Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | 26 January 2022 | 14(1): 20371–20386

 

 

ISSN 0974-7907 (Online) | ISSN 0974-7893 (Print) 

https://doi.org/10.11609/jott.7452.14.1.20371-20386

#7452 | Received 20 May 2021 | Final received 08 November 2021 | Finally accepted 04 January 2022

 

 

Comparison of bird diversity in protected and non-protected wetlands of western lowland of Nepal

 

Jagan Nath Adhikari 1, Janak Raj Khatiwada 2, Dipendra Adhikari 3, Suman Sapkota 4,

Bishnu Prasad Bhattarai 5, Deepak Rijal 6 & Lila Nath Sharma 7

 

1,5 Central Department of Zoology, Institute of Science and Technology, Tribhuvan University, Kathmandu, Nepal.

1 Department of Zoology, Birendra Multiple Campus, Bharatpur, Chitwan, Nepal.

2 Chengdu Institute of Biology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Chengdu 610041, China.

3 Small Mammals Conservation and Research Foundation, PO Box 9092, Kathmandu, Nepal.

4 Friends of Nature (FON), Kathmandu, Nepal.

6 USAID Program for Aquatic Natural Resource Improvement, Paani Program, Baluwatar, Kathmandu, Nepal.

7 Forest Action Nepal, Bagdol Lalitpur, Nepal.

1 jagan.adhikari@bimc.tu.edu.np (corresponding author), 2 janakrajkhatiwada@gmail.com, 3 dipenadk2005@gmail.com,

4 suman.palpa99.ss@gmail.com, 5 bishnu.bhattarai@cdz.tu.edu.np, 6 deepak_rijal@dai.com, 7 lilanathsharma@gmail.com

 

 

 

Editor: Hem Sagar Baral, Charles Sturt University, Albury-Wodonga, Australia.    Date of publication: 26 January 2022 (online & print)

 

Citation: Adhikari, J.N., J.R. Khatiwada, D. Adhikari, S. Sapkota, B.P. Bhattarai, D. Rijal & L.N. Sharma (2022).Comparison of bird diversity in protected and non-protected wetlands of western lowland of Nepal. Journal of Threatened Taxa 14(1): 20371–20386. https://doi.org/10.11609/jott.7452.14.1.20371-20386

 

Copyright: © Adhikari et al. 2022. Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.  JoTT allows unrestricted use, reproduction, and distribution of this article in any medium by providing adequate credit to the author(s) and the source of publication.

 

Funding: This work was supported by USAID funded Paani Program (G-KAT-041) and ForestAction Nepal.

 

Competing interests: The authors declare no competing interests.

 

Authors details: Jagan Nath Adhikari has a keen interest in the ecology, behavior and conservation of birds, large mammals and herpetofauna. Jagan has authored or co–authored more than ten peer–reviewed papers on birds, mammals, and human-wildlife interactions and three textbooks of zoology for undergraduate level.  Janak Raj Khatiwada, PhD is a wildlife biologist with extensive field experience in Himalayan region. He has authored or co–authored more than 15 peer–reviewed papers on taxonomy, thermal ecology, composition, distribution, and conservation status of the herpetofauna of different parts of Nepal, India and China.  To date, he has described four new species of amphibians for science from Nepal and India.  Dipendra Adhikari is a wildlife biologist with field experience in lowland to highland of Nepal. His research interests include diversity and distribution patterns of small mammals, birds and photographic capture recapture of megafauna such as tigers, elephants.  Suman Sapkota’s research interests include ecology of frogs, bioacoustics, endemic and threatened frogs and effect of climate change on frogs. He has been involved in different researches related to herpetofauna and presented his work in different national and international conferences. He is currently working as Conservation Officer in Friends of Nature (FON), Nepal.  Bishnu Prasad Bhattarai, PhD is a conservation biologist His research interests include the conservation of large carnivores, their habitats, and prey, biogeography of Himalayan flora and fauna (e.g., birds, mammals, herpetofauna, and orchids), forest and wildlife habitat management. Deepak Rijal, PhD is nationally reputed scholar of biodiversity. Over 30 years Deepak with specialist expertise in ecological adaptation has been actively involved in research and conservation of agriculture, forest, and freshwater resources. He has been a prolific writer and has been the lead and co-author for knowledge products published nationally and internationally. Deepak as a Board Chair of the nationally reputed research and development non-government organization consistently provides strategic direction that contributes to knowledge and benefit to various end-users in Nepal and abroad.  Lila Nath Sharma, PhD is a researcher at ForestAction Nepal. He is an ecologist and undertakes action research related to biodiversity conservation, forest restoration, and invasive species management. 

 

Author’s contributions: JNA designed the study, carried out the fieldwork, analysed the data and prepare draft, JRK designed the study, analysed the data and revised the draft, DA carried out the fieldwork and revised the final draft, SS carried out the fieldwork and revised the final draft, BPB prepared map and revised the final draft, DR revised the final draft, LNS designed the study, helped in fieldwork, analysed and helped for the preparation of manuscript and revised the draft.

 

Acknowledgements: Authors thank the Department of National Parks and Wildlife Conservation (DNPWC), Shuklaphanta National Park; Department of Forest and Division Forest Office Kailali for granting permission and support to conduct this research; USAID funded Paani Program for supporting this study (G-KAT-041); Forest Action Nepal for providing support, Sati Karnali Community Forest user groups, local communities of the Sati Karnali area for their support in the study area.

 

 

 

Abstract: Protected areas are considered important for biodiversity conservation, however, studies have shown that habitats outside protected areas can also support high diversity and are important for biodiversity conservation.  In this context, we compared the bird diversity between protected (Rani Taal in Shuklaphanta National Park) and non-protected (Sati Karnali Taal) wetlands in western Nepal. Bird surveys were conducted from February to August 2019, using open width point count method in 100 m intervals along transects.  A total of 122 species belonging to 18 orders and 44 families were recorded from the protected wetland, and 107 species belonging to 16 orders and 41 families from the non-protected wetland area. Insectivores had high abundance in both wetlands (43% and 47% in protected and non-protected wetlands, respectively). Forest-dependent birds were more abundant in protected wetland compared to non-protected wetland. Our study showed that both protected and non-protected wetlands along with agricultural landscapes, support a richness of birds. Hence priority should be given to both wetlands for the conservation of birds.

 

Keywords: Aves, conservation, protected and non-protected areas, threatened birds.

