Comparing abundance and habitat use of Woolly-necked Storks Ciconia episcopus inside and outside protected areas in Myanmar

Abstract

Protected areas form the backbone of biodiversity conservation especially in southeast Asia which is both a global biodiversity hotspot and is facing extreme developmental pressures. The ability of large waterbirds to use habitats outside protected areas is poorly understood in most southeast Asian countries despite the potential of humanmodified areas such as agricultural fields to provide alternative habitats. We assessed abundance and habitat use inside and outside protected areas of Woollynecked Storks, a large waterbird species thought to be declining due to deterioration of forested reserves, in five regions of Myanmar. Woollynecked Stork abundance (birds/km) and use of three habitats (agriculture fields, forests, wetlands) were compared using transects within and outside protected areas, each monitored six times annually for three continuous years (2016-2018). Specifically, we assessed if abundance and habitat use varied due to protection status and whether location, season (summer, winter, and rainy season) and time of day (morning and evening) additionally influenced measured metrics. Woollynecked Storks were seen in 55% of all transects, but in the 990 total transect runs, were seen in only 44% of transects with a higher frequency of sightings on transects outside (61%) compared to inside protected areas (25%). Encounter rates were, on average, 1.5 times higher outside compared to inside protected areas. Encounter rates also varied significantly with season with most storks being encountered in summers and the least in the winters, and seasonal patterns were similar inside and outside protected areas. Encounter rates showed weak declining trends in the majority of transects with measured declines being more than twice inside protected areas than outside. Woollynecked Storks were mostly observed in wetlands (53%) and in agricultural fields (35%) and used forested areas and wetlands significantly more inside protected areas. Storks displayed plasticity outside protected areas by using agricultural fields. This study provides the first formal comparison of Woollynecked Stork ecology inside and outside protected areas. In addition to continuing to secure protected areas for biodiversity conservation in Myanmar, expanding the conservation paradigm into agricultural landscapes with unprotected wetlands is essential for the longterm persistence of large waterbird species such as the Woollynecked Storks.

Full text

MyoSandarWIN1,AhMarYI2,TheingiSoeMYINT3,KaythyKHINE4,HeleSwePO5,
KyaikSweNON6,K.S.GopiSundar7,*
1DepartmentofZoology,UniversityofYangon,BuildingNo.C‐11,Roomno.303,MindamaEducationAvenue,HlaingTownship,
Yangon,Myanmar
2DepartmentofZoology,UniversityofYangon,Room,No.65,ThayaPhiHostel,HlaingTownship,YangonRegion,Myanmar
3DepartmentofZoology,UniversityofYangon,No.45/4,MaharMyingAvenue,SanchaungTownship,YangonRegion,Myanmar
4DepartmentofZoology,UniversityofYangon,Street,13/4(B),ThiriMyingStreet,HlaingTownship,YangonRegionMyanmar
5DepartmentofZoology,UniversityofYangon,D‐1,Room‐206,MindamaEducationAvenue,HlaingTownship,Yangon,Myanmar
6DepartmentofZoology,UniversityofMawlamyine,TanintharyiHostel,Room–9MawlamyingTownship,MonState,Myanmar
7NatureConservationFoundation,1311,“Amritha”12thMain,Vijayanagar1stStage,Mysuru570017,Karnataka,India
*Correspondingauthor;e.mail:gopi@ncf‐india.org
Comparing abundance and habitat use of Woolly-necked Storks
Ciconia episcopus inside and outside protected areas in Myanmar
Articlehistory
Received:23September2020,
Receivedinrevisedform:10November2020,
Accepted:11November2020,
Publishedonline:24November2020.
AbstractProtectedareasformthebackboneofbiodiversityconservationespeciallyinsoutheastAsia
whichisbothaglobalbiodiversityhotspotandisfacingextremedevelopmentalpressures.Theability
oflargewaterbirdstousehabitatsoutsideprotectedareasispoorlyunderstoodinmostsoutheast
Asiancountriesdespitethepotentialofhumanmodifiedareassuchasagriculturalfieldstoprovide
alternativehabitats.Weassessedabundanceandhabitatuseinsideandoutsideprotectedareasof
WoollyneckedStorks,alargewaterbirdspeciesthoughttobedecliningduetodeteriorationof
forestedreserves,infiveregionsofMyanmar.WoollyneckedStorkabundance(birds/km)anduseof
threehabitats(agriculturefields,forests,wetlands)werecomparedusingtransectswithinandoutside
protectedareas,eachmonitoredsixtimesannuallyforthreecontinuousyears(2016–2018).
