Journal of Threatened
Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | 26 August 2026 | 18(8): 29418–29429
ISSN 0974-7907 (Online) | ISSN 0974-7893 (Print)
https://doi.org/10.11609/jott.10539.18.8.29418-29429
#10539 | Received 21 March 2026 | Final received 30 June 2026| Finally
accepted 07 July 2026
A study on the avifaunal
diversity and community dynamics of Karanji Lake,
Mysuru, Karnataka, India
S. Sushanth 1 &
K.S. Raghunandan
2
1 Zoo Outreach Organisation,
3A2 Varadarajulu Nagar, FCI Road, Ganapathy,
Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu 641006, India.
2 Postgraduate Department of
Zoology, Maharani’s Science College for Women, Autonomous, Mysuru, Karnataka
570005, India.
1 s-sushanth@zooreach.org
(corresponding author), 2 dorsraaghu@gmail.com
Editor: H. Byju,
Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu, India. Date
of publication: 26 August 2026 (online & print)
Citation: Sushanth, S. & K.S. Raghunandan
(2026).
A study on the avifaunal diversity and community dynamics of Karanji Lake, Mysuru, Karnataka, India. Journal of Threatened Taxa 18(8): 29418–29429. https://doi.org/10.11609/jott.10539.18.8.29418-29429
Copyright: © Sushanth & Raghunandan
2026. 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: Self-funded.
Competing interests: The authors declare no competing interests.
Author details S. Sushanth is a researcher from Zoo Outreach Organisation, pursuing a PhD on species-composition in abandoned-plantations of the Western Ghats. He has involved in this field for over a decade, with field experience on birds, rodents, herpetofauna, stingless bees, and plants. He is a Rufford and PCI grantee and an IUCN Red List assessor. Dr. K.S. Raghunandan, serving as Guest Faculty in the Postgraduate Department of Zoology at Maharani’s Science College for Women (Autonomous). Government First Grade College, Mysuru. His areas of specialization include Entomology (Apidology) and Ornithology. His current research focuses on the bioecology of Asian giant wild honeybees and avian conservation biology.
Author contributions: SS—data collection, manuscript writing, analysis; KSR—conceived the study, manuscript editing.
Acknowledgements: Authors thankful to Sri Ajith M. Kulkarni, IFS, executive director, Sri Chamarajendra Zoological Garden, Mysuru for granting the permission to carry out this research work. Special thanks to Ms. Sujosha, education officer and all the staff of Sri Chamarajendra Zoological Garden, Mysuru for their support. Special thanks are also due to the principal, Maharani’s Science College for women, Mysuru and Dr. M. Ramyashree, head of the department, and Dr, Nijgal, assistant professor, PG Department of Zoology, JSS College, Mysuru for encouragement.
Abstract: We conducted the present field
study to record avifaunal diversity at Karanji Lake,
Mysuru, Karnataka, from April 2021 to March 2022 on a bimonthly basis. Point
count method with a fixed radius was carried out within the lake premises, with
14 grids. A total of 94 bird species were recorded belonging to 16 orders and
47 families. Highest number of birds was represented by order Passeriformes,
with 23 families, and the family Ardeidae dominated
with eight species. A total of 90 species were ‘Least Concern’, and two species
were ‘Near Threatened’. Further, these birds were grouped into omnivorous
(33%), insectivorous (27.6%), carnivorous (23.4%), piscivorous (7.4%),
frugivorous (3.2%), nectarivores (2.1%), granivorous (2.1%), and herbivorous
(1.1%) based on feeding habits. Shannon-Wiener value was 3.1517 ± 0.31SE,
Simpson diversity was 0.6937, and Pielou’s evenness
value was 0.694. The different diversity index values revealed the occurrence
of a good number of bird species, conveying that the Karanji
Lake still has potential to support avifauna. This study will help understand
the conservation of birds at the Lake in future, an important biodiversity
perspective.
Keywords: Birds, Chamundi
Hills, diversity indices, feeding guilds, Mysore Zoo, Near Threatened,
waterbody, wetland birds.