 

 

 

 

INTRODUCTION

 

Protected area (PA) is a key strategy for in situ conservation of biodiversity. Evidence has shown PAs that are crucial in conserving forests, natural environments, biodiversity, and ecosystem services (Rodrigues et al. 2004; Dahal et al. 2014; Watson et al. 2016). In the past, PAs surged globally, and Nepal has also made notable progress in increasing PA coverage (UNEP-WCMC et al. 2018; DNPWC 2020). By the end of 2020 over 15% of the earth’s terrestrial surface was covered by PAs (Terborgh et al. 2002; UNEP-WCMC et al. 2018).  In spite of increase in PAs, their efficacy in protecting overall biodiversity is contested (Rodrigues et al. 2004; Chape et al. 2005). Several important species remain outside the jurisdiction of PAs (Chakravarty et al. 2012), and some geographical areas are under-represented (Shrestha et al. 2010), incuding some global biodiversity hotspots and agro-ecosystems that support rich biodiversity (Sharma & Vetaas 2015). Researchers have argued and demonstrated that areas outside formal PAs are worth conserving, as they provide alternative habitats and refuges for maintaining viable populations of residential and migratory bird species (Shrestha et al. 2010; Cox & Underwood 2011; Dudley et al. 2014; DNPWC 2020) and thus complement PAs in achieving biodiversity goals.

Freshwater ecosystems are among the most productive ecosystems, and they provide countless services to both the human and ecological communities (Dudgeon et al. 2006). Yet they remain vulnerable to various stresses and pressures (Geist 2011). Freshwater constitutes about 2.5% of the area of all water on Earth (Ostfeld et al. 2012) and approximately 5% (743,500 ha) in Nepal (Siwakoti & Karki 2009). In the global context, wetlands support more than 40% of the birds and 12% of other animals (Kumar 2005; Paracuellos 2006). More than 20% of threatened bird species, both migratory and resident, are supported by the wetlands of Asia (Paracuellos 2006; Grimmett et al. 2016a).

Birds are important indicators of the health of freshwater ecosystems (Zakaria & Rajpar 2010; Inskipp et al. 2017; Baral & Inskipp 2020; Brotherton et al. 2020). Past studies have highlighted that Nepal’s freshwater diversity has been threatened by different factors, including construction of dams, point source and non-point source pollution, habitat encroachment by invasive species, overharvesting, and recent global environmental changes (Khatiwada et al. 2021).

Many wetlands outside protected areas are important for conserving biodiversity, but are not given due attention for conservation. Past studies of bird species have been mostly concentrated in the protected areas and Ramsar sites. The difference in bird diversity between protected and non-protected areas is not well documented. In this study, we compared bird diversity between wetlands within a PA (Rani Taal in Shuklaphanta National Park) and outside it (Sati Karnali Taal), and asked following questions: (i) is there a difference in bird richness between protected and non-protected wetlands? (ii) is there a difference in conservation value for birds inside and outside protected area? (iii) do birds in protected and non-protected wetland differ in their feeding guilds? Understanding the distribution of bird diversity in and outside PAs can be useful to conservation managers and planners to formulate conservation strategies.

 

 

MATERIALS AND METHODS

 

Study area

This study was conducted in two wetlands, one in Shuklaphanta National Park (Rani Taal, hereafter referred to as protected and undisturbed wetland) and one in a nearby agricultural landscape (Sati Karnali Taal, hereafter non-protected and disturbed wetland), selected to compare bird diversity and distribution (Image 1). These wetlands share similar geography and climatic conditions, but differ in terms of management and disturbance (Table 1).

 

Bird survey

A bird survey was carried out following the “point count” method along transects near the bank of lake/wetland, following detailed instructions provided by Bibby et al. (2000) from February to September 2019 two times a day at 0600–1000 h and 1600–1800 h. A total of five transects were laid in each wetland and bird study was carried out during the winter and summer seasons. The length of the transect walks varied from 500 m to 1,000 m depending upon the shape of the wetland and forest patch. The points were fixed in every 100-m intervals along the transects, then the birds were scanned and counted with the aid of binoculars (Nikon 20 × 50 and Bushnell 10 × 40) within the 50 m circular radius.

Four observers scanned for birds in all directions for five minutes. The observed birds were counted and listed, and data from all observers were pooled for each transect. To ensure a comprehensive species list for each survey site, calls of birds were also recorded with a cell phone in MP3 format. All the observed species were recorded with abundance by visual and auditory aids, with habitat and environmental variables. Birds were identified using Grimmett et al. (2016a,b). Calls were identified using the bird song database of Xeno-Canto  (https://www.xeno-canto.org/).  Foraging behavior was grouped into five different trophic structures based on the feeding habit of birds and availability of food resources in the study area (Zakaria & Rajpar 2010). These trophic structures are: insectivores, omnivores, piscivores, herbivores, and carnivores. We also carried out a questionnaire survey and literature review to record migratory and other rare bird species in the area.

 

Data analysis

We classified birds based on their feeding guilds, habitats and migratory behavior (BCN & DNPWC 2016; Grimmett et al. 2016). We also categorized bird conservation status using IUCN Red List (https://www.iucnredlist.org). Species richness refers to the number of species, and abundance means the number of individuals of each species. We used two measures of richness, one for transects and another for sites. We also calculated the diversity indices of birds in protected and non-protected sites.

Shannon Weiner diversity index (H) was used to determine species diversity in a community (Shannon 1948).

Shannon index (H) =

 

Where, pi is the proportion (n/N) of individuals of one particular species found (n) divided by the total number of individuals found (N), ln is the natural log, Σ is the sum of the calculations, and s is the number of species.

Simpson index was determined to measure community diversity in relation to habitats (Simpson 1949).

Simpson index (D) = 

Where p is the proportion (n/N) of individuals of one particular species found (n) divided by the total number of individuals found (N), Σ is the sum of the calculations, and s is the number of species.

Evenness (e) was used to determine distribution of individuals of a species in a community.

Evenness = H’/Hmax

Where H’ is Shannon diversity index and Hmax is the maximum possible value. E is constrained between 0 and 1.0. As with H’, evenness assumes that all species are represented within the sample.

Jacob’s equitability (J) was used to measure the evenness with which individuals are divided among the taxa present. Equitability (J) = H’/lnS

Where, H’ = Shannon’s index of diversity, S = number of taxa

Fisher’s index describes mathematically the relation between the number of species and the number of individuals in those species (Fisher & Yates 1943). Fisher diversity index, defined implicitly by the formula.

 

 

Where, S is number of taxa, n is number of individuals and a is the Fisher’s alpha.

Differences in species richness and abundance between the protected and non-protected areas were tested using a student t test. Data were checked for normality before conducting the t test. All statistical analyses were carried out in R version. 3.6.1 (R Development Core Team 2019).

 

 

RESULTS

 

Diversity and distribution of birds in protected and non-protected wetlands

We recorded a total of 1,693 individuals (winter= 961; summer= 732) belonging to 122 species (winter= 118; summer= 104) from 18 orders and 44 families in the protected wetland, and 1,672 individuals (winter= 791; summer= 881) belonging to 107 species (winter= 94; summer= 86) from 16 orders and 41 families in non-protected wetland (Appendix 1). The most abundant species were from order Passeriformes (37%) followed by Coraciiformes (9.8%), Psittaciformes (7.2%), and Galliformes (6.3%) in the protected wetland whereas Passeriformes (43%) was the most abundant followed by Coraciiformes (11%), Pelecaniformes (6.9%), and Psittaciformes (6.8%) in the non-protected wetland.

