feedback

Sarus Crane

Grus antigone (formerly as: Antigone antigone)

Abstract

Sarus Crane Grus antigone has most recently been assessed for The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species in 2016. Grus antigone is listed as Vulnerable under criteria A2cde+3cde+4cde.


The Red list Assessmenti

Last assessed

01 October 2016

Scope of assessment

Global

Population trend

Decreasing

Number of mature individuals

13000-15000

Habitat and ecology

Grassland, Wetlands (inland), Artificial/Terrestrial, Artificial/Aquatic & Marine

Geographic range

Leaflet | Powered by Esri | Esri, HERE, Garmin, FAO, NOAA
  • Extant (resident)

  • Extant (breeding)

  • Extant (non-breeding)

BirdLife International and Handbook of the Birds of the World (2016) 2007. Grus antigone. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2022-2

Taxonomy

Kingdom

Animalia

Phylum

Chordata

Class

Aves

Family

Gruidae

Genus

Grus

Scientific name

Grus antigone

Authority

(Linnaeus, 1758)

Synonyms

Antigone antigone (Linnaeus, 1758)

Ardea antigone Linnaeus, 1758

Common names

English

Sarus Crane

Taxonomic sources

Handbook of the Birds of the World and BirdLife International. 2021. Handbook of the Birds of the World and BirdLife International digital checklist of the birds of the world. Version 6. Available at: http://datazone.birdlife.org/userfiles/file/Species/Taxonomy/HBW-BirdLife_Checklist_v6_Dec21.zip.

Identification Information

152-156 cm. Large, elegant crane. Adults are grey overall, with whiter mid-neck and tertials, mostly naked red head and upper neck (brighter when breeding), blackish primaries, but mostly grey secondaries, and reddish legs that are bright during breeding and pale outside the breeding season. G. a. sharpii is more uniform, darker grey. Juvenile has feathered, buffish head and upper neck and duller plumage with brownish feather fringes. Voice Loud trumpeting, usually by pairs.

Taxonomic Change Reason

Formerly, this species was in genus Antigone; it has now been moved to the genus Grus.

Taxonomic notes

Assessment Information

IUCN Red List Category and Criteria

Vulnerable A2cde+3cde+4cde

Date assessed

01 October 2016

Year published

2016

Year last seen

Regional assessments

    Assessor(s)

    BirdLife International

    Reviewer(s)

    Butchart, S. & Symes, A.

    Contributor(s)

    Grant, J., Jaensch, R., Scambler, E. & Sundar, G.

    Facilitator(s) / Compiler(s)

    Benstead, P., Bird, J., Davidson, P., Garnett, S., Peet, N., Pilgrim, J., Taylor, J., Tobias, J., Allinson, T & Symes, A.

    Partner(s) / Institution(s)

    Authority / Authorities

    Justification

    This crane is listed as Vulnerable because it is suspected to have suffered a rapid population decline, which is projected to continue, as a result of widespread reductions in the extent and quality of its wetland habitats, exploitation and the effects of pollutants.

    Geographic Range

    Native

    Extant (resident)

    Australia; Cambodia; India; Lao People's Democratic Republic; Myanmar; Nepal; Pakistan; Viet Nam

    Extant (seasonality uncertain)

    China

    Extinct

    Malaysia; Philippines; Thailand

    Extant & Vagrant (non-breeding)

    Bangladesh

    Number of locations

    11-100

    Upper elevation limit

    Lower elevation limit

    Upper depth limit

    Lower depth limit

    Estimated area of occupancy (AOO) (km²)

    Continuing decline in area of occupancy (AOO)

    Yes

    Extreme fluctuations in area of occupancy (AOO)

    No

    Estimated extent of occurrence (EOO) (km²)

    13800000

    Continuing decline in extent of occurrence (EOO)

    Yes

    Extreme fluctuations in extent of occurrence (EOO)

