Juan C. ALONSO, Carlos PALACíN. 2010: The world status and population trends of the Great Bustard (Otis tarda): 2010 update. Avian Research, 1(2): 141-147. DOI: 10.5122/cbirds.2010.0007
Citation: Juan C. ALONSO, Carlos PALACíN. 2010: The world status and population trends of the Great Bustard (Otis tarda): 2010 update. Avian Research, 1(2): 141-147. DOI: 10.5122/cbirds.2010.0007

The world status and population trends of the Great Bustard (Otis tarda): 2010 update

More Information
  • Corresponding author:

    Juan C. Alonso, E-mail: jcalonso@mncn.csic.es

  • Received Date: 19 Apr 2010
  • Accepted Date: 15 May 2010
  • Available Online: 17 May 2023
  • The Great Bustard (Otis tarda) world population is estimated to be 44100-57000 individuals in 2010, of which about 57-70% occur in Spain, 15-25% in European Russia, 4-10% in China, Mongolia and south-eastern Russia, 3-4% in Portugal, 3% in Hungary, 1-2% in Turkey, and smaller numbers in ten other countries. The reliability of current censuses and estimates may be described as high for a large fraction of the world population (67-75%), and low for the remaining 25-33% (including Russia, Mongolia, China, Turkey, Ukraine, Iran and Kazakhstan). In spite of continued declines reported for some countries (e.g., Turkey, Iran, China), the present survey suggests that total numbers have not significantly decreased worldwide during the last decade, as opposed to the globally declining trend currently assumed. This is due to a large fraction of the world total living in countries whose overall surveys are apparently stable (e.g., Spain, Portugal), after a noticeable recovery during the last few decades once the hunting ban was established. Only 6-10% of the world total is apparently still decreasing, mostly due to agricultural intensification, other causes of habitat degradation, and locally, also illegal hunting and collision with power lines. A small fraction of the world population (3-4%), is clearly (Germany, Austria) or apparently (Hungary) increasing, due to management and conservation measures. Finally, 19-22% of the world total has an uncertain status, due to inaccurate current or past censuses which prevent establishing reliable population trends. We recommend 1) keeping conservation efforts and the species' protection status worldwide, and 2) carrying out urgently nation-wide surveys in countries with low quality estimates, in order to confirm world numbers and trends.

  • Laying sequence in birds strongly affects the color, mass, metabolic rate, and embryonic development rate of the eggs (; ; ). The pigments covering eggshells are deposited in the 4 h preceding egg laying by pigment glands (). During the laying period, the pigments in some birds gradually decrease as the number of eggs laid increases, which results in a shift in eggshell color from dark to light over the course of the laying sequence. This phenomenon, which is relatively common among the Passer genus (; ; ), produces a clutch with a diversity of egg colors; the lightest egg is the last one laid (; ). Previous studies showed that variation in egg color reflected differences in egg quality; the last eggs to be laid with lighter coloration were the poorest quality (; ). Parent birds often distribute resources, such as antioxidants and male hormones, unevenly over the course of the laying sequence (; ). Therefore, eggs laid at different points in the sequence receive different resources, which could influence their embryonic development and ultimate fate (; ; ; ; ; ). Some female use big size and other maternal resources by last laid eggs to compensate for the survival disadvantage experienced (; ).

    showed that, given consistent environmental conditions, eggs laid earlier start to develop before the female bird has finished laying the entire clutch, so the first eggs laid hatch before the last eggs do. As a result, the clutch includes nestlings with an extreme imbalance in mass quality (). However, other research indicated that the eggs of Canada Geese (Branta canadensis) from the same clutch hatched at about the same time, with a maximum time interval of less than 24 h (). Therefore, the embryonic development rate differed for eggs within the same clutch.

    So far only a small number of studies have focused on the relationship between laying sequence and embryonic internal development rate in birds showing that laying sequence can affect embryonic development (; ; ; ). Zebra Finch (Taeniopygia Guttata) clutches number can alter the developmental time of embryos, egg maternal resource allocation across the laying sequence can influence development (). In this study, using artificial nest boxes, we compared the effects of laying sequence on eggshell color variation and embryonic development speed of Russet Sparrows (Passer cinnamomeus), a passerine species.

