Given their richness of endemic species and unprecedented rates of habitat destruction, the tropics remain an obvious focus for conservation biologists (Myers et al. 2000). Among the world's tropical regions, Southeast Asia (i.e. Brunei, Cambodia, East Timor, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Myanmar, the Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, and Vietnam) is of particular conservation concern, because it has the highest rate of habitat loss (Sodhi et al. 2004, Sodhi and Brook 2006). Here, we highlight the dire future faced by Southeast Asian birds and urge ornithologists to focus more research and conservation attention on the avifauna of this region.
Southeast Asia contains not only the highest mean proportion of endemic (national level) bird species but also the highest mean proportion of threatened bird species of all tropical regions (Fig. 1A). However, the avifauna of Southeast Asia remains one of the least studied in the tropics (Fig. 1B). Deforestation is likely to be the major cause of avian losses in Southeast Asia (Brooks et al. 1997, Brook et al. 2003), a region that has suffered the second-highest magnitude of habitat loss in the tropics (Fig. 2A). On the basis of the current rate of deforestation reported by the World Resources Institute (see Acknowledgments), we predict that only 10% of natural forests (i.e. composed primarily of native trees; sensu FAO 2001) in Southeast Asia will remain by 2100. Furthermore, most of these remaining forests will be found only in protected areas (Fig. 2B). Actually, our prediction is likely an optimistic one, because deforestation and forest degradation in Southeast Asia is accelerating at the highest rate among tropical regions (Matthews 2001). It is likely that other native habitats, such as freshwater lakes, have also suffered higher losses in Southeast Asia than in other tropical regions (Adeel and Pomeroy 2002).
On the basis of a species-area model calibrated for the avifauna of Southeast Asia (Brook et al. 2003) and information on current known species richness and original and projected forest areas for each country in Southeast Asia, we predict that by 2100 Southeast Asia could lose up to 2,761 of its national bird populations (Fig. 3). Indonesia, the country with the highest number of resident and endemic bird species in Southeast Asia (929 and 408 species, respectively; Sodhi et al. 2004), will likely suffer the highest losses in bird populations because of deforestation. Our predictions of bird losses are optimistic, because we do not consider the likely cumulative effects of other drivers of biodiversity loss, such as fire, over-harvesting, invasive species, and climate change (Kinnaird and O'Brien 1998, Sodhi and Er 2000, Yap and Sodhi 2004, Sodhi and Brook 2006).
From an academic perspective, more research is certainly needed on Southeast Asian birds, particularly on the biology of individual species. Because it is often difficult for foreign scientists to obtain research permits in Southeast Asia (Liow and Sodhi 2000), local ornithologists should actively facilitate the acquisition of such permits for collaborative research projects, which would ultimately increase the knowledge of the biology of the native birds and advance the research agendas of all parties. International academic ornithological societies, such as the American Ornithologists' Union, can also facilitate such research collaborations by integrating more local scientists into their operations.
From a conservation angle, however, changing the predicament of Southeast Asian birds will be extremely difficult, though not impossible, with potential solutions that integrate scientific, social, commercial, and political processes. Social issues, such as poverty alleviation, must be an integral part of conservation policies and goals to achieve tangible and long-lasting results (du Toit et al. 2004). Protected areas, for example, are unlikely to remain protected when neighboring villagers are poverty-stricken and rely solely on forest resources for subsistence (e.g. bush meat). In addition to educating the local populations, bureaucrats, and politicians about the plight of Southeast Asian birds, ornithologists need to work with various stakeholders (e.g. village chiefs) to find mutually acceptable means of enforcing the protection of remaining forests and expanding the existing protected-area network where possible. Funding available for terrestrial conservation in Asia is <5% of what is required (Balmford et al. 2003). Thus, there is an urgent need to raise and channel funds for conservation in Southeast Asia.
The conservation hurdles in Southeast Asia are not insurmountable, as exemplified by initiatives taken by several nongovernmental organizations (e.g. BirdLife International, Conservation International, The Nature Conservancy, Wildlife Conservation Society; see Acknowledgments), and some local ornithologists. In Thailand, Poonswad et al. (2005) attempted to integrate 28 known hornbill poachers into hornbill monitoring programs using mostly locally generated funds (68%; hornbill family adoption for US$120 each). Over three years, their efforts increased the number of nests with fledglings by 39%. It is our hope that such conservation successes become a norm in Southeast Asia.
The nongovernmental organizations cited here can be found at the following websites: BirdLife International ( www.birdlife.net), Conservation International ( www.conservation.org), The Nature Conservancy ( www.nature.org), Wildlife Conservation Society ( www.wcs.org), and the World Resources Institute ( www.wri.org).
- Z. Adeel and R. Pomeroy . 2002. Assessment and management of mangrove ecosystems in developing countries. Trees 16:235–238. Google Scholar
- A. Balmford, K. J. Gaston, S. Blyth, A. James, and V. Kapos . 2003. Global variation in terrestrial conservation costs, conservation benefits, and unmet conservation needs. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 100:1046–1050. Google Scholar
- B. W. Brook, N. S. Sodhi, and P. K L. Ng . 2003. Catastrophic extinctions follow deforestation in Singapore. Nature 424:420–423. Google Scholar
- T. M. Brooks, S. L. Pimm, and N. J. Collar . 1997. Deforestation predicts the number of threatened birds in insular Southeast Asia. Conservation Biology 11:382–394. Google Scholar
- J. T. du Toit, B. H. Walker, and B. M. Campbell . 2004. Conserving tropical nature: Current challenges for ecologists. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 19:12–17. Google Scholar
- FAO 2001. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations Global Forest Resources Assessment 2000 Main Report. FAO Forestry Paper, no. 140. FAO, Rome. Google Scholar
- M. F. Kinnaird and T. G. O'Brien . 1998. Ecological effects of wildfire on lowland rainforest in Sumatra. Conservation Biology 12:954–956. Google Scholar
- L. H. Liow and N. S. Sodhi . 2000. New biodiversity laws will retard ecological progress in developing tropical countries. Society for Conservation Biology Newsletter 7:20. Google Scholar
- E. Matthews 2001. Understanding the FRA 2000. World Resources Institute, Forest Briefing, no. 1. Washington, D.C. Google Scholar
- N. Myers, R. A. Mittermeier, C. G. Mittermeier, G. A B. Da Fonseca, and J. Kent . 2000. Biodiversity hotspots for conservation priorities. Nature 403:853–858. Google Scholar
- P. Poonswad, C. Sukkasem, S. Phataramata, S. Hayeemuida, K. Plongmai, P. Chuailua, P. Thiensongrusame, and N. Jirawatkavi . 2005. Comparison of cavity modification and community involvement as strategies for hornbill conservation in Thailand. Biological Conservation 122:385–393. Google Scholar
- N. S. Sodhi and B. W. Brook . 2006. Southeast Asian Biodiversity in Crisis. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom. Google Scholar
- N. S. Sodhi and K. B H. Er . 2000. Conservation meets consumption. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 15:431. Google Scholar
- N. S. Sodhi, L. P. Koh, B. W. Brook, and P. K L. Ng . 2004. Southeast Asian biodiversity: An impending disaster. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 19:654–660. Google Scholar
- C. A M. Yap and N. S. Sodhi . 2004. Southeast Asian invasive birds: Ecology, impact and management. Ornithological Science 3:57–67. Google Scholar