    No

    Continuing decline in number of locations

    Unknown

    Extreme fluctuations in the number of locations

    No

    Range Description

    Antigone antigone has three disjunct populations in the Indian subcontinent, South-East Asia and northern Australia, with a total world population estimated at 15,000-20,000 individuals (Archibald et al. 2003). The nominate subspecies (c.8,000-10,000 birds) inhabits northern and central India, Nepal and Pakistan (although now thought to be extinct as a breeding species there [Archibald et al. 2003]), with occasional vagrants in Bangladesh. Its range has contracted towards the north and west of the Subcontinent (Sundar et al. 2000) and its population is considered to be in decline (Archibald et al. 2003). The north Indian state of Uttar Pradesh remains the species's stronghold, with a population estimated at over 6,000 individuals (Sundar 2008). Subspecies sharpii occurs in South-East Asia where its range has declined dramatically, now being confined to Cambodia, extreme southern Laos, south Vietnam (c.800-1,000 birds between these three countries [Wetlands International 2006]), and Myanmar (c.500-800 birds [Wetlands International 2006]). Despite past declines, recent counts have shown some increase in the South-East Asian population, however Population Viability Analysis of cranes in Tram Chin shows the population is highly unstable and prone to extinction if current rates of habitat degradation continue (Archibald et al. 2003). Since 2001, a coordinated census has been held each year in Cambodia and Vietnam in the late dry season. In 2009, 455 individuals were counted at six sites, around 30% fewer than in the previous year. Early dry season counts (562 individuals), however, were higher than in 2008 (Evans et al. 2009). The Australian population (gilliae) is confined to the north and east of the country. It was estimated at fewer than 10,000 breeding adults in 2000 (Garnett and Crowley 2000, R. Jaensch in litt. 2005 to Wetlands International 2006), and has been put as low as 5,000 individuals (Archibald et al. 2003). The highest number recorded in surveys in north Queensland was in October 2000, when an estimated minimum of 3,000 individuals was present on Atherton Tablelands (E. Scambler in litt. 2007). These, and other published data, suggest that the Australian population is >5,000 individuals (E. Scambler in litt. 2016). During recent years, fluctuations in recruitment and numbers visiting the Atherton Tablelands have been noted, and are thought to be related to variation in annual rainfall in the Gulf of Carpentaria and Cape Regions (J. Grant in litt. 2007). It is extinct in Thailand, Malaysia, the Philippines and probably China.


    Population

    Current population trend

    Decreasing

    Number of mature individuals

    13000-15000

    Population severely fragmented

    No

    Continuing decline of mature individuals

    Unknown

    Extreme fluctuations

    No

    No. of subpopulations

    2-100

    Continuing decline in subpopulations

    Unknown

    Extreme fluctuations in subpopulations

    No

    All individuals in one subpopulation

    No

    No. of individuals in largest subpopulation

    1001-10000

    Description

    There are thought to be 8,000-10,000 individuals in India, Nepal and Pakistan; 800-1,000 in Cambodia, Laos and Vietnam, 500-800 in Myanmar (unpublished information supplied by Wetlands International Specialist Groups 2006), and about 10,000 breeding adults in Australia (Garnett and Crowley 2000, R. Jaensch in litt. 2005 to Wetlands International 2006). The population size thus totals 19,000-21,800 individuals, roughly equivalent to 13,000-15,000 mature individuals.

    Trend Justification: This species's population is suspected to have decreased, owing to the loss and degradation of wetlands, as a result of drainage and conversion to agriculture, ingestion of pesticides, and the hunting of adults and collection of eggs and chicks for trade, food, medicinal purposes and to help limit damage to crops.

