The Indian Sarus Crane Grus a. antigone : A Literature Review

The Indian Sarus Crane is a species of large bird native to parts of South and Southeast Asia. It has a patchy distribution in Nepal and Pakistan, and is found throughout India, with the exception of the southern tip. Sarus Cranes are mostly resident, but there is some seasonal migration from dry areas. The species is mostly found outside of protected areas, but small populations can be found in sanctuaries and national parks. Sarus Cranes are omnivorous and opportunistic feeders, feeding on a variety of wetland and upland foods including tubers, rhizomes, amphibians, reptiles, insects, and crops. The species is known to nest in wetlands and flooded paddy fields, and to use both natural and agricultural habitats. Sarus Cranes are at risk due to habitat loss and degradation, hunting, and pesticides. There is a lack of comprehensive research on the species, and future directions for conservation and research should focus on filling this gap.


Introduction
When Gole (1989) conducted a literature search on the biology of the Indian Sarus Crane Grus antigone antigone, he found precious little of it.Since, however, a spate of scientific papers in journals, theses, reports (published and otherwise), newsletter articles, popular science articles and newspaper features has covered various aspects of Sarus Crane biology.This increase in attention is largely driven by the need to have information to assist in applied conservation.However, there are no recent reviews of the species that provide a critique of this information.In this review, we bring together all known information on Sarus Cranes and provide an update of the biology of the species.All references to Sarus Cranes in this paper refer to the nominate subspecies unless mentioned otherwise.
There is a wealth of information on Sarus Cranes present in grey literature, including unpublished reports, and non-peer-reviewed papers.This review combines both peer-reviewed papers available from standard reference services, and other literature known to have information on Sarus Cranes.Literature for this review was accessed through the bibliographic services of the Ron Sauey Memorial Library at the International Crane Foundation (ICF), bibliographies (Pittie 2001) and references in reviews (Walkinshaw 1973, Johnsgard 1983, Allan 1996, Meine and Archibald 1996, BirdLife International 2001).One of us (KSGS) Journal of Ecological Society Vol. 16 : 16-41 (2003) obtained original papers, theses and reports from the libraries of WII and ICF to prepare this review.In addition, several people contributed reports, theses, newspaper clippings, unpublished manuscripts, and personal observations, and kindly allowed their use for this review.
This review is divided into two major portions.In the first portion we use information from the literature to illustrate biases in regional coverage, aspects of ecology covered so far, the irregular rate of publications, and the evolution as it were of scientific and popular attention on Sarus Cranes.In the second portion, we provide a summarized account of Sarus Crane distribution, status, population and ecology.The summary is intended to add to the information in previous reports, particularly the detailed distribution account in BirdLife International (2001).Also, information otherwise scattered as anecdotal records and observations have been used to provide a comprehensive review of specific aspects.
We used books, major reports, scientific papers from major national and international journals, journals with smaller distribution (Journal of the Ecological Society, Pavo, Zoos Print Journal), newsletters (Cheetal, ICF-Bugle, Newsletter for Birdwatchers, WWF-India Quarterly etc.), theses, proceedings, popular science articles in major magazines (Down To Earth, Hornbill, India Today, Sanctuary Asia, Science Today), and other miscellaneous publications published before October 2003.Distinction of short communications follows that used 1 Author for communication.Present address: Exchange Visitor, International Crane Foundation, E-11376, Shady Lane Road, P.O.Box 447, Baraboo, WI 53913, U.S.A. Email: gopi@savingcranes.org. 2 Head, Endangered Species Management Department, Wildlife Institute of India, P.B. 18, Chandrabani, Dehradun 248 001, Uttaranchal, India.Email: bcc@wii.gov.in.

10.54081/JES.015/02
by the journals referred to.Reviews of the family Gruidae have been avoided in the analyses unless they are specific to cranes of India and have new information.The smallest geographic unit considered is the state, and ecological papers are divided into five major categories (breeding biology, surveys/ distributions/ status reports/ field methods, popular science/ general accounts, other aspects of ecology including feeding, crop damage, etc., and miscellaneous subjects).This information is meant to cater to a general audience and statistical treatment of the data is avoided.In addition to a numerical account, we explore in brief the history of work on the Sarus and its relevance to contemporary Sarus biologists, particularly those with a conservation focus, in India.Critique of information here is entirely impersonal and academic in nature.This is meant to help focus attention on aspects that require attention and to assist in planning future work to be of better use to applied conservation.

