13 thoughts on “Painted Stork (Mycteria leucocephala)”
It was common in India except NE including Assam where it is stray. In fact, it should not have been listed as NT. Although it’s numbers may not have increased significantly, it was always fairly large. But increased threat to it’s Wetland habitat may be taken note of.
Despite the wide distribution of the species, heronries and suitable nesting sites are facing significant threats. In Maharashtra state, there are only four sites with over 200 nests, whereas other known sites have no more than 35-40 nests, whereas there used to be at least 100-150 birds. The rapid degradation of wetlands and their conversion for development projects poses a looming threat. Hence, I strongly believe that the bird should be retained in the NT (Near Threatened) category to prioritize its conservation.
While a more careful reevaluation of Red List statuses is laudable, I would like to see more references to incorrect assumptions that were used in BirdLife International 2001 to relegate species to confident statuses. It is very important for people to know that the previous status assignments used a small number of major incorrect assumptions. Recording these in the updated assessments will ensure that folks do not repeat such non-robust assessments.
In the justification for this reassessment, I see that you continue to use the international waterfowl counts. As has been written about repeatedly, and communicated to Red List coordinators, and also shown in published papers for Painted Storks, using counts of birds like Painted Storks only in wetlands is not a good method to estimate populations. The reason is that these birds use farmlands extensively in south Asia.
Yes, farmlands in south Asia are a great bird habitat for species like Painted Storks! Another massive incorrect assumption that so many published papers and pers comms from south Asian scientists and conservationists seem unable to correct in Red List assessments. Please stop this continued incorrect imagination and let us celebrate areas in the world where human modified habitats are proving useful for at least some bird species.
With so many aspects of habitat requirements and population metrics unavailable or having great uncertainty, this species needs to be labelled as having a status assessment that has low reliability. Such a label should come upfront alongside the Red List status (which should be considered provisional) so that this it is clear that the status is not to be used with any certainty anywhere. Many many more bird species around the world will benefit from a similar honest portrayal of their status.
In my experience of birding in India (mainly in Southern states) over the past four decades, I am not sure if this bird deserves to be classified as “Near threatened”.
Obviously the main reference based on which its status was earlier decided seems to be the AWC counts. As pointed out by Dr Gopi Sundar above, population estimates based on AWC could be misleading given the tiny fraction of wetlands sampled in the country. It has been a trend to count birds during the AWC (and other citizen science efforts) at the more popular sites, ignoring smaller wetlands and other “non-conventional” habitats which too support bird life (eg farmlands).
Here is one eBird list submitted by Aasheesh Pittie in 2002 where he remarks: “3000-odd birds nesting on 20 Tamarind Trees. A rehabilitation nursery has 7 birds today. They had 11 earlier, of which 4 have taken off and rejoined the wild birds. Breeding.” https://ebird.org/checklist/S20377435
Surprisingly there are no lists submitted in eBird from this year!
It appears in recent times we have become too heavily reliant on “citizen science” efforts without bothering to understand or closely examine the limitations in the data generated by this method. I guess this applies to all other species as well.
We need to closely examine the status of our birds, if we are really interested in getting an accurate picture, not just from a few selected sources but by better sampling across regions and habitats. If this is not possible, we must acknowledge the limitations of the data based on which the assessments are made.
Considering the diminutive number of consulted references/published material on the abundance and long-term observations of this species in any region of its distribution; the elevation of species to ‘least concern’ status may prove tricky. On the one hand, as Girish Jathar has rightly pointed out, there are looming threats on its nesting habitat; while on the other as indicated by Gopi Sundar – the species may be faring well in the agricultural landscape. The text in the justification section above is highly tentative and based on inferences drawn from studies/censuses that are highly inadequate to conclude anything specific, especially an ‘increasing’ trend! Hence, to me, a more appropriate status should be ‘Data Deficient’; else the ‘Near threatened’ category should be maintained till there’s robust data on change in the abundance of the species.