In terms of cumulative abundance, Common Peafowl (4.9%) was the most abundant species in the protected wetland, followed by House Swift (4.7%), Blue-tailed Bee-eater (4.3%), and Wire-tailed Swallow (3.0%), whereas House Sparrow (4.2%) was the most abundant species followed by Cattle Egret (4.0%), Blue-tailed Bee-eater (3.5%), Lesser Whistling Duck (3.3%), and Slaty-headed Parakeet (3.2%) in non-protected wetland (Appendix 1).

Overall, there was higher richness of birds in protected wetland (n= 122 compared to non-protected wetland (n= 107, t= 8.623, p <0.004). Similarly, species richness was also higher in both summer (t= 4.01, p= 0.004) and winter (t= 4.726, p= 0.001) seasons (Figure 1) in protected wetland. However, there was no significant difference in species abundance between protected and non-protected wetlands (t= 0.140, p= 0.870). But the mean abundance of the birds was higher in summer season than winter in protected wetland (Figure 1).

The overall Shannon index of diversity (H), and Fisher alpha (α) in protected wetland was higher than from the non-protected wetland (Table 2). Similarly, the species diversity of protected wetland was more in winter season than summer. But there was no variation in species dominance index (D) during winter and summer seasons (D= 0.019, in winter and D= 0.021, in summer season) (Table 2). Similarly, the species diversity of birds in non-protected wetland was more winter (H= 4.21, α= 31.0) than in summer (H= 4.19, α= 27.43) (Table 2).

 

Categorization of birds according to habitat types

A total of 49 species of wetland dependent birds, followed by 43 species of forest, 17 species of open area birds, and 13 species of bush birds were recorded from protected wetland, whereas 41 species of wetland birds, 37 species of forest birds, 18 species of open area birds, and 11 species of bush dependent birds were recorded from human dominated non-protected lake (Figure 2).

 

Feeding guilds of birds

The proportion of insectivorous birds was higher in both wetlands (protected 43.5% and non-protected 47.41%) followed by omnivores, piscivores, herbivores, and carnivores, respectively (Figure 3).

 

Bird species with conservation concern

We recorded a globally Endangered species: Egyptian Vulture Neophron percnopterus; two Vulnerable species: Common Pochard Aythya ferina & Great Slaty Woodpecker Mulleripicus pulverulentus; and seven Near Threatened species: Grey-headed Fish Eagle Icthyophaga ichthyaetus, Lesser Fish Eagle Icthyophaga humilis, River Lapwing Vanellus duvaucelii, Red-headed Falcon Falco chicquera, Painted Stork Mycteria leucocephala, Asian Woollyneck Ciconia episcopus, & Oriental Darter Anhinga melanogaster in protected wetland. In non-protected wetland and its vicinity we reported three Vulnerable species: Common Pochard Aythya ferina, Great Slaty Woodpecker Mulleripicus pulverulentus, & Lesser Adjutant Leptoptilos javanicus; and six Near Threatened species: Grey-headed Fish-eagle Icthyophaga ichthyaetus, River Lapwing Vanellus duvaucelii, Asian Woollyneck Ciconia episcopus, Painted Stork Mycteria leucocephala, Oriental Darter Anhinga melanogaster, and Alexandrine Parakeet Psittacula eupatria (Figure 4, Image 2).

 

 

DISCUSSION

 

The present study examined diversity of wetland-associated bird species from the lowlands of western Nepal.  Our results indicate that bird community structure (i.e., species richness, abundance, composition) varied notably between protected and non-protected wetland and associated areas. Nevertheless, wetlands outside the protected area system also support a large number of important birds.

 

Bird diversity in protected and non-protected areas

The wetlands in both protected and non-protected areas support a considerable bird diversity of different feeding guilds. Overall, higher bird diversity was found in protected areas, signifying the importance of these areas for species conservation. Similar results were reported by Dahal et al. (2014) from forests of lowland Nepal. Abundance of forest specialist bird species such as Lesser Yellownape Picus chlorolophus and Common Peafowl Pavo cristatus was higher around the protected wetland compared to non-protected wetland and surrounding areas (Appendix 1).

Our results showed an important dynamic in the wetlands in and outside the protected area. Increasing in richness in PA within the wetlands during summer, there is not distinct change in wetlands outside the PA (Figure 1). Slight increase of bird richness inside the PA might be because it provides a safe refuge for breeding birds and the disturbance is very low. Similarly, the higher abundance of the birds outside the PA during winter indicates that open and more disturbed nature of the wetlands are equally important to provide habitat for birds. Agriculture landscapes around the wetlands outside the protected area also provide bird feeding grounds. Abundance in wetlands outside PA decreases noticeably, indicating that winter migrants would have left and some resident species may also leave seeking safer habitat to breed. During March-June, water resources inside the PA become dry and the birds concentrate in this lake, hence it shows greater abundance during summer than in winter.

Our study reports higher species richness in wetland followed by forest birds (Figure 2). The species richness of birds is comparatively higher in and around the protected wetland.  Lowland protected areas support old and mature forests and harbor the highest richness of forest specialist bird species (Dahal et al. 2014). Similarly, some of the wetland-dependent and associated bird species like Lesser Fish Eagle Icthyophaga humilis, Osprey Pandion haliaetus, Mallard Anas platyrhynchos, Ruddy Shelduck Tadorna ferruginea, and Gadwall Mareca strepera were reported only from the protected wetland and associated areas. Higher richness of birds in protected wetland areas may be attributed to lower anthropogenic disturbance (Khatri et al. 2019; Lamsal et al. 2019), supporting birds that require undisturbed forests.

National Park are surrounded by Sal forest and grassland that support many globally threatened birds. Nepal’s wetlands provide an important habitat for many wetland dependent and grassland birds including 15 globally threatened and 13 near threatened bird species (Baral & Inskipp 2009). During our study, we recorded one Endangered species of bird: Egyptian Vulture Neophron percnopterus, two globally Vulnerable birds: Great Slaty Woodpecker Mulleripicus pulverulentus  Common Pochard Aythya ferina and five globally Near Threatened birds in and around the protected lake.

Habitat heterogeneity is greater inside the Shuklaphanta National Park in and around the protected wetland. Higher the habitat heterogeneity favours higher the species diversity (Tamme et al. 2010). Hence higher number of forest specific birds and wetland birds were recorded in the protected wetland. But the non-protected wetland is surrounded by small patch of forest and agriculture landscape. The exploitation of natural resources and impact of human pressure was more in non-protected wetland which may be a cause of lower abundance of forest and wetland specialist birds. Nevertheless, due to diverse habitats, agricultural landscape supported higher richness and abundance of open area birds. Elsen et al. (2017) reported that low intensity agriculture supports higher bird diversity during winter in Himalayan montane landscape.