    This study was conducted in the Kuankuoshui National Nature Reserve (28°10ʹN, 107°10ʹE), a subtropical evergreen broadleaf forest in southwestern China at an altitude of about 1500 m (see for more details) from April to August 2013.

    The Russet Sparrow belongs to the Passeridae family and is mainly found in southern China and the Himalayan region (). They are year-round residents at this study site, and they build nests in chimney tubes, cavities of stone walls and eaves (; ). Artificial nest boxes were provided to attract sparrows because entrances to their natural nests are usually too deep and small to allow easy access (see below).

    Nest boxes were 35 cm in depth with an entrance hole diameter of 4 cm (Fig. 1). We checked each box periodically until the first Russet Sparrow egg was observed in the nest, after which the nests were checked once a day to confirm if the onset of incubation start with the first egg or until after clutch completion. When a new egg was discovered in the nest, the tip of the egg was numbered with a light blue marker to indicate egg-laying order. After a full clutch of eggs had been laid, they were all replaced with model eggs and moved to an incubator together. We did so because Russet Sparrows start their incubation after clutch completion and accept any model eggs in their nests and seem not to show any egg discrimination (). After the nestlings hatched, they were returned to their original nests to be raised by their parents.

    Figure 1. The nest box used and a male Russet Sparrow. Photo by Bruce Lyon
    Figure  1.  The nest box used and a male Russet Sparrow. Photo by Bruce Lyon

    We divided the sparrow eggs into three groups. The first eggs to be laid were first group (one egg), the eggs that were intermediate in the laying sequence were middle group (two or three eggs), and the last eggs to be laid were last group (one egg). The middle group has two or three eggs, so we analyze the data using an average for the middle eggs. A caliper (505-681, Mitutoyo, Japan; range 0-150 mm, accuracy ± 0.02 mm) was used to measure the length and width of the eggs. An electronic balance (EHA501, Guangdong Xiangshan Weighing Apparatus Group Co., Ltd.; range 0-100 g; accuracy 0.01 g) was used to weigh the eggs. The volume of the eggs was calculated according to : egg volume = 0.51 × egg length × square egg width. The eggs in each group were weighed from the first day of incubation, and daily afterward, until nestlings had hatched. Egg color was quantified using a USB4000 VIS-NIR spectrometer (Ocean Optics, Inc., Dunedin, Florida, USA). Background and spot color were measured at three randomly chosen places on each egg. A detailed description of the method can be found in , ). The values of the ultra-violet (300-400 nm) and visible (400-700 nm) sections of the reflectance spectrum were used for analysis. The eggs were hatched in a Mini EX digital incubator (Brinsea Co. Ltd., UK; also see ).

    Embryonic heart rates were measured using a digital egg monitor MK1 type heart rate meter (Buddy Digital Egg Monitor, Avitronics Inc., Cornwall, England). In order to avoid errors in heart rate measurement due to differences in temperature, the eggs were placed horizontally in the heart rate meter for the measurement immediately after they were removed from the incubator (also see ; ; ). The heart rate (beats per minute) was recorded after the heart rate became stable. Heart rate measurements started on the first day of incubation and were conducted every other day, until the nestlings hatched. The embryonic development time was defined as the time interval between the first appearance of heart rate (which occurred 2-5 days after the start of incubation) and hatching ().

    The incubator hatching temperature was set at 7.5 ± 0.5 ℃; the relative humidity was 55 ± 5%; the egg turning interval was r/45 min; the cooling time was 2 h/day. One-sample Kolmogorov-Smimov (K-S) test was used to analyze the normality distribution of the data. If the data satisfied the conditions of normal distribution, one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to compare the means. If the data were not normally distributed, Welch's ANOVA was used. Differences at p < 0.05 were considered statistically significant and at p < 0.01 were highly statistically significant. Unless otherwise stated, data were presented as mean ± SD, and all tests were 2-tailed. Statistical analyses were performed in IBM SPSS 20.0 for Windows (IBM Inc., USA).

