSISspeciesinthese
two continents are also among the least studied.
The IUCN SIS Specialist Group is determined to
changethissituationworkingwithcolleagues who
are intrigued by these species. This issue of SIS
Conservationtakesanothersmallstep towardsthis
goalofimproving understanding ofpoorlystudied
species.The SpecialSectionfocusesonone of the
least studied waterbird species in the world, the
WoollyneckedStork.InthisEditorialIprovidean
overviewof thespecies’ecology andconservation
status, describe in brief the contributions to the
SpecialSection,andcontrastsomeofthepublished
informationwithinformationavailableonline.This
editorialandthe SpecialSection is biased towards
thepopulation found in southand southeastAsia,
though information fromAfrica is included where
pertinent.I also bias the editorialtofewaspectsof
the species’ ecology, and a full literature review
willbeprovidedelsewhere.
Aprologuetothiseditorialisthatthetaxonomyof
Woollynecked Storks remains unresolved with
authorities either recognising one species with
three subspecies (Gill et al. 2020), or separating
the African and Asian Woollynecks into two
separate species, Ciconia microscelis and C.
episcopusrespectively(delHoyo et al.2019).The
split into two species is based on geographical
separation alone and requires additional genetic
analysestoconfirmtheproposedsplit.Inthisissue
of SIS Conservation, authors were not asked to
followany one taxonomy and the Special Section
reflectsthediversityofcurrentopinions.
BackgroundtotheSpecialSection
In the recent past a few observations on Woolly
neckedStorks(WNS)attractedmyattentiontothis
species. The first was a field visit in November
2015to Haryana state in India to observe a WNS
nestthatacolleaguehaddiscoveredonafigFicus
religiosatreeamidcropfields.Wegotexceedingly
luckyinreachingthenestjustintimetowatchthe
juvenilesfledge.Toourastonishment,sixjuveniles
fledged from the single nest. The juveniles
continued begging on the ground and sported a
prominentwhiteforehead (Figure 1).Such alarge
number of fledgelings from one nest of a single
nesting stork species was unprecedented. This
WNSpairinHaryanahadfledgedtwochicksmore
than the previous record of four chicks in a nest
documented in southernAfrica (Scott 1975) and
India (Vyas and Tomar 2006), and had a larger
clutch size than was known for the species (35
eggs;Hancock et al. 1992). Inaddition, thewhite
foreheadhelpstoidentifynewlyfledgedWNS,and
isanunreportedcolouration.
ThesecondobservationwasthediscoveryofWNS
above 3,500 m in China and Nepal (Han et al.
2011;GhaleandKarmacharya2018).Thistoowas
unprecedented, and the observation in China
(Figure2)alsoconstitutedamajorrangeextension
of WNS. Both observations coming within a few
years of each other were suggestive of a species
expanding its altitudinal and geographic range.
WithseveralSIS speciesstrugglingtosurviveand
33

Sundar,2020 SpecialSectionEditorial:Woolly‐neckedStorkecology
requiring expensive conservation interventions,
news of a species expanding on its own was
significant.
Finally, the third detail that attracted my attention
was the proposal in 2014 to elevate the
conservationstatusoftheAsianWNSfrom“Near
threatened” to “Vulnerable” following the
proposed split of the WNS into two species
(BirdLife International 2014). This proposal was
madeonanonlineforumwhereexpertsfromsouth
and southeast Asia provided their thoughts.
Several experts from south Asia provided field
observations that did not support a change in
status. Published literature from south Asia
supported these observations. Two experts from
southeast Asia made passionate calls to elevate
theconservation status suggestingthat the species
was imperilled by conversion of forests to
agriculture and hunting in southeast Asian
countries. They suggested that these habitat
changes exposed the species to increased hunting
andthat thespecies maynot beable tosurvive in
agriculturalareas. Using theinputs on this forum,
BirdLife International elevated the Asian WNS
from “Least Concern” to “Vulnerable” (BirdLife
International2014).
These three disparate but somewhat connected
aspectsconvergedinmymindtowardsacoupleof
realizations.Thefirstwasthatitwasentirelylikely
that other ornithologists and researchers had field
observationsonWNSthatcouldhelpbuildamore
complete picture of the species’ ecology and
conservation requirements. The second was that
conservationstatusofseveralSISspecies(seealso
Gula2020), and most certainly theWNS, may be
biasedby anecdotalinformation from a small part
ofitsdistributionrange.