I. An analysis of Sarus Crane literature
Whats in a name : taxonomy and common names In taxonomy, the Sarus underwent a dizzying change of names, the history of which is not very clear.Most of the following discussion is based on Blyth (1881) and Blaauw (1897).The first reference to the species in taxonomic literature was in Briss.Ornith.where it is referred to as G. orientalus indica.Blyth (1881) considered the two known forms as distinct species.Linnaeus description of the Sarus in his Systema Naturae in 1766 as Ardea antigone appears to be of specimens of the eastern subspecies, and possibly did not see any specimens/skins of the Indian subspecies until later.Buffon possibly first closely observed the Indian subspecies in 1780, when he called it la Grue à collier based on the white collar that is still used to differentiate subspecies.The species appears to have first gotten the specific name collaris in 1783 by Boddaert.A work of taxonomy (Gm.Syst.Nat.) published in 1788 refers to the species as Ardea antigone (or Grus torquata).Another very different name followed in 1831 when Franklin called it Grus orientalis.Sykes reinstated it as G. antigone in 1832, but Gray lists it again as G. torquata in 1844.In 1854, it was designated Antigone antigone.Blyth (1881) originally describes it as G. torquata, but in his book (published posthumously), it is classified as G. collaris following Buffon.Sharpe also reverted to G. collaris in 1894, which is the name that Blaauw (1897) uses.Sharpe (1894Sharpe ( , 1899) ) placed the Sarus and the Brolga under the same genera Grus.Much later, taxonomists recognized only one species of the Sarus Crane with two forms/subspecies (Dubois 1904, Peter 1934).
The formal description of the Sarus as Ardea antigone (Linnaeus in 1760) was clearly the Eastern subspecies, and earlier accounts refer to the subspecies as the Greater Indian Crane (1743), and la Grue des Indes Orientales (in 1760).Vieille named it Grus antigone in 1817, and the name shifted to Antigone antigone in 1854.The work of Sharpe (1894Sharpe ( , 1899)), Dubois and Peter (1934) places the Sarus firmly under the genera Grus, which was followed by Blaauw (1897).What is puzzling is how the Indian subspecies came about to be the nominate subspecies, even though the eastern race was first named antigone.
Antigone, the specific epithet, was a female character in Greek philosophy, famous as the rebellious daughter of Oedipus, and the etymology of the word is in place of a mother, from anti opposite, in place of + gone womb, childbirth, generation (www.etymonline.com).The reason for the choice of the name for the Sarus is unclear and may be present in previous literature that we did not have access to.
The term Sarus seems to have a Sanskrit origin from the term s#r#sa, which is translated variously as pertaining to lake, water, anything fluid, sheet of water, and pond.In Tamil, the word relates to dance.Either way, the preferred habitat or the behaviour of the cranes was chosen for the common name and persisted.Jerdon and Tickell (in letters quoted in Blyth 1881) spelt the common name as sarrus.The pronunciation and spelling changed to the presumed original Sárás until Blyth (1881), but later authors resorted to Sarrus, Sáras or Saras, and most used Sarus, which continues to be used today.The name also seems to have traveled because this was also the common name for the eastern subspecies in Myanmar (Burma), Vietnam and other northeastern Asian countries.
Fossils identified as Sarus Cranes in Europe are found in Pleistocene deposits (Walkinshaw 1973).Krajewski (1990) and Krajewski and Fetzner (1994) have suggested that the Gruinae species, under which the Sarus are placed, arose in the late Miocene or early Pliocene.Analyses of fossil records show that the subfamily Gruinae diverged from the Balearicines (Crowned Cranes) 10-20 million years ago (mya), that species within Gruinae diverged some 1-3 mya, and subspecies became differentiated 0.5-1.5 mya (Krajewski 1990, Krajewski and Fetzner 1994, Krajewski and Wood 1995).Sarus Cranes have had an uncontroversial placement in the classification of Gruidae irre-  Krajewski 1989).Archibald (1976) had initially suggested that the Brolgas G. rubicundus and the Sarus were very closely related species.Subsequent DNA analyses have shown that while the sequences of the other two species in the Sarus Crane species group (Sarus, Brolgas and the White-naped G. vipio) formed a clade, the Sarus was monophyletic (Krajewski and Wood 1995).Within the Sarus Crane subspecies, classification based on morphology distinguishes three separate subspecies, but recent phylogenetic analysis showed that there is little variation in the phylogeographic structure of the haplotypes and microsatellites of the three subspecies suggesting there has been no long-term geographic isolation of these populations (Wood andKrajewski 1996, Jones 2003).Preliminary calculations indicate that the common ancestors of all Sarus Crane haplotypes existed less than 420,000 years ago, and the Australian population has been isolated as recently as 37,500 years ago (Wood and Krajewski 1996).Molecular studies using microsatellites show that the Sarus in India have two high frequency private alleles indicating reduced gene flow between India and other populations (Jones 2003).Although birds of different populations show a divergence, analysis of individual genotypes showed a clinal nature to the variation with the Indian Sarus and the Eastern Sarus representing two ends of the cline (Jones 2003).