Specifically,weassessedifabundanceandhabitatusevariedduetoprotectionstatusandwhether
location,season(summer,winter,andrainyseason)andtimeofday(morningandevening)
additionallyinfluencedmeasuredmetrics.WoollyneckedStorkswereseenin55%ofalltransects,but
inthe990totaltransectruns,wereseeninonly44%oftransectswithahigherfrequencyofsightings
ontransectsoutside(61%)comparedtoinsideprotectedareas(25%).Encounterrateswere,on
average,1.5timeshigheroutsidecomparedtoinsideprotectedareas.Encounterratesalsovaried
significantlywithseasonwithmoststorksbeingencounteredinsummersandtheleastinthewinters,
andseasonalpatternsweresimilarinsideandoutsideprotectedareas.Encounterratesshowedweak
decliningtrendsinthemajorityoftransectswithmeasureddeclinesbeingmorethantwiceinside
protectedareasthanoutside.WoollyneckedStorksweremostlyobservedinwetlands(53%)andin
agriculturalfields(35%)andusedforestedareasandwetlandssignificantlymoreinsideprotected
areas.Storksdisplayedplasticityoutsideprotectedareasbyusingagriculturalfields.Thisstudy
providesthefirstformalcomparisonofWoollyneckedStorkecologyinsideandoutsideprotected
areas.InadditiontocontinuingtosecureprotectedareasforbiodiversityconservationinMyanmar,
expandingtheconservationparadigmintoagriculturallandscapeswithunprotectedwetlandsis
essentialforthelongtermpersistenceoflargewaterbirdspeciessuchastheWoollyneckedStorks.
KeywordsAgriculturalfields,protectedversusunprotectedareas,unprotectedwetlands,Woolly
neckedStork.
©2020TheAuthors.SISConservation.Publishedby:IUCNStork,IbisandSpoonbillSpecialistGroup www.storkibisspoonbill.org/sisconservationpublications/
SISConservation,2020,2,96‐103
RESEARCHARTICLE
ISSN2710‐1142(online)
96

Winetal.,2020 Woolly‐neckedStorkecologyinMyanmar
Introduction
The biodiversity crisis in southeastAsia is now
deemedtobecriticalas increasing developmental
pressures threaten biodiverse habitats including
forestsandwetlands(Donaldetal.2015;Harrison
et al. 2018). The problem is exacerbated by the
sparse amount of scientific research in many
southeast Asian countries including Myanmar.
The status of taxa such as large waterbirds, that
canusehumanmodifiedlanduseslikeagriculture
are particularly poorly known in southeastAsia
since the majority of conservation research and
attention are focused largely on species and
habitats that are within forested protected areas
(Wilcove et al. 2013). Several bird species are
suspected to be strongly associated with forested
protected areas and therefore declining due to
expansion of agricultural areas. One large
waterbirdspeciesthatwasrecentlyelevatedtothe
conservationstatus“Vulnerable”duetosuspected
declines following conversion of its forested
habitatsto cultivationis theWoollyneckedStork
Ciconia episcopus (BirdLife International 2020).
In southeast Asia Woollynecked Storks have
most commonly been reported from ephemeral
shallow waterbodies inside protected forest areas
andthereisnopublishedinformationfromoutside
protected areas with which to evaluate its status
(BirdLifeInternational2020;Sundar2020).
ThoughMyanmariswellknown to bepartofthe
distribution range of the Woollynecked Storks,
there is exceedingly little understanding of its
habits and requirements from this country
(BirdLife International 2020; Gula et al. 2020;
Sundar 2020). However, recent observations of
Sarus Crane Antigone antigone populations using
agricultural areas of Myanmar have provided
optimism that other large waterbird species,
including Woollynecked Storks, are likely found
outside protected areas in this country (Anon
2017). This situation is similar to other locations
inAsia where agricultural landscapes supporting
populations of Sarus Cranes also support other
large waterbird species (Sundar 2006; Kittur and
Sundar2020).