INTRODUCTION
Birds are globally widespread and
perform ecologically important functions as pollinator, scavengers, predators,
and seed dispersers (Sekercioglu 2006). With over
11,000 species worldwide and approximately 1,358 in the Indian subcontinent
(Birdlife International 2026), they are among the most studied taxa and serve
as valuable bioindicators of environmental changes because they respond rapidly
to changes in landscape configuration, composition, and function (Gregory et
al. 2004). Monitoring bird diversity therefore provides insights into habitat
quality and ecosystem health. Birds also contribute to multiple ecosystem
services, such as provisioning, regulating, cultural, and supporting services,
which sustain human well-being (Sekercioglu et al.
2016). Despite their importance, bird communities are increasingly threatened
by habitat loss, anthropogenic disturbance, urbanisation,
and climate change. Monitoring and conserving bird diversity remain critical
for maintaining ecosystem function and biodiversity.
Mysuru City is among the few
places in India that has detailed bird documentation since the 1940s. In their
landmark survey of the Mysore State, Ali & Whistler (1942–43) documented
several wetlands in and around the city, providing an early baseline for avian
studies. Wetlands are known to provide
key habitats for both resident and migratory birds for breeding, drinking, feeding,
resting, and for social interactions (Kaur & Brraich
2021). These freshwater bodies often succumb to changes in land use in their
catchment areas, resulting in reduced inflows and a declining quality of the
“runoff” that passes through agricultural fields and urban areas (Verma et al. 2001). The depletion of wetlands as a result
of numerous human activities and/or climate change poses a serious threat to
the diversity and number of waterbird species
worldwide, with some species becoming extinct across several wetlands (Wetlands
International 2012). With this background, the present study was undertaken to
assess current avifaunal diversity at Karanji Lake
using the point count method. It quantifies species richness, abundance and
guilds while evaluating threats. Outcomes will inform urban wetland
conservation in Mysuru.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Study Area
The study was carried out in Karanji Lake (12.3028o N,
76.6736o E; Image 1 ),
located in the Mysuru District, Karnataka, within the Chamundi
Hills foothills. It has an altitude ranging 861–944 m, and the surrounding
plateau is 1,024–1,057 m high (Mishra et al. 2007). The lake was constructed by
the Maharaja of Mysore and is one of the biggest lakes in Karnataka. The total
area of the lake is about 36.4 ha. The green cover area measured within the
lake premises is about 14 ha. The lake also has a marshy area of about 0.0675
km2 and a dry area of 0.280 km², and has a
catchment area of 745 ha. The lake water capacity is 629.2 ML, and the highest
flood level is 744.14 m (Kumara et al. 2010; Mysore Nature
2025).
Sampling Method
The present study was conducted
from April 2021 to March 2022 on a bimonthly basis, with a total of 24 surveys.
Surveys were conducted between 0630 h and 1000 h, as bird activity is known to
be highest during morning hours. Point count method (Bibby et al. 2000) was
employed to estimate the bird richness and abundance that was present in the
sampling site. There were a total of 14 grids with one
point count station per grid. We spent 15 minutes at each point (3.5 h per
replication of all the grids), yielding ~84 h of total sampling effort. The
birds were counted within the fixed radius (100 m) (Buckland et al. 2001) using
binoculars (10 x 42) and a digital camera was used to photograph. Minimum three
replications of point count surveys at every sampling point were carried out in
each season (summer, winter, and monsoon). The birds were identified using a
field guide (Grimmett et al. 2016). Bird species were
classified into feeding guilds following Ghosh et al. (2022) and Jamakhandi & Kadadevaru
(2024).
Data Analysis
To assess the adequacy of
sampling for bird diversity and sampling effort sufficiency, species
accumulation curves were plotted with the cumulative number of bird species
that were recorded across all the sampling sites against cumulative effort
using the R software v4.3.1 and RStudio v2025.09.2 +
418 (R core team 2025; RStudio team 2025) with
‘vegan’ package (Oksanen et al. 2025) and all the
graphs were created with ‘ggplot2’ package (Wickham 2016). The diversity indices
(including species richness, Shannon-Wiener diversity, Simpson diversity, and Pielou’s evenness) were calculated using the same software
with ‘vegan’ package (Oksanen et al. 2025).