Literature review : chronology and developments
A total of 147 published works that were not early taxonomic treatises were researched.Of these, 21 contained information that was repeated in earlier works, or were published subsequently as papers.In addition, over 30 regional bird lists, unpublished manuscripts, and proceeding papers were consulted.Most publications were articles in larger national and international journals, smaller journals or newsletters (57%), and included eight theses, eight reports and 11 popular science articles in magazines (Figure 1).The earliest reviews of the Sarus appeared in monographs of cranes (Blyth 1881, Blaauw 1897), and ecological information in regional annotated checklists of birds (Jerdon 1864, Hume and Marshall 1879, Murray 1890, Baker 1928a,b).A surge of information occurred during 1870-80 due to the publication of the first ornithological journal in the Indian subcontinent in 1872-3, Stray Feathers, and most were anecdotal or descriptive information on the distribution and/or observations in the field of the habits of the Sarus as part of regional avifaunal lists (Hume 1872-3, Adam 1872-3, Ball 1874, Butler 1876, Oates 1877, Hume and Davidson 1878, Reid 1881).A major event that allowed people to write information pertaining specifically to the Sarus Crane, was the founding of the Bombay Natural History Society, and more importantly the publication of its journal.The first published works focusing entirely on the Sarus were notes on breeding biology in the Journal, Bombay Natural History Society (JBNHS; Barnes 1887, Bulkley 1893, OBrien 1909, Mosse 1910, Pershouse 1911, Hill 1930).The beginning of the journal Pavo also initiated authors, and the first paper in this journal on the Sarus concerned the feathering on the head of the Sarus (Menon et al. 1980).Another surge in numbers of publications followed in 1980-2000, on the heels of Goles (1989) authoritative survey report on the ecological requirements of the Sarus in India.The survey, and associated activities such as the founding of the Indian Working Group on Cranes (Anon 1989), and popular science writings served to accelerate interest in the conservation of the Sarus and its habits.This period coincides with the writing of the first world review of the status and conservation requirements of cranes (Archibald et al. 1981).In this review, the authors hope the 1980s will be a decade unparalleled in crane research and conservation (Archibald et al. 1981).At least for the Sarus, this hope appears to have been true.
Literature review: aspects studied and regional coverage Observations of behaviour, particularly breeding and behaviour pertaining to pair-bond, have been present beginning from the diary of the Emperor Jahangir in the 16-17 th century (see Ali 1927), and repeats in almost every work that has some details on the habits of the species.Hume and Marshals (1879) book also presented information on egg dimensions from eggs in the wild, which was novel considering that taxonomic literature previously only presented morphological measurements of bird specimens.Walkinshaw (1964) seems to be the first person to present a paper to an international audience devoted entirely to the Sarus biology, and followed this up with many new observations on breeding biology, food habits and behaviour of the Sarus in his classic book (Walkinshaw 1973).For over a decade, this book was the sole source of information on Sarus breeding and behaviour, until the publication of Goles (1989Goles ( , 1991) ) reports and papers on the requirements of the Sarus in India.Figure 2 shows the rate of publications of Sarus Crane biology (literature before 1950 includes general accounts of birds of a region due to an absence of specific literature on the Sarus, while those after-wards include publications pertaining almost entirely to the Sarus).Most papers post-1900 were published in the JBNHS (35%) and the Newsletter for Birdwatchers (15%).Parasharya et al. (1986) conducted the first field investigation using ecological methods and explored the extent of damage Sarus Cranes caused in paddy crops in Gujarat.Other papers, which detailed observations on aspects of Sarus biology from the Keoladeo National Park in Rajasthan, followed soon afterwards (Gole 1991, Ramachandran andVijayan 1994).The first thesis on the Sarus Crane was based on observations of a single captive bird (Desai 1980), and the first thesis on wild birds was regarding the breeding biology of a pair in the Aligarh Muslim University campus (Iqubal 1992).The first major thesis on Sarus Cranes included multiple aspects of the Sarus biology with intensive field observations in Gujarat (Mukherjee 1999).
Researchers in Gujarat have continued to work extensively, and much of the published information today comes from that state (Figure 3).It is expected that this state will continue to lead Sarus Crane research, though attention on the Sarus has increased considerably in Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh and Maharashtra.Work in Rajasthan comes primarily from Kota and Bharatpur, and there is considerable scope to increase our understanding of the birds in this state by expanding over a larger area and including additional aspects of biology.Some studies have been initiated in Nepal and Pakistan as well.Madhya Pradesh and Haryana are very important states for the Sarus, particularly as much of the landscape is deteriorating (see Sundar et al. 2000).However, research on the Sarus from these states is very minimal and need to be strengthened.
Status surveys dominate the literature on Sarus Cranes today (39%, Figure 4).Of the literature that contain one aspect of Sarus ecology explored in detail, studies on breeding biology dominate (45%).Much of the information on Sarus Crane breeding success is provided as rates of recruitment (% of young counted) using data from rapid surveys.The first paper on breeding success of Sarus Cranes was a compilation of many years of observation on nests and chicks with pairs along canals in Kota (Vyas 1999a), and field studies designed specifically to understand various aspects of breeding biology were first carried out in Gujarat (Mukherjee et al. 2000(Mukherjee et al. , 2001a,b),b), and more recently in Uttar Pradesh (Sundar and Choudhury 2003, Sundar in press).
The first reference to deterioration of wetland habi-tat and how this may affect the Sarus and other wetland birds in India occurred in the late nineteenth century (Reid 1881).His words, which describe the drought of 1877-8 in the Lucknow division in Uttar Pradesh, are worth quoting here: There are still, fortunately, many of these natural reservoirs where birds are plentiful in the (winter) season; but if the cultivation of the singhara nut (water chestnut) becomes as general as it is now in certain localities, a diminution in the number and variety of their aquatic tenants will assuredly follow (Reid 1881, pp. 499).Conservation-oriented crane studies began in earnest after the global review (Archibald et al. 1981), and more seriously on the Sarus Crane after the all-India survey by Gole (1989Gole ( , 1990)).This gained momentum with several state level surveys being carried out to determine conservation status (Vyas 1999b, Tatu 2001).
A much larger and more coordinated effort began with the Sarus Crane project of the Wildlife Institute of India, which began with an all-India survey (Sundar et al. 1999(Sundar et al. , 2000)), and ended with over two years of concerted fieldwork on various aspects of Sarus biology in Rajasthan and Uttar Pradesh.Preliminary field observations of this project have been communicated in popular science articles (Choudhury and Sundar 2001, Sundar 2001, 2002a,b, Kaur and Choudhury 2002), and the final report and other papers are presently near completion.Another key feature of the project was the first coordinated all-India Sarus Crane Count, which helped to bring interested people together on a common platform and paved the way for a long-term monitoring programme (Choudhury et al. 1999, Sundar et al. 2000b, Kaur et al. 2002).This also served to reactivate and reorganize the Working Group on Cranes, which has since been renamed Indian Cranes and Wetlands Working Group (ICWWG) to allow coverage of a broader range of issues over a longer time frame.Presently, the Sarus Crane is categorized as globally threatened, and future efforts are expected to be directed at understanding the requirements of the species to assist in practical, field conservation of habitat and crane populations.

Mythology and history
The earliest mention of the Sarus is in the Ramayana written in the third century BC.There were many interpretations of the species of birds that Valimiki wrote of as krouncha in the verse : > ma nishada prathishtaam twamagama shashwathi samaaha >

THE INDIAN SARUS CRANE GRUS A. ANTIGONE : A LITERATURE REVIEW
>> yeth krouncha mithuna dhekham ava dehi kama mohitam >> They were represented variously as flamingoes, swans, even doves.The identity was confirmed recently as being the Sarus Crane (Leslie 1998).The other well-known classical literature known to mention the Sarus is the diary of the Moghul emperor Jehangir, written in the late 16 th or early 17 th century.The Emperor also encouraged art related to wildlife and had his court painter painted a pair of Sarus Cranes (Ali 1927).While the reference in the Ramayana was more romantic and poetic in its being, Jehangirs writings were natural history and behavioural ecology.Subsequently, Buddhist scriptures talk about an incident of a Sarus Crane hunting observed by Gautam Buddha in Lumbini.The Sarus is thus firmly entrenched in Hindu mythology and Indian culture.Sarus have been accurately represented in a painting in the National Museum at Amsterdam in a de Hondecoeters (1636-95) work named Het drijvend vveertje (Blaauw 1897).Sarus have also been represented in a series of 121 bird paintings by Lady Elizabeth Gwillim (1763-1807) housed at McGill University, Canada (Subramanya 1994).We have not, however, been able to provide a comprehensive account of paintings of Sarus Cranes, and this should be a very interesting topic to cover, particularly the variation in form and representation of the birds depending on the background of the artist.
The earliest detailed writings on the behaviour and breeding of the Sarus Crane are the observations of the Emperor Jehangir dating from the early 17 th century (Ali 1927).Ali (1927) recounts in detail the Emperors fascination for the Sarus, particularly its apparent lifelong pair bond.Of particular detail are his descriptions on territoriality, pair bond and nidification.Territorial interactions between a semi-domesticated pair he maintained on his palace grounds, and a wild pair from the surrounding area speaks of an early understanding into the ways of the Sarus Cranes.His writings on how a Sarus was predated, and the subsequent death of its mate pining demonstrate that the now widespread belief of lifelong pair bond in the Sarus Cranes was prevalent from as early as the 17 th century.The Emperor was also perhaps the first person to identify individual cranes by placing gold rings on their noses and legs (see Ali 1927).