Emerging information on Woollynecked Stork
ecologysuggeststhatthisspeciesusesagricultural
areasreadilywhereevenartificialstructuressuch
asirrigationcanals and cellphonetowers areused
for foraging and nesting respectively (Sundar
2006; Hasan and Ghimire 2020; Katuwal et al.
2020; Roshnath and Greeshma 2020). Systematic
surveys using transects (1  1.5 km in length)
acrossagriculturallandscapeshaveshownWoolly
necked Storks to be sparse in India and Nepal
(Sundar and Kittur 2012; Katuwal et al. 2020),
thoughsurveysacrosslargerlandscapesusingroad
routes have been useful to understand ecological
aspects such as seasonal variations in density and
habitatuse(Sundar2006;KitturandSundar2020).
Woollynecked Storks have also been observed to
commonly use agricultural fields to forage while
also using golf courses and gardens in suburban
areas and unprotected wetlands in agricultural
landscapes (Sundar and Kittur 2013; Thabethe
2018; Tiwary 2020). Empirical estimates of
abundance and habitat use of Woollynecked
Storks from inside protected forest areas are not
available making it impossible to contrast with
metrics available from outside protected areas.
Suchacomparisonis essentialtoconfirmexisting
assumptions regarding Woollynecked Stork
relianceonprotectedforestedareas.
Wesetup55transectsinsideandoutsideprotected
areas across five regions in Myanmar and
evaluated Woollynecked Stork abundance and
habitat use over three years of continuous
monitoring. We were primarily interested to
understandifabundancemetricsandhabitatuseof
this species changed on landscapes with different
protection status. However, since Woollynecked
Stork ecology from Myanmar is practically
unknown, we also use the information to
understand if these metrics varied by location,
season, and time of day. Finally, we assessed
temporal trends in abundance metrics in each
transectto evaluatewhetherabundanceofWoolly
necked Storks was changing over the study’s
duration and whether these changes varied with
protectionstatus.
Studyarea
Woollynecked Storks were observed in fi ve locations
ofMyanmar:Kachin StateandinfourRegionsnamely
Magway, Mandalay, Sagaing and Yangon (Figure 1).
Thestudy area was therefore spread practically across
theentirenorthsouthlengthofMyanmar,andspanned
a very wide range of conditions, habitats, and
97

Woolly‐neckedStorkecologyinMyanmar Winetal.,2020
landscapes. In Myanmar, three seasons based on
precipitationandtemperature were recognizednamely
summer (February  May), the rainy (June 
September) and winter (October  January). These
threeseasonsarealsoreferredtoas“hot”,“rainy”and
“cold” seasons respectively. The primary crop grown
duringthe rainy seasonwas rice Oryzasativa and the
primary winter crop was peas Pisum sativum.
Wetlandswerescatteredacrossthelandscapeinallthe
locations surveyed for this study. We describe each
location briefly to primarily highlight the differences
in vegetation and weather. Information was derived
from the World Database on Protected Areas of the
IUCN (https://www.iucn.org/theme/protectedareas/
ourwork/qualityandeffectiveness/worlddatabase
protectedareaswdpa) and updated climatic detail
weretakenfromthewebsiteclimatedata.org.
Kachin State was the northernmost location and is
89,041 km2 in size. The state has various protected
areas, and our study was conducted in two of these:
Indawgyi Wildlife Sanctuary and the Hukuang Valley
WildlifeSanctuary.IndawgyiSanctuaryisabiosphere
reserve and includes Myanmar’s largest lake, the
IndawgyiLake, aswell asmoist deciduousand semi
evergreen forests on the mountainous regions. The
Hukuang Sanctuary is Myanmar’s largest protected
reserve and extends into Sagaing Region. Werefer to
thecombinationofboththeoriginalandthe extension
as a single protected area. The average temperature
rangewas17.934°Cwithanannualrainfallof2000
mm.
The Magway Region is the second largest of
Myanmar'ssevenRegionswithanareaof44,820km2.
This study included survey locations in the
Shwesettaw Wildlife Sanctuary that is dominated by
mixed deciduous forests. The average temperature
range in the Region was 21.9  32.2° C with an
averageannualrainfallof849mm.