The wetland outside the protected area also supported considerable bird diversity. The birds reported here included several species listed as Vulnerable (VU) in IUCN Red List. Non-protected wetland and adjoining areas provide the suitable habitats for several vulnerable and near threatened bird species.  During this study, we reported three Vulnerable and six Near Threatened bird species. The adjoining area of this wetland is surrounded by paddy fields and swampy areas, which are the foraging ground to several species (de Silva et al. 2015; Adhikari et al. 2019). The tree species present in paddy field and adjoining community forest provide the nesting and foraging places for birds. The study on the responses of birds with tree species in agricultural landscape found larger population sizes of birds with low intensity farming as they share same land for foraging (Hulme et al. 2013). Hence, land sharing would result in better bird conservation outcomes (Hulme et al. 2013; Edwards et al. 2014; Schulte et al. 2016) but land sparing has greater potential biodiversity benefits for large mammals, cats and large birds than land sharing (Lamb et al. 2019; Finch et al. 2020). Several studies show that agricultural land is an important driver that effect the wild nature directly or indirectly which is very common in developing countries (Green et al. 2005; Haslem & Bennett 2008; Šálek et al. 2018; Chaudhary et al. 2020).

 

Difference in feeding guilds

The results showed that wetlands are suitable for avifauna as they offer shelter, food, suitable nesting, and roosting sites for different groups of birds (Giosa et al. 2018). The habitat preference of the bird could be due to the availability of food they feed on such as insects, fishes, frogs, lizards, mouse, grains, fruits, vegetable matter (Katuwal et al. 2016; Harisha & Hosetti 2018). We identified five different foraging guilds such as insectivores, omnivores, piscivores, herbivores, and carnivores of birds. Among them, insectivores were highly abundant in both wetland systems. Dahal et al. (2014) identified seven main foraging guilds of birds. Insectivores are the most dominant group of birds as compared to other birds in the globe (Zakaria & Rajpar 2010; Datta 2011; Dahal et al. 2014; Basnet et al. 2016; Adhikari et al. 2018a,b). The main reason for the selection of different habitats by birds could be the presence of different vegetation types. The vegetation surrounding the protected wetland was dense and relatively mature compared to non-protected wetland. The agricultural fields around the non-protected wetland also supported more insectivore birds. Hence, both protected and non-protected wetlands are very important from conservation aspects of birds.

 

 

CONCLUSION

 

This study demonstrates that both protected and non-protected wetlands have comparable richness, though the composition of birds slightly differed. Protected areas supported some forest and wetland specialist birds. The study reported the same common bird species on both protected and non-protected wetlands, hence, wetlands outside protected areas are also important for species conservation. This result suggests that the habitats outside protected areas also play an important complementary role to conservation of bird species which are worth conserving. Mosaics of habitat patches in low-intensity agricultural landscape favored considerable bird diversity which supports the idea that food production and biodiversity conservation can be reconciled in same landscape unit. Wetlands rich in biodiversity and sources of ecosystem goods and services are dwindling faster due to increased human activities related with agriculture, land use change and infrastructure development. We underscore call for action to extend program for the protection of ecosystem outside protected areas while emphasizing the management of protected areas for enhanced in situ conservation.

 

 

Table 1. Comparative information about the study area: Protected and non-protected wetlands of lowland Terai western Nepal.

Parameters

Protected wetland

Non-protected wetland

Location

Inside Shuklaphanta National Park, Kanchanpur

Inside Sati Karnali Community Forest User Group, Tikapur, Kailali

Geographic location

N28.922883/ E80.176317

N28.453533/ E81.07378

Elevation

175 m

158 m

River basin

Mahakali

Karnali

Nature of lake

Oxbow

Oxbow

Area

369 hector

25 hector

Temperature

Average temperature 25.9 °C (14.3–32 °C, warmest month May and coldest month January)

Average temperature 24.6 °C (15.6–32 °C, warmest month May and coldest month January)

Rainfall

1,579 mm

1,757 mm

Feeder

Rainwater

 Rani Kulo

Vegetation

Surrounded by dense Sal (Shorea robusta) forest. Associated tree species are Kusum (Scheleira oleosa), Saaj (Terminalia alata), Rohini (Mallotus phillipensis), Jamun (Syzygium cuminii), Bhellar (Trewia nudiflora) Common shrub species:  Rudilo (Pogostemon bengalensis), Asare (Murraya koenighii) and Bhati (Clerodendrum viscosum).  The lake is surrounded by elephant grass (Saccharum spontaneum), Narenga (Narenga porphyrocoma) on south, west and east Khatiwada et al. (2019)

Surrounded by riverine type and dominated by Sissoo (Dalbergia sissoo), Simal (Bombax ceiba), Vellar (Trewia nudiflora) and Khayer (Acacia catechu). Sindhure (Mallotus phillipensis) and Shirish (Albizia chinensis) Common shrub species: Asare (Murraya keonighii), Bhati (Clerodendron viscosum). This area is well known for rattan cane (Calamus tenuis). Khatiwada et al. (2019)

Disturbance

No human impact, Natural eutrophication and siltation is common. More than 80% of the total area of this lake is converted into grassland and marshy land

Anthropogenic activities such as fishing, collection of snails, other aquatic products, grazing are very common.

Management authority

Shuklaphanta National Park

Sati Karnali Community Forest User Group

 

 

Table 2. The diversity and dominance indices of birds in protected and non-protected wetlands.

 

Winter

Summer

Total

Protected

Non-protected

Protected

Non-protected

Protected

Non-protected

Species richness

118

94

104

86

122

107

Dominance_D

0.019

0.03

0.021

0.03

0.019

0.018

Shannon_H

4.512

4.21

4.29

4.19

4.47

4.38

Evenness_e^H/S

0.68

0.69

0.69

0.67

0.66

0.672

Equitability_J

0.917

0.921

0.921

0.92

0.92

0.921

Fisher_alpha

37.21

31

34.51

27.43

31.54

27.31

 

 

 

 

 

For figures & images - - click here

 

 

REFERENCES

 

Adhikari, J.N., B.P. Bhattarai & D.N. Dhakal (2018a). Conservation value of Beeshhazari Lake: an insight into diversity and abundance of wetland birds. Our Nature 16(1): 17–26. https://doi.org/10.3126/on.v16i1.21563

Adhikari, J.N., B.P. Bhattarai & T.B. Thapa (2018b). Diversity and conservation threats of water birds in and around Barandabhar corridor forest, Chitwan, Nepal. Journal of Natural History Mesuem 30: 164–179. https://doi.org/10.3126/jnhm.v30i0.27553

Adhikari, J.N., B.P. Bhattarai & T.B. Thapa (2019). Factors affecting diversity and distribution of threatened birds in Chitwan National Park, Nepal. Journal of Threatened Taxa 11(5): 13511–13522. https://doi.org/10.11609/jott.4137.11.5.13511-13522

Baral, H.S. & C. Inskipp (2009). The birds of Suklaphanta Wildlife Reserve, Nepal. Our Nature 7(1): 56–81. https://doi.org/10.3126/on.v7i1.2554

Baral, H.S. & C. Inskipp (2020). Birds of Nepal: Their Status and Conservation Especially with Regards to Watershed Perspectives, pp. 435–458. In: Regmi, G.R. & F. Huettmann (eds.). Hindu Kush-Himalaya Watersheds Downhill: Landscape Ecology and Conservation Perspectives. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-36275-1_22

Basnet, T.B., M.B. Rokaya, B.P. Bhattarai & Z. Munzbergova (2016). Heterogeneous Landscapes on Steep Slopes at Low Altitudes as Hotspots of Bird Diversity in a Hilly Region of Nepal in the Central Himalayas. PLoS ONE 11(3): e0150498. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0150498

BCN & DNPWC (2016). Birds of Nepal: An Official Checklist. Bird Conservation Nepal (BCN) and Department of National Parks and Wildlife Conservation (DNPWC), Kathmandu, Nepal, 40 pp.

