Zhang et al. • NESTING OF SZECHENYI’S MONAL-PARTRIDGE 
95 
FIG. 1. (A) Ground nest of Szechenyi’s Monal-Partridge at the base of scrub hollyleaf-like oak, and (B) tree nest in 
flaky fir. 
failure of first nests due to extreme weather 
conditions. One female abandoned a ground nest 
in violet-purple rhododendron scrub and built a 
new nest in flaky fir forest, —190 m from the 
°riginal nest. The other female abandoned a 
ground nest in hollyleaf-like oak forest and used 
a tree nest in the same habitat from a previous 
season, ~300 m from the original nest. Both re¬ 
nests were also unsuccessful because of predation 
(either by corvids or mammals). 
DISCUSSION 
Elevated nests have been reported for several 
species of Galliformes, e.g., Green Junglefowl 
(Gallus varius ), Salvadori’s Pheasant ( Lophura 
ln °mato), Ring-necked Pheasant ( Phasianus colchi- 
cus )’ Palawan Peacock-Pheasant ( Polyplectron na- 
Poleonis), Congo Peacock ( Afropavo con gens is), and 
Mikado Pheasant ( Syrmaticus mikado ) (Johnsgard 
1999). The elevated nest is a variation rather than a 
distinct shift from the ground nest. Two female 
Szechenyi’s Monal-Partridges in the Pamuling 
Mountains changed nest locations and nest types 
from the ground to tree nests. Similar tree nest 
observations have been noted with Cabot’s Tragopan 
(Tragopan cabotii) but, unlike this species, all 
arboreal tree nesting by Szechenyi’s Monal-Partridge 
did not rely on use of pre-existing nest structures for 
nest construction, such as natural platforms or nests 
from other species or taxa (Deng et al. 2005), but 
included collection of new nesting material for the 
construction of a completely new nest. 
Most Szechenyi’s Monal-Partridges in the Pa¬ 
muling Mountains were ground nesting, but some 
also nested in trees. The tree nest use pattern by 
Szechenyi’s Monal-Partridge reflected the propor¬ 
tion of available treeline habitat types in the region. 
We would expect ground nesting would be more 