The Mandalay Region, located in the center of the
country, has an area of 37,946 km2 with a strongly
seasonal climate including very warm summers and
cooler winters with an average temperature range of
13.3 38.4° C and with an average annual rainfall of
812mmwithmostoftherainfallfallinginSeptember.
This study was restricted to areas outside protected
areasintheMandalayRegion.

TheSagaingRegionisinthenorthwesternpartofthe
country and has an area of 93,527 km2. The avera ge
annual temperature range was 23  32° C with an
average annual rainfall of 807 mm. Our surveys
included the two protected areas Htamanthi Wildlife
SanctuaryandAlaungdawKathapaNationalPark.The
latter included elevated mountainous areas extending
to 1,335 m above mean sea level and a variety of
foresttypesincludingmixeddeciduous,evergreenand
pine.
The Yangon Region was the southernmost area in
Myanmar covered during this study and includes
extensive coastal habitats. The Region’s average
temperate range was 17.9 – 37° C with a relatively
large annual average rainfall of 2,378 mm owing to
heavy coastal rainfall. The surveys included the
Hlawga Park which was an open zoo around which a
naturalbufferzonewasmaintained.
Methods
Fieldmethods
In the five locations described above, we marked
transects of 1.5 km inside protected areas and 2 km
outside protected areas. These permanent transects
werepartofanother ongoing project,andobservations
ofWoollyneckedStorksmadeduringtheprojectwork
have been used in this paper. Distribution of transects
ineachlocationensuredcoverageofas many different
habitattypesaspossible.Forthesereasons,thenumber
of transects varied with location and were also
unequally distributed within and outside protected
areas.Ofthe55transects,15eachwereinKachinState
and Sagaing Regions, 10 each were in Magway and
Mandalay Regions, and five in Yangon Region.
Transects were only outside protected areas in
Mandalay Region and only inside protected areas in
Yangon region. A total of 19 transects were located
inside and 36 were located outside protected areas.
Transectswerenotdistributed systematically and were
therefore clumpedto differentextents ineach location
(see Figure 1). Protected areas varied in the levels of
protectioneachhadandinotherimportantaspectssuch
assizeof areas protectedand time sinceprotection. In
this study it was not possible to evaluate whether
WoollyneckedStorksrespondedtodifferingaspectsof
protection and habitat availability in protected areas.
Similarly, unprotected areas also varied in cropping
patterns,humandensities,hydrologyandotheraspects.
Results of this study are therefore t o be interpreted as
being relevant to the range of variations across
protectedandunprotectedareaswecovered.Toachieve
muchmore specific understandingofhowspeciessuch
asWoollynecked Storksrespond to individual aspects
ofprotectedandunprotectedareas,studies will require
a different resolution of planning suited to specific
questions.

Transectobservations were made either in the morning
(0700  1000h) or evening (1400  1700h) with two
people walking slowly and counting all observed
storks. Observations included number of storks and
whether storks were using one of three broad habit ats
(agriculture, forests, wetlands). Each transect was run
twice every season annually between January 2016 to
December2018foratotalof990transectruns.
Analyses
Abundanceof WoollyneckedStork was estimatedper
transectasencounterrate(numberofstorksseen/km).
Sincetransectswereunequallydistributed,andbecause
alargenumberoftransectsdidnothaveanystorks(see
Results), we used nonparametric permutational
98

Winetal.,2020 Woolly‐neckedStorkecologyinMyanmar
analysis of variance (PERMANOVA) tests to assess
differences, if any, due to protection status and other
variables.Thenonparametrictestsallowedustowork
with data that did not conform to strict distribution
patterns that are essential for parametric tests. We
carriedout statisticaltests usingfunction ‘aovp’inR
package ‘lmPerm’ (Wheeler and Torchiano 2016).
Usingthefulldata,encounterratesweresimilaracross
years (p = 0.69) and in different times of day (p =
0.89),andwedidnot consider thesetwovariables for
therestof the analyses.Wetested thehypothesesthat
Woollynecked Stork abundance varied due to
protection status (transects located in protected/
unprotectedareas),andthatthisdifferenceremainedin
differentlocationsandseasonally.
