9 thoughts on “Rufous-tailed Lark (Ammomanes phoenicura)”
Encroachment of lake bed area for agricultural activities. Changes in crops from millets to commercial crops could be the reason in our part that is Mysuru, Karnataka, India.
Places like Narasambudhi, Nanjangud taluk, Mysuru, where we were seeing them each time we visited. Now they are almost not sighted. https://ebird.org/species/rutlar2/IN-KA-MY
This is another rushed reassessment based on data with poor spatial coverage. Rufous-tailed Larks are common across agricultural landscapes in Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh and Maharashtra, including open areas within cities and university campuses. There is no evidence of decline or disappearance at any of these areas in the time I have observed them.
More broadly, eBird checklists should not be used as a guide to make decisions such as this in places with poor spatial coverage, especially in large countries such as India. At best ebird checklists should serve as an impetus for rigorous, quantitative surveys by qualified observers, and not as fodder for assessments of true status. It may well be that the species is declining…eBird checklists cannot be used to arrive at this conclusion. The data are simply not good enough. The Macaulay Library lists 2754 photos from India in the date range you mention, many of which are duplicate photos of the same individual. The actual, physically verifiable observations will therefore be much lower, perhaps 1500 over seven years. How can this be used to infer a decline with any confidence? What are the confidence intervals of the calculated decline, what is the variance? How might they differ from a randomized distribution of records? Maybe this data is in SoIB, but if being used for a Red List assessment, it should be reported with transparency here!
Some information from the Gap-filling project (Northern Deccan)
Baseline Monitoring Data for the Rufous-tailed Lark (Ammomanes phoenicura) from the Northern Deccan: Insights from the Gap-Filling Project
Background:
The Gap-filling project under the Bird Monitoring team at the Nature Conservation Foundation is gathering bird data for regions underrepresented on eBird. One such area is the Northern Deccan, which primarily spans the state of Maharashtra, with parts extending into Telangana, Chhattisgarh, and Odisha.
This region lies at the heart of the distribution range of the Rufous-tailed Lark (Ammomanes phoenicura). However, there is limited information available on bird populations in this area. As a result, the Gap-filling project aims to fill this knowledge gap and provide valuable data for future conservation efforts.
Protocol:
To sample in woodlands, croplands, and Open Natural Ecosystems (ONEs), 5 × 5 km grids were laid out to serve as habitat masks. Grids were selected randomly for sampling. Wetlands and rivers were also selected randomly based on their proximity to the grids where birds in other habitats were sampled. Since this was a systematic survey, we repeated sampling at the same points across seasons.
For croplands, we sampled 46 grids in summer and 48 in winter. Two grids that were covered in winter had to be skipped in summer due to accessibility issues. In each grid, we conducted two perimeter counts and observed birds for 15 minutes, covering approximately 250 meters, ensuring that the two transects were 500 meters apart.
Similarly, for ONEs, we sampled 33 grids in summer and 34 in winter. In each grid, we conducted two line transects, following the same protocol as in croplands.
For wetlands, we selected sites randomly based on their proximity to grids selected for sampling other habitats. At each wetland, we conducted a travelling checklist lasting 20 to 60 minutes, depending on accessibility.
For rivers, we followed a similar selection approach and conducted five 5-minute point counts at intervals of 200 meters, effectively covering a stretch of 1 km.
In total, we recorded 134 checklists in Open Natural Ecosystems (ONEs), covering 33.5 kilometers over 2,010 minutes. For croplands, we recorded 188 checklists, covering 47 kilometers in 2,820 minutes. We recorded 66 checklists in wetlands, covering 36.69 kilometers over 1,956 minutes. In rivers, we surveyed using 70 stationary checklists and the total time spent was 350 minutes.
Across the two seasons we covered 117.19 km and sampled for 7136 mins (118.93 hours).
