Trees, Forests and People 3 (2021) 100048

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Trees, Forests and People

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/tfp

Using birds as biodindicators of forest restoration progress: A preliminary

study
S.M. Chowfin a,∗, A.J. Leslie b
a
C/o The Gadoli and Manda Khal Wildlife Conservation Trust, District Pauri Garhwal, Uttarakhand, India
b
Department Conservation Ecology & Entomology, Faculty of AgriSciences, University of Stellenbosch, Matieland 7600, South Africa

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Keywords: Ecological restoration is vital for reversing declines in biodiversity, restoring ecological processes, and providing
Biodiversity ecosystem services in disturbed or degraded lands globally. However, responses of wildlife to different forest
Bird diversity restoration techniques is often uncertain and an improved understanding of wildlife activity during the early
Degradation
stages of forest restoration is important for restoration planning. Birds, in particular, are considered to be able to
Ecological restoration
respond early to such habitat restoration efforts. This preliminary study documented bird species in a temperate
Ecosystem services
Endemic mountain system of the western Himalayas in India which is currently subject to on-going restoration efforts.
Private forests Birds were used as bioindicators to gauge responses of wildlife to restoration progress from natural regenera-
tion. It also provides a valuable list of bird diversity for further assessments in the area especially in relation
to responses of wildlife to forest restoration efforts. Of special significance was the sighting of the Cheer Pheas-
ant (Catreus wallichii), a species considered endemic to the Western Himalayan Endemic Bird Area, which along
with other endemic birds, reflect the importance of this forest ecosystem. Furthermore, the presence of various
species of birds of prey and frugivorous birds in these private forests is important as they are considered to be
early responders to the return of ecological processes, indicating if forest health and ecosystem functioning are
improving following restoration efforts.

1. Introduction restoration techniques are often uncertain and an improved understand-

Ecological restoration is vital for reversing declines in biodiversity,
to restore ecological processes as well as providing ecosystem services
in disturbed or degraded lands globally (Lamb et al., 2005; Chazdon and
Guariguata, 2016; Crouzeilles et al., 2016 in Latawiec et al., 2016). In-
ternationally, the Aichi Targets 14 and 15 of the United Nations Con-
vention on Biological Diversity aim to restore degraded ecosystems and
The Bonn Challenge aims to restore deforested and degraded forests
(Dave et al., 2017; Latawiec et al., 2016), thus restoration forms an
important aspect of global priorities of such international initiatives
(Crouzeilles et al., 2017). Furthermore, REDD+ efforts aim to provide
payments for ecosystem services thus creating incentives for curbing de-
forestation (Hewson et al. 2014).
Forests provide a number of ecosystem services which include car-
bon sequestration, and provisioning of water as well as habitat for
wildlife. Yet, actions to check deforestation and to curb the increase
of degraded lands are usually inadequate with reforestation measures
being carried out only at a fraction of the deforestation rate (Lamb and
Gilmour, 2003). Furthermore, responses of wildlife to different forest
ing of wildlife activity during the early stages of forest restoration is
important for restoration planning.
Birds are considered to respond early to such habitat restoration ef-
forts due to diverse life – history strategies, which include variation in
diet, specialized foraging strategies, and microniche preferences thus
acting as indicator taxons for recovering ecological complexity during
forest restoration (Da Silva and Vickery, 2002 in Roels et al., 2019).
This preliminary study recorded bird species in a temperate moun-
tain system of the western Himalayas in India which is subject to for-
est restoration. Birds were used as bioindicators to gauge responses of
wildlife to restoration progress from natural regeneration efforts as they
are considered to be able to respond early to restoration efforts.
We compared the present data set (2016–2019) to a previous data set
from 2013 (Chowfin, B.Sc. Dissertation 2013) where 24 species of birds
were recorded during a time when forest disturbance and degradation
were on-going in the area. This study is one of the few studies con-
ducted in the area on the responses of wildlife to restoration efforts and
provides a valuable list of bird diversity for further assessments in the
area.