Using the 18 continuous counts on each transect we
estimated the linear trend in encounter rates using
linear leastsquares and computed slopes for each
transect.Theslopeofthefitted line indicatesboththe
directionality and therate ofchange in encounter rate
overthe18counts.Wedeliberatelyassumedlinearfits
to allow direct comparisons across transects
notwithstanding varied scales of difference in
individualtransects.
For each transect we computed the proportion of
Woollynecked Storks seen in each of the three
habitats – agriculture, forests, and wetlands.
Proportions of use of each habitat type was
significantly and negatively correlated with the other
two habitat types (Spearman’s r < 0.3, p < 0.001).
Wetlandsweretheonlyhabitattypesusedbystorksin
all locations, and we therefore used proportions of
wetlandsusedtoassessdifferencesinhabitatusewith
PERMANOVAtestsdue to protectionstatus, andalso
whether differences existed across locations and
seasonally.
Results
Encounterrate
A total of 1,118 Woollynecked Storks were
counted during the 990 transect runs with storks
being sighted in all locations (Figure 1). Storks
wereseenatleastoncein56%ofthetransectsand
were seen in all 18 runs in 18% of transects.
Woollynecked Storks were seen at least once in
similarproportions of transects inside (53% of 19
transects) and outside (56% of 36 transects)
protected areas. However, frequency of sightings
differed with protected status. Woollynecked
Storkswere seenin 44% ofthe 990transect runs,
with a much higher frequency of sightings in
transects outside (61% of 648 transect runs)
relativetothose inside (25%of 342 transectruns)
protectedareas.
Encounterrates variedsignificantly by location (p
<0.001) withthe highest rates in Sagaing Region
andKachinState(Figure2a).Thelargestcountof
WoollyneckedStorksin asingle transect runwas
12 birds and occurred in two different protected
areas, both in Sagaing Region. The average
number of storks seen in a single transect was 1
bird(±2SD).Totalstorkcountsusing all 18 runs
onatransectvaried widely acrossthe55transects
(average=20±30SD;range=0130;seeFigure
1).Encounter rates of Woollynecked Storks were
significantly more outside protected areas (p <
0.001). Woollynecked Storks were seen both
Figure 1. The map shows the five major
locations where transects were laid to
count Woolly‐necked Storks in Myanmar
(inset, in box). Along with location of the
transects, the map illustrates the
distribution of transects inside (pink
squares) and outside (green triangles)
protected areas. The size of the squares
and triangles correspond to the number of
sightings of Woolly‐necked Storks that
were made over 18 runs on each transect
between 2016 and 2018. Major locations
where transect surveys were carried out
(from the northern‐most to the southern‐
most) were Kachin State (a), Sagaing
Region (b), Magway Region (c), Mandalay
Region (d) and Yangon Region (e).
99

Woolly‐neckedStorkecologyinMyanmar Winetal.,2020
insideandoutsideprotectedareasintwolocations
and in these locations were significantly more
abundant outside protected areas in Kachin State
(p<0.001)butdidnotvarywithprotectionstatus
inSagaingRegion(p=0.32).
On the 31 transects where Woollynecked Storks
were observed, trends in abundance were weakly
negative on average (0.02 ± 0.04 SD) with
negative trends in 68% of transects. Decline in
abundance inside protected areas (0.039 ± 0.06
SD)wasonaveragemorethantwicethatobserved
outside(0.019±0.03SD;Figure2b).Differences
in average trends, however, were not significant
with standard deviations overlapping zero both
insideandoutsideprotectedareas.
Habitatuse
Combining all observations, most Woollynecked
Storks were seen in wetlands (53%) and
agriculture fields (35%) with few seen in forests
(12%).Forests were used mostly insideprotected
areas, while agriculture fields and wetlands were
used more outside protected areas (p < 0.001;
Figure 3a). Use of habitats inside and outside
protected areas was similar across seasons (p =
0.61)and locations (p = 0.92;Figure 3b). Useof
different habitats by Woollynecked Storks were
photographedwherepossibleandasmallselection
iscuratedinFigure4.