    Habitat and Ecology

    Generation length (years)

    15.6 years

    Congregatory

    Congregatory (and dispersive)

    Movement patterns

    Full Migrant

    Continuing decline in area, extent and/or quality of habitat

    Yes

    Habitat and Ecology

    Indian birds inhabit open wet and dry grasslands, agricultural fields, marshes and pools, while in South-East Asia and Australia the species shows a preference for dry savannah woodlands with ephemeral pools during the breeding season, frequenting open and man-made wetlands during the non-breeding season (Archibald et al. 2003). In India, the species is increasingly forced to use suboptimal rice paddies as breeding habitat because of the deterioration and destruction of its natural wetland habitat (Meine and Archibald 1996, Sundar 2009). In Australia, cattle pastures and maize stubble are important foraging habitats in the non-breeding season (J. Grant in litt. 2007). It prefers a mixture of flooded, partially flooded and dry ground for foraging, roosting and nesting. It is omnivorous, feeding on a variety of roots and tubers as well as invertebrates and amphibians. In some locations in the Indian subcontinent and in Australia, birds disperse seasonally in response to available water. Breeding in India may take place virtually year-round if conditions are suitable, but there is a major peak in July-October, with egg laying in August-September, and a much smaller peak in February-March (K. S. G. Sundar in litt. 2007). It breeds during respective wet seasons in South-East Asia and Australia, migrating to key non-breeding sites during the dry season where birds form sizeable aggregations (Archibald et al. 2003). In India and Nepal, breeding pairs maintain discrete territories, year-round in areas with an adequate water supply throughout the year, while non-breeding birds are generally found in flocks that use larger wetlands to roost (K. S. G. Sundar in litt. 2007). Successful breeding pairs generally raise one or two chicks, with three chicks being extremely rare. Flock sizes in India are a function of wetland availability with the largest flocks seen in summers when wetlands are much reduced (K. S. G. Sundar in litt. 2007)


    Classification scheme

    HabitatsSeasonSuitabilityMajor importance
    4. Grassland4.5. Grassland - Subtropical/Tropical DrybreedingSuitableNo
    4.6. Grassland - Subtropical/Tropical Seasonally Wet/Floodednon-breedingSuitableNo
    5. Wetlands (inland)5.4. Wetlands (inland) - Bogs, Marshes, Swamps, Fens, Peatlandsnon-breedingSuitableNo
    5.5. Wetlands (inland) - Permanent Freshwater Lakes (over 8ha)breedingSuitableNo
    5.7. Wetlands (inland) - Permanent Freshwater Marshes/Pools (under 8ha)breedingSuitableNo
    14. Artificial/Terrestrial14.1. Artificial/Terrestrial - Arable Landnon-breedingSuitableNo
    14.2. Artificial/Terrestrial - PasturelandbreedingSuitableNo
    15. Artificial/Aquatic & Marine15.1. Artificial/Aquatic - Water Storage Areas (over 8ha)non-breedingSuitableNo

    Threats

    Agriculture & aquaculture

    • Annual & perennial non-timber crops

    Transportation & service corridors

    • Utility & service lines

    Biological resource use

    • Hunting & trapping terrestrial animals

    Human intrusions & disturbance

    • Recreational activities
    • Work & other activities

    Natural system modifications

    • Other ecosystem modifications

    Invasive and other problematic species, genes & diseases

    • Invasive non-native/alien species/diseases
    • Problematic native species/diseases