Folklore
The Sarus Crane likely owes its continued existence in the Indian landscape to the myths and legends that abound relating to the presumed long pair bond of the birds (Chaturvedi 1992, see also Hasan 1996).There are no comprehensive accounts of how Sarus Cranes are represented in the culture in various states.In Gujarat, it is apparently still a custom in many areas for newly married couples to be taken out to see a pair of Sarus Cranes, the sighting of which is thought to be auspicious to the wedding.This is the most common folklore associated with the Sarus in India throughout its distribution range in India.Most people believe that the pair bond between paired cranes is permanent, and the death of one will invariably cause the other to die of grief or starvation.It is also common for the farming community to regard nesting of the Sarus in their fields as a sign of good fortune in many areas.Farmers in Uttar Pradesh, particularly Etawah and Mainpuri, regard the Sarus as a watchdog for crops, and use crane alarm calls in the night to warn intruders that may damage crops (e.g.Nilgai, cattle or other humans), particularly during the harvest (K.S.G.Sundar, personal observation).Eggs of the Sarus are believed to have medicinal properties in few areas in Gujarat and thought to cure eye diseases and for cattle with stomach ailments (J.Kaur, personal communication).Folklore regarding the Sarus is certainly more extensive than illustrated here, and will prove to be an interesting subject for study considering the care some people are known to bestow on injured crane chicks (e.g.Rai and Bhadwar 1989).It is likely that many more stories are written on the Sarus and its association with man, but these are either in regional languages and not accessed by us, or not documented in any of the libraries/reference lists we have used (e.g.Didrickson, in preparation).
In Rajasthan people were never known to worship the cranes, although they have traditionally discouraged killing of a single bird of a pair (Adam 1872-3).Many folk songs in Rajasthan frequently mention Sarus Cranes (Kulshreshtha and Vyas 1989).On the other hand, recent accounts of hunting of the Sarus Crane are present from Rajasthan (Thapa and Parihar 1998).In Nepal, they are revered due to the predominance of Buddhism in the country, so much so that recent conservation efforts have weaved a strong religious message to conserve habitat for breeding Sarus Cranes (Shreshtha 1995, Suwal 1995, Beilfuss and Suwal 1999).
In Pakistan, Sarus Cranes are reportedly mentioned in poetry (D. Ferguson, in litt., 2003).However, there has also been a long tradition of crane hunting in many parts (primarily Common, G. grus and Demoiselle cranes, Anthropoides virgo; Roberts 1977), and hunting of Sarus Cranes in recent years has been reported (Ali 1993, A. Khan, in litt. 2003).
Maharashtra and Assam, which seem isolated (Choudhury et al. 1999, Sundar et al. 2000a, Kaur et al. 2002; see Figure 5).Most Sarus are concentrated in the western fringe of the Gangetic flood plains continuing westwards into Rajasthan and Gujarat (Figure 5).A study in 1988-89 presented information that suggested a decline in the distribution range (Gole 1989), and this information was adopted by reviews of the species since (Meine and Archibald 1996).However, countrywide studies conducted afterwards showed that the present distribution range of the Sarus Crane is reduced from its historic range, but not to the extent that was surmised (Choudhury et al. 1999, Sundar et al. 2000a,b, Kaur et al. 2002).Also, previous reviews thought that distribution of the Sarus varied with season, but recent surveys, both countrywide and local, indicate that though there is seasonal migration from dry areas, Sarus Cranes are mostly resident and distribution range remains nearly the same throughout the year (Mukherjee 1999, Sundar et al. 2000a,b).Much of the Sarus populations are found outside the protected area network of the country (Figure 6), with small populations in sanctuaries and national parks in the country (Table 1).
In recent years, Sarus have been seen regularly at Pong Dam, near Dharamsala at an altitude of 7,000 ft in the lower Himalayas and other areas in Himachal Pradesh (Hingston 1920, Singh 2003, J.W. den Besten, personal communication).The Sarus was known to be rare in the state, but recent observations indicate that the distribution and abundance are more than previously known (Singh 2003, J.W. den Besten, personal communication).It is likely that the spread of rice cultivation along even the smaller rivers in the state have provided sufficient habitat for the species to breed and increase in number.
Anecdotal information provides adequate evidence of the disappearance or reduction of crane numbers considerably from few areas.There are no records to indicate that they were ever common in the Punjab (see Blyth 1881).Singh (1993) mentions the Sarus in the checklist of birds of the state, but this is not substantiated by authenticated sightings recently.Another state that the Sarus seems to have disappeared as a common bird, and being seen largely as a straggler in recent years, is West Bengal.Sarus were apparently present in low numbers in Jalpaiguri, Barrackpore and Manbhum (Beavan 1868), in the open valleys of Sirguja (Ball 1874), and a rare winter visitor in Darbhanga (Inglis 1902).Recently, the only record has been a stray pair recorded in Koochbihar district (Sundar et al. 2000b).

Distribution and status
A detailed description of distribution can be found in BirdLife International (2001).Records indicated here are those that have not been presented before in earlier reviews of the subject, or for areas where changes in status have occurred sufficiently enough to warrant mention.
Outside India, Nepal is the only other country with >100 individuals of Sarus Cranes, and where studies have been conducted on this subspecies.They are present in small numbers, very localized, restricted to five locations, and largely concentrated in the districts of Rupandehi and Kapilvastu with a total population of <150 individuals (Suwal andShreshtha 1992a,b, Shreshtha 1996).In Nepal, habitat deterioration is believed to be the major cause for the decline of the birds.The only exception seems to be the Lumbini Crane Sanctuary where habitat restoration and maintenance is proving to be beneficial for increased breeding success of Sarus Cranes (Beilfuss and Suwal 1999, R.N. Suwal, personal communication; see also Suwal 1999 a,b for a detailed treatment of records and information in Nepal).
The Sarus was thought to be extinct in Pakistan until recently.Few pairs have been repeatedly sighted close to the Indian border in Nagarparker, at the western fringe of the Thar Desert (Ali 1993, Ahmad 1995a) and of 7-14 birds from the Rann of Kutch region (Khurshid and Munaf 1994).Breeding records in recent years are from the same area (Ahmad 1995b).However, hunting and habitat deterioration are thought to be severe (Ali 1993, Khurshid andMunaf 1994), and the Sarus is thought to be a casual visitor in the Sindh along the Indo-Pakistan border (A. Khan in litt., 2003).Sarus Cranes are probably extinct in Bangladesh and we could not find any recent records except for a pair seen in Thakurgaon, and one shot in north-east Bangladesh (Thompson et al. 1993).Thompson et al. (1993) describes the status of the species in Bangladesh as former resident?.Very few records of this subspecies are found from Myanmar (e.g.Hopwood 1912).
In India, the present extent of distribution is from Jammu in the north, through Nepal, to Chandrapur in Maharashtra in the south, and from Gujarat in the west to Assam in the east (Choudhury 1998, Choudhury 1990, Choudhury 2002, Choudhury et al. 1999, Sundar 1999, Sundar et al. 2000a,b, Kaur et al. 2002).Information from crane counts indicate that the distribution is contiguous for most of the distribution range, the only exceptions being the cranes in