∗
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: schowfin@yahoo.com (S.M. Chowfin).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tfp.2020.100048
Received 3 August 2020; Received in revised form 13 October 2020; Accepted 21 October 2020
Available online 24 October 2020
2666-7193/© 2020 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)
S.M. Chowfin and A.J. Leslie
Fig. A. Extract of the Survey of India Toposheet showing the Gadoli and Manda Khal Fee Simple Estates with approximate boundaries marked in black
(Chowfin, 2016).
2. Materials and methods
2.1. Study area
The Gadoli and Manda Khal Fee Simple Estates (Fig. A) are located
in the Pauri Garhwal district of the western Himalayan state of Uttarak-
hand in India. The point GPS location of the Gadoli and Manda Khal
Fee Simple Estates is Latitude 30° 07′ 21″ N and Longitude 78° 48′
12″ E.
These estates are under private ownership currently consisting of
approximately 450 hectares of forest with substantial portions of oak,
pine and mixed temperate forests consisting of broadleaves, rhododen-
drons and conifers. The estates were originally larger tea estates and
the scientific management and working of the private forest areas of the
estates was initiated in 1953–1954 through the First Working Plan for
321.725 hectares. This plan was revised in 1974 with the compilation
of the Second Working Plan accounting for 309.585 hectares as some
portions were used for the construction of all-weather roads to increase
connectivity in the region.
A large number of illegal non-forest activities operated in these pri-
vate forest areas in recent times. To save these forests from eventual
destruction, a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) was filed by the primary
author (SC) in the Hon’ble National Green Tribunal in New Delhi, In-
dia by Application No. 19/2012. The state government of Uttarakhand
eventually conceded that 292.177 hectares of the Gadoli Fee Simple Es-
tate and 158.689 hectares of the Manda Khal Fee Simple Estate totalling
Trees, Forests and People 3 (2021) 100048
~450 hectares was forest (Chowfin, 2012, 2016). These forests are con-
tiguous with each other sharing a common boundary.
Of special ecological significance, these private forests are located
in the western Himalayas, the latter being part of the biogeographical
transition between the Palaearctic and the Indo–Malayan Realms; the
Himalayas (Conservation International, 2020) are one of the four biodi-
versity hotspots in India. The temperate forests of these estates include
coniferous, broadleaved evergreen, broadleaved deciduous and mixed
forest types along with temperate grasslands as per the present IUCN
Habitats Classification Scheme Ver. 3.1 (IUCN, 2019a). Apart from lying
within an endangered ecoregion, these forests are ecologically signifi-
cant as they also fall within the Western Himalaya Endemic Bird Area
landscape and are a part of the micro – watershed of the West Nayyar
river, which joins with the East Nayyar river to form the Nayyar. The
Nayyar is a major river of the Pauri Garhwal district of the Garhwal
Himalaya (Chowfin, 2016).
2.2. Actions in the area
Illegal non – forest activities in the private forest areas of the es-
tates were rampant in the recent past with: grazing of cattle, illegal
stone quarrying, illegal sale of the private forest areas for residential and
commercial development including agriculture and horticulture, illegal
construction of roads and laying of electric and high tension lines and
pylons which were fragmenting these forests as well as causing degra-
dation of the forest areas and disturbance to the underground aquifers.
S.M. Chowfin and A.J. Leslie Trees, Forests and People 3 (2021) 100048

Fig. B. Comparison of private forest areas of Manda Khal Fee Simple Estates showing untarred road construction to the stone quarry, stone quarrying, and cutting
of the mountain face in 2002–2003 with natural regeneration in the area in 2019. (Chowfin, S.M. 2002–2003; Chowfin, S.M. and Leslie, A.J. 2019).