Bibby, C.J., N.D. Burgess, D.A. Hill & S. Mustoe (2000). Bird census techniques. Academic Press, Elsevier, 302 pp.

Brotherton, S., C.B. Joyce & J.P. Scharlemann (2020). Global offtake of wild animals from wetlands: critical issues for fish and birds. Hydrobiologia 847: 1631–1649. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10750-020-04188-z

Chakravarty, S., S. Ghosh, C. Suresh, A. Dey & G. Shukla (2012). Deforestation: causes, effects and control strategies, pp. 1–26. In: Shukla, G. (eds.). Global perspectives on sustainable forest management. Intech  Rijeka, Croatia, 315 pp.

Chape, S., J. Harrison, M. Spalding & I. Lysenko (2005). Measuring the extent and effectiveness of protected areas as an indicator for meeting global biodiversity targets. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 360(1454): 443–455. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2004.1592

Chaudhary, S., Y. Wang, A.M. Dixit, N.R. Khanal, P.  Xu, B. Fu, K. Yan, Q. Liu, Y. Lu & M. Li (2020). A synopsis of farmland abandonment and its driving factors in Nepal. Land 9(3): 1–24. https://doi.org/10.3390/land9030084

Cox, R.L. & E.C. Underwood (2011). The importance of conserving biodiversity outside of protected areas in Mediterranean ecosystems. PLoS ONE 6(1): e14508. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0014508

Dahal, B.R., C.A. McAlpine & M. Maron (2014). Bird conservation values of off-reserve forests in lowland Nepal. Forest Ecology and Management 323: 28–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2014.03.033

Dahal, B.R., C.A. McAlpine & M. Maron (2015). Impacts of extractive forest uses on bird assemblages vary with landscape context in lowland Nepal. Biological Conservation 186: 167–175. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2015.03.014

Datta, T. (2011). Human interference and avifaunal diversity of two wetlands of Jalpaiguri, West Bengal, India. Journal of Threatened Taxa 3(12): 2253–2262. https://doi.org/10.11609/JoTT.o2739.2253-62

de Silva, T.N., S. Fernando, H.B. de Silva & P. Tennakoon (2015). Lesser Adjutant Leptoptilos javanicus Horsfield, 1821 (Ciconiiformes: Ciconiidae) in the dry lowlands of Sri Lanka: distribution, ecology, and threats. Journal of Threatened Taxa 7(14): 8089–8095. https://doi.org/10.11609/jott.2425.7.14.8089-8095

DNPWC (2020). Protected areas of Nepal. Department of National Parks and Wildlife Conservation (DNPWC) Nepal, Kathmandu, Nepal. Downloaded on 20 January 2020. http://www.dnpwc.gov.np

Dudgeon, D., A.H. Arthington, M.O. Gessner, Z.I. Kawabata, D.J. Knowler, C. Lévêque, R.J. Naiman, A.-H. Prieur-Richard, D. Soto & M.L. Stiassny (2006). Freshwater biodiversity: importance, threats, status and conservation challenges. Biological Reviews 81(2): 163–182. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1464793105006950

Dudley, N., C. Groves, K.H. Redford & S. Stolton (2014). Where now for protected areas? Setting the stage for the 2014 World Parks Congress. Oryx 48(4): 496–503. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0030605314000519

Edwards, D.P., J.J. Gilroy, P. Woodcock, F.A. Edwards, T.H. Larsen, D.J. Andrews, M.A. Derhe, T.D. Docherty, W.W. Hsu, S.L. Mitchell, T. Ota, L.J. Williams, W.F. Laurance, K.C. Hamer & D.S. Wilcove (2014). Land-sharing versus land-sparing logging: reconciling timber extraction with biodiversity conservation. Globle Change Biology 20(1): 183–191. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.12353

Elsen, P.R., R. Kalyanaraman, K. Ramesh & D.S. Wilcove (2017). The importance of agricultural lands for Himalayan birds in winter. Conservation Biology 31(2): 416–426. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.12812

Finch, T., S. Gillings, D. Massimino, T. Brereton, J. Redhead, R. Pywell, R. Field, A. Balmford, R. Green & W. Peach (2020). Assessing the utility of land sharing and land sparing for birds, butterflies and ecosystem services in lowland England. Natural England Commissioned Report NECR280, 73 pp.

Fisher, R.A. & F. Yates (1943). Statistical Tables: For Biological, Agricultural and Medical Research. Second edition. Oliver and Boyd Ltd, London, 105 pp.

Geist, J. (2011). Integrative freshwater ecology and biodiversity conservation. Ecological Indicators 11(6): 1507–1516. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2011.04.002

Green, R.E., S.J. Cornell, J.P. Scharlemann & A. Balmford (2005). Farming and the fate of wild nature. Science 307(5709): 550–555. http://doi.org/10.1126/science.1106049

Grimmett, R., C. Inskipp & T. Inskipp (2016a). Birds of the Indian Subcontinent: India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Nepal, Bhutan, Bangladesh and the Maldives. Bloomsbury Publishing, 448 pp.

Grimmett, R., C. Inskipp, T. Inskipp & H.S. Baral (2016b). Birds of Nepal: Revised Edition. Bloomsbury Publishing, India, 386 pp.

Harisha, M.N. & B.B. Hosetti (2018). Status and conservation issues of wetland birds in Komaranahalli lake, Davanagere district, Karnataka, India. Journal of Threatened Taxa 10(2): 11290–11294. http://doi.org/110.11609/jott.2809.10.2.11290-11294

Haslem, A. & A.F. Bennett (2008). Birds in agricultural mosaics: the influence of landscape pattern and countryside heterogeneity. Ecological Applications 18(1): 185–196. https://doi.org/10.1890/07-0692.1

Hulme, M.F., J.A. Vickery, R.E. Green, B. Phalan, D.E. Chamberlain, D.E. Pomeroy, D. Nalwanga, D. Mushabe, R. Katebaka & S. Bolwig (2013). Conserving the birds of Uganda’s banana-coffee arc: land sparing and land sharing compared. PLoS ONE 8(2): e54597. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0054597

Inskipp, C., H.S. Baral, T. Inskipp, A.P. Khatiwada, M.P. Khatiwada, L.P. Poudyal & R. Amin (2017). Nepal’s National Red List of birds. Journal of Threatened Taxa 9(1): 9700–9722. https://doi.org/10.11609/jott.2855.9.1.9700-9722

Katuwal, H.B., K. Basnet, B. Khanal, S. Devkota, S.K. Rai, J.P. Gajurel, C. Scheidegger &  M.P. Nobis (2016). Seasonal Changes in Bird Species and Feeding Guilds along Elevational Gradients of the Central Himalayas, Nepal. PLoS ONE 11(7): e0158362. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0158362

Khatiwada, J.R., J.N. Adhikari, D. Adhikari, S. Sapkota, S.R. Ghimire, P.B. Budha & L.N. Sharma (2019). Assessment and conservation status of aquatic biodiversity in lower Karnali and Mahakali River basin. Forest Action Nepal, USAID Pani Program, 116 pp.