THE INDIAN SARUS CRANE GRUS A. ANTIGONE : A LITERATURE REVIEW
In Maharashtra, the few records of the Sarus from the Bombay area are Symons (1909) records.He saw one pair in 1897 at Salsette, one more bird in 1910 in the same area, and one bird in Bandra.The Sarus was apparently breeding in the region in the past; egg collection records from the collection of the British Museum of Natural History list eggs from Dwaraka, Bombay collected in September 1878 (in Walkinshaw 1973, pp. 211).In recent years, records in Maharashtra are from the eastern district of Chadrapur, where habitat deterioration and loss of protection from farmers are thought to have reduced populations to a few pairs today (R. Job, personal communication).Recently, however, conservation efforts in this region have concentrated on nest protection and resulted in successful breeding after many decades, and a detailed Sarus survey is presently underway (R. Job, personal communication).
The Sarus seems to have reduced more quickly from northern Uttar Pradesh, particularly from the districts of Lakhimpur-Kheri and Pilibhit.Gole (1989) estimated over 1,500 birds in both these districts, but information during recent surveys indicate that numbers presently are well below this estimate (Sundar et al. 2000b).Another state with a reduction of Sarus numbers is Haryana due to repeated years of drought and intensified agriculture practices, but lack of detailed information across years prevents an empirical comparison.At least from Sultanpur National Park in Jhajjar, numbers seem to have reduced from tens of birds in the early nineties to a pair in 1998 (Sundar et al. 2000).
In northeast India, the Sarus Crane is a rare and occasional visitor to Assam (Baker 1899, Choudhury 1998, 2002).Though recorded by Ali and Ripley (1980) to be resident, hunting and habitat deterioration are thought to have decimated breeding populations in recent years (Bhattacharjee andSaikia 1990, Choudhury 1990).Manipur was thought to hold populations previously, but recent surveys/counts indicate uncertain reports (Sundar et al. 2000b), or have been unable to locate the species (Choudhury 1990(Choudhury , 2002)).This portion of the distribution range of the Sarus is of great interest since the ranges of the Indian and the eastern subspecies converge, even overlap, here (J.Barzen personal communication).Detailed surveys and genetic studies of birds found in these areas are required to understand the extent of overlap and if there is crossbreeding of the subspecies.

Population and relative abundance
The only population estimates have been that of Gole (1989) who applied the line-transect method for road counts during a survey that covered nearly the entire distribution range of the species.He estimated a total of 12,000-15,000 Sarus Cranes in India.An index of crane numbers (encounter rates) has been calculated for various districts in another countrywide survey (Sundar et al. 2000a), but a comparison of these two studies is not possible due to differing field and analytical methods.Additional information is available from Gujarat; encounter rates of 0.68 Sarus/ km and 0.28 -0.37 Sarus/ km were recorded in Kheda and Thasra tehsils (Parasharya et al. 1989), and density of breeding pairs varied seasonally between 0.11-0.25 pairs/km 2 (Mukherjee 1999).In Nepal, Suwal (1999a,b) reported an encounter rate of 0.9 cranes/km and a density of 0.6 Sarus/km 2 , and estimated a population of 292 cranes for Rupandehi district.
Based on information of declines in wetland areas in the country and anecdotal information on Sarus mortality, the present population estimate of this subspecies is thought to be 8,000-10,000 birds (Meine and Archibald 1996).Empirical evidence of the decline of the Sarus is available from the Keoladeo National Park in Bharatpur, Rajasthan (258 in 1983 to 43 in 2003; Kumar, K., personal communication), and from Madhav National Park, Madhya Pradesh (50 birds in 1987 to none in 1990 ;Saxena 1990).There is, however, no information on changes, if any, outside protected areas where most of the Sarus population is found.Based on a large number of anecdotal reports with qualitative references to population levels, one estimate suspects that the decline of the Sarus has been serious and drastic, and that present numbers are perhaps at best 10% and very probably 5% or even 2.5% of its numbers in 1850 (BirdLife International 2001).We strongly feel that there are no reliable population estimates for the Sarus Cranes in India after the initial attempt by Gole (1991), and this lacuna need to be urgently looked into.
Regular counts using pre-determined roads as transects can be an appropriate method to monitor Sarus Crane numbers along road sides, particularly if the population is resident and breeding pairs are perennially territorial.Roads have been so far used to study Sarus Cranes with limited results, and there is a need to standardize a method to estimate and monitor populations.Sundar (2003) describes in detail three years of counts in the Etawah-Mainpuri region, and shows how repeated counts in pre-determined areas can help to collect and maintain information on various aspects of Sarus ecology by carrying out regular road transects, in addition to determining variations in crane numbers.Regional counts managed by local organizations that can maintain information, is an efficient manner using this count as a model.

Demography: rate of recruitment
Demographic parameters available for Sarus Cranes are principally derived from surveys (Table 2).The proportion of young in the population is an important parameter that indicates the rate of recruitment and the extent of breeding success in a particular year.Surveys use total counts of juveniles with young seen and did not distinguish adults in flocks based on lighter colour of the head.One study (Mukherjee et al. 2002) used the number of young birds in flocks in the dry seasons.Comparison between these two methods in the same area (Kheda, Gujarat) in 1998 showed a difference in the values obtained (survey: 8%; congregation count: 11.04%).This suggests the need for standardizing the method for calculation of this important parameter and that data presently available may be used only as a rough indication of recruitment.Overall, average values show a healthy rate of recruitment of 14.6%, which is comparable with values available for the Sandhill Cranes, G. canadansis and is higher in comparison to some other species (Allan 1996).Values for other species of cranes have been derived by counting young during fall migration or at wintering grounds (see Allan 1996 for a critique of methods and caveats of data obtained in migration grounds or flocks).This method may not be useful in resident species as some families may not join flocks, and juveniles may depart from territories at different ages.There are few studies of productivity based on monitoring of individual pairs and their young.Such studies can be instituted with ease for the resident Sarus Cranes and the data obtained will be far more useful and reliable than surveys and counts at flocks.