    Pollution

    • Agricultural & forestry effluents

    Climate change & severe weather

    • Habitat shifting & alteration

    Threats

    The main threats are a combination of loss and degradation of wetlands, as a result of drainage and conversion to agriculture (for example wet rice paddy into dry sugarcane or soya bean [Archibald et al. 2003]), ingestion of pesticides (K. S. G. Sundar in litt. 2007), and the hunting of adults and collection of eggs and chicks (particularly in Indo-China but increasingly in India and Pakistan) for trade, food, medicinal purposes and, in some areas, to help prevent damage to crops (Sundar et al. 2000, Khacher 2006, K. S. G. Sundar in litt. 2007). These factors may be the cause of low recruitment in India, and can rapidly extirpate localised populations (Sundar et al. 2000). In Vietnam and Cambodia, large areas of the Mekong Delta, which supported key dry season habitat, have been reclaimed for agriculture in recent decades (Archibald et al. 2003). From 2001 to 2006, much of the seasonally inundated floodplains of the Ha Tien Plain, were lost, mostly due to the expansion of shrimp farms (Tran 2006a). The mechanisation of farming practices may threaten birds breeding on agricultural land (Sundar et al. 2000). Collision with powerlines may be a significant threat in parts of its range, with observations from India suggesting that 2.5-20 % of cranes are affected (Sundar et al. 2000, Sundar and Choudhury 2001), mostly non-breeding birds, equating to almost 1% of the total population (Sundar and Choudhury 2005). High human usage of wetlands results in a high rate of disturbance to cranes and considerably limits breeding success (Sundar and Choudhury 2003). Anecdotal observations suggest that chick predation by dogs and egg predation by corvids is increasing as their populations increase following the decline of vultures on the Indian subcontinent (K. S. G. Sundar in litt. 2007). The vast majority of the Australian population breed and winter in non-protected areas (J. Grant in litt. 2007). In the Gulf of Carpentaria region of northern Australia, proposals to increase cropping would entail conversion of land currently grazed by cattle, which is breeding habitat for the species, and would also involve impoundment of water currently available in wetland habitats (J. Grant in litt. 2007). At Lake Tinaroo, Australia, grazing is forbidden in some areas in the interests of water quality, and such sites have now become overgrown with dense vegetation and abandoned by the species (E. Scambler in litt. 2007). It is also threatened by the increasing subdivision of the shoreline grazing land at Lake Tinaroo for residential development, which is accompanied by increasing disturbance, e.g. from the use of speedboats (E. Scambler in litt. 2007). Each year there are one or two reports of individuals killed by powerlines on the Atherton Tableland, although this threat has not been investigated or quantified (E. Scambler in litt. 2007).

    Classification scheme

    ThreatsTimingStressesScopeSeverityInvasive speciesVirus
    1. Residential & commercial development1.1. Housing & urban areasOngoing
    1. Ecosystem stresses1.1. Ecosystem conversion
    1.2. Ecosystem degradation
    Minority (<50%)Slow, Significant Declines
    2. Agriculture & aquaculture2.1. Annual & perennial non-timber crops2.1.3. Agro-industry farmingOngoing
    1. Ecosystem stresses1.1. Ecosystem conversion
    1.2. Ecosystem degradation
    Majority (50-90%)Slow, Significant Declines
    4. Transportation & service corridors4.2. Utility & service linesOngoing
    2. Species Stresses2.1. Species mortality
    Majority (50-90%)Slow, Significant Declines
    5. Biological resource use5.1. Hunting & trapping terrestrial animals5.1.1. Intentional use (species is the target)Ongoing
    2. Species Stresses2.1. Species mortality
    2.2. Species disturbance
    2.3. Indirect species effects2.3.7. Reduced reproductive success
    Majority (50-90%)Slow, Significant Declines
    5.1.3. Persecution/controlOngoing
    2. Species Stresses2.1. Species mortality
    2.2. Species disturbance
    2.3. Indirect species effects2.3.7. Reduced reproductive success
    Majority (50-90%)Slow, Significant Declines
    6. Human intrusions & disturbance6.1. Recreational activitiesOngoing
    2. Species Stresses2.2. Species disturbance
    Minority (<50%)Negligible declines
    6.3. Work & other activitiesOngoing
    2. Species Stresses2.2. Species disturbance
    2.3. Indirect species effects2.3.7. Reduced reproductive success
    Majority (50-90%)Slow, Significant Declines
    7. Natural system modifications7.3. Other ecosystem modificationsOngoing
    1. Ecosystem stresses1.2. Ecosystem degradation
    Minority (<50%)Negligible declines
    8. Invasive and other problematic species, genes & diseases8.1. Invasive non-native/alien species/diseases8.1.2. Named speciesOngoing
    2. Species Stresses2.3. Indirect species effects2.3.7. Reduced reproductive success
    Minority (<50%)Slow, Significant DeclinesCanis familiaris
    8.2. Problematic native species/diseases8.2.1. Unspecified speciesOngoing
    2. Species Stresses2.3. Indirect species effects2.3.7. Reduced reproductive success
    Minority (<50%)Slow, Significant Declines
    9. Pollution9.3. Agricultural & forestry effluents9.3.3. Herbicides and pesticidesOngoing
    2. Species Stresses2.1. Species mortality
    Majority (50-90%)Slow, Significant Declines
    11. Climate change & severe weather11.1. Habitat shifting & alterationFuture
    1. Ecosystem stresses1.2. Ecosystem degradation
    Minority (<50%)Unknown