    Each Russet Sparrow clutch contained 3-5 eggs (n = 69). One egg was laid each day, normally in the early morning. Whitening in last eggs was relatively apparent to the naked eye in the majority of nests because pale colors reflect more ambient light than dark colors (78.5%, n = 69) (Fig. 2). Background color reflectance of last eggs was significantly higher than those in the other two groups, confirming that whitening occurred (Fig. 3). Spot color reflectance among the three groups was similar, all spots being dark brown (Fig. 3). The brightness reflectance of the background color was significantly higher in last eggs than in the other groups (F = 10.817, p = 0.001). Except for green light chromaticity, the other lights' chromaticity of the background color showed significant differences between the groups. Last eggs had the highest ultraviolet (UV) and blue light chromaticity (F = 3.531, p = 0.041; F = 3.986, p = 0.028) and the lowest red light and yellow light chromaticity (F = 3.890, p = 0.030; F = 3.655, p = 0.037). However, there was no difference in background color hue among the three groups (F = 1.518, p = 0.234) (Table 1). The spots on the eggs in the three groups did not significantly differ in brightness, hue, or chromaticity (Table 2).

    Figure 2. Whitening of the last eggs to be laid in Russet Sparrow clutches. a, b, and c are three clutches of Russet Sparrow eggs, respectively, placed from left to right according to their laying orders. Photo by Juan Huo
    Figure  2.  Whitening of the last eggs to be laid in Russet Sparrow clutches. a, b, and c are three clutches of Russet Sparrow eggs, respectively, placed from left to right according to their laying orders. Photo by Juan Huo
    Figure 3. Background reflectance of Russet Sparrow eggs. G1 refers to first group, the first eggs to be laid, G2 to middle group, the intermediate eggs in the sequence, and G3 to last group, the last eggs in each clutch. Back means eggshell background color, spot means eggshell spot color
    Figure  3.  Background reflectance of Russet Sparrow eggs. G1 refers to first group, the first eggs to be laid, G2 to middle group, the intermediate eggs in the sequence, and G3 to last group, the last eggs in each clutch. Back means eggshell background color, spot means eggshell spot color
    Table  1.  Background reflectance parameters of Russet Sparrow eggs
    First group (n = 12) Middle group (n = 12) Last group (n = 12) F Sig.
    Brightness 13, 211.97 ± 4730.26 13, 668.24 ± 3956.62 20, 162.99 ± 3504.98 10.817 0.001
    Hue 0.827 ± 0.712 0.901 ± 0.321 0.378 ± 1.136 1.518 0.234
    UV-chroma 0.202 ± 0.030 0.212 ± 0.029 0.231 ± 0.024 3.531 0.041
    B-chroma 0.172 ± 0.016 0.168 ± 0.014 0.183 ± 0.008 3.986 0.028
    G-chroma 0.198 ± 0.009 0.193 ± 0.006 0.194 ± 0.007 1.450 0.249
    Y-chroma 0.209 ± 0.017 0.208 ± 0.016 0.194 ± 0.011 3.890 0.030
    R-chroma 0.219 ± 0.027 0.219 ± 0.024 0.198 ± 0.014 3.655 0.037
     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV
    Table  2.  Spot reflectance parameters of Russet Sparrow eggs
    First group (n = 12) Middle group (n = 12) Last group (n = 12) F Sig.
    Brightness 2952.68 ± 4730.26 3413.34 ± 1126.44 3532.50 ± 1515.39 0.632 0.538
    Hue 0.373 ± 0.358 0.522 ± 0.287 0.464 ± 0.177 0.835 0.443
    UV-chroma 0.247 ± 0.046 0.236 ± 0.048 0.244 ± 0.037 0.215 0.808
    B-chroma 0.149 ± 0.020 0.143 ± 0.019 0.144 ± 0.020 0.245 0.784
    G-chroma 0.159 ± 0.014 0.162 ± 0.012 0.155 ± 0.012 1.001 0.378
    Y-chroma 0.198 ± 0.025 0.207 ± 0.025 0.201 ± 0.020 0.397 0.675
    R-chroma 0.247 ± 0.039 0.252 ± 0.040 0.256 ± 0.043 0.126 0.882
     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV

    When the first Russet Sparrow egg was observed in the nest, we checked once a day to confirm that Russet Sparrows start their incubation until after clutch completion. The three groups did not differ in egg size, mass, or weight loss during development (Table 3). Hatching success rates of first, middle and last groups were 41.7, 46.1, and 25.0%, respectively, without significant differences (χ2 = 1.55, p = 0.46).

    Table  3.  Sizes of Russet Sparrow eggs produced at different points in the laying sequence
    First group (n = 12) Middle group (n = 12) Last group (n = 12) F Sig.
    Mass (g) 2.020 ± 0.178 2.025 ± 0.129 2.028 ± 0.172 0.008 0.992
    Length (mm) 19.128 ± 0.532 18.975 ± 0.489 19.071 ± 0.566 0.256 0.775
    Width (mm) 14.117 ± 0.478 14.118 ± 0.413 14.165 ± 0.604 0.035 0.965
    Volume (cm3) 1.947 ± 0.152 1.930 ± 0.121 1.944 ± 0.183 0.083 0.921
    Mass loss (g) 0.184 ± 0.023 0.185 ± 0.040 0.210 ± 0.034 0.656 0.533
     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV

    The embryonic heart rates among the three groups of eggs followed approximately the same trend. Embryonic heart rate increased as the number of incubation days increased (Fig. 4). Heart rates became detectable between two and five days after the start of incubation but appeared latest in last eggs. The highest heart rates appeared on the day of hatching (i.e., day 13) for first and middle eggs, but on day 11 in last eggs. Regression analysis using linear and cubic models showed that a regression curve was the best fit for the heart rate change in first eggs, indicating that the heart rates of these eggs were the most stable. The regression curve fit was the poorest in last eggs, indicating that embryonic heart rate change in these eggs fluctuated the most. The incubation period was around 13 days in all three groups, without significant differences (F = 0.589, p = 0.566). The embryonic development time of the last eggs was significantly shorter than those of the first eggs (F = 3.60, p = 0.040) (Fig. 5).

    Figure 4. Embryonic heart rates of Russet Sparrow. Linear and cubic models were used in regression analysis showing that a regression curve was the best fit for the heart rate change in the first egg group and the poorest in the last egg group
    Figure  4.  Embryonic heart rates of Russet Sparrow. Linear and cubic models were used in regression analysis showing that a regression curve was the best fit for the heart rate change in the first egg group and the poorest in the last egg group
    Figure 5. Incubation period and development time of Russet Sparrow. Development time was a subset of incubation period and was the interval between the first detection of a heart beat and hatching. The lower case letters a and b refer to the results of the LSD (Least Significant Difference) test. The difference between first and last groups was highly significant
    Figure  5.  Incubation period and development time of Russet Sparrow. Development time was a subset of incubation period and was the interval between the first detection of a heart beat and hatching. The lower case letters a and b refer to the results of the LSD (Least Significant Difference) test. The difference between first and last groups was highly significant

    Our spectroscopic analysis showed that Russet Sparrow eggs gradually became lighter as the laying sequence progressed, with a relatively large eggshell color variation coefficient. This change is mainly manifested in the background color of the eggs. believed that the amount of pigment secreted by glands in birds is limited, and the pigments gradually subside as egg-laying progresses. Therefore, pigments could be exhausted or in short supply by the time the last egg is laid, which results in its whitened appearance. However, in this study, whitening also appeared in eggs that were laid earlier. Hence, Lowther's hypothesis does not hold here.

    Some researchers believe that egg colors of cave-nesting birds tend to be white and to lack spots. One reason might be that white eggs are more easily seen by parent birds in cave nests with lowlight ().