Demography: Proportion of successful pairs and incidence of pairs with two chicks
Proportion of pairs successful in raising young was as high as 48% in Kheda in 1998 and as low as 12% in the Etawah-Mainpuri region (Table 2).Numbers of pairs monitored and field techniques used varied, and this could bias these data making them difficult to compare directly.The range of values, however, falls within the known range for other species of cranes in the world, which have information from the postbreeding season (Allan 1996).Proportion of successful pairs with two young varied widely between areas and years.Time of survey is an important consideration, and conducting surveys/counts at a time when most juveniles have not yet departed from territories will provide the most accurate estimates.Counting immediately after fledging will provide the most accurate measures since dispersal of young in resident cranes are usually related to the female laying the subsequent clutch (Nesbitt et al. 2002), and crane young are visible in the landscape.In India, January/ February is the best time to conduct counts to ascertain these parameters.Studies to calculate errors inherent in counts/surveys conducted at different times of the year due to departure of juveniles from the territory are required.Some workers use pairs observed in flocks to calculate the proportion of breeding birds in the population.Recent long-term studies on common cranes have shown that sibling bonds between juveniles of the same brood can last for up to three years of age (Nowald et al. 1996).During calculations of demographic parameters from count data, pairs in flocks should not, therefore, be considered as breeding pairs.

Habitat use
Habitat use information is available for the Sarus Crane principally from Rajasthan and Gujarat (Table 3).Most of these studies were conducted at a comparable time period, but data are presented as use by total number of birds counted, and very few studies have information for habitat use by groups (pairs/families/ flocks).Analyzing data differently can have very differing results (Table 3).For example, counting a pair, a family with one chick, and one flock with 65 birds give a total of 70 individual birds, but only three groups.Flocks are characteristically rare compared to pairs or families of Sarus Cranes, but number of birds in flocks account for most of the population.Using number of groups, it would appear that wetlands are underutilized.This occurs since the few flocks use principally wetlands.The data, therefore, shows very high use of wetland habitats if numbers of individuals are considered.To avoid problems inherent in such analyses, it is important to represent information separately for individual birds and groups (e.g.Gole 1989, Mukherjee 1999, Sundar 2003).
In areas with large wetland tracts, Sarus used more wetlands (e.g.Vyas 1999a, Latt 2002), and in areas where agriculture dominated, they used more crop fields (see Table 3 for references).Information on seasonal changes in habitat use is available from only one area in Gujarat and shows that habitat use varied with season (Mukherjee 1999).There have been no preference studies to date and are required to determine if habitat changes in the landscape has changed

THE INDIAN SARUS CRANE GRUS A. ANTIGONE : A LITERATURE REVIEW
the habits of the Sarus, which was previously thought to be a wetland specialist.

Breeding biology: nesting and nidification
Sarus Cranes breeding biology does not vary across their entire distribution range with regard to nesting habitat and behaviour (Ali 1958, Ali and Ripley 1980, Breeden and Breeden 1982, Gole 1987, Iqubal 1992, Ramachandran and Vijayan 1994, Suwal 1993, 1999, Mukherjee et al. 2000, 2002, Sundar and Choudhury 2003, Sundar in press).Pre-nesting mating behaviour has been described by Mukherjee (2002).For nesting, Sarus Cranes use the material immediately around the nest site piling vegetation into a roughly round heap of vegetation surrounded by a narrow moat (Lowther 1944, Breeden and Breeden 1982, Gole 1987, Ramachandran and Vijayan 1994, Mukherjee 1999).In a mosaic landscape, the Sarus prefer natural wetlands as nesting habitats, though they are known to use flooded paddy fields extensively for nesting (Parasharya 1998, Suwal 1993, 1999a, Mukherjee et al. 2000, Borad et al. 2001a).In areas with human habitation, Sarus built nests at an average of 410 m away from houses (Rupandehi district in Nepal; Suwal 1999a), but were as close as 37 m in India (Etawah-Mainpuri districts; Sundar, K.S.G. and Choudhury, B.C., in preparation).These differences likely reflect varying disturbance levels experienced by nesting pairs.Sarus Cranes are known to keep their nests clean of fecal matter during incubation, and of eggshells posthatching (Sundar and Choudhury 2003).In recent years, reduction in wetland habitats for Sarus Cranes is believed to force them to nest in paddy fields, thus destroying considerable amount of the standing crop (Borad et al. 2001a).This is believed to be a major factor in reducing public sympathy for the Sarus in agriculture-dominated landscapes, and is believed to reduce breeding success due to increased egg and chick mortality caused by farmers in whose fields the Sarus nest in (Parasharya et al. 1996, Mukherjee et al. 2002).There is a growing amount of literature on breeding biology in general, but few that relate landscape quality to breeding density and success.This is important considering that changes in land use in India is occurring at a landscape level and specific information can assist in planning landscapes for Sarus conservation.
The breeding cycle of the Sarus Crane is known to be bimodal in some areas in Rajasthan with a principal nesting season during the monsoon when most pairs nest and a minor season after the winter with few cranes nesting (Kulshreshtha andVyas 1989, Ramachandran andVijayan 1994).Considering all anecdotal accounts, bimodal nesting was widely prevalent before the 1930s, with records of nesting during the minor season from Madhya Pradesh (Saugor District, King 1911;Paraswara;DAbreau 1935), and Gujarat (in January in Mahikantha;OBrien (1909) as well.Nesting was recorded practically throughout the year (Table 4).Previous authors have suggested that the nests in the smaller post-winter season are by pairs with egg/chick loss during the regular breeding season.The reasons for this behaviour to persist in Rajasthan are being investigated (J.Kaur, personal communication).Studies post-1930s have been more intensive and indicate that in recent years the nesting season of the Sarus ends in early or mid-October and the minor season is restricted to February-April (Table 4).Changes in rainfall patterns, associated changes in available habitat, and deterioration of nesting habitats have likely caused this reduction in the nesting period.
We found very little information on the incubation period of the Sarus Crane in the wild (Table 5).Using available information, the average incubation period in wild and captive birds is 33 and 34 days respectively (Table 5).These data are from one or two nests, and there are no studies that provide descriptions of incubation period from an area on multiple nests and years.
Renesting by Sarus pairs with unsuccessful first clutches has been recorded from captive birds for a very long time (Conway 1965), and is now known to be a common phenomenon (Ellis et al. 1996).In the wild, Mukherjee (1999) provided the first evidence of renesting in the Sarus.There are no studies, however, to document if renesting is advantageous, and whether renests vary from first nests in terms of egg size, survival, location of nest etc.Though captive propagation is relied upon to reinstate wild populations in endangered cranes, studies in captivity have shown that fertility is often low, and the process is very expensive and labour intensive (Conway 1965, Ellis et al. 1996, M. Putnam, ICF-Curator of Birds, personal communication).In India, we require field studies to provide the usefulness of second clutches in the wild to ensure that collecting eggs will not affect crane populations negatively.Also, it may be impractical to rely on captive propagation to refurbish deteriorating wild populations.