    Conservation Actions

    In-place research and monitoring

    • Action Recovery Plan : Yes
    • Systematic monitoring scheme : Yes

    In-place land/water protection

    • Conservation sites identified : Yes, over entire range
    • Occurs in at least one protected area : Yes
    • Invasive species control or prevention : No

    In-place species management

    • Successfully reintroduced or introduced benignly : No
    • Subject to ex-situ conservation : Yes

    In-place education

    • Subject to recent education and awareness programmes : Yes
    • Included in international legislation : Yes
    • Subject to any international management / trade controls : Yes

    Conservation Actions

    Conservation Actions Underway
    CITES Appendix II. CMS Appendix II. It occurs in a number of protected areas throughout its range, importantly Ang Trapeang Thmor, Cambodia, and Tram Chim National Park, Vietnam, which seasonally support the majority of the Indochinese population. A proposed 238,374-ha conservation reserve for the species in the Kampong Trach IBA, Cambodia, was demarcated in 2006, awaiting a ministerial decree (Anon. 2006b). Patrols have since been carried out, and environmental education is ongoing in the area (Anon. 2006b). Following the discovery of a major non-breeding population in the Basaac river floodplain of the Mekong Delta, in Borei Chulsar and Koh Andeth districts, Takeo province, during surveys in 2001-2002, a workshop was organised and a 9,275-ha protected area was proposed and subsequently went for approval (Anon. 2002). In 2003, protection was proposed for Hon Chong grassland (Anon 2003). Conservation awareness campaigns have been initiated in India, Nepal, Laos and Cambodia. Nest protection schemes in India have proven successful (Sundar and Choudhury 2003). In 2004–2005 protection of 22 nests by volunteer in the Kota district, Rajasthan resulted in the successful fledging of 19 chicks (Kaur et al. 2008). National surveys have recently been conducted in India and Cambodia, and detailed studies on species requirements are ongoing in India and Nepal (K. S. G. Sundar in litt. 2007). In Myanmar, Buddhist monks have increased local respect for cranes and many nests are protected when they would otherwise be destroyed to prevent damage to rice paddies (Archibald et al. 2003). Since 1997, annual roost counts have been conducted on the Atherton Tableland in the far north of Queensland during the non-breeding season (E. Scambler in litt. 2007). In 2008 the Atherton Tablelands Important Bird Area was established based on population distribution data from the annual counts, and continuing counts from 2009 monitor the IBA and surrounding sites. Authorities have flagged particular sections of powerline after Sarus Crane deaths or injuries were reported by concerned observers in the IBA. The Australian Crane Network (website http://ozcranes.net/) established in 2005, remains a contact point for crane researchers, landowners and interested individuals, including international networks; and provides updates on ongoing and completed research and conservation issues (E. Scambler in litt. 2016). Although state and federal authorities list Sarus Crane as “Common” or “Least Concern” wildlife, it is included as a migratory species covered by international treaties to which Australia is a signatory (E. Scambler in litt. 2016). Proponents of development proposals must therefore address potential impacts and conservation groups are approved parties to submit objections at both state and federal levels  In Thailand, a captive breeding programme is underway at Nakhon Ratchasima Zoo with the intention of establishing a wild population in the country (Siri-Arunrat 2009).