SpeciesaccountsandWNSecology
As with all poorly studied species, generalized
accountsbased on anecdotal reporting and ad hoc
fieldobservationsformedthemajorityofliterature
driving understanding of WNS ecology and
conservation requirements. Early accounts of the
species derived from field observations during
surveys of relatively small geographical areas
describeditasusingavarietyofhabitatsincluding
lowlandswamps and ricepaddies up toelevations
of1,400m and 3,000m(Britton 1980; White and
Bruce 1986). In a prominent generalized species
account that considered the species’ full
distributionrange,WNS beganbeing describedas
a solitary forestnesting stork species (Luthin
1987). Subsequent species accounts highlighted
anecdotal information from southeast Asia and
provided early suggestions that deforestation and
hunting were primary threats to the potentially
imperilledWNS. Thesesuggestions wererepeated
in subsequent generalised accounts, including in
the seminal SIS book by Hancock et al. (1992).
Based on their personal observations, the authors
describedtheWNSinIndiaas difficultto observe
due to its habit of sharing the same habitat as the
tiger (Hancock et al. 1992: 8384). The authors
notedtheabilityofWNSto nest in or near human
Figure 1. Six newly
fledged Woolly‐necked
Stork juveniles (right)
in a farmland area of
Haryana, India.
Fledgelings are
soliciting attention
from the adult bird
(left) and sported
distinct white colouring
on the forehead that is
not seen in older birds.
Photograph by K. S.
Gopi Sundar, November
2020.
34

SpecialSectionEditorial:Woolly‐neckedStorkecology Sundar,2020
habitation but did not discuss these observations
furtherbeyond aparentheticalmention.Somelater
species accounts included agricultural areas as
habitats used by WNS, but the source of this
information was not clear (Elliott 1992). These
species accounts continued to state that primary
threatstoWNSwerehabitatlossandhunting.
Other literature with analysed field observations,
primarily from south Asia and southern Africa,
took a different trajectory in describing WNS
status and ecology. Multiyear counts along a
protected riverine reserve showed WNS
populations to be stable in multiple locations
(Sharma and Singh 2018). Higher resolution
observations showed WNS to habitually use
unprotected wetlands situated in agricultural
landscapes (Pande et al. 2007). Analyses also
showed relatively large numbers of WNS to be
resident in humanmodified landscapes using a
varietyofmanmadefeaturessuchasgardens,cell
phone towers, residential back yards, irrigation
canals,villagetrees,cropfieldsandfallowfieldsin
Asia and Africa (Sundar 2006; Choudhary et al.
2013; Vaghela et al. 2015; Greeshma et al. 2018;
Thabethe and Downs 2018). In KwaZulu Natal,
several observations have been made on WNS at
land fills with dozens of storks gathering at sites
where livestock offal was dumped (J. Gula pers.
comm.; Thabethe and Downs 2018). In southeast
Asia, research continued to be focussed largely
inside protected reserves, and cameratrapping
studies confirmed the value of seasonal shallow
waterholesinsideforestpreservesforWNS(Pinet
al.2020).
Bothgeneralizedaccountsand literaturepublished
using primary observations provided similar
informationregarding some aspects of the species’
biology. For example,bothsuggestedthatWNSin
Africa nested singly but often congregated
suggestive of seasonal movements. Both sources
alsodescribedtheWNSinAsiaasbeingasolitary
nestingstorkusuallyfound in smallgroupsof< 4
withlargerflocksbeingrareandseasonal.
Depending on the source of information,
descriptions of the ecology and conservation
requirements of WNS varied in key aspects.The
conservation implications of this variation were
not trivial. Generalized accounts continued to
stress that the species was imperilled by habitat
lossandhuntingespeciallyinAsia.Thiscontinued
repetition alongside the proposed split of WNS
into two species likely biased status assessments.
However, primary literature from south Asia
showed the species using a variety of human
dominated landscapes including agricultural areas
inrelativelylargenumbers.Thiswassimilartothe
habitsof theWNS inAfrica.Thanks inpart toan
absence of ecological work on the species, the
population estimate for theAsian WNS is a "best
guess”at25,000(WetlandsInternational2020).
