Habitat evaluation for sarus crane in the Keoladeo National Park using IRS LISS III and pan merged data and GIS

  • Sarvesh Palria
  • Akanksha Singh
  • J. R. Sharma
  • Suparn Pathak


The Keoladeo National Park, Bharatpur, a man-made fresh water wetland carved out of a natural depression on the floodplain of two minor tributaries of the Yamuna-Gambhir and the Banganga is the country’s finest waterfowl habitat. This important wetland was set aside as a bird sanctuary in 1956 and it was elevated to the status of a National Park in 1981. It was also designated a Ramsar site- a wetland of international importance under the Ramsar convention. This important wetland has distinction of being the only Indian wetland to be included under both the Ramsar and the World Heritage convention.

The attempt has been made to evaluate the habitat of Sarus crane in the Keoladeo National Park using satellite data — IRS LISS III and PAN merged product and GIS. Geocoded data of IRS —1C LISS III of 21 March 1999 on 1: 50,000 scale and PAN data of March 17, 1999 were used to generate the vegetation cover type map and open water. The maps showing drainage, human habitations, contours, roads, etc. were prepared using the Survey of India topographical sheets and contour map of park area. Information regarding habitat parameters was collected from the existing literature and field observations. The Sarus crane mainly fed in the wetland on the rhizome ofNymphaea sp.,Scirpus tuberosus andEleocharis plantaginea. As there were changes in their habitat requirements at different seasons, the sighting of Sarus crane in each habitat were recorded along with the time and activity during observation. The most utilized habitat for the entire period of study was moderately wet grassland followed by pools. The pools were used mainly during the summer. The water depth requirement observed was between 30–40 cm and 20–40 cm. The suitability maps for Sarus crane were then generated using all remote sensing based and conventional information using rule based equations in the GIS within the Keoladeo National Park.


Digital Elevation Model Habitat Suitability Model Habitat Evaluation Waterfowl Habitat World Heritage Convention 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Ali, S. and Ripley, S.D. (1983). A Pictorial Guide to the Birds of Indian Subcontinent, Oxford University Press, Delhi.Google Scholar
  2. Lyon, J.G. (1983). Landsat-derived land cover classification for locating potential kestrel nesting habitat.Photogramm. Engg. and Remote Sensing.49(2): 245–250.Google Scholar
  3. Mead, R.A., Shank, T.L., Prisley, S.P. and Heinen, J.T. (1981). A computerised spatial analysis system for assessing wildlife habitat from vegetation maps.Can. J. Remote Sensing. 7(1): 34–40.Google Scholar
  4. Ormsby, J.P., Geroin, J.C., Lunetta, R.S. and Nickeson, J.E. (1985). Habitat evaluation and landcover analysis using Landsat-4. TM data. Proc. 19th International Symp. Remote Sensing of Environ. ERIM, Ana Arbor, Michigan, pp. 415–421.Google Scholar
  5. Ormsby, J.P. and Lunetta, R.S. (1987). Whitetail deer food availability maps from Thematic Mapper data.Potogramm. Engg. and Remote Sensing.53(8): 1081–1085.Google Scholar
  6. Parihar, J.S. (1989). Wildlife Habitat Studies Using Remotly Sensed data. In: Perspectives in Ecology. (Eds.: J.S. Singh and B. Gopal). Jagmander Book Agency, New Delhi, pp. 335–351.Google Scholar
  7. Pettinger, L.R., Farmer, A. and Schamerger, M. (1978). Quantitative Wildlife Habitat Evaluation using High-altitude Colour infrared Aerial Photographs. In: PECORA IV. Proc. of the Symposium on Application of Remote Sensing data to Wildlife Management, National Wildlife Federation, South Dakota.Google Scholar
  8. Roller, N.E.G. and Colwell, J.E. (1978). Wetland Inventory and Condition Evaluation Technique. In: PECORA IV, Proc. of the Symposium on Application of Remote Sensing Data to Wildlife Management, National Wildlife Federation, South Dakota, pp. 227–234.Google Scholar
  9. Roller, N.E.G. (1978). Quantitative Evaluation of Deer Habitat, —In: PECORA IV,, pp. 137–146.Google Scholar
  10. Tatu, K., Parihar, J.S. and Kimothi, M.M. (1999). In: Remote Sensing for wetland monitoring and water fowl habitat management — A case study of Nal sarovar (Gujarat). APH Publishing Corporation, New Delhi, pp. 48–50. ISBN 81-7648-124-6.Google Scholar
  11. Weller, M.W. (1975). Management of freshwater marshes for Wildlife. In: Waterfowl Ecology and Management, Selected Readings. (Eds. J.T. Ratti, L.D. Flake and W.A. Wentz), The Wildlife Society. Inc., Bethesda, Maryland, pp. 942–954.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sarvesh Palria
  • Akanksha Singh
    • 1
  • J. R. Sharma
    • 2
  • Suparn Pathak
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Remote SensingMaharshi Dayanand Saraswati UniversityAjmerIndia
  2. 2.Regional Remote Sensing Service CentreCAZRI CampusJodhpurIndia

Personalised recommendations