    Conservation Actions Proposed
    Conduct further surveys in northern Cambodia, southern Laos and southern Vietnam to identify key sites. Control pesticide use and industrial effluent disposal around feeding areas. Upgrade to CITES Appendix I, and strictly control local, national and international trade (Sundar and Choudhury 2003). Target further conservation awareness campaigns at communities in and around important sites (Sundar et al. 2000, Sundar and Choudhury 2003, Khacher 2006), and educate private landowners (Sundar and Choudhury 2003). Encourage a mosaic of small natural wetlands in heavily farmed areas (Sundar et al. 2000), as pairs will nest in wetlands as small as 1 ha (Archibald et al. 2003). Collect baseline data on ecology (Sundar et al. 2000). Improve protection of wetlands and other key habitats (Sundar and Choudhury 2003). Carry out restoration of deteriorating wetlands (Sundar and Choudhury 2003). Encourage nest protection by farmers and amateur ornithologists (Khacher 2006). Consider compensating farmers for real or expected crop damage (Khacher 2006), although this may change attitudes to the species to its detriment (K. S. G. Sundar in litt. 2007). Captive rearing programmes could be considered (Khacher 2006), although opinion is split (Sundar and Choudhury 2003), and such efforts may be futile in the face of existing threats (K. S. G. Sundar in litt. 2007). Establish a more certain estimate of the Australian population and its trends (Grant 2005).

    Conservation actions classification scheme

    Conservation Actions NeededNotes
    1. Land/water protection1.1. Site/area protectionImprove protection of wetlands and other key habitats<B><SUP>7</SUP></B>. </P>
    2. Land/water management2.1. Site/area managementEncourage a mosaic of small natural wetlands in heavily farmed areas<B><SUP>5</SUP></B>, as pairs will nest in wetlands as small as 1 ha<B><SUP>6</SUP></B>. <B> </P>
    2.3. Habitat & natural process restorationCarry out restoration of deteriorating wetlands<B><SUP>7</SUP></B>. </P>
    3. Species management3.4. Ex-situ conservation3.4.1. Captive breeding/artificial propagationCaptive rearing programmes could be considered<B><SUP>9</SUP></B>, although opinion is split<B><SUP>7</SUP></B>, and such efforts may be futile in the face of existing threats<B><SUP>12</SUP></B>. <B> </P>
    4. Education & awareness4.3. Awareness & communicationsTarget further conservation awareness campaigns at communities in and around important sites<B><SUP>5,7,9</SUP></B>, and educate private landowners<B><SUP>7</SUP></B>.<B> </P>
    5. Law & policy5.1. Legislation5.1.1. International levelUpgrade to CITES Appendix I, and strictly control local, national and international trade<B><SUP>7</SUP></B>. </P>
    5.4. Compliance and enforcement5.4.3. Sub-national levelControl pesticide use and industrial effluent disposal around feeding areas. </P>
    6. Livelihood, economic & other incentives6.4. Conservation paymentsConsider compensating farmers for real or expected crop damage<B><SUP>9</SUP></B>, although this may change attitudes to the species to its detriment<B><SUP>12</SUP></B>. </P>

    Research classification scheme

    Research NeededNotes
    1. Research1.2. Population size, distribution & trendsEstablish a more certain estimate of the Australian population and its trends<B><SUP>8</SUP></B>. </P>
    1.3. Life history & ecologyCollect baseline data on ecology<B><SUP>5</SUP></B>. <B> </P>

    Bibliography

    Anon. 2002. New protected area proposed for sarus cranes. The Babbler: BirdLife in Indochina 1(2): 10.

    Anon. 2003. A strategy workshop for sustainable development and biodiversity conservation on the Ha Tien plain. The Babbler: BirdLife in Indochina 2(2): 6.