Khatiwada, J. R., J.N., Adhikari, D., Rijal & L.N. Sharma (2021). Freshwater biodiversity in western Nepal: A review. Nepalese Journal of Zoology 5(1): 34–46. https://doi.org/10.3126/njz.v5i1.38290

Khatri, N.D., B. Neupane, Y.P. Timilsina & S. Ghimire (2019). Assessment of Avifaunal diversity and threats to them in Phewa wetland, Nepal. Forestry: Journal of Institute of Forestry, Nepal 16: 31–47. https://doi.org/10.3126/forestry.v16i0.28352

Kumar, A. (2005). Handbook on Indian wetland birds and their conservation. Zoological Survey of India, Dehradun, India, 472 pp.

Lamb, A., T. Finch, J.W. Pearce-Higgins, M. Ausden, A. Balmford, C. Feniuk, G. Hirons, D. Massimino & R.E. Green (2019). The consequences of land sparing for birds in the United Kingdom. Journal of Applied Ecology 56(8): 1870–1881. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.13362

Lamsal, P., K. Atreya, M.K. Ghosh & K.P. Pant (2019). Effects of population, land cover change, and climatic variability on wetland resource degradation in a Ramsar listed Ghodaghodi Lake Complex, Nepal. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 191(7): 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-019-7514-0

Ostfeld, A., S. Barchiesi, M. Bonte, C.R. Collier, K. Cross, G. Darch, T.A. Farrell, M. Smith, A. Vicory & M. Weyand (2012). Climate change impacts on river basin and freshwater ecosystems: some observations on challenges and emerging solutions. Journal of Water and Climate Change 3(3): 171–184. https://doi.org/10.2166/wcc.2012.006

Paracuellos, M. (2006). Relationships of songbird occupation with habitat configuration and bird abundance in patchy reed beds. ARDEA 94(1): 87–98.

R Development Core Team (2019). A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria.

Rodrigues, A.S., H.R. Akcakaya, S.J. Andelman, M.I. Bakarr, L. Boitani, T.M. Brooks, J.S. Chanson, L.D. Fishpool, G.A. Da Fonseca & K.J. Gaston (2004). Global gap analysis: priority regions for expanding the global protected-area network. BioScience 54(12): 1092–1100. https://doi.org/10.1641/0006-3568(2004)054[1092:GGAPRF]2.0.CO;2

Šálek, M., M. Bažant & M. Żmihorski (2018). Active farmsteads are year-round strongholds for farmland birds. Journal of Applied Ecology 55(4): 1908–1918. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.13093

Schulte, L.A., A.L. MacDonald, J.B. Niemi & M.J. Helmers (2016). Prairie strips as a mechanism to promote land sharing by birds in industrial agricultural landscapes. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 220: 55–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2016.01.007

Shannon, C.E. (1948). Mathematical Theory of Communication. The Bell System Technical Journal 27(3): 379–424. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1538-7305.1948.tb01338.x

Sharma, L.N. & O.R. Vetaas (2015). Does agroforestry conserve trees? A comparison of tree species diversity between farmland and forest in mid-hills of central Himalaya. Biodiversity Conservation 24(8): 2047–2061. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-015-0927-3

Shrestha, U.B., S. Shrestha, P. Chaudhary & R.P. Chaudhary (2010). How representative is the protected areas system of Nepal? Mountain Research  and Development 30(3): 282–294. https://doi.org/10.1659/MRD-JOURNAL-D-10-00019.1

Simpson, E.H. (1949). Measurement of diversity. Nature 163(4148): 688–688. https://doi.org/10.1038/163688a0

Siwakoti, M. & J.B. Karki (2009). Conservation status of Ramsar sites of Nepal Terai: an overview. Botanica Orientalis: Journal of Plant Science 6: 76–84. https://doi.org/10.3126/botor.v6i0.2914

Tamme, R., I. Hiiesalu, L. Laanisto, R. Szava-Kovats & M. Pärtel (2010). Environmental heterogeneity, species diversity and co-existence at different spatial scales. Journal of Vegetation Science 21(4): 796–801. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1654-1103.2010.01185.x

Terborgh, J., C. van Schaik, L. Davenport & M. Rao (2002). Making Parks Work: Strategies for Preserving Tropical Nature. Island Press, 511 pp.

UNEP-WCMC, IUCN & NGS (2018). Protected Planet Report 2018. UNEP-WCMC, IUCN and NGS, Cambridge UK; Gland, Switzerland; and Washington, D.C., USA, 70 pp.

Watson, J.E., E.S. Darling, O. Venter, M. Maron, J. Walston, H.P. Possingham, N. Dudley, M. Hockings, M. Barnes & T.M. Brooks (2016). Bolder science needed now for protected areas. Conservation Biology 30(2): 243–248. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.12645

Zakaria, M. &  M.N. Rajpar (2010). Bird species composition and feeding guilds based on point count and mist netting methods at the Paya Indah Wetland Reserve, Peninsular Malaysia. Tropical Life Sciences Research 21(2): 7–26.

 

 

 

Appendix 1. Bird species with their abundance observed in protected and non-protected wetlands in Winter and Summer. Relative abundance (RA) refers total percentage contribution of each species to the total sample. 0 indicated the species were not recorded during field study, here, EN= Endangered, VU= Vulnerable, NT= Near threatened and LC= Least Concern.