Breeding biology : clutch size and breeding success
Very few studies on breeding biology have been carried out, and principally in Rajasthan and Gujarat telemetry studies are required to understand these movement patterns.
In most places, Sarus Cranes seem to have a breeding population consisting of territorial pairs and a non-breeding population in dynamic flocks.During surveys, Sarus are characteristically seen as pairs or families, and few flocks (Gole 1991a,b, Vyas 1999a,b, Sundar et al. 2000).Flocks are known from almost the entire distribution range (Table 6).The biggest flocks occur during dry years or months in Rajasthan and Gujarat (Breeden and Breeden 1982, Banerjee and Gopakumar 1986, Mukherjee et al. 1999), while some areas in Uttar Pradesh are known to have more regular flocks (Sundar 2003) suggesting stable water conditions.The biggest known flocks are from the Etawah-Mainpuri region (see Table 6).
The pair bond in Sarus Cranes is thought to be permanent, though observations of divorce are available (Sundar in press).DNA studies to provide information on paternity and estimates of breakages of pair bond are absent for the Sarus Crane.Information from areas with differing densities of Sarus Cranes and with differing land use practices would be of conservation interest to see if these changes in habitat have an effect on the behaviour of pairs.

Territoriality
Studies in Keoladeo Park, Rajasthan (Gole 1991a,b, Ramachandran andVijayan 1994) and in Nepal (Suwal 1999a) have provided information on territoriality by observing unmarked birds, and their estimates of territory size vary from 0.68-1 km 2 within Keoladeo Park to 1.5-27 km 2 in areas outside protected areas in Nepal and India (Suwal 1999a, Gole 1989).This needs to be verified and obtained for different areas using marked birds in areas with different land use practices.This has been started by the WII (Kaur andChoudhury 2002, Sundar 2002c) and data are presently being analyzed.

Mortality
Studies on mortality have proved that Sarus mortality around Keoladeo Park is due to application of pesticides (Muralidharan 1993), and reports of mortality episodes continue (Rana and Prakash in press).Other known reasons of adult Sarus mortality include collision/electrocution with power lines (Gole 1991, Sundar andChoudhury 2001).Feral dogs are suspected to kill adult Sarus Crane occasionally (Borad and Mukherjee 1999).Though there is anecdotal information on number of deaths, there is little information on effects of these mortality factors at the population (Table 5).Clutch size and breeding success seems to be relatively similar across areas and years.Analytical methods to represent information need to be standardized since studies provide success as different measures that are not comparable (Table 5).There was no difference in nest success of nests in different habitats (Mukherjee et al. 2002).Continuing work has made it possible to document breeding success of Sarus Cranes since 1992 in Bharatpurs Keoladeo National Park (Ramachandra and Vijayan 1994, S. Sharma personal communication, G. Rana and V. Prakash personal communication, Kaur, J. and Choudhury, B.C., in preparation), and it is of vital importance to continue this effort.In all the areas, breeding success was limited by human disturbance (50% in Nepal; Suwal 1999a), though natural causes such as flooding and predation by crows were also documented.Predation is largely on eggs by crows (Ramachandran and Vijayan 1994) and possibly by jackals (Mukherjee et al. 2002).
Very little published information is available on chick mortality.An instance of a young chick taken by marsh harriers is known (Kaur, J. personal communication).A possible case of cronism is reported, but the author was uncertain if it was an adult scavenging on a dead chick (Xavier 1995).Chick mortality was the most during the pre-fledged stage (Vyas 1999).No information is available of rates of post-fledging and post-dispersal mortality of young birds.Rates and factors affecting mortality of birds after dispersal are important aspects and an understanding of these is required to institute safeguards during the breeding season.

Movement and social structure
In dry areas, Sarus have regular daily movements to and from wetland roost sites (Walkinshaw 1973, Ramachandran andVijayan 1994).Seasonally, however, cranes seem to flock away from nesting territories in reservoirs etc., particularly in drier months (Mukherjee et al. 1999).Suwal (1999a) documented daily movement of different pairs and found that pairs within protected, perennial wetlands moved much less compared to pairs outside such areas.Cranes also tended to have more restricted movements during the breeding season.In areas without perennial water supply, cranes are thought to migrate locally, though there is no evidence and/or indication of the distance travelled by cranes in these situations.In West Bengal and Himachal Pradesh, for example, Sarus are seen only seasonally, and there is no information on the source of these populations.Satellite THE INDIAN SARUS CRANE GRUS A. ANTIGONE : A LITERATURE REVIEW level.Future studies need to design fieldwork to obtain this information.

Crop damage
In Gujarat, estimates of damage to paddy crops by Sarus Cranes show that cranes can be responsible for losses of 0.2-13.6% of the produce in fields due to trampling and eating ripened grain, and up to 26% of grain can be eaten by cranes (Parasharya et al. 1986, Borad et al. 2001b).These studies, however, have not corrected for losses due to other sources including other granivorous birds, ungulates etc., and values provided are likely higher estimates.Sarus Cranes are also known to eat groundnut, potatoes, a variety of gram, and corn.Studies to assess damage to these crops and provide methods to reduce such damage are required.

Diet
There have been no detailed studies on the diet of the Sarus using standard methods such as stomach contents or fecal analyses.There is one small study that details characteristics of grit ingested by the Sarus based on gizzard contents of three birds killed due to pesticides (Sundar and Choudhury in press).Field observations suggest that the Sarus is omnivorous feeding on wetlands related foods like tubers, rhizomes, amphibians, reptiles, and insects (Hume and Marshall 1879, Walkinshaw 1973, Ghorpade 1975, Johnsgard 1983, BirdLife International 2001), and upland foods including paddy (Parasharya et al. 1986, Borad et al. 2001b), potatoes, peas, a variety of gram, and insects (Mukherjee 1999, K.S.G. Sundar, personal observation).Sarus Cranes occasionally take eggs of birds including water birds such as the Red-wattled Lapwing, Vanellus indicus (Mukherjee 1999), Spotbilled Duck, Anas poecilorhyncha (Sundar 2000) and Indian Skimmer, Rhynchops albicollis (Roland 2002), as also from nests of terrestrial species like the Spotted Doves, Streptopelia chinensis from nests on low branches (P.Gole, personal communication).Though Sarus Cranes take fish in captivity (Law 1930), it is unlikely that they eat fish in the wild.These observations suggest that the Sarus are opportunistic feeders.Studies on the feeding biology of the Sarus are lacking and are required.