SpecialSectiononWNS
I started reaching out to colleagues, researchers
andstudentsin2019toconsider delving intotheir
notebookslookingfor unpublishedinformationon
WNS. By early 2020, enough people had
Figure 2. Adult Woolly‐
necked Stork at 3,500
m altitude at Napa
Lake, China.
Photograph by Peng
Jian‐sheng.
35

Sundar,2020 SpecialSectionEditorial:Woolly‐neckedStorkecology
respondedformetobesurethataSpecialSection
on the species could be developed in SIS
Conservation. Luis Santiago Cano was
enthusiastic as ever about the idea and I started
working with potential authors to develop
manuscripts.At the time of finalising Issue 2, we
have completed reviewing, editing, and proofing
nine articles that form the Special Section on
WNS. There are additional manuscripts in
differentstages ofcompletion that could not meet
the deadline for Issue 2 but will hopefully be
includedinsubsequentissues.
Thepapers
The articles for the Special Section are diverse,
including a collection of unpublished field
sightings (Tiwary 2020), a couple of sightings of
nesting in previously unreported locations (Hasan
and Ghimire 2020; Mehta 2020), an analysis of
secondarydataavailableontheonlineportaleBird
(Roshnath and Greeshma 2020), analyses of a
combination of field data and volunteer
observations from various sources (Gula et al.
2020; Mandal et al. 2020), and analyses of
information collected from systematic field
surveys (Katuwal et al. 2020; Kittur and Sundar
2020; Win et al. 2020). Such a combination of
papers with such disparate sources of information
hasitschallengesintermsofhowresultsshouldbe
interpreted and whether findings can be easily
compared. Notwithstanding these relatively minor
challenges, the papers comprise the largest yet
source of ecological information on WNS. This
helps to propel the species from being one of the
least studied storks to one whose habits are much
betterunderstood.
Tiwary (2020) used opportunistic field
observationsmadewhileonotherresearchtobuild
a small and useful understanding of WNS using
agricultural fields and unprotected wetlands in
northern India. Tiwary (2020) also describes a
potentiallynovelforagingbehaviourthatspeaksof
thebehaviouralplasticitythatWNSappearcapable
of. Hasan and Ghimire (2020)describe nesting of
WNS on cell phone towers in Bangladesh – a
country where the species was suspected to be
extinct as a breeding species. This behaviour of
usinghumanmade structuresfor nestingbyWNS
was once thought to be novel but seems to be
widespread suggesting that some constructions
potentially benefit the species. Mehta (2020)
provides observations of failed nests of WNS in
UdaipurcityinIndiawhichsuggestthatWNSmay
be starting to nest in cities. This is exciting news
since WNS have never been observed nesting
inside cities in south Asia. The phenomenon of
WNS using artificial structures close to human
habitation to nest suggests that the species is not
persecuted in these areas while also underscoring
the species’ ability to use unprotected human
dominatedareas.
Secondary data from online portals where
volunteers upload observations can often be of
great use to develop preliminary understanding of
birds such as the poorly studied WNS. Roshnath
and Greeshma (2020) pull together thousands of
observationsfromKeralastatetopiecetogetheran
understandingofWNSecology.Significantly,they
show that frequency of sightings of WNS has
remained stable between 2000 and 2019, that
breeding records are restricted to few areas in the
state, and that numbers of WNS appear to reduce
acrossthe stateduring summer.Similarly,Mandal
et al. (2020) assemble sightings for the north
eastern state of Assam and combine their own
observations to build a picture of the species’
ecology.TheiranalysesshowWNSinAssamtobe
seasonal visitors primarily during the winter,w ith
no confirmed record of breeding. This is unusual
for WNS that shows seasonal movements in
summer in other locations in south Asia. Both
these papers also caution readers about the
challenges that freely available data posed, but
effectively use available information to set up
interesting hypotheses that will require
standardisedfieldstudiestoconfirm.
Gula et al. (2020) similarly used thousands of
recordsofWNSfromacrossAfricaandAsia.They
obtained observations on WNS from various
published and online sources, and were able to
include more recent field records that authors of
papersintheSpecialSectionprovided. Gula etal.