    Another selective pressure, the existence of nest parasites, can force hosts to increase the evenness of egg color in a clutch, as it enable parent birds to more easily detect an intruder's egg and at the same time increase the diversity of egg color among clutches of the same species (; ). One hypothesis states that the whitening of the last eggs to be laid could be a signal that prevents nest parasites, by informing the parasites that the hosts have completed egg-laying and the egg incubation period has started (; ). Although there are many parasitic cuckoo species in the study area (, ), despite evidence that cuckoos can parasitize cave-nesting birds and that some cave-nesting birds are suitable hosts for cuckoos (; ; ), Russet Sparrow was not the host for any type of cuckoos () in this study area and no intra-species parasitism has been observed so far. Hence, the evolution of egg color diversity of Russet Sparrow needs further investigation in the future.

    Previous studies believed that the color of birds' eggs is related to the mass of eggs and that different egg colors reflect different levels of egg quality (; ; ). Our data showed that the color of Russet Sparrow eggs was not associated with egg size or mass, and laying order also did not affect size or mass. However, egg-laying order did affect embryonic development rate. Russet Sparrow eggs in the same clutch had the same hatching period and all hatched on the same day (within 24 h). The heart rates of eggs laid earlier were detected earlier, and these eggs had relatively longer embryonic development periods, while the heart rates of eggs laid later were detected later. These eggs had shorter embryonic development periods but higher development speed. In House Sparrows (Passer domesticus), most eggs of a clutch hatched synchronously and there was no difference in hatchability in relation to sequence of egg-laying (). Full incubation began after the completion of the clutch in clutches of two and three eggs in both House Sparrows and clutches of four eggs in Tree Sparrows (P. montanus) but before the clutch was completed (by up to one day) in larger clutches (). In Black Brant (Branta bernicla nigricans), embryonic metabolic rate may affect development in synchronizing hatch (). In addition, the decline in egg size as laying progresses could contribute to hatching synchrony because those subsequent embryos tend to have higher metabolic rates which hypothesized also contributes to relatively more rapid development (). Such phenomenon has also been verified in Zebra Finch (Taeniopygia guttata), a passerine bird, as well as in some non-passerines (; ; ; ; ). The number of Zebra Finch eggs in a clutch also influences the eggs' embryonic development speed ().

    Hatching asynchrony results in a brood with nestlings that differ in age and size. Older and larger nestlings usually outcompete younger ones for food and, as a result, grow more quickly (; ), while the last-hatched nestling reduced growth and survival (; ). Complete hatching synchrony leads to uniformly aged nestlings (; ). The hatching time of some birds can be affected by the vocalizations of parent birds or nestlings of the same clutch, as these sounds can stimulate the embryo to speed its development ().

    In summary, we showed that the background color brightness of the last eggs laid by Russet Sparrows was significantly higher (whiter) than those of the other eggs. However, all eggs were hatched around 13 days, indicating that laying sequence significantly affected embryonic development speed; the last eggs to be laid developed significantly faster than did the first in the clutch. Our study also indicated that laying sequence has an important effect on the embryonic heart rate in Russet Sparrows.

    WL designed the experiment, JH, TS and NN conducted the experiments and collected field data. JH and CY performed data analyses and wrote an earlier version of the manuscript. WL revised and improved the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final version of the manuscript.

    We would like to thank Prof. Anders Pape Møller for his helpful comments on this manuscript. We thank Junqiu Wu, Guoxian Liang, and Ping Ye for their assistance with fieldwork, and the help and cooperation from the Kuankuoshui National Nature Reserves.

    The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

    The datasets used and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

    Not applicable.

    The experiments comply with the current laws of China, where they were performed. Permit for this study was approved by Kuankuoshui National Nature Reserves, Guizhou Province. Experimental procedures were in agreement with the Animal Research Ethics Committee of Hainan Provincial Education Centre for Ecology and Environment, Hainan Normal University (permit nos. HNECEE-2011-002 and HNECEE-2013-001).