    Anon. 2006. Protected area plans for Sarus Crane reserve at Kampong Trach (KH040) take shape. The Babbler: BirdLife in Indochina: 23-24.

    Archibald, G. W.; Sundar, K. S. G.; Barzen, J. 2003. A review of the three subspecies of Sarus Cranes Grus antigone. Journal of Ecological Society 16: 5-15.

    BirdLife International. 2001. Threatened birds of Asia: the BirdLife International Red Data Book. BirdLife International, Cambridge, U.K.

    Delany, S. and Scott, D. 2006. Waterbird population estimates. Wetlands International, Wageningen, The Netherlands.

    Evans, T.; van Zalinge, R.; Hong Chamnan; Seng Kim Hout. 2009. 2009 Sarus Crane census in Cambodia. The Babbler: BirdLife in Indochina: 18-19.

    Garnett, S. T.; Crowley, G. M. 2000. The action plan for Australian birds 2000. Environment Australia, Canberra.

    Grant, J.D. A. 2005. Recruitment rate of Sarus Cranes (Grus antigone) in northern Queensland. Emu 105: 311-315.

    IUCN. 2016. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2016-3. Available at: www.iucnredlist.org. (Accessed: 07 December 2016).

    Kaur, J.; Nair, A.; Choudhury, B. C. 2008. Conservation of the vulnerable Sarus Crane Grus antigone antigone in Kota, Rajasthan, India: a case study of community involvement. Oryx 42(3): 452-455.

    Khacher, L. 2006. The Sarus Crane Grus antigone is on its way out. Indian Birds 2(6): 168-169.

    Meine, C. D. and Archibald, G. W. 1996. The cranes - status survey and conservation action plan. International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources, Gland, Switzerland, and Cambridge, U.K.

    Siri-Arunrat, B. 2009. Return of the Eastern Sarus Crane: Grus antigone: episode 2. Bird Conservation Society of Thailand Bulletin 26(1): 18.

    Sundar, K. S. G. 2008. Uttar Pradesh: an unlikely Shangri-La. ICF Bugle 34(2): 6.

    Sundar, K. S. G. 2009. Are rice paddies suboptimal breeding habitat for Sarus Cranes in Uttar Pradesh, India? Condor 111(4): 611-623.

    Sundar, K. S. G.; Choudhury, B. C. 2001. A note on Sarus Crane Grus antigone mortality due to collision with high-tension power lines. Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society 98: 108-110.

    Sundar, K. S. G.; Choudhury, B. C. 2003. The Indian Sarus Crane Grus a. antigone: a literature review. Journal of Ecological Society 16: 16-41.

    Sundar, K. S. G.; Choudhury, B. C. 2005. Mortality of Sarus Cranes (Grus antigone() due to electricity lines in Uttar Pradesh, India. Environmental Conservation 32: 260-269.

    Sundar, K. S. G.; Kaur, J.; Choudhury, B. C. 2000. Distribution, demography and conservation status of the Indian Sarus Crane (Grus antigone antigone) in India. Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society 97(3): 319-339.

    Wetland International - China Office. 2006. Relict Gull surveys in Hongjianao, Shaanxi Province. Newsletter of China Ornithological Society 15(2): 29.

    External Data

    CITES Legislation from Species+

    Data Source

    The information below is from the Species+ website.

    Studies and Actions from Conservation Evidence

    Data Source

    The information below is from the Conservation Evidence website.

    Search terms: "Grus antigone", "Gruidae"

    My Account

    Log in

    You must log in to access advanced IUCN Red List functionality. Please enter your e-mail address and password below.

    or
    By registering/signing up through either Facebook, Google or Twitter account, you are hereby acknowledging that you have read, and also accept the Privacy policy
    Register for an account

    To save searches and access a historical view of information you have downloaded you are required to register for an account.

    Google 翻訳

    原文

    翻訳を改善する