(2020) provide a comprehensive predictive
modelling of WNS distribution across their entire
distribution range. Their results show the storks’
distribution is affected by slightly different
36

SpecialSectionEditorial:Woolly‐neckedStorkecology Sundar,2020
variables in Africa and Asia pointing to varying
environmentalconditionsandpotentiallyalso how
storksinteractwithhumansineachlocation.They
suggest that differences could also be due to
African researchers usually avoiding agricultural
areas where WNS are being increasingly sighted.
Modelling also confirmed that the species is very
widespread in southAsia and Africa, but with a
restricted and declining distribution in southeast
Asia.
While papers relying on secondary information
havedevelopedsubstantialunderstanding of WNS
ecology and conservation requirements, it was
veryexciting to receivemanuscripts that analysed
primaryfielddata.Thethreepaperswithfielddata
are additionally exciting in using systematic
repeatable field methods, covering relatively
substantial swathes of geographical areas, and
undertakingrepeatedvisitstosamplingsitesacross
seasons and years. Katuwal et al. (2020) use a
novel data set from transects laid across lowland
Nepal to show that WNS are perhaps uncommon
onthesefloodplains.KitturandSundar(2020)use
a multiyear multilocation data set to show that
WNS are widely distributed across agricultural
areas in lowland Nepal and northern India. They
also provide preliminary population estimates
suggesting that WNS population size has
previously been severely underestimated. They
also underscore the complexity of monitoring
WNSandtheecologicalplasticitythatthisspecies
appears to display potentially in response to
seasonal landscapelevel changes that different
agricultural landscapes experience. Finally Win et
al.(2020)haveanalysedauniquedataset,perhaps
the first such data from Myanmar, that allows an
assessment of WNS abundance and habitat use
inside and outside protected areas. Using data
collectedsystematicallyfromseverallocationsand
seasonally over multiple years, they showed that
WNSwere moreabundant outsideprotected areas
in Myanmar, and that WNS liberally used
unprotectedwetlandsandagriculturefields.
Emergingmethodologicalconsiderations
Transect based monitoring of WNS has been
carried out in several locations across south and
southeastAsia. Some studies have used transects
of varying lengths placed either systematically
across entire landscapes (e.g. Sundar and Kittur
2012; Katuwal et al. 2020) or in areas having
differentprotectionstatus(Winetal.2020).These
studies visited transects multiple times for a
relatively large number of transect runs providing
a noticeable propensity   to variation in WNS
sightings. Katuwal et al. (2020) used 0.5 km
transectsacrosslowlandNepaland recordedWNS
in 1.4% of 985 transect runs. Sundar and Kittur
(2012) used 1 km transects across the Gangetic
floodplainsofUttarPradeshandrecordedWNSin
12% of 360 transect runs. Win et al. (2020) used
1.5 km transects inside protected areas and 2 km
transects outside protected areas. WNS were seen
in25%of342transectrunsinsideprotectedareas,
andin 61%of 648 transect runs outside protected
areas. Each of these studies were carried out on
landscapesthat variedenormously in land use but
were in areas where human attitudes to wildlife
wasmoretolerantrelativetoplaceslikesoutheast
Asia where hunting appears to be widespread.
Many different factors could explain the variation
in the proportion of transect runs with WNS
sightings. However, it is somewhat compelling to
note that the WNS sightings were the least in the
study with the smallest transects and viceversa.
Intermediate values were obtained in the study
with intermediate transect length. These
preliminary observations suggest that studies
focusing on WNS across relatively large
landscapeswillrequire transects of at least 1.5 km
inlengthtoobtainadequateinformation.
Anadditionalaspectthatthenewpapersbringout
is the widespread and significant use of non
wetland habitats by WNS. Past longterm
monitoring data on WNS were counts of storks
fromwetlandsaspartofthemidwinter waterfowl
census that have been useful to develop
"guesstimates" of population sizes (Wetlands
International 2020). These censuses focus entirely
on wetlands and these counts would therefore be
inadequate to understand population sizes of the
WNS.OtherSISspeciesthathavepreviouslybeen
assessed using wetland surveys but are
inadequately represented in such counts due to
their habit of largely using farmland habitats,
include the Blacknecked Stork Ephippiorhynchus
asiaticus (Sundar 2005), the Painted Stork
37

Sundar,2020 SpecialSectionEditorial:Woolly‐neckedStorkecology
Mycteria leucocephala and the Blackheaded Ibis
Threskiornis melanocephalus (Sundar 2006). A
muchmorecarefulassessmentofthehabitsofSIS
speciesisneeded toidentifywhich speciescanbe
reliablymonitoredusingonlywetlandsurveysand
whichonesrequirewidercoverage.