 

Order/Family/ Common name

Zoological name

RA in Winter

RA in Summer

Total RA( %)

IUCN category

 

Protected

Non-protected

Protected

Non-protected

Protected

Non-protected

Order ACCIPITRIFORMES

Family Accipitridae

1

Black Kite

Milvus migrans (Boddaert, 1783)

0.004

0.5

0.007

0.554

0.524

0.53

LC

2

Crested Serpent-eagle

Spilornis cheela (Latham, 1790)

0.002

0.125

0.001

0.111

0.175

0.117

LC

3

Grey-headed Fish-eagle

Icthyophaga ichthyaetus (Horsfield, 1821)

0.002

0.503

0.001

0.443

0.175

0.47

NT

4

Lesser Fish-eagle

Icthyophaga humilis (Müller & Schlegel, 1841)

0.604

0

0.005

0

0.466

0

NT

5

Egyptian Vulture

Neophron percnopterus (Linnaeus, 1758)

0.001

0

0.001

0

0.117

0

EN

Family Pandionidae

6

Osprey

Pandion haliaetus (Linnaeus, 1758)

0.002

0

0.003

0

0.233

0

LC

Order ANSERIFORMES

Family Anatidae

7

Bar-headed Goose

Anser indicus (Latham, 1790)

0.005

0

0

0

0.291

0

LC

8

Common Pochard

Aythya ferina (Linnaeus, 1758)

1.915

1.509

0

0

0.874

0.707

LC

9

Common Shelduck

Tadorna tadorna (Linnaeus, 1758)

1.017

1.509

0

0

0.932

0.7

LC

10

Common Teal

Anas crecca Linnaeus, 1758

0.004

0.628

0

0

0.233

0.294

LC

11

Gadwall

Mareca strepera (Linnaeus, 1758)

0.004

0

0

0

0.233

0

LC

12

Lesser Whistling-duck

Dendrocygna javanica (Horsfield, 1821)

0.91

6.92

0

0

0.583

3.241

LC

13

Mallard

Anas platyrhynchos Linnaeus, 1758

0.002

0

0

0

0.117

0

LC

14

Ruddy Shelduck

Tadorna ferruginea (Pallas, 1764)

0.002

0

0

0

0.117

0

LC

Order BUCEROTIFORMES

Family Bucerotidae

15

Indian Grey Hornbill

Ocyceros birostris (Scopoli, 1786)

0.002

0

0.003

0.111

0.233

0.05

LC

Family Upupidae

16

Common Hoopoe

Upupa epops Linnaeus, 1758

0.006

0.25

0.008

0.222

0.699

0.235

LC

Order CAPRIMULGIFORMES

Family Apodidae

17

House Swift

Apus nipalensis (Hodgson, 1836)

2.052

2.77

3.04

2.328

4.662

2.533

LC

Order CHARADRIIFORMES

Family Charadriidae

18

Grey-headed Lapwing

Vanellus cinereus (Blyth, 1842)

0.004

0.251

0.005

0

0.466

0.118

LC

19

Red-wattled Lapwing

Vanellus indicus (Boddaert, 1783)

0.004

0.503

0.007

0.665

0.524

0.589

LC

20

River Lapwing

Vanellus duvaucelii (Lesson, 1826)

0.004

0.628

0.004

0.665

0.408

0.648

NT

21

Yellow-wattled Lapwing

Vanellus malabaricus (Boddaert, 1783)

0.004

1.006

0.005

1.219

0.466

1.119

LC

Family Jacanidae

22

Bronze-winged Jacana

Metopidius indicus (Latham, 1790)

0.81

0.628

1.019

0.332

1.399

0.471

LC

Family Scolopacidae

23

Common Sandpiper

Actitis hypoleucos Linnaeus, 1758

0.004

0

0.003

0

0.35

0

LC

24

Green Sandpiper

Tringa ochropus Linnaeus, 1758

0.012

0.503

0.007

0.554

0.991

0.53

LC

25

Marsh Sandpiper

Tringa stagnatilis (Bechstein, 1803)

0.004

0.503

0.003

0.443

0.35

0.471

LC

26

Wood Sandpiper

Tringa glareola Linnaeus, 1758

0.002

0

0

0

0.117

0

LC

Order CICONIIFORMES

Family Ciconiidae

27

Asian Openbill

Anastomus oscitans (Boddaert, 1783)

0.71

1.509

0.009

1.77

0.991

1.649

LC

28

Asian Woollyneck

Ciconia episcopus (Boddaert, 1783)

0.002

0.125

0.003

0.886

0.233

0.53

NT

29

Black Stork

Ciconia nigra (Linnaeus, 1758)

0.002

0

0.003

0

0.233

0

LC

30

Lesser Adjutant

Leptoptilos javanicus (Horsfield, 1821)

0

0.252

0

0

0

0.117

VU

31

Painted Stork

Mycteria leucocephala (Pennant, 1769)

0.002

0.252

0

0

0.117

0.117

NT

Order COLUMBIFORMES

Family Columbidae

32

Grey-capped Emerald Dove

Chalcophaps indica (Linnaeus, 1758)

0.008

1.006

1.011

0.997

0.932

1.001

LC

33

Oriental Turtle-dove

Streptopelia orientalis (Latham, 1790)

0.004

0.503

0.005

0.443

0.466

0.47

LC

34

Red Turtle-dove

Streptopelia tranquebarica (Hermann, 1804)

0.004

0.503

0.005

0.554

0.466

0.53

LC

35

Rock Dove

Columba livia Gmelin, 1789

0.005

0

0.004

0

0.466

0

LC

36

Western Spotted Dove

Spilopelia suratensis (Gmelin, 1789)

0.019

0.628

0.008

4.212

1.399

2.53

LC

Order CORACIIFORMES

Family Alcedinidae

37

Common Kingfisher

Alcedo atthis (Linnaeus, 1758)

0.005

0.628

0.007

0.554

0.583

0.589

LC

38

Pied Kingfisher

Ceryle rudis (Linnaeus, 1758)

0

0.252

0.001

0

0.058

0.117

LC

39

Stork-billed Kingfisher

Pelargopsis capensis (Linnaeus, 1766)

0.002

0

0

0

0.117

0

LC

40

White-breasted Kingfisher

Halcyon smyrnensis (Linnaeus, 1758)

0.07

0.88

0.012

2.1

0.932

1.532

LC

Family Coraciidae

41

Indian Roller

Coracias benghalensis (Linnaeus, 1758)

0.05

0.628

0.007

0.554

0.583

0.589

LC

Family Meropidae

42

Asian Green Bee-eater

Merops orientalis Latham, 1802

1.018

2.138

2.013

2.106

1.573

2.121

LC

43

Blue-tailed Bee-eater

Merops philippinus Linnaeus, 1766

2.038

3.899

3.048

3.215

4.254

3.535

LC

44

Chestnut-headed Bee-eater

Merops leschenaulti Vieillot, 1817

0.004

0.503

0.005

0.222

0.466

0.353

LC

Order CUCULIFORMES

Family Cuculidae

45

Banded Bay Cuckoo

Cacomantis sonneratii (Latham, 1790)

0.002

0.252

0.003

0.222

0.233

0.23

LC

46

Common Hawk-cuckoo

Hierococcyx varius (Vahl, 1797)

0.002

0.252

0.003

0.222

0.233

0.23

LC

47

Greater Coucal

Centropus sinensis (Stephens, 1815)

0.002

0.252

0.003

0.222

0.233

0.23

LC

48

Indian Cuckoo

Cuculus micropterus Gould, 1837

0.003

0.377

0.004

0

0.35

0.176

LC

49

Lesser Coucal

Centropus bengalensis (Gmelin, 1788)

0.008

1.006

0.009

0.776

0.874

0.88

LC

50

Western Koel

Eudynamys scolopaceus (Linnaeus, 1758)