Results: Across habitats, Croplands showed the highest detection frequencies for Rufous-tailed Lark, with a notable 30.4% in summer (95% CI: 22.0–40.5%) and a moderate 19.8% in winter (CI: 13.1–28.9%). Wetlands also had high detection in summer (30.3%, CI: 17.4–47.3%), though this dropped sharply to 15.2% in winter (CI: 6.7–30.9%). The relatively wide confidence intervals for wetlands, especially in winter, indicate greater uncertainty—likely due to fewer checklists or more variable detections.
Open Natural Ecosystems (ONEs) showed more moderate detection frequencies, decreasing from 25.8% in summer (CI: 16.7–37.4%) to 19.1% in winter (CI: 11.5–30.0%), with fairly consistent confidence intervals across seasons. Rivers consistently recorded the lowest detection rates, holding steady at 20% in both seasons (CI: 10.0–35.9%), suggesting a stable but relatively low encounter rate.
Overall, detection frequencies tended to be higher in summer across habitats, with croplands standing out as the most consistent habitat for encountering the species.
Conclusion:
Though changing cropping patterns may lead to a change in Rufous-tailed Lark numbers,In the mentioned region, it is more common in Croplands relative to other habitats.
As this is the first time such information about the species is available from the Northern Deccan landscape, it is difficult to assess any decline. However, this may serve as a baseline for future understanding if the species declines in the region.
In contrast to the Indian Roller, there is limited information available for this species to further dissect the decline reported in the State of India’s Birds (SoIB). Apart from the general concern about the decline of birds associated with Open Natural Ecosystems (ONE), there is no specific or compelling factor that can currently be implicated as the cause of this decline. Nonetheless, we summarize below the available evidence.
Long-term Decline
This species shows a long-term decline since pre-2000 levels, reported at -66.7% (Mean), with a confidence interval of -70.58% to -61.72%. However, this trend is based on data from only 7% of its range, which limits its utility for formal Red List assessment but may still serve as ancillary evidence. https://stateofindiasbirds.in/species/rutlar2/
Declines in Key Habitats
The species has shown consistent declines in key habitats, including protected areas, though not at same levels:
State-wise Declines
Conclusive trends are available only for three states in western and central India—Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh, and Maharashtra—and all indicate declines:
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 25 April 2025. We will now analyse and interpret the information, and we will post a preliminary decision on this species’ Red List category on this page on 25 April 2025, when discussions will re-open.
Based on available information, our preliminary proposal for the 2025 Red List would be to adopt the proposed classification outlined in the initial forum discussion.
There is now a period for further comments until the final deadline on 4 May 2025, after which the recommended categorisations will be put forward to IUCN.
The final 2025 Red List categories will be published on the BirdLife and IUCN websites in October 2025, following further checking of information relevant to the assessments by both BirdLife and IUCN.
This species has occurred in Nepal very marginally only in the southern plains in a few localities in the past. In spite of increased efforts in birding and bird surveys, it has not been recorded for a number of years from its former habitats. This has, although a very small population , declined in Nepal.
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 a final decision on this species’ Red List category will be posted on this page on 12 May 2025.
Recommended categorisation to be put forward to IUCN
The final categorisation for this species has not changed. Rufous-tailed Lark is recommended to be listed as Near Threatened, approaching thresholds under Criteria A2b+4b.
Many thanks for everyone who contributed to the 2025.2 GTB Forum process. The final Red List categories will be published on the BirdLife and IUCN websites in October 2025, following further checking of information relevant to the assessments by both BirdLife and IUCN.
Encroachment of lake bed area for agricultural activities. Changes in crops from millets to commercial crops could be the reason in our part that is Mysuru, Karnataka, India.
Places like Narasambudhi, Nanjangud taluk, Mysuru, where we were seeing them each time we visited. Now they are almost not sighted.
https://ebird.org/species/rutlar2/IN-KA-MY
This is another rushed reassessment based on data with poor spatial coverage. Rufous-tailed Larks are common across agricultural landscapes in Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh and Maharashtra, including open areas within cities and university campuses. There is no evidence of decline or disappearance at any of these areas in the time I have observed them.