WNS natural history and information
sources
While some papers in the Special Section were
developedusingeitherfreelyavailabledataonline,
orcombined different sourcesof data, thereis not
yet an evaluation of the reliability of the different
sourcesofinformation. Habitatuseemergedas an
aspect that was relatively easy to document.
Findings from few sites within the WNS
distribution varied significantly from information
in most generalised accounts. I was curious as to
whetherasimilarunderstanding would bereached
ifphotographs availableon the internetwere used
asasourceofdatatomeasurehabitatuseofWNS.
Thanks to volunteers, 2,254 photographs of WNS
in south Asia were curated from the internet
(eBird, Facebook, iNaturalist, Wiki photographs,
individualblogs, and others).Volunteers listedthe
broad habitat categories (agriculture, forests,
wetlands, other) that WNS were using in
photographs. WNS habitat use determined from
these photographs showed considerable variation
in the three southAsian countries for which we
obtainedatleast15photographseach(Figure3A).
In addition, WNS habitat use was similar across
some Indian states but differed in others (Figure
3B).WNS habitat use assessedusing photographs
suggested a low use of agricultural areas and a
high use of wetlands (Figure 3C). This was
contrary to the data obtained by systematic field
workacrosslargelandscapesinsouthAsia(Figure
3C).
This variation likely reflects the habits of
photographers and bird watchers visiting some
areaslikewetlandsmorethantheydoothers.Data
obtained from online photographs may therefore
reflect people’s  biases ratherthan habits of WNS,
similar to the bias in historic observations by
researchers and conservationists. Any freely
available data therefore requires to be used
thoughtfully and will likely not be adequate to
Figure 3. Habitat use by Woolly‐necked Storks assessed using
freely available photographs online at the level of the country in
south Asia (A: only countries that had at least 15 photographs) and
states of India (B: only states that had at least 20 photographs).
Maps were developed by Swati Kittur using information curated by
volunteers listed in the Acknowledgements. Additionally, a
comparison of use of two major habitat types by storks as assessed
using online photographs (C: black bars) and multi‐year field data
(from Kittur and Sundar 2020; C: dark‐grey bars).
38

SpecialSectionEditorial:Woolly‐neckedStorkecology Sundar,2020
developan unbiased understanding of the species'
naturalhistoryandconservationrequirements.
WNSasastudyspecies
Papers in the Special Section and other literature
point to the suitability of WNS as a model study
species, especially to understand how agricultural
areascanberetainedasmultifunctionallandscapes
forboth growing cropsand providing SISspecies
with habitat. Such understanding is critically
important to conserve biodiversity in crowded
countries such as those in south and southeast
Asiawheredevelopingnewreservesforwildlifeis
becominglessandlessfeasible.Newpapersinthis
issue of SIS Conservation and available literature
provide considerable understanding of WNS, but
manyecologicalaspects remainunstudied.Studies
tounderstand its feedinghabits, breeding ecology,
movements, and seasonal use of habitats in
unexplored landscapes. Behaviour of WNS in
different conditions are very poorly documented,
andrecent observationsarebeginningtoshowcase
howthislineofstudymayyieldnovelinsightsinto
bird behaviour and conservation (Ghimire et al.
2020;Ghimire et al. in press). Studies are needed
across Africa to understand if the species uses
areas close to and within human habitation
elsewhere in the continent, and whether different
pressures such as land use change and hunting
regulatewhereandhowmanyWNSlive.
WNS is also a species that can be used to
underscore the importance of using evidence to
build conservation status assessments. WNS has
helped to showcase how generalised species
accounts can either add new information or
accentuate some aspects of existing information
withoutsubstantiation.Thisinturn,whenparroted
by subsequent generalised accounts, can lead to
incomplete and incorrect understanding of the
species’ habits. Incorrect assumptions regarding a
species’ habits can lead to unreliable population
estimates and eventual assignment to an
inappropriate conservation status. This problem
appears to be more widespread for SIS species
thanpreviously known(see alsoGula etal. 2019;
Gula 2020). While all SIS species have been
accorded conservation status, several species like
the WNS lacked even basic studies, leading to
questionable status assessments. Such species that
require basic ecological research need to be
explicitly identified so that resources may be
acquired to develop studies which in turn can
informevidencebasedstatusassessments.