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
A total of 94 bird species were
recorded belonging to 16 orders and 47 families. The order Passeriformes and
the family Ardeidae had the highest number of bird
species in them, with 43 and eight, respectively. Three Western Ghats endemic
birds were recorded (White-spotted Fantail Rhipidura
albogularis, White-cheeked Barbet Psilopogon viridis,
and Mottled Wood-Owl Strix ocellata). According to their feeding guilds, the birds
were categorised into eight groups, viz., omnivorous
(31 species), insectivorous (26 species), carnivorous (22 species), piscivorous
(7 species), frugivorous (3 species), nectarivores (2 species), granivorous (2
species), and herbivorous (1 species) (Table 1; Image 4). Based on IUCN 2026,
there were only two categories: ‘Least Concern’ (LC) (90 species), ‘Near
Threatened’ (NT) (2 species) (Black-headed Ibis Threskiornis
melanocephalus and Spot-billed Pelican Pelecanus philippensis)
and two species are not assessed (Grey-headed Swamphen
Porphyrio poliocephalus
and Cinereous Tit Parus cinereus)
(Table 1).
The order Passeriformes had the
highest number of bird species of 43, with the highest occurrence percentage of
45.75%. The lowest number of species recorded was in four orders (Ciconiiformes, Podicipediformes, Psittaciformes, and Strigiformes)
with one species each and with 1.06% occurrence each (Image 5). The family Ardeidae had the highest number of bird species, with eight
recorded and the highest occurrence of 8.52%. The least number of bird species
was recorded in 21 different families with one species in each and 1.06%
occurrence each (Table 2; Image 3).
The species accumulation curve
suggested that the sampling effort was adequate, as it reached an asymptote
from the tenth month (Image 2). The species richness was 94. The Shannon-Wiener
diversity value was 3.1517 ± 0.31SE. The Simpson’s diversity
index value was 0.6937, and the Pielou’s evenness
value was 0.694 (Table 3).
Karanji Lake serves as a key urban
ecology site in Mysuru City, sustaining a wide variety and diversity of birds.
It serves as breeding ground for several bird species (Black-headed Ibis Threskiornis melanocephalus,
Spot-billed Pelican Pelecanus philippensis, Greater Cormorant Phalacrocorax
carbo, Indian Cormorant Phalacrocorax fuscicollis, Little Cormorant Microcarbo
niger, Grey Heron Ardea
cinerea, Pond Heron Ardeola
grayii, Black-crowned Night Heron Nycticorax nycticorax,
Painted Stork Mycteria leucocephala,
Indian Spot-billed Duck Anas poecilorhyncha,
Lesser whistling Duck Dendrocygna javanica, Black Kite Milvus migrans,
Brahminy Kite Haliastur indus)
(S. Sushanth pers. obs.). Earlier studies on birds
from the same area have recorded 135 species of birds (Kumara
et al. 2010), which is a decline in bird diversity compared to the present
study. The bird diversity is lower than the other two major lakes of Mysuru (Kukkarahalli lake and Lingambudhi
lake) with 98 and 213 species, respectively (Kumara
et al. 2010). All of these declines, even though there are methodological
limitations in different survey periods, underscore its role amid ongoing
urbanization pressures. However, index values indicate substantial richness of
the wetland’s biodiversity; species richness and Shannon-Wiener values reflect
robust taxonomic representation along with high community uncertainty driven by
even species proportions. Simpson’s value signifies low dominance probability
among species pairs, wherein Pielou evenness
demonstrates equitable abundance distribution supporting stability.
The dominance of certain birds in
lake ecosystems is known to reflect habitat structure, food availability, and
ecological suitability. The order Passeriformes dominated as they are globally
the most species-rich and commonly abundant bird order, dominating mixed
lake-edge and adjacent terrestrial habitats, where shrubs, trees, and open
ground favour insectivores, omnivores, and
generalists, explaining the higher number of omnivores and insectivores (Francl & Schnell 2002; Traut
& Hostetler 2004; Schmitt & Edwards 2022; Naveen et al. 2025, 2026).
Habitat heterogeneity of lakes (such as open water, shallow margin, aquatic
vegetation, and riparian trees) provides a mosaic of complementary habitats for
wetland birds (along with food), which are known to be key drivers of waterbird abundance, explaining the elevated presence of Pelecaniformes and Ardeidae
(Ramachandran et al. 2017; Ramesh et al. 2020; Meerhoff
& González-Sagrario 2022; Nag 2022).