Field techniques
There have been few studies to validate field techniques to count and study Sarus Cranes.Desai (1989) argued that it is possible to distinguish Sarus genders in the field by observations on parameters related to the red patch, but others have expressed difficulties to identify genders based on these characteristics (Gole 1987, Sundar et al. 2000).Sundar et al. (1999) provide a critique of techniques relating to morphometry, size and behaviour thought to assist in differentiating gender in Sarus Cranes in the field, and conclude that owing to uncertain results it is safer not to rely on these methods.Mukherjee et al. (1999), however, have calculated sex ratios of Sarus Cranes in Kheda, Gujarat, but do not indicate methods used to identify the genders.While sex ratio is an important parameter to assess the health of populations, there is no reliable information on this aspect on Sarus Cranes presently.Mukherjee et al. (2001a,b) assessed techniques to count Sarus populations using road transects.These studies, however, have applied single methods and do not provide correction estimates within a method, or variation between different methods.Such studies to validate methods and provide estimates of variation and biases are essential.

Public opinion
Though characteristically believed to be protected by a largely vegetarian Hindu population (Archibald et al. 1981, Gole 1990, 1991a,b, 1996a,b, Baskaran 1999), public opinion appears to have changed, particularly in areas with high crane densities and intensive crop production due to crop damage (Vyas 1999b, Sundar et al. 2000).More alarming is the disappearance of the species from the mind of the rural community in areas that have experienced declines in Sarus Crane populations (e.g. in Madhya Pradesh and Haryana; Sundar et al. 2000).This would make wetland restoration activities using the Sarus as a flagship species less feasible in these areas since people no longer relate to the species.

Socio-economic concerns related to Sarus Crane conservation
Analyzing information on a broad scale Gole (1991a) concluded that Sarus Cranes are more abundant in areas that were categorized as backward districts.Furthermore, more cranes were found in states with lower levels of urbanizations, smaller human densities, lower intensity of agriculture, smaller application of fertilizers and lesser use of machinery in farming techniques (Gole 1991a).The biggest lacuna in Sarus-related studies is the lack of a socio-economic approach to habitat conservation in recent years.Improving understanding of the various benefits of wetlands to village panchayats that hold responsibility to the protection of these habitats are required.
Another serious issue that needs to be better understood, and tackled, is application of pesticides, the large-scale application of which is responsible for crane mortality in some areas (Muralidharan 1993, Rana and Prakash in press).Studies to reduce crop damage, which is a serious issue (Parasharya et al. 1986, Borad 1998, Borad et al. 2001b), need to be encouraged and implemented.

Discussion
Surveys and other descriptive studies are undoubtedly important in setting a precedent for more advanced studies that base their design on the basic information available from preliminary studies.Understanding these birds, however, should not stagnate.Scientific rigour, repeatable and tested methods to suit field conditions in the country, and studies to understand aspects of ecology that would facilitate better applied conservation practices are required for the Sarus Crane.
Few studies on the Sarus Crane, to the best of our knowledge, have resulted in field conservation.None have resulted in changes in policy for conserving habitat of the cranes, though of late, popular science writings focusing attention on specific problems of wetland draining and deterioration have helped focus attention on wetland deterioration (Sundar 2001, Sethi 2001, Vardhan 2001, Kumar 2002).Most have served admirably to increase our knowledge and spread the message of the cranes predicament in the highly populated Indian countryside.This needs to be moved to a higher level alongside improved field studies.There have been some discussions on affording the Sarus Crane better protection by moving it up in the Indian Wildlife Act from Schedule IV to Schedule I. We argue that this has little meaning for Sarus Crane conservation, as most cranes and pairs continue to live outside the realm of the Protected Area network.It is humanly impossible to monitor and protect every Sarus nest, most of which are on private lands, using a legal system of protection.Instead, we should move for policy changes to better protect wetlands and associated Sarus habitats, which are presently categorized as wastelands by the Indian Government, and work with farming communities to help reduce losses to crops by cranes due to trampling or building nests in paddy fields (see Gole 1991a,b, Mukherjee et al. 2001a, Sundar 2002a for discussions).To prevent increase in the illegal pet trade, which is prevalent in many areas in India presently (e.g.Mukerjee 2002), we concur with Meine and Archibald (1996) that it is necessary to upgrade the protection level for the Sarus Crane to Appendix I of the CITES agreement from its present listing in Appendix II.
Other proposals include reintroduction of Sarus Cranes to areas that historically included the species using captive propagation and release methods.Again, we argue that this would do little to enhance cranes populations in these areas since the original problems namely habitat deterioration, hunting and egg removal would still be in place.The money and effort would be better spent in educating private landowners who own most wetlands and by helping restore deteriorating wetlands.Cranes would, in all likelihood, spread naturally to restored areas, and this approach has obvious long-term merits.Bhandara Nature Club, Maharashtra is presently applying the latter method with positive effects on Sarus populations and local wetland quality (R. Job, personal communication).An initial effort at education and awarding farmers who protected Sarus nests has also been carried out successfully in Kota district of Rajasthan (Kaur and Choudhury 2003).
The history of Sarus Crane research in India is long and illustrious.With better application of standard techniques, better orientation of biologists and scientists to work on aspects that require immediate and specific attention, and positive criticism between various crane biologists in the country and outside, useful information to provide practical conservation priorities and methods can be obtained for the Sarus and its habitat.This will ensure that the Sarus Crane remains an integral part of the Indian landscape.

Figure 6 :
Proportion of Indian Sarus Cranes counted in Protected Areas during the coordinated Sarus Crane Count of WII.Numbers on the bars indicate actual counts.
THE INDIAN SARUS CRANE GRUS A. ANTIGONE : A LITERATURE REVIEWspective of the method used (calls : Archibalds 1976; DNA :

Table 1 :
List of Protected Areas visited during the coordinated Sarus Crane Counts and Sarus Crane abundances recorded.(-: Not visited this particular year.)

Table 2 :
Comparative account of selected demographic characteristics of Indian Sarus Cranes as calculated from all-India and regional surveys.*Values were recalculated from the original source and may vary due to different methods used here.: Not calculable from original reference or data unavailable; 1: Mean (SD) values only for state and district level. *

Table 4 :
Breeding period and incubation time of the Indian Sarus Crane.(BMNH: British Museum of Natural History, CNMH: Chicago Natural History Museum, ICF: International Crane Foundation, 1: From Walkinshaw 1973)