An additional problem that the WNS is helping
highlight is the unequal level of threats that a
single species faces in different parts of its
distributionrange.WhilethesouthAsiapopulation
of WNS appears to be safe outside inviolate
forested reserves, the southeastAsian population,
which constitutes a relatively small proportion of
the species’ distribution range (see Gula et al.
2020), appears to require urgent conservation
intervention (e.g. Mittermeier et al. 2019). The
status assessment of the species will, however, be
biasedbyitspopulationandstatusintherestofthe
distribution range. To address this bias  which is
certainly not unique to WNS  the IUCN status
assessmentprocessneeds to developamechanism
where imperilled populations can be highlighted
even for species that are not endangered or
threatened.
Epilogue
Adiscussion to reassessthe conservation statusof
WNS was recently hosted on a new online forum
(BirdLife International 2020). New information
that was being developed for the Special Section
ofthisissue ofSISConservation wasprovidedon
this forum to help build a more complete
understanding of WNS. Several papers published
in the Special Section were not complete at the
timeof thediscussionandwilladdtothegrowing
information on the species. The new discussions
included observations from Pakistan and Nepal
thatsuggestedthatthe southAsianpopulation was
expanding. Experts, however, underscored the
serious predicament of the WNS in southeast
Asia,asdidarecentpublicationalongtheMekong
river in Cambodia (Mittermeier et al. 2019). One
of the concerned experts on the discussion
suggested that the WNS numbers being reported
across south Asia may be due to roaming
individuals that were being recounted in different
locations. This suggestion seemed bizarre and
experts in southAsia responded on how this was
39

Sundar,2020 SpecialSectionEditorial:Woolly‐neckedStorkecology
References
BirdLifeInternational.2014.Archived2014discussion:
WoollyneckedStork(Ciconiaepiscopus)isbeingsplit:
listC.episcopusasVulnerable?Topicsarchived.
Archived2014topicsAH.https://globallythreatened
birdforums.birdlife.org/topicsarchive/,accessed07
November2020.
BirdLifeInternational.2020.AsianWoollyneck(Ciconia
episcopus):reviseglobalstatus?BirdLife’sGlobally
ThreatenedBirdForums.https://globallythreatened
birdforums.birdlife.org/2020/06/asianwoollyneck
ciconiaepiscopusreviseglobalstatus/,accessed07
November2020.
Britton,P.L.(Ed.).1980.BirdsofEastAfrica.EastAfrica
NaturalHistorySociety,Nairobi.
Choudhary,D.N.,T.K.Ghosh,J.N.Mandal,R.Rohitashwa
andS.K.Mandal.2013.Observationsonthebreedingof
theWoollyneckedStorksCiconiaepiscopusin
Bhagalpur,Bihar,India.IndianBIRDS8(4):9394.
delHoyo,J.,N.CollarandE.F.J.Garcia.2019.African
Woollyneck(Ciconiamiscroscelis).In:J.delHoyo,A.
Eliott,D.A.ChristieandE.deJuana(Eds.)Handbookof
thebirdsoftheworld.LynxEdicions,Barcelona,Spain.
Elliott,A.1992.FamilyCiconiidae(storks).Pp.441–442.In:
J.delHoyo,A.ElliottandJ.Sargatal(eds.)Handbookof
thebirdsoftheworld.Vol1.LynxEdicions,Barcelona,
Spain.
Ghale,T.R.andD.K.Karmacharya.2018.Anewaltitudinal
recordforAsianWoollyneckCiconiaepiscopusinsouth
Asia.BirdingASIA29:9697.
Ghimire,P.,N.Pandey,B.Belbase,R.Ghimire,C.Khanal,
B.S.BistandK.P.Bhusal.2020.Ifyougo,I’llstay:
nestuseinteractionbetweenAsianWoollyneckCiconia
episcopusandBlackKiteMilvusmigransinNepal.
BirdingASIA33:103105.
Ghimire,P.,N.Pandey,Y.P.Timilsina,B.S.BistandK.S.
G.Sundar.Inpress.WoollyneckedStorkactivitybudget
inlowlandNepal’sfarmlands:Theinfluenceofwetlands,
seasonalcropsandhumanproximity.Waterbirds.