  • National Academy of Sciences of Kazakhstan. 1996. The Red Book of Kazakhstan. Vol. 1. Animals. Part 1: Vertebrates. 3rd Edition. Institue of Zoology, National Academy of Sciences of Kazakhstan, Almaty.
    Alonso JC, Alonso JA. 1996. The Great Bustard Otis tarda in Spain: present status, recent trends and evaluation of earlier censuses. Biol Conserv, 77:79–86.
    Alonso JC, Martín CA, Alonso JA, Palacín C, Magaña M, Lane SJ. 2004. Distribution dynamics of a great bustard metapopulation throughout a decade: influence of conspecific attraction and recruitment. Biodivers Conserv, 13:1659–2004.
    Alonso JC, Palacín C, Martín CA. 2003. Status and recent trends of the Great Bustard (Otis tarda) population in the Iberian Peninsula. Biol Conserv, 110:185–195.
    Alonso JC, Palacín C, Martín CA. 2005a. La Avutarda Común en la Península Ibérica. Población actual y método de censo. SEO/BirdLife, Madrid. (in Spanish)
    Alonso JC, Palacín C, Martín CA, Mouati N, Arhzaf ZL, Azizi D. 2005b. The Great Bustard Otis tarda in Morocco: a re-evaluation of its status based on recent survey results. Ardeola, 53:79–90.
    Amini TH. 2000. The status of Great Bustard Otis tarda in Iran. Sandgrouse, 22:55–60.
    Antonchikov A. 2006. Great and little Bustard in Russia: conservation problems and prospects. In: Leitao D, Jolivet C, Rodriguez M, Tavares J (eds) Bustard Conservation in Europe in the Last 15 Years. RSPB/BirdLife, Bedfordshire, pp 39–43.
    Bankovics A. 2006. The situation of Great Bustard in Hungary. In: Leitao D, Jolivet C, Rodriguez M, Tavares J (eds) Bustard Conservation in Europe in the Last 15 Years. RSPB/BirdLife, Bedfordshire, pp 35–38.
    Bankovics A, Boros E, Németh Á, Bíró C, Bankovics A. 2005. Reasons of the population increase of Great Bustard (Otis tarda) in the Kiskunság (Hungary). Aquila, 112:163–168.
    BirdLife International. 2000a. Threatened Birds of the World. Lynx Edicions and BirdLife International, Barcelona-Cambridge.
    BirdLife International. 2000b. European Bird Populations: Estimates and Trends. BirdLife Conservation Series No. 10. BirdLife International, Cambridge.
    BirdLife International. 2004a. Threatened Birds of the World 2004. CD-ROM. BirdLife International, Cambridge.
    BirdLife International. 2004b. Birds in Europe: Population Estimates, Trends and Conservation Status. BirdLife Conservation Series No. 12. BirdLife International, Cambridge.
    BirdLife International. 2007. Species factsheet: Otis tarda. . Accessed 30 May 2007.
    Collar NJ. 1979. Bustard Group general report. ICBP Bull, XIII: 129–134.
    Collar NJ. 1985. The world status of the Great Bustard. Bustard Stud, 2:1–20.
    del Hoyo J, Elliott A, Sargatal J. 1996. Handbook of the Birds of the World. Hoatzin to Auks. Vol. 3. Ediciones Lynx, Barcelona.
    Deleriev S, Zehtindjiev P, Georgiev D. 2004. National report, Republic of Bulgaria. Memorandum of Understanding on the Conservation and Management of the Middle-European Population of the Great Bustard (Otis tarda). Convention on Migratory Species. Illmitz, Austria, 17–18 September. . Accessed 11 July 2007.
    Gao X, Yang W, Qiao J, Yao J, Xu K. 2008. Distribution and status of bustards in China. Front Biol China, 3:385–391.
    Garovnikov B. 2004. A brief report about protection of Great Bustard in Serbia and Montenegro. Memorandum of Understanding on the Conservation and Management of the Middle-European Population of the Great Bustard (Otis tarda). Convention on Migratory Species. Illmitz, Austria, 17–18 September. . Accessed 11 July 2007.
    Goroshko OA. 2010. Present status of population of Great Bustard (Otis tarda dybowskii) in Dauria and other breeding grounds in Russia and Mongolia: distribution, number and dynamics of population, threats, conservation. First International Symposium on Conservation of Great Bustard. Beijing, 10–11 April.
    Hidalgo SJ. 1990. World status of the Great Bustard (Otis tarda) with special attention to the Iberian peninsula populations. Miscelanea Zool, 14:167–180.
    Hidalgo SJ. 1997. Avutarda Común Otis tarda. In: Atlas de la Aves de España (1975–1995), Lynx Edicions, Barcelona, pp 170–171. SEO.