0.002

0

0.003

0

0.233

0

LC

Order FALCONIFORMES

Family Falconidae

51

Red-headed Falcon

Falco chicquera Daudin, 1800

0.002

0

0.003

0

0.233

0

NT

Order GALLIFORMES

Family Phasianidae

52

Black Francolin

Francolinus francolinus (Linnaeus, 1766)

0.004

0.252

0.003

0.221

0.35

0.23

LC

53

Common Peafowl

Pavo cristatus Linnaeus, 1758

3.052

2.767

4.047

2.328

4.953

2.53

LC

54

Common Quail

Coturnix coturnix (Linnaeus, 1758)

0.004

0

0.008

0

0.583

0

LC

55

Red Junglefowl

Gallus gallus (Linnaeus, 1758)

0.804

0.503

0.005

0.443

0.466

0.471

LC

56

Common Coot

Fulica atra Linnaeus, 1758

0.01

0

0

0.554

0.583

0.294

LC

Order GRUIFORMES

Family Rallidae

57

Ruddy-breasted Crake

Zapornia fusca (Linnaeus, 1766)

0.015

0

0.017

0

1.632

0

LC

58

Watercock

Gallicrex cinerea (Gmelin, 1789)

0.01

1.258

0.004

0

0.758

0.58

LC

59

White-breasted Waterhen

Amaurornis phoenicurus (Pennant, 1769)

0.003

0.377

0

0

0.175

0.17

LC

Order PASSERIFORMES

Family Alaudidae

60

Rufous-winged Lark

Mirafra assamica Horsfield, 1840

0.715

1.88

2.017

1.33

1.632

1.591

LC

61

Sand Lark

Alaudala raytal (Blyth, 1844)

0.002

0.25

0

0.221

0.117

0.23

LC

Family Campephagidae

62

Scarlet Minivet

Pericrocotus flammeus (Forster, 1781)

0.006

0.754

0.009

0.665

0.758

0.7

LC

Family Cisticolidae

63

Jungle Prinia

Prinia sylvatica Jerdon, 1840

0.005

0.628

0.005

0

0.524

0.294

LC

64

Zitting Cisticola

Cisticola juncidis (Rafinesque, 1810)

0.004

0.503

0.004

0.443

0.408

0.471

LC

Family Corvidae

65

Grey Treepie

Dendrocitta formosae Swinhoe, 1863

0.002

0

0.003

0

0.233

0

LC

66

House Crow

Corvus splendens Vieillot, 1817

0.915

1.88

1.012

2.439

1.399

2.18

LC

67

Large-billed Crow

Corvus macrorhynchos Wagler, 1827

0.004

0.503

0.008

1.441

0.583

1

LC

68

Red-billed Blue Magpie

Urocissa erythroryncha (Boddaert, 1783)

0.002

0.25

0.003

0.221

0.233

0.235

LC

69

Rufous Treepie

Dendrocitta vagabunda (Latham, 1790)

0.004

0.503

0.004

0.554

0.408

0.53

LC

Family Dicruridae

70

Ashy Drongo

Dicrurus leucophaeus Vieillot, 1817

0.005

0.628

0.007

0.55

0.583

0.58

LC

71

Black Drongo

Dicrurus macrocercus Vieillot, 1817

1.015

1.88

2.017

1.88

1.632

1.885

LC

72

Greater Racquet-tailed Drongo

Dicrurus paradiseus (Linnaeus, 1766)

0.004

0.503

0.003

0.44

0.35

0.47

LC

73

Lesser Racquet-tailed Drongo

Dicrurus remifer (Temminck, 1823)

0.002

0.252

0.003

0.221

0.233

0.23

LC

74

White-bellied Drongo

Dicrurus caerulescens (Linnaeus, 1758)

0

0

0

0.332

0

0.176

LC

Family Estrildidae

75

Scaly-breasted Munia

Lonchura punctulata (Linnaeus, 1758)

0.005

0.628

0.007

0.554

0.583

0.589

LC

Family Hirundinidae

76

Barn Swallow

Hirundo rustica Linnaeus, 1758

1.023

2.642

2.028

2.771

2.506

2.71

LC

77

Wire-tailed Swallow

Hirundo smithii Leach, 1818

2.026

3.144

3.036

2.771

3.03

2.946

LC

Family Laniidae

78

Grey-backed Shrike

Lanius tephronotus (Vigors, 1831)

0

0

0.33

0.001

0.176

0.058

LC

Family Leiotrichidae

79

Common Babbler

Argya caudata (Dumont, 1823)

0.004

0.503

0.005

0.665

0.466

0.589

LC

80

Jungle Babbler

Turdoides striata (Dumont, 1823)

1.014

1.761

2.016

1.33

1.515

1.53

LC

81

Large Grey Babbler

Argya malcolmi (Sykes, 1832)

0

0

0.005

0

0.233

0

LC

Family Monarchidae

82

Black-naped Monarch

Hypothymis azurea (Boddaert, 1783)

0.905

0.628

0.807

0.554

0.583

0.589

LC

83

White Wagtail

Motacilla alba Linnaeus, 1758

0

0

0

1.108

0

0.589

LC

84

White-browed Wagtail

Motacilla maderaspatensis Gmelin, 1789

0.004

0.503

0.005

0.554

0.466

0.53

LC

Family Muscicapidae

85

Black Redstart

Phoenicurus ochruros (Gmelin, 1774)

0

0.629

0

0

0

0.294

LC

86

Common Stonechat

Saxicola torquatus (Linnaeus, 1766)

1.017

1.761

1.015

1.108

1.573

1.41

LC

87

Grey Bushchat

Saxicola ferreus Gray, 1846

0.002

0.251

0.003

0.221

0.233

0.23

LC

88

Indian Robin

Saxicoloides fulicatus (Linnaeus, 1766)

0.002

0.251

0.003

0.221

0.233

0.23

LC

89

Oriental Magpie-robin

Copsychus saularis (Linnaeus, 1758)

1.017

1.257

0.915

1.219

1.573

1.237

LC

90

Pied Bushchat

Saxicola caprata (Linnaeus, 1766)

0

0

0

0.332

0

0.176

LC

91

White-capped Water-redstart

Phoenicurus leucocephalus (Vigors, 1831)

0.005

0.628

0.001

0.554

0.35

0.589

LC

92

White-tailed Stonechat

Saxicola leucurus (Blyth, 1847)

0.004

0.503

0

0.443

0.233

0.471

LC

Family Oriolidae

93

Black-hooded Oriole

Oriolus xanthornus (Linnaeus, 1758)

0.004

0.503

0.004

1.33

0.408

0.942

LC

Family Passeridae

94

Chestnut-shouldered Bush-sparrow

Gymnoris xanthocollis (Burton, 1838)

1.015

1.257

1.615

1.662

1.515

1.473

LC

95

House Sparrow

Passer domesticus (Linnaeus, 1758)

1.026

3.144

2.028

5.21

2.681

4.242

LC

Family Ploceidae

96

Baya Weaver

Ploceus philippinus (Linnaeus, 1766)

0.01

1.257

0.016

0.776

1.282

1

LC

Family Pycnonotidae

97