Gill,F.,D.DonskerandP.Rasmussen.2020.Storks,
frigatebirds,boobies,cormorants,darters.IOCWorld
birdlistv.10.2.InternationalOrnithologistsUnion.
https://www.worldbirdnames.org/bow/storks/,accessed
07November2020.
Greeshma,P.,R.P.Nair,E.A.Jayson,K.Manoj,V.Aryaand
E.G.Shonith.2018.BreedingofWoollyneckedStork
CiconiaepiscopusinBharatapuzhariverbasin,Kerala,
India.IndianBIRDS14(3):8687.
Gula,J.2020.It’stimefortheSaddlebilledStorktobeon
ourradar.SISConservation2:79.
Gula,J.,W.R.J.DeanandK.S.G.Sundar.2020.Known
andpotentialdistributionsofAfricanCiconiamicroscelis
andAsianC.episcopusWoollyneckStorks.SIS
Conservation2:8095.
Gula,J.,F.WeckerlyandK.S.G.Sundar.2019.Thefirst
rangewideassessmentofSaddlebilledStork
Ephippiorhynchussenegalensisdistribution.Ostrich90:
347357.
Han,L.X.,B.Han,Z.W.Den,H.Z.YuandJ.L.Zhao.
2011.WoollyneckedStork,anewbirdrecordofChina.
ZoologicalResearch32:575576.(InChinesewith
Englishabstract).
Hancock,J.A.,J.A.KushlanandM.P.Kahl.1992.Storks,
ibisesandspoonbillsoftheworld.AcademicPress,
London,UnitedKingdom.
Hasan,M.T.andP.Ghimire.2020.Confirmedbreeding
recordsofAsianWoollyneckCiconiaepiscopusfrom
Bangladesh.SISConservation2:4749.
Katuwal,H.B.,H.S.Baral,H.P.SharmaandR.C.Quan.
2020.AsianWoollynecksareuncommononthe
implausible. To me, it brought home the dire
situation in southeastAsia where experts appear
unableto conceivethatthespeciesmaynumberin
the tens of thousands anywhere. Using the
information provided to the updated discussion,
WNS inAsia is now proposed to be classified as
“Nearthreatened”. This revision is certainly a
more realistic reflection of the species’ state of
being, but the new down listing reduces the
numberof speciesthat conservationists canuse in
southeastAsia to stem the ongoing deterioration
of forests and wetlands. While new work has
added tremendously to knowledge of WNS
ecology, they also help bring out how much
remains unknown. My hope is that the Special
Section attracts additional attention to WNS and
thatwecan together findaway to helpsecurethe
species,speciallythefalteringpopulationinsouth
eastAsia.Atthe veryleast, I hopethatWNS, and
other SIS species, no longer remain ignored.
Acknowledgments
I am grateful to Luis Santiago CanoAlonso for his support
during the development of the Special Section. I am also
grateful to the many authors who responded to my call
readilyto develop manuscripts,and some kindlyinvited me
to coauthor papers with them. In the process, we have
collectively improved understanding of WNS substantially,
and I have personally learnt a lot. The reviewers of
manuscripts submitted to the Special Section were
outstanding for ensuring that authors received timely but
critical and helpful inputs. Many thanks also to the
volunteers who fastidiously curated photographs from the
internet, especially Radhika Chaturvedi, Nandini Pathak,
Vedang Saikhedkar, Rishwa Shekhar, Nawin Tiwary, and
HarshTrivedi.IamalsogratefultoFenqiforreachingoutto
uswiththeexcellent photographs ofWNS taken at 3,500 m
in China. Thanks are also due to Pradeep Sukhwal for
donating the excellent photograph of WNS that we selected
as the cover photo for this issue. Thanks to Luis Santiago
Cano, John Grant, Jonah Gula and Swati Kittur for their
thoughts on this Editorial. I am grateful to the Nature
Conservation Foundation for providing a home to the SIS
SpecialistGroup.
40

SpecialSectionEditorial:Woolly‐neckedStorkecology Sundar,2020
farmlandsoflowlandNepal.SISConservation2:5054.
Kittur,S.andK.S.G.Sundar.2020.Density,flocksizeand
habitatpreferenceofWoollyneckedStorksCiconia
episcopusinsouthAsianagriculturallandscapes.SIS
Conservation2:7179.