    Karakas R, Akarsu F. 2009. Recent status and distribution of the Great Bustard, Otis tarda, in Turkey. Zool Middle East, 48:25–34.
    Kessler A. 2010. Great Bustard (Otis tarda) in Central Asia: Research. . Accessed 10 June 2010.
    Kessler A, Tseveenmyadag N. 2010. Asian Great Bustard in northern central Mongolia: habitat and migration route. First International Symposium on Conservation of Great Bustard, Beijing, 10–11 April.
    Khrustov AV, Shlyakhtin GV, Tabachishin VG, Zavialov EV. 2003. Habitats and modern status of the Great Bustard (Otis tarda) population in the European Russia. The Bustards in Russia and adjacent countries, 2:98–107. Saratov University Press, Saratov.
    Kiliç DT, Eken G. 2004. Türkiyenin Önemli kus Alanlari – 2004 Gúncellemesi. Doga Dernegi, Ankara.
    Kovshar A, Bekenov AB, Dukravetz GM. 1996. The Red Data Book of Kazakhstan. Vol. 1. Animals. Part 1: Vertebrates. 3rd Edition. Institute of Zoology, National Academy of Sciences, Almaty, Kazakhstan.
    Langgemach T, Bellebaum J. 2005. Predation and the conservation of ground-breeding birds in Germany. Vogelwelt, 126:259– 298.
    Langgemach T, Litzbarski H. 2005. Results of artificial breeding in the German Great Bustard (Otis tarda) conservation project. Aquila, 112:191–202.
    Malikov AN, Khrustov AV, Shlyakhtin GV, Zavyalov EV, Tabachishin VG. 2000. Current status and conservation prospects for the Great Bustard (Otis tarda L.) population in the Eastern Europe. The Bustards in Russia and Adjacent Countries, 1:47–57. Saratov University Publisher, Saratov.
    Özbagdatli N, Tavares JP. 2006. The situation of Great and little Bustards in Turkey. In: Leitao D, Jolivet C, Rodriguez M, Tavares J (eds) Bustard Conservation in Europe in the Last 15 Years. RSPB/BirdLife, Bedfordshire, pp 45–49.
    Palacín C, Alonso JC. 2008. An updated estimate of the world status and population trends of the Great Bustard Otis tarda. Ardeola, 55:13–25.
    Pinto M, Rocha P. 2006. The situation of Great Bustard in Portugal. In: Leitao D, Jolivet C, Rodriguez M, Tavares J (eds) Bustard Conservation in Europe in the Last 15 Years. RSPB/BirdLife, Bedfordshire, pp 27–30.
    Pinto M, Rocha P, Moreira F. 2005. Long-trends in great bustard (Otis tarda) populations in Portugal suggest concentration in single high quality area. Biol Conserv, 124:415–423.
    Raab R. 2004. Austrian national report. Memorandum of Understanding on the Conservation and Managenment of the Middle-European Population of the Great Bustard. (Otis tarda). Illmitz, Austria, 17–18 September. Convention on Migratory Species. . Accessed 11 July 2007.
    Raab R. 2006. Zur situation der Großtrappe. Weidwerk, 4:12–14.
    SEO/BirdLife. 1997. Atlas de las Aves de España 1975–95. Lynx Edicions, Barcelona.
    Tian XH, Wang JJ. 2001. Chinese Great Bustard. Northeast Forestry University Press, Harbin, pp 98–107.
    Tseveenmyadag N. 2002. Great bustard (Otis tarda dybowskii L.) in Mongolia. Ornithological Laboratory, Institute of Biology, Mongolia Acad Sciences. unpublished report.
    Trigo de Yarto E. 1971. La avutarda en España. XVIII Triennial General Meeting of the International Council for Hunting. Federación Española de Caza, Madrid. unpublished report.
    Túzokvédelmi Program. 2006. Több mint 1300 túzok van Magyarországon. . Accessed 11 July 2007.
    Watzke H, Oparin ML, Kondrantekov IA, Oparina OS. 2007. The great Bustard population density in the Saratov district east of the river Volga – results of censuses in autumn 1998, 1999 and 2000. Bustard Stud, 6:65–74.
    Wang Q, Ming M, Gao Y. 2006. Fauna Sinica. Aves Vol. 5, Gruiformes, Charadriiiformes and Lariformes. Science Press, Beijing, pp 129-143. (in Chinese)
    Yaremchenko O, Bakhtiyarov O. 2006. Great Bustard (Otis tarda) in Ukraine: history, current, status, conservation problems and strategies. In: Leitao D, Jolivet C, Rodriguez M, Tavares J (eds) Bustard Conservation in Europe in the Last 15 Years. RSPB/BirdLife, Bedfordshire, pp 145–149.
    Ying C, Ming M, Peng D, Baowen H. 2010. Survival status of Great Bustard Otis tarda tarda in Xinjiang, the west of China. First International Symposium on Conservation of Great Bustard, Beijing, 10–11 April.
  • Related Articles