More broadly, eBird checklists should not be used as a guide to make decisions such as this in places with poor spatial coverage, especially in large countries such as India. At best ebird checklists should serve as an impetus for rigorous, quantitative surveys by qualified observers, and not as fodder for assessments of true status. It may well be that the species is declining…eBird checklists cannot be used to arrive at this conclusion. The data are simply not good enough. The Macaulay Library lists 2754 photos from India in the date range you mention, many of which are duplicate photos of the same individual. The actual, physically verifiable observations will therefore be much lower, perhaps 1500 over seven years. How can this be used to infer a decline with any confidence? What are the confidence intervals of the calculated decline, what is the variance? How might they differ from a randomized distribution of records? Maybe this data is in SoIB, but if being used for a Red List assessment, it should be reported with transparency here!
Some information from the Gap-filling project (Northern Deccan)
Baseline Monitoring Data for the Rufous-tailed Lark (Ammomanes phoenicura) from the Northern Deccan: Insights from the Gap-Filling Project
Background:
The Gap-filling project under the Bird Monitoring team at the Nature Conservation Foundation is gathering bird data for regions underrepresented on eBird. One such area is the Northern Deccan, which primarily spans the state of Maharashtra, with parts extending into Telangana, Chhattisgarh, and Odisha.
This region lies at the heart of the distribution range of the Rufous-tailed Lark (Ammomanes phoenicura). However, there is limited information available on bird populations in this area. As a result, the Gap-filling project aims to fill this knowledge gap and provide valuable data for future conservation efforts.
Protocol:
To sample in woodlands, croplands, and Open Natural Ecosystems (ONEs), 5 × 5 km grids were laid out to serve as habitat masks. Grids were selected randomly for sampling. Wetlands and rivers were also selected randomly based on their proximity to the grids where birds in other habitats were sampled. Since this was a systematic survey, we repeated sampling at the same points across seasons.
For croplands, we sampled 46 grids in summer and 48 in winter. Two grids that were covered in winter had to be skipped in summer due to accessibility issues. In each grid, we conducted two perimeter counts and observed birds for 15 minutes, covering approximately 250 meters, ensuring that the two transects were 500 meters apart.
Similarly, for ONEs, we sampled 33 grids in summer and 34 in winter. In each grid, we conducted two line transects, following the same protocol as in croplands.
For wetlands, we selected sites randomly based on their proximity to grids selected for sampling other habitats. At each wetland, we conducted a travelling checklist lasting 20 to 60 minutes, depending on accessibility.
For rivers, we followed a similar selection approach and conducted five 5-minute point counts at intervals of 200 meters, effectively covering a stretch of 1 km.
In total, we recorded 134 checklists in Open Natural Ecosystems (ONEs), covering 33.5 kilometers over 2,010 minutes. For croplands, we recorded 188 checklists, covering 47 kilometers in 2,820 minutes. We recorded 66 checklists in wetlands, covering 36.69 kilometers over 1,956 minutes. In rivers, we surveyed using 70 stationary checklists and the total time spent was 350 minutes.
Across the two seasons we covered 117.19 km and sampled for 7136 mins (118.93 hours).
Results: Across habitats, Croplands showed the highest detection frequencies for Rufous-tailed Lark, with a notable 30.4% in summer (95% CI: 22.0–40.5%) and a moderate 19.8% in winter (CI: 13.1–28.9%). Wetlands also had high detection in summer (30.3%, CI: 17.4–47.3%), though this dropped sharply to 15.2% in winter (CI: 6.7–30.9%). The relatively wide confidence intervals for wetlands, especially in winter, indicate greater uncertainty—likely due to fewer checklists or more variable detections.