In the forests of the Manda Khal Fee Simple Estate, stone quarrying was
damaging the fragile mountain ecology with quarrying of the mountain-
side and the creation of non-tarred roads to access the area. File pho-
tographs from 2002 – 2003, show intense damage to the mountainside
and the forests in the area. With legal action in the Hon’ble National
Green Tribunal of India and closure of the quarry in 2016, active pro-
tection of the area from grazing and other forms of non – forest activity
led to natural regeneration of the forests in the area barely three years
after cessation of all non – forest activity (Fig. B).
Similarly, deforestation to surreptitiously alter the nature of the land
from forest to non - forest was rampant in some locations in the area so
as to facilitate the sale of these private forest areas for residential and
commercial activity as mentioned above. Active protection of the pri-
vate forest areas of the Gadoli and Manda Khal Fee Simple Estates on
the ground, together with orders from the Hon’ble National Green Tri-
bunal prohibiting construction as well as sale and purchase of the forest
areas, have seen these degraded and deforested forest areas regener-
ate rapidly since 2016. Comparing file photographs of 2002 – 2003 of
these areas, with photographs from 2019 of the same areas (Fig. C), the
success of such conservation action is evident based on photographic
record, with the forests regenerating in these locations by natural
regeneration.
Furthermore, active protection of undisturbed forest tracts of these
private forests alongwith the Hon’ble Tribunal’s orders stemmed the fur-
ther expansion of non – forest activities into these undisturbed forest
habitats consisting of dense temperate forests of mixed and pure conifer,
oak, and other mixed forest types (Supplementary Material: Appendix
A).

Fig. C. Comparison of deforested areas to surreptitiously alter the nature of the land from forest to non - forest in the Gadoli and Manda Khal Fee Simple Estates in
2002–2003 with the area showing natural regeneration as a result of conservation action in 2019.
(Chowfin, S.M. 2002–2003; Chowfin, S.M. and Leslie, A.J. 2019).
S.M. Chowfin and A.J. Leslie Trees, Forests and People 3 (2021) 100048

Table A
Checklist of bird species recorded during the study period (2016–2019).

Common Name Family Genus Species IUCN Red List Category

Shikra Accipitridae Accipiter badius LC

Besra Accipitridae Accipiter virgatus LC
Indian Spotted Eagle Accipitridae Clanga hastata VU
Himalayan Griffon Accipitridae Gyps himalayensis NT
Crested Serpent Eagle Accipitridae Spilornis cheela LC
Black – throated Bushtit Aegithalidae Aegithalos concinnus LC
Long – tailed Minivet Campephagidae Pericrocotus ethologus LC
Bar – tailed Treecreeper Certhiidae Certhia himalayana LC
Rock Dove Columbidae Columba livia LC