The increasing numbers recorded in Thailand and Vietnam are a direct result of the population recovery in Cambodia and are primarily the result of regular wet season, post-breeding, dispersal. However, the situation in Thailand is complicated by the existence of a free-flying captive population in the Safari World facility outside of Bangkok.
The second iteration of State of India’s Birds (SoIB) is nearing its completion and we have some information about Painted Stork.
Long-term trend (pre-2000 to 2022)
Change of -19 to +21% (95% CI, mean -2%), meeting the criterion for its long-term trend to be classified as ‘stable’.
Current annual trend (2015 to 2022)
Annual change of -1.6 to -5.2% (95% CI, mean -3.4%), meeting the criterion for its current trend to be classified as ‘decline’, but not as “rapid decline”.
In summary, Painted Stork in India has a ‘stable’ long-term trend, but is in current ‘decline’.
We did not specifically analyze threats for this species. Do note that these numbers may change slightly when the analysis/report is finalized.
We thank all contributors for their comments. The threats still faced to this species in parts of its range are noted, and have been incorporated into the relevant information fields. However, there remains no evidence that the species meets or approaches thresholds for listing as Threatened under the IUCN Red List Guidelines.
In specific response to the comment made by K S Gopi Sundar (06/06/2023) about this species’ ecological requirements, it is already noted in the Population Trend text that this species is not tied to wetlands and occurs widely in agricultural landscapes. However, additional clarity has now been added to the species factsheet (to be published at the end of this year) to ensure that this uncertainty is captured. Nonetheless, the comment overall supports the adaptability of this species, and its re-assignment to Least Concern. Regarding the comment that ‘this species needs to be labelled as having a status assessment that has low reliability. Such a label should come upfront alongside the Red List status (which should be considered provisional)’: all data parameters for this species have been coded as ‘poor’ to reflect the uncertainty presented. To some extent, all Red List assessments are ‘provisional’ and are liable to be updated regularly and, if required, changed (1) in response to actual improvements in a species’ status (genuine change) or (2) following the provision of new information that suggests the previous assessment was, in some way, incorrect (non-genuine change). Consequently, if information now to be published in 2023 for this species account is found to be incorrect, this will be corrected in any subsequent re-assessment of the species. Red List assessments are, accordingly, honest portrayals of a species’ global extinction risk following the best data available at the time of re-assessment.
Many thanks to everyone who has contributed to this discussion. We greatly appreciate the time and effort invested in commenting. The window for consultation is now closed and we are unable to accept any more comments until 26 June 2023. We will now analyse and interpret the new information, and we will post a preliminary decision on this species’ Red List status on this page on 26 June 2023, when discussions will re-open.
Based on available information, our preliminary proposal for the 2023 Red List would be to adopt the proposed classifications outlined in the initial forum discussion. In response to comments made we refer readers to that posted by the Red List Team on 13/06/2023.
There is now a period for further comments until the final deadline on 2 July 2023, after which the recommended categorisations will be put forward to IUCN.
The final 2023 Red List categories will be published on the BirdLife and IUCN websites in December 2023, following further checking of information relevant to the assessments by both BirdLife and IUCN.
Many thanks to everyone who has contributed to this discussion. We greatly appreciate the time and effort invested in commenting. The window for consultation is now closed and we are unable to accept any more comments. We will analyse and interpret the information, and we will post a final decision on this species’ Red List status on this page on 10 July 2023.
Recommended categorisation to be put forward to IUCN
The final categorisation for this species has not changed. Pained Stork is recommended to be listed as Least Concern.
Many thanks for everyone who contributed to the 2023.2 GTB Forum process. The final 2023 Red List categories will be published on the BirdLife and IUCN websites in December 2023, following further checking of information relevant to the assessments by both BirdLife and IUCN.
It was common in India except NE including Assam where it is stray. In fact, it should not have been listed as NT. Although it’s numbers may not have increased significantly, it was always fairly large. But increased threat to it’s Wetland habitat may be taken note of.