Discussion
WoollyneckedStorkswereobservedinallthefive
locations of Myanmar where transectbased
surveys were carried out.Abundance measured as
encounter rates were significantly higher outside
protected areas, and storks were seen in many
more transects outside protected areas. Trends in
encounter rates were negative in nearly all
transects in Myanmar, though protected areas
appearedto bewitnessingamuchfasterdeclinein
Woollynecked Storks relative to areas outside
protectedareas (Figure2b).While negativetrends
were very weak and not statistically significant,
our observations provide additional support to
growingobservationsofhabitatdeteriorationinthe
protectedareasandwetlandsof Myanmar(e.g.Su
andJassby2002;Donaldetal.2015).Itisnotclear
what is responsible for these negative trends in
abundance, though naturally occurring seasonal
and interannual variations in numbers cannot be
entirely ruled out (as seen in other south Asian
populations;KitturandSundar2020).
There was no seasonal variation in estimated
encounter rates in Myanmar. In other locations,
Woollynecked Storks were seen much more
during winter and the least in summer suggesting
local movements potentially brought about by
changes in local conditions (Kittur and Sundar
2020; Roshnath and Greeshma 2020). Despite
strong seasonality in Myanmar, the apparent
absence of local movements of Woollynecked
Storks is suggestive of foraging conditions being
suitable throughout the year in many locations.
This appears to be an unusual setting for Woolly
neckedStorksandisworthyofdetailedstudies.

AbundanceestimatesforWoollyneckedStorksare
available for very few locations, and encounter
rates that we estimated for Myanmar are
unfortunately not comparable with estimated
densities in lowland Nepal and India (see Kittur
andSundar2020).Onaverage,nearlytwoWoolly
necked Storks were seen every km of surveys in
Sagaingthatsuggests a relativelyhighabundance.
All the other locations surveyed had much fewer
encounters suggesting that conditions in Sagaing
Region, relative to the other areas, were most
optimal for Woollynecked Storks. More careful
studiescanhelpwithunderstandingtheconditions
Figure 2. Estimated encounter rates (birds/ km) of
Woolly‐necked Storks in five locations of Myanmar.
(a) Average + SD encounter rates were estimated
differently for transects that were located inside
(“PA”) and outside protected areas (“Outside”). (b)
Trends in encounter rates were estimated using 18
consecutive surveys in each transect, and average
values of slopes (± SD) are provided for transects that
were located inside and outside protected areas.
100

Winetal.,2020 Woolly‐neckedStorkecologyinMyanmar
inSagaingRegionthatwerefavourableforstorks.
With our study, we are unable to provide
population estimates, though observations on
transects that covered a relatively miniscule
proportion of the country suggest that Woolly
necked Storks could number in the thousands in
Myanmar. It will be useful to undertake robust
fieldstudiesdirectedatcollectingdatawithwhich
to estimate population sizes of Woollynecked
StorksindifferentlocationsofMyanmar.
Encounter rates of Woollynecked Storks were
much higher outside protected areas raising the
possibility that this species favours open areas,
andthat will likelybe resilienttodeterioration of
forestedprotectedareasinMyanmar.Ourfindings
contrast existing assumptions that Woollynecked
Storks favour protected forested areas, and that
agricultureisdetrimentalforthespecies(BirdLife
International 2020). Instead, our findings in
Myanmar support the growing evidence of
humanmodified open areas such as agriculture
fields and unprotected wetlands being primary
habitats for Woollynecked Storks in several
locations acrossAsia and Africa (Thabethe 2018;
Katuwal et al. 2020; Kittur and Sundar 2020;
Tiwary2020).
MostWoollyneckedStorksobservedinMyanmar
were in wetlands (53% of 1,118 storks observed)
bothinsideandoutsideprotectedareas(Figure3a),
which is different from habitat use observed
elsewhere. In lowland Nepal and India, of 1,874
observations of storks, 64% were in agriculture
fieldswithonly9%inwetlands(KitturandSundar
2020). Analysis with the useavailability
frameworkshowedWoollyneckedStorksinsouth
Asia to be strongly preferring wetlands in nearly
allthe locationsthey werestudied despitea small
proportion of sightings of storks using wetlands
(Sundar 2006; Kittur and Sundar 2020). Our
observations in Myanmar therefore suggest that
Woollynecked Storks in Myanmar are likely
selecting wetlands as foraging habitats even more
strongly than in Nepal and India. Though 35% of
Woollynecked Storks were observed in
agriculturalfieldslargelyoutsideprotectedareasin
Myanmar, there were considerable location
specific differences in the proportions of storks
that used agriculture. In Magway and Sagaing
Regions most storks used agriculture, while they
mostly used wetlands in Kachin State and
Mandalay Region (Figure 3b). These location
specificdifferencesinhabitatusearesymptomatic
of variations in landscape conditions and
potentially also of different levels of human
activityonthe landscape. Variationsin habitat use
with location could also be due to the unequal
Figure 3. Woolly‐necked Stork use of
three primary habitats inside and outside
protected areas in Myanmar. (a) Average
(+ SD) % habitat use combining
information from all transects; and (b)
average (+ SD) % habitat use in five
locations.