Oriental Turtle Dove Columbidae Streptopelia orientalis LC
Wedge – tailed Green Pigeon Columbidae Treron sphenurus LC
Northern Raven Corvidae Corvus corax LC
Grey Treepie Corvidae Dendrocitta formosae LC
Red – billed Blue Magpie Corvidae Urocissa erythroryncha LC
Black Drongo Dicruridae Dicrurus macrocercus LC
Scaly – breasted Munia Estrildidae Lonchura punctulata LC
Common Kestrel Falconidae Falco tinnunculus LC
Yellow – breasted Greenfinch Fringillidae Chloris spinoides LC/Endemic
Common Rosefinch Fringillidae Carpodacus erythrinus LC
Scarlet Finch Fringillidae Carpodacus sipahi LC/Endemic
Bay – backed Shrike Laniidae Lanius vittatus LC
White – throated Laughingthrush Leiotrichidae Garrulax albogularis LC
Streaked Laughingthrush Leiotrichidae Trochalopteron lineatum LC
Citrine Wagtail Motacillidae Motacilla citreola LC
Blue Whistling-thrush Muscicapidae Myophonus caeruleus LC
Verditer Flycatcher Muscicapidae Eumyias thalassinus LC
Ultramarine Flycatcher Muscicapidae Ficedula superciliaris LC
Blue – fronted Redstart Muscicapidae Phoenicurus frontalis LC
Orange-flanked Bush-robin Muscicapidae Tarsiger cyanurus LC
Himalayan Bush-robin Muscicapidae Tarsiger rufilatus LC
House Sparrow Passeridae Passer domesticus LC
Russet Sparrow Passeridae Passer cinnamomeus LC
Great Tit Paridae Parsus major LC
Green-backed Tit Paridae Parsus monticolus LC
Rufous-naped Tit Paridae Periparus rufonuchalis LC
Black – lored Tit Paridae Machlolophus xanthogenys LC
Cheer Pheasant Phasianidae Catreus wallichii VU/Endemic
Black Francolin Phasianidae Francolinus francolinus LC
Kalij Pheasant Phasianidae Lophura leucomelanos LC
Greater Flameback Picadae Chrysocolaptes guttacristatus LC
Greater Yellownape Picadae Chrysophlegma flavinucha LC
Brown - fronted Woodpecker Picadae Leiopicus auriceps LC/Endemic
Grey – headed Woodpecker Picadae Picus canus LC
Lesser Yellownape Picadae Picus chlorolophus LC
Speckled Piculet Picadae Picuninus innominatus LC
Plum – Headed Parakeet Psittacidae Psittacula cyanocephela LC
Alexandrine Parakeet Psittacidae Psittacula eupatria NT
Slaty – Headed Parakeet Psittacidae Psittacula himalayana LC/Endemic
Black Bulbul Pycnonotidae Hypsipetes leucocephalus LC
Red – vented Bulbul Pycnonotidae Pycnonotus cafer LC
Himalayan Bulbul Pycnonotidae Pycnonotus leucogenys LC/Endemic
Great Barbet Rhamphastidae Psilopogon virens LC
White - browed Fantail Rhipiduridae Rhipidura aureola LC
Chestnut - Bellied Nuthatch Sittidae Sitta cinnamoventris LC
Grey - headed Canary-flycatcher Stenostiridae Culicicapa ceylonensis LC
Asian Barred Owlet Strigidae Glaucidium cuculoides LC
Rusty – cheeked Scimitar-babbler Timaliidae Erythrogenys erythrogenys LC
Grey – winged Blackbird Turdidae Turdus boulboul LC
Chestnut Thrush Turdidae Turdus rubrocanus LC
Hoopoe Upupidae Upapa epops LC
Oriental White - Eye Zosteropidae Zosterops palpebrosus LC

