4.7 Article

Habitat use, predicted distribution and conservation of green peafowl (Pavo muticus) in Dak Lak Province, Vietnam

Journal

BIOLOGICAL CONSERVATION
Volume 105, Issue 2, Pages 189-197

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/S0006-3207(01)00182-3

Keywords

habitat use; predicted distribution; relative density; GIS; riverine forest

Ask authors/readers for more resources

In the last few decades, green peafowl numbers have declined drastically across their south-cast Asian range, primarily, it is believed, due to human persecution and loss of habitat. They were formerly common across Vietnam, but are now restricted to a few central provinces. In this study green peafowl were surveyed in Dak Lak province, Vietnam, using a point-count methodology to assess their status and distribution, and to investigate their habitat use. Results showed that the most used habitat was dry deciduous forest with access to permanent water and free from human disturbance. Green peafowl density was lower in mixed and evergreen forest and lower when water was distant and/or human settlement was nearby. A map of predicted distribution was created which predicted that eastern and north-eastern, Dak Lak are important areas containing much of the remaining habitat and populations of green peafowl. Several key river systems within this area were predicted to be of particular value. Deciduous forest < 2 km from water and > 2 km from human settlement was estimated to occupy only 3% of the province but to hold 37% of green peafowl. Conservation of green peafowl in Dak Lak, and elsewhere, should concentrate on maintaining undisturbed access to permanent water within large tracts of dry deciduous forest. The spread of human settlement presents the greatest threat; both directly due to hunting pressure and habitat loss and indirectly by preventing access to water in otherwise suitable areas. (C) 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available