Despite the wide distribution of the species, heronries and suitable nesting sites are facing significant threats. In Maharashtra state, there are only four sites with over 200 nests, whereas other known sites have no more than 35-40 nests, whereas there used to be at least 100-150 birds. The rapid degradation of wetlands and their conversion for development projects poses a looming threat. Hence, I strongly believe that the bird should be retained in the NT (Near Threatened) category to prioritize its conservation.
I agree with Girish Jathar as he is the right person to comment on my last sentence.
While a more careful reevaluation of Red List statuses is laudable, I would like to see more references to incorrect assumptions that were used in BirdLife International 2001 to relegate species to confident statuses. It is very important for people to know that the previous status assignments used a small number of major incorrect assumptions. Recording these in the updated assessments will ensure that folks do not repeat such non-robust assessments.
In the justification for this reassessment, I see that you continue to use the international waterfowl counts. As has been written about repeatedly, and communicated to Red List coordinators, and also shown in published papers for Painted Storks, using counts of birds like Painted Storks only in wetlands is not a good method to estimate populations. The reason is that these birds use farmlands extensively in south Asia.
Yes, farmlands in south Asia are a great bird habitat for species like Painted Storks! Another massive incorrect assumption that so many published papers and pers comms from south Asian scientists and conservationists seem unable to correct in Red List assessments. Please stop this continued incorrect imagination and let us celebrate areas in the world where human modified habitats are proving useful for at least some bird species.
With so many aspects of habitat requirements and population metrics unavailable or having great uncertainty, this species needs to be labelled as having a status assessment that has low reliability. Such a label should come upfront alongside the Red List status (which should be considered provisional) so that this it is clear that the status is not to be used with any certainty anywhere. Many many more bird species around the world will benefit from a similar honest portrayal of their status.
In my experience of birding in India (mainly in Southern states) over the past four decades, I am not sure if this bird deserves to be classified as “Near threatened”.
Obviously the main reference based on which its status was earlier decided seems to be the AWC counts. As pointed out by Dr Gopi Sundar above, population estimates based on AWC could be misleading given the tiny fraction of wetlands sampled in the country. It has been a trend to count birds during the AWC (and other citizen science efforts) at the more popular sites, ignoring smaller wetlands and other “non-conventional” habitats which too support bird life (eg farmlands).
Only a few months back, I read a newspaper report in THE HINDU saying there were nearly 4000 Painted Storks (+2000 chicks) nesting at the Veerapuram Village on the AP-Karnataka border (https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/andhra-pradesh/veerapuram-painted-storks-multiply-post-copious-rain/article66793508.ece). Of course the numbers here may not have been estimated scientifically but, even with a error margin of 50%, this is still a good number.
Here is one eBird list submitted by Aasheesh Pittie in 2002 where he remarks: “3000-odd birds nesting on 20 Tamarind Trees. A rehabilitation nursery has 7 birds today. They had 11 earlier, of which 4 have taken off and rejoined the wild birds. Breeding.”
https://ebird.org/checklist/S20377435
Surprisingly there are no lists submitted in eBird from this year!
It appears in recent times we have become too heavily reliant on “citizen science” efforts without bothering to understand or closely examine the limitations in the data generated by this method. I guess this applies to all other species as well.
We need to closely examine the status of our birds, if we are really interested in getting an accurate picture, not just from a few selected sources but by better sampling across regions and habitats. If this is not possible, we must acknowledge the limitations of the data based on which the assessments are made.
Considering the diminutive number of consulted references/published material on the abundance and long-term observations of this species in any region of its distribution; the elevation of species to ‘least concern’ status may prove tricky. On the one hand, as Girish Jathar has rightly pointed out, there are looming threats on its nesting habitat; while on the other as indicated by Gopi Sundar – the species may be faring well in the agricultural landscape. The text in the justification section above is highly tentative and based on inferences drawn from studies/censuses that are highly inadequate to conclude anything specific, especially an ‘increasing’ trend! Hence, to me, a more appropriate status should be ‘Data Deficient’; else the ‘Near threatened’ category should be maintained till there’s robust data on change in the abundance of the species.