2.3. Collection
Pilot seasonal avifaunal foot surveys were conducted from Septem-
ber 2016 to June 2019 in a 4.856 hectare portion of the Gadoli and
Manda Khal Fee Simple Estates comprising of a land – use of agricul-
ture, forest and passive restoration areas. Agriculture practices in the
area are organic-based farming and the forests consist of oak, conifer
and mixed temperate forest stands in an elevation zone ranging from
1400 – 1600 m asl. Forest habitats within these estates which had re-
mained undisturbed were excluded from the study as the focus of the
study was to understand the responses of wildlife to passive restoration
efforts. Therefore, the study site was selected due to it being in an area
where passive restoration is in progress following forest degradation as
well as also being representative of the land use of these estates. The
study site also overlapped with that of comparable surveys conducted
in 2013 allowing comparison of datasets.
Area searches were conducted by the primary author (SC) on foot
for a minimum of 10 days every season. Seasons were classified into
summer (March to June), monsoon (June to October) and winter (Oc-
tober to February) with bird species photographed on sighting. A Nikon
S.M. Chowfin and A.J. Leslie Trees, Forests and People 3 (2021) 100048

Table B
Number of species per family.

Fig. D. A Red-vented Bulbul photographed on sighting.

(Chowfin, S.M. and Leslie, A.J. 2019). 3. Results and discussion

Coolpix P900 was used to photograph the various bird species sighted
(Fig. D).
Photographic records were maintained in a database (Supplemen-
tary Material: Appendix B) with identification of various species largely
following the field guide of Grimmet et al. (2016). Taxonomy, sta-
tus and distribution of the various identified bird species was deter-
mined as per the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species Version 2019–1
and the IUCN Red List for Birds (IUCN, 2019b; BirdLife International
2020b). The various identified species of birds were then classified al-
phabetically from family to species level (Table A) and the most di-
verse families were represented by the number of species recorded in a
family.
While avifauna surveys were the focus of this study, trails and for-
est paths were also surveyed to record vascular plants and other life –
forms, including: insects, amphibians, reptiles, rodents and mammals.
Photographic records, as well as visual encounter records, sign surveys
based on presence of foot spoor and scats and camera – trap surveys
were conducted to document mammal presence in these private forests
under the umbrella of the Gadoli and Manda Khal Biodiversity Conser-
vation Project and results will be reported elsewhere.
During this study bird fauna at the study site were categorized
into 52 genera consisting of 61 species belonging to 29 families. The
most diverse families were the Muscicapidae and Picadae consisting
of 6 species; Accipteridae, consisting of 5 species and Paridae con-
sisting of 4 species. Columbidae, Corvidae, Fringillidae, Phasianidae,
Psittacidae and Pycnonotidae were represented by 3 species in each
family. The Leiotrichidae, Passeridae and Turdidae comprised 2 species
while families consisting only of a single species included: Aegithal-
idae, Campephagidae, Certhiidae, Dicruridae, Estrildidae, Falconidae,
Laniidae, Motacillidae, Rhamphastidae, Rhipiduridae, Sittidae, Stenos-
tiridae, Strigidae, Timaliidae, Upupidae and Zosteropidae (Table B).
Birds of prey consisting of raptors and owls consisted of 7 species
representing 3 families with the most diverse family being the Accip-
itridae. Raptors and owls are top – predators and their presence posi-
tively indicates the environmental health of the ecosystems they inhabit
(Sergio et al., 2008 in Donázar et al., 2016). Likewise, frugivorous birds
(Corlett, 2017; David et al., 2015; Ganesh and Davidar, 1999; Khan and
Ahsan, 2015) are important seed dispersers and the importance of both
frugivory and seed dispersal in forests is widely recognized. Their pres-
ence was represented by 15 families during this study. Thus, the pres-
ence of both bird of prey species’ and frugivorous birds in these private
forests is important as they are considered to be early responders to the

Table C
Checklist of bird species recorded in 2013.