Open Natural Ecosystems (ONEs) showed more moderate detection frequencies, decreasing from 25.8% in summer (CI: 16.7–37.4%) to 19.1% in winter (CI: 11.5–30.0%), with fairly consistent confidence intervals across seasons. Rivers consistently recorded the lowest detection rates, holding steady at 20% in both seasons (CI: 10.0–35.9%), suggesting a stable but relatively low encounter rate.
Overall, detection frequencies tended to be higher in summer across habitats, with croplands standing out as the most consistent habitat for encountering the species.
Conclusion:
Though changing cropping patterns may lead to a change in Rufous-tailed Lark numbers,In the mentioned region, it is more common in Croplands relative to other habitats.
As this is the first time such information about the species is available from the Northern Deccan landscape, it is difficult to assess any decline. However, this may serve as a baseline for future understanding if the species declines in the region.
In contrast to the Indian Roller, there is limited information available for this species to further dissect the decline reported in the State of India’s Birds (SoIB). Apart from the general concern about the decline of birds associated with Open Natural Ecosystems (ONE), there is no specific or compelling factor that can currently be implicated as the cause of this decline. Nonetheless, we summarize below the available evidence.
Long-term Decline
This species shows a long-term decline since pre-2000 levels, reported at -66.7% (Mean), with a confidence interval of -70.58% to -61.72%. However, this trend is based on data from only 7% of its range, which limits its utility for formal Red List assessment but may still serve as ancillary evidence.
https://stateofindiasbirds.in/species/rutlar2/
Declines in Key Habitats
The species has shown consistent declines in key habitats, including protected areas, though not at same levels:
Open Natural Ecosystems (ONE)
CAT LCI: 2.2% | Projected decline: 20%
https://stateofindiasbirds.in/species/one-rutlar2/
Cropland
CAT LCI: 2.09% | Projected decline: 19%
https://stateofindiasbirds.in/species/cpl-rutlar2/
Protected Areas (PAs)
CAT LCI: 2.63% | Projected decline: 23%
https://stateofindiasbirds.in/species/pas-rutlar2/
State-wise Declines
Conclusive trends are available only for three states in western and central India—Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh, and Maharashtra—and all indicate declines:
Maharashtra
CAT LCI: 3.38% | Projected decline: 29%
https://stateofindiasbirds.in/species/mh-rutlar2/
Madhya Pradesh
CAT LCI: 5.53% | Projected decline: 43%
https://stateofindiasbirds.in/species/mp-rutlar2/
Gujarat
CAT LCI: 2.37% | Projected decline: 21%
https://stateofindiasbirds.in/species/gj-rutlar2/
Range Coverage
This is lower than Indian Roller (higher than Indian Courser) at 32%. Details in link below
https://zenodo.org/records/11124590/files/02_SoIB_2023_main.xlsx
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 25 April 2025. We will now analyse and interpret the information, and we will post a preliminary decision on this species’ Red List category on this page on 25 April 2025, when discussions will re-open.
Preliminary proposal
Based on available information, our preliminary proposal for the 2025 Red List would be to adopt the proposed classification outlined in the initial forum discussion.
There is now a period for further comments until the final deadline on 4 May 2025, after which the recommended categorisations will be put forward to IUCN.
The final 2025 Red List categories will be published on the BirdLife and IUCN websites in October 2025, following further checking of information relevant to the assessments by both BirdLife and IUCN.
This species has occurred in Nepal very marginally only in the southern plains in a few localities in the past. In spite of increased efforts in birding and bird surveys, it has not been recorded for a number of years from its former habitats. This has, although a very small population , declined in Nepal.
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 a final decision on this species’ Red List category will be posted on this page on 12 May 2025.
Recommended categorisation to be put forward to IUCN
The final categorisation for this species has not changed. Rufous-tailed Lark is recommended to be listed as Near Threatened, approaching thresholds under Criteria A2b+4b.
Many thanks for everyone who contributed to the 2025.2 GTB Forum process. The final Red List categories will be published on the BirdLife and IUCN websites in October 2025, following further checking of information relevant to the assessments by both BirdLife and IUCN.