  • Cited by

    Periodical cited type(7)

    1. Ortiz, E., Munarriz, R.H., Tavera, E.A. Oddly pigmented eggs of Snowy Plover Anarhynchus nivosus in Peru. Wader Study, 2024, 131(2): 156-158. DOI:10.18194/ws.00349
    2. Ahmad, I.M., Li, D. More than a simple egg: Underlying mechanisms of cold tolerance in avian embryos. Avian Research, 2023. DOI:10.1016/j.avrs.2023.100104
    3. Beech, A.-R.F., Santos, M.C., Smith, E.B. et al. High within-clutch repeatability of eggshell phenotype in Barn Swallows despite less maculated last-laid eggs | [Alta repetibilidad dentro de la nidada del fenotipo de la cáscara del huevo en Hirundo rustica erythrogaster, a pesar de que los huevos del final de la puesta son menos maculados]. 2022, 139(4): ukac024. DOI:10.1093/ornithology/ukac024
    4. Rosenbeger, J., Pytlak, K., Łukaszewicz, E. et al. Variation in bird eggs—Does female factor, season, and laying order impact the egg size, pigmentation, and eggshell thickness of the eggs of capercaillie?. Animals, 2021, 11(12): 3454. DOI:10.3390/ani11123454
    5. Wang, L., He, G., Zhang, Y. et al. Cryptic eggs are rejected less frequently by a cuckoo host. Animal Cognition, 2021, 24(6): 1171-1177. DOI:10.1007/s10071-021-01507-2
    6. Du, W.-G., Shine, R., Ma, L. et al. Adaptive responses of the embryos of birds and reptiles to spatial and temporal variations in nest temperatures. Proceedings of the Royal Society B Biological Sciences, 2019, 286(1915): 20192078. DOI:10.1098/rspb.2019.2078
    7. Ye, P., Yang, C., Liang, W. Nest site availability and niche differentiation between two cavity-nesting birds in time and space. Ecology and Evolution, 2019, 9(20): 11904-11910. DOI:10.1002/ece3.5698

    Other cited types(0)

Catalog

    Carlos PALACíN

    1. On this Site
    2. On Google Scholar
    3. On PubMed

    Tables(2)

    Article Metrics

    Article views (4220) PDF downloads (2789) Cited by(7)

    /

    DownLoad:  Full-Size Img  PowerPoint
    Return
    Return