Common Name Family Genus Species IUCN Red List Category

Black – throated Bushtit Aegithalidae Aegithalos concinnus LC

Grey-breasted Prinia Cisticolidae Prinia hodgsonii LC
Rock Dove Columbidae Columba livia LC
Northern Raven Corvidae Corvus corax LC
Grey Treepie Corvidae Dendrocitta formosae LC
Red – billed Blue Magpie Corvidae Urocissa erythroryncha LC
Pale Blue-flycatcher Muscicapidae Cyornis unicolor LC
Blue Whistling-thrush Muscicapidae Myophonus caeruleus LC
Verditer Flycatcher Muscicapidae Eumyias thalassinus LC
Grey Bushchat Muscicapidae Saxicola ferreus LC
House Sparrow Passeridae Passer domesticus LC
Great Tit Paridae Parsus major LC
Green-backed Tit Paridae Parsus monticolus LC
Brown - fronted Woodpecker Picadae Leiopicus auriceps LC/Endemic
Scaly-bellied Woodpecker Picadae Picus squamatus LC
Plum – Headed Parakeet Psittacidae Psittacula cyanocephela LC
Alexandrine Parakeet Psittacidae Psittacula eupatria NT
Slaty – Headed Parakeet Psittacidae Psittacula himalayana LC/Endemic
Black Bulbul Pycnonotidae Hypsipetes leucocephalus LC
Himalayan Bulbul Pycnonotidae Pycnonotus leucogenys LC/Endemic
Great Barbet Rhamphastidae Psilopogon virens LC
White - browed Fantail Rhipiduridae Rhipidura aureola LC
Chestnut - Bellied Nuthatch Sittidae Sitta cinnamoventris LC
Grey – winged Blackbird Turdidae Turdus boulboul LC
S.M. Chowfin and A.J. Leslie
return of ecological processes, indicating if forest health and ecosystem
functioning are improving following restoration efforts.
Of special significance was the sighting of the Cheer Pheasant
(Catreus wallichii) considered endemic to the Western Himalayan En-
demic Bird Area (BirdLife, 2020a) reflecting the importance of this for-
est system. The Cheer Pheasant is a threatened species with an IUCN
Red List Category of Vulnerable (VU), the main threats to the species
being habitat loss and illegal hunting. The species is an important value
of these private forests due to it being endemic limited to the Western
Himalayan EBA as well as being a species of conservation concern.
Other endemics recorded during the study were the Yellow-breasted
Greenfinch (Himalayas from Afghanistan eastwards through north-
western Pakistan upto Myanmar); the Scarlet Finch (Himalayas from the
Western Himalayan EBA eastwards upto Myanmar); the Brown-fronted
Woodpecker (Himalayas from Afghanistan eastwards to eastern Nepal);
the Slaty-headed parakeet (Himalayas from Afghanistan eastwards to
Bhutan) and the Himalayan Bulbul (Himalayas from Afghanistan east-
wards upto the Eastern Himalayan EBA in India).
When compared to a previous study also using area searches on foot
in 2013, during which 24 species of birds (Table C) were recorded when
forest degradation was rampant and on-going, the present preliminary
survey recorded 41 new species of birds (41/61) with 20 species com-
mon between both studies. This is an increase of ~67% in the number of
bird species recorded (with 3 new endemic bird species) in 2019 when
compared to 2013. With an overlap of study sites and similar field sur-
vey protocols, datasets were comparable between the two surveys.
This following conservation action, indicates that wildlife is respond-
ing in a positive manner to site – specific passive restoration measures,
particularly that of natural regeneration.
The private forests of the Gadoli and Manda Khal Fee Simple Estates
and its areas undergoing passive restoration are important habitat for
wildlife in this landscape. A number of bird species endemic to the Hi-
malayas (n = 6) are found here which includes the threatened Cheer
Pheasant (Catreus wallichii), a species with a narrow range limited to
the Western Himalayan EBA and conserving this forest system and the
ecological services it provides is of prime importance.
3.1. Conclusion
This study, although preliminary in nature, assesses the early re-
sponses of wildlife to conservation work using birds as bioindicators and
with time will be useful for comparisons to assess the progress of such
restoration efforts. Habitat protection and thus passive restoration work
being undertaken under the umbrella of The Gadoli and Manda Khal
Biodiversity Conservation Project is important and documenting biodi-
versity recovery through species richness with time will be a valuable
way to further understand responses of wildlife to such conservation
action.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgments
We would like to thank The Gadoli and Manda Khal Wildlife Conser-
vation Trust for supporting this study as well as our various on – going
Trees, Forests and People 3 (2021) 100048
research and conservation activities in these private forests through the
Gadoli and Manda Khal Biodiversity Conservation Project. This research