101

Woolly‐neckedStorkecologyinMyanmar Winetal.,2020
distribution of transects inside and outside
protected areas and unequal effort in locations.
Studiestomeasureavailablelandscapeconditions
in different locations to compare againstWoolly
necked Stork habitat use can yield nuanced
information on the habitat requirements of this
species.
We recognize two important aspects of analyses
with our data that are important to undertake
separately. As we pointed out in the Methods
section, the first is the lack of resolution to
analyze sitespecific differences such as level of
protection(forprotectedareas)andhumandensity
(for unprotected areas). This is also part of the
reason why we do not provide a nuanced
discussion into national policy for conservation.
The potential impacts of these variations on
species such as Woollynecked Storks are
important but was not possible to incorporate in
our study. We also do not include metrics of
additional aspects of species biology such as
breedingpropensityandsuccess.Birdsoftheyear
areeasily identified using plumage in some large
waterbirdspeciessuchastheSarusCrane,Painted
Storks Mycteria leucocephala and Blacknecked
Storks Ephippiorhynchus asiaticus in southAsia
(pers. obs.). Locations where immature birds are
seenalongsideadultscanconfidentlybeidentified
as areas where the species breeds. Such plumage
variationsalso allow for the estimation ofmetrics
important for understanding species population
biology. Woollynecked Stork juveniles, however,
are difficult to tell apart from adults except for a
short time immediately after fledging (see Sundar
2020). In addition, this species shows local and
seasonalmovementsinresponsetochangingwater
availability that in turn alters observable metrics
such as flock size (Kittur and Sundar 2020;
Mandal et al. 2020). Using only metrics such as
flock size is therefore not a reliable method for
Woollynecked Storks to confirm aspects such as
breeding. Careful studies are needed in Myanmar
to document and understand critical aspects of
Woollynecked Stork biology such as breeding
ecology.
Thisstudyisthe first fromMyanmartodevelop a
detailedunderstandingofalargewaterbirdspecies
capable of using both protected forests and
unprotected agricultural areas. Our findings are
hopeful in suggesting that the gloomanddoom
thatispresentedofMyanmar’snaturalresourcesis
notpertinent to all species, andthat atlease some
speciesof birds maybe resilientto the dynamism
and human presence characteristic of agricultural
Figure 4. Observations of Woolly‐necked Storks using different habitats in Myanmar during surveys between 2016
and 2018. Photographs show storks using large waterbodies (a), small shallow ephemeral wetlands alongside
other waterbirds (b), pea fields (c), and an agricultural field with harvested crops (d). (Photograph credits: U.
Nway Myaing).
102

Winetal.,2020 Woolly‐neckedStorkecologyinMyanmar
landscapes. Findings from this study do not
support existing assumptions regarding the
conservation requirements and status of Woolly
necked Storks. Our work adds to the sparse
amount of research on Woollynecked Storks
globally.Italsoprovidesinformationthatsuggests
that conservation efforts in Myanmar will benefit
fromincludingagriculturallandscapes toongoing
efforts that seek to preserve forested protected
areascriticalfortheregion’sbiodiversity.
Acknowledgments
Field work was conducted entirely by Myanmar nationals
after obtaining requisite permits to access protected areas.
KSGSwas invitedtocollaborateon analysingthefielddata
andwriting the paper.Wethank all theforest officials who
aidedresearchersduring field work.We thank S.Kittur for
preparingthemapof thestudyareaandforsuggestions that
improved an early draft of the paper. We would like to
express our special thanks to U Nway Myaing for sharing
invaluable bird photos. Special thanks to U TinAung Tun,
freelance conservationist, for his invaluable technical
support during the survey period. We gratefully
acknowledge the suggestions made by two anonymous
reviewersthathelpedimproveapreviousdraft.