Luthin,C.S.1987.Statusofandconservationprioritiesfor
theworld’sstorkspecies.ColonialWaterbirds10:181
202.
Mandal,J.,L.M.AbrahamandR.Bhaduri.2020.Anoteon
thespatialandtemporaldistributionofAsianWoollyneck
inAssam.SISConservation2:6267.
Mehta,K.2020.ObservationsofWoollyneckedStork
nestingattemptsinUdaipurcity,Rajasthan.SIS
Conservation2:6870.
Mittermeier,J.C.,E,M.SandvigandM.Jocque.2019.
Surveysin2018alongtheMekongriver,northernKratie
province,Cambodia,indicateadecadeofdeclinesin
populationsofthreatenedbirdspecies.BirdingASIA832:
8089.
Pande,S.,N.Sant,R.Bhate,A.Ponkshe,P.Pandit,A.
PawasheandC.Joglekar.2007.Recentrecordsof
winteringWhiteCiconiaciconiaandBlackC.nigra
storksandflockingbehaviourofWhiteneckedStorksC.
episcopusinMaharashtraandKarnatakastates,India.
IndianBirds3(1):2832.
Pin,C.,D.Ngoprasert,T.N.E.Gray,T.Savini,R.Crouthers
andG.A.Gale.2020.Utilizationofwaterholesby
globallythreatenedspeciesindeciduousdipterocarp
forestoftheEasternPlainslandscapeofCambodia.Oryx
54:572582.
Roshnath,R.andP.Greeshma.2020.StatusofWoolly
neckedStorksinKerala,southwesternIndia.SIS
Conservation2:5561.
Scott,J.A.1975.Observationsonthebreedingof
WoollyneckedStorks.Ostrich46:201207.
Sharma,R.K.andL.A.K.Singh.2018.Spatialand
temporalpatternsofstorksightings(Aves:Ciconiidae)in
NationalChambalSanctuaryofGangeticriversystem.
JournalofThreatenedTaxa10:1141011415.
Sundar,K.S.G.2005.Effectivenessofroadtransectsand
wetlandvisitsforsurveyingBlackneckedStorks
EphippiorhynchusasiaticusandSarusCranesGrus
antigoneinIndia.Forktail21:2732.
Sundar,K.S.G.2006.Flocksize,densityandhabitat
selectionoffourlargewaterbirdsspeciesinan
agriculturallandscapeinUttarPradesh,India:
implicationsformanagement.Waterbirds29:365374.
Sundar,K.S.G.andS.Kittur.2020.Methodological,spatial
andtemporalfactorsaffectingmodelledoccupancyof
residentbirdsintheperenniallycultivatedlandscapeof
UttarPradesh,India.LandscapeEcology27:5971.
Thabethe,V.andC.T.Downs.2018.Citizensciencereveals
widespreadsupplementaryfeedingofAfricanwoolly
neckedstorksinsuburbanareasofKwaZuluNatal,
SouthAfrica.UrbanEcosystems21:965973.
Tiwary,N.K.2020.Observationsondistributionandfeeding
behaviourofWoollyneckedStorksCiconiaepiscopus
during201020innorthIndia.SISConservation2:42
46.
Vaghela,U.,D.SawantandV.Bhagwat.2015.Woolly
neckedStorksCiconiaepiscopusnestingonmobile
towersinPune,Maharashtra.IndianBIRDS10(6):154
155.
Vyas,R.andR.S.Tomar.2006.Rareclutchsizeandnesting
siteofWoolyneckedStork(Ciconiaepiscopus)in
ChambalRiverValley.NewsletterforBirdwatchers
46(6):95.
WetlandsInternational.2020.Waterbirdpopulation
estimates.http://wpe.wetlands.org/,accessed09
November2020.
White,C.M.N.andM.D.Bruce.1986.TheBirdsof
Wallacea.BritishOrnithologistsUnionChecklistNo.7.
Win,M.S.,T.S.Myint,A.M.Yi,K.Khine,H.S.Po,K.S.
NonandK.S.G.Sundar.2020.ComparingWoolly
neckedStorkCiconiaepiscopusabundanceandhabitat
useinsideandoutsideprotectedareasinMyanmar.SIS
Conservation2:96103.
41