did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public,
commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
Supplementary materials
Supplementary material associated with this article can be found, in
the online version, at doi:10.1016/j.tfp.2020.100048.
References
BirdLife International. 2020a. Endemic Bird Areas factsheet: Western Himalayas.
http://datazone.birdlife.org/eba/factsheet/124.
BirdLife International. 2020b. IUCN Red List for birds. http://www.birdlife.org.
Chazdon, R.L., Guariguata, M.R., 2016. Natural regeneration as a tool for large-scale forest
restoration in the tropics: prospects and challenges. Biotropica 48, 844–855.
Chowfin, S.M., 2016. First record of the Himalayan black bear (Ursus thibetanus) in the
private forests of the Gadoli and Manda Khal fee simple estate in the Pauri Garhwal
district of Uttarakhand, India. ZOO’s PRINT XXXI (12) 17–19.
Chowfin, S.M., 2012. The Forest Campaign. http://www.gadoliforest.blogspot.com.
Conservation International. 2020. http://www.cepf.net/resources/hotspots/Asia-Pacific/
Pages/Himalaya.aspx.
Corlett, R.T., 2017. Frugivory and seed dispersal by vertebrates in tropical and subtropical
Asia: an update. Global Ecol. Conserv. 11, 1–22. doi:10.1016/j.gecco.2017.04.007.
Crouzeilles, R., Curran, M., Ferreira, M.S., Lindenmayer, D.B., Grelle, C.E.V., Be-
nayas, J.M.R., 2016. A global meta-analysis on the ecological drivers of forest restora-
tion success. Nat. Commun. 7, 1–8. doi:10.1038/ncomms11666.
Crouzeilles, R., Ferreira, M.S., Chazdon, R.L., Lidenmayer, D.B., Sansevero, J.B.B., Mon-
teiro, L., Iribarrem, A., Latawiec, A.B., Strassburg, B.N.N., 2017. Ecological restoration
success is higher for natural regeneration than for active restoration in tropical forests.
Sci. Adv. 3 (1), 1–7.
Da Silva, J.M.C., Vickery, P.D., 2002. Birds. In: Perrow, MR, Davy, AJ (Eds.), Handbook
of Ecological Restoration. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. UK, pp. 376–388.
doi:10.1017/CBO9780511549984.021.
Dave, R., Saint-Laurent, C., Moraes, M., Simonit, S., Raes, L., Karangwa, C., 2017. Bonn
Challenge Barometer of Progress: spotlight Report 2017. IUCN 36 Gland. Switzerland.
David, J.P., Manakadan, R., Ganesh, T., 2015. Frugivory and seed dispersal by birds and
mammals in the coastal tropical dry evergreen forests of southern India: a review.
Trop. Ecol. 56 (1), 41–55.
Donázar, J.A., Cortés-Avizanda, A., Fargallo, J.A., Margalida, A., Moleón, M.,
Morales-Reyes, Z., Moreno-Opo, R., Pérez-García, J.M., Sánchez-Zapata, J.A., Zubero-
goitia, I., Serrano, D., 2016. Roles of raptors in a changing world: from flagships to
providers of key ecosystem services. Ardeola 63 (1), 181–234.
Ganesh, T., Davidar, P., 1999. Fruit biomass and relative abundance of frugivores in a rain
forest of southern Western Ghats, India. J. Trop. Ecol. 15, 399–413.
Grimmet, R., Inskipp, C., Inskipp, T., 2016. Birds of the Indian Sub – Continent. Helm
Field Guides.
Hewson, J., Steininger, M.K., and Pesmajoglou, S. (ed.) (2014). REDD+ measurement, re-
porting and verification (MRV) Manual, Version 2.0. USAID-supported Forest Carbon,
Markets and Communities Program. Washington DC. USA.
IUCN, 2019a. IUCN Habitats Classification Scheme Ver. 3.1. IUCN
https://www.iucnredlist.org/resources/habitat-classification-scheme.
IUCN, 2019b. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2019-1. IUCN
https://www.iucnredlist.org.
Khan, S.I., Ahsan, F.M., 2015. Frugivorous birds and fruit plants in a deciduous forest in
Bangladesh: a case study in the Madhupur National Park. Bangladesh J. Zool. 43 (2),
173–187.
Lamb, D., Erskine, P.D., Parrotta, J.A., 2005. Restoration of degraded tropical forest land-
scapes. Science 310, 1628–1632. doi:10.1126/science.1111773.
Lamb, D. and Gilmour, D., 2003. Rehabilitation and Restoration of Degraded Forests.
IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK and WWF, Gland, Switzerland. x +110.
Latawiec, A.E., Crouzeilles, R., Brancalion, P.H.S., Rodrigues, R.R., Sansevero, J.B., Sil-
veira dos Santos, J., Mills, M., Nave, A.G., Strassburg, B.B., 2016. Natural regener-
ation and biodiversity: a global meta-analysis and implications for spatial planning.
Biotropica 48 (6), 844–855.
Roels, S.M., Hannay, M.B., Lindell, C.A., 2019. Recovery of bird activity and species rich-
ness in an early-stage tropical forest restoration.. Avian Conservation and Ecology 14
(1), 9. doi:10.5751/ACE-01330-140109.
Sergio, F., Caro, T., Brown, D., Clucas, B., Hunter, J., Ketchum, J., McHugh, K., Hiraldo, F.,
2008. Top predators as conservation tools: ecological rationale, assumptions, and ef-
ficacy. Ann. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Systemat. 39, 1–19.