References
Anon.2017.FiftygloballyVulnerableSarusCranechicks
successfullyhatchinnorthernplainsofCambodia.
NewsRelease,October02,2017,WCSNewsroom.
https://programs.wcs.org/newsroom/NewsReleases/
articleType/ArticleView/articleId/10559/FiftyGlobally
VulnerableSarusCraneChicksSuccessfullyHatchin
NorthernPlainsofCambodia.aspx,accessed18August
2020.
BirdLifeInternational.2020.Speciesfactsheet:Ciconia
episcopus.http://datazone.birdlife.org/species/factsheet/
22727255,accessed15September2020.
Donald,P.F.,P.D.Round,T.D.W.Aung,M.Grindley,R.
Steinmetz,N.M.ShweandG.M.Buchanan.2015.
Socialreformandagrowingcrisisforsouthern
Myanmar’suniqueforests.ConservationBiology29:
14851488.
Gula,J.,W.R.J.DeanandK.S.G.Sundar.2020.Known
andpotentialdistributionoftheAfricanCiconia
miscroscelisandAsianC.episcopusWoollyneckStorks.
SISConservation2:8095.
Harrison,I.,R.Abell,W.Darwall,M.L.Thieme,D.Tickner
andI.Timboe.2018.Thefreshwaterbiodiversitycrisis.
Science362:1369.
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.M.Baral,H.P.SharmaandR.C.Quan.
2020.AsianWoollynecksareuncommononthe
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agriculturallandscapesofsouthAsia.SIS
Conservation2:7179.
Mandal,J.,L.M.AbrahamandR.Bhaduri.2020.Anoteon
thetemporalandspatialdistributionofAsian
WoollyneckinAssam,India.SISConservation2:6267.
Roshnath,R.andP.Greeshma.2020.StatusofWoolly
neckedStorksinKerala,southwesternIndia.SIS
Conservation2:5561.
Su,M.andA.D.Jassby.2002.Inle:AlargeMyanmarlakein
transition.LakesandReservoirs5:4954.
Sundar,K.S.G.2006.Flocksize,densityandhabitat
selectionoffourlargewaterbirdspeciesinan
agriculturallandscapeinUttarPradesh,India:
implicationsformanagement.Waterbirds29:365374.
Sundar,K.S.G.2020.Specialsectioneditorial:Woolly
neckedStork–anignoredspecies.SISConservation2:
3341.
Sundar,K.S.G.andS.Kittur.2012.Methodological,
temporalandspatialfactorsaffectingmodelled
occupancyofresidentbirdsintheperenniallycultivated
landscapeofUttarPradesh,India.LandscapeEcology
27:5971.
Sundar,K.S.G.andS.Kittur.2013.Canwetlands
maintainedforhumanusealsohelpconserve
biodiversity?Landscapescalepatternsofbirduseof
wetlandsinanagriculturallandscapeinnorthIndia.
BiologicalConservation168:4956.
Tiwary,N.K.2020.Observationsondistributionand
feedingbehaviourofWoollyneckedStorksCiconia
episcopusduring201220fromnorthIndia.SIS
Conservation2:4246.
Thabethe,V.2018.AspectsofecologyofAfricanwoolly
neckedstorks(Ciconiamiscroscelis)inananthropogenic
changinglandscapeinKwaZuluNatal,SouthAfrica.
UnpublishedPh.D.thesis,SchoolofLifeSciences,
CollegeofAgriculture,ScienceandEngineering,
UniversityofKwaZuluNatal,SouthAfrica.125pp.
Wheeler,B.andM.Torchiano.2016.lmPermpackageforR:
PermutationTestsforLinearModelsversion2.1.0.
https://github.com/mtorchiano/lmPerm,accessed13
August2020.
Wilcove,D.S.,X.Giam,D.P.Edwards,B.FisherandL.P.
Koh.2013.Navjot’snightmarerevisited:logging,
agriculture,andbiodiversityinSoutheastAsia.Trendsin
EcologyandEvolution28:531540.
103