The increasing numbers recorded in Thailand and Vietnam are a direct result of the population recovery in Cambodia and are primarily the result of regular wet season, post-breeding, dispersal. However, the situation in Thailand is complicated by the existence of a free-flying captive population in the Safari World facility outside of Bangkok.
The second iteration of State of India’s Birds (SoIB) is nearing its completion and we have some information about Painted Stork.
Long-term trend (pre-2000 to 2022)
Change of -19 to +21% (95% CI, mean -2%), meeting the criterion for its long-term trend to be classified as ‘stable’.
Current annual trend (2015 to 2022)
Annual change of -1.6 to -5.2% (95% CI, mean -3.4%), meeting the criterion for its current trend to be classified as ‘decline’, but not as “rapid decline”.
In summary, Painted Stork in India has a ‘stable’ long-term trend, but is in current ‘decline’.
We did not specifically analyze threats for this species. Do note that these numbers may change slightly when the analysis/report is finalized.
We thank all contributors for their comments. The threats still faced to this species in parts of its range are noted, and have been incorporated into the relevant information fields. However, there remains no evidence that the species meets or approaches thresholds for listing as Threatened under the IUCN Red List Guidelines.
In specific response to the comment made by K S Gopi Sundar (06/06/2023) about this species’ ecological requirements, it is already noted in the Population Trend text that this species is not tied to wetlands and occurs widely in agricultural landscapes. However, additional clarity has now been added to the species factsheet (to be published at the end of this year) to ensure that this uncertainty is captured. Nonetheless, the comment overall supports the adaptability of this species, and its re-assignment to Least Concern. Regarding the comment that ‘this species needs to be labelled as having a status assessment that has low reliability. Such a label should come upfront alongside the Red List status (which should be considered provisional)’: all data parameters for this species have been coded as ‘poor’ to reflect the uncertainty presented. To some extent, all Red List assessments are ‘provisional’ and are liable to be updated regularly and, if required, changed (1) in response to actual improvements in a species’ status (genuine change) or (2) following the provision of new information that suggests the previous assessment was, in some way, incorrect (non-genuine change). Consequently, if information now to be published in 2023 for this species account is found to be incorrect, this will be corrected in any subsequent re-assessment of the species. Red List assessments are, accordingly, honest portrayals of a species’ global extinction risk following the best data available at the time of re-assessment.
Many thanks to everyone who has contributed to this discussion. We greatly appreciate the time and effort invested in commenting. The window for consultation is now closed and we are unable to accept any more comments until 26 June 2023. We will now analyse and interpret the new information, and we will post a preliminary decision on this species’ Red List status on this page on 26 June 2023, when discussions will re-open.
Preliminary proposal
Based on available information, our preliminary proposal for the 2023 Red List would be to adopt the proposed classifications outlined in the initial forum discussion. In response to comments made we refer readers to that posted by the Red List Team on 13/06/2023.
There is now a period for further comments until the final deadline on 2 July 2023, after which the recommended categorisations will be put forward to IUCN.
The final 2023 Red List categories will be published on the BirdLife and IUCN websites in December 2023, following further checking of information relevant to the assessments by both BirdLife and IUCN.
Many thanks to everyone who has contributed to this discussion. We greatly appreciate the time and effort invested in commenting. The window for consultation is now closed and we are unable to accept any more comments. We will analyse and interpret the information, and we will post a final decision on this species’ Red List status on this page on 10 July 2023.
Recommended categorisation to be put forward to IUCN
The final categorisation for this species has not changed. Pained Stork is recommended to be listed as Least Concern.
Many thanks for everyone who contributed to the 2023.2 GTB Forum process. The final 2023 Red List categories will be published on the BirdLife and IUCN websites in December 2023, following further checking of information relevant to the assessments by both BirdLife and IUCN.