Wetland habitat heterogeneity
(wooded area, marshes, open water) supports functional diversity through
dominant feeding guilds, primarily omnivores, insectivores, and carnivores,
that drive pest regulation and nutrient cycling, indicating robust trophic
interactions typical of urban refugia (Panda et al. 2021). However, the
prevalence of omnivores and insectivores alongside declining representation of
other guilds indicates strong ecological filtering and reduced resource
heterogeneity (Ahmed & Khan 2022). Such guild patterns favouring
broad trophic niches under urban-driven habitat simplification—predictably
erode trophic complexity and functional diversity (Hagen et al. 2017; El-Sabaawi 2018; Sol et al. 2020; Panda et al. 2021; Ahmed
& Khan 2022). The present study also highlights that there could be a
potentially significant relationship between Karanji
Lake and Chamundi Hills, as there were personal
observations of the movement of birds between both of these places. They are
two separate areas, but connected by some of these
life forms which are dependent on both of these areas. Further, systematic
investigation is required to understand the fine-scale relationship between
birds and these areas.
Urban wetlands like Karanji Lake act as an important refugium and help maintain
species richness and functional diversity because they provide necessary
resources that can support both resident and migratory birds within otherwise heavily
built-up landscapes, making them especially valuable where natural wetlands
have been lost or degraded. However, during the study, it was found that Karanji Lake is under several threats, falling into i) anthropogenic (sewage intrusion, tourist boating, path
alterations) and ii) ecological threats (hyacinth mats, natural siltation,
eutrophication), as these threats should be considered to take conservation
actions by the concerned authorities. All of these are known to affect the bird
community negatively, consistent with regional declines potentially reducing
migratory influx (Bhendekar et al. 2024; Nandhini & Jagatheeswari
2024). Detailed studies in future would help to directly assess the effect of
these threats on bird populations of the area. Bhatnagar et al. (2007) reported
similar findings in India. It was observed that the various decaying weeds in
the lakes formed floating vegetation islands/mats, which are known to
deteriorate habitat quality and also interfere with foraging activities of waterbirds. These threats are also known to affect the
distribution of wetland birds and cause local extinctions (Harisha
& Hosetti 2017), which might lead to fewer
migratory bird visits to the lake.
Considering these facts, there is
a need to create awareness among local people about the richness of this place
and take adequate steps and measures towards protection and conservation of the
Lake, avifauna and the lake’s avian heritage. Conservation via targeted
measures such as aquatic de-weeding, wastewater diversion, mechanical/biolocontrol hyacinth eradication, and water aeration by
mechanical pumps needs to be carried out from time to time for sustaining
aquatic bird populations; more native trees and host plants should be planted,
which would attract prey base and increase prey abundance (Grutters
et al. 2015; Woo et al. 2018; Peterson et al. 2025). Hence, it is required by
the Sri Chamarajendra Zoological Gardens to help
restore its biodiversity value, bolster flyway stopovers, and model urban
wetland management, with speculated Chamundi Hills
connectivity. Further follow-up studies of the same lake for a longer period
will help to determine the species-specific aquatic and other bird and habitat
conservation. Conservation of such wetlands is essential to sustain migratory
bird populations, as it is probably an abode during their migratory route,
serving a vital role in the conservation of these species (Harisha
& Hosetti 2017). Thus, to have a long-term
conservation measure, it is necessary to have knowledge about bird species
diversity present in an area. The richness of species diversity in the present
study site may be attributed to its geographical location, heterogeneity of
land characteristics, and number of tree & shrub species, which makes the place
more complex structurally.
CONCLUSION
The outcome of the present study
highlights the importance of wetland habitat as refugia for avifaunal diversity
in urban ecosystems, with Karanji Lake sustaining 94
species and critical guilds despite urbanization pressures, thereby maintaining
ecological regulation via pest control and nutrient cycling. Management must
prioritize sewage diversion, hyacinth eradication, and zoned tourism to
preserve breeding sites for NT species like Painted Stork, preventing trophic
cascades from guild loss. The current study not only acts as baseline data from
scientific and systematic effort, but also helps in understanding the value of
such urban wetlands. Such studies will also aid in monitoring and conserving
bird diversity in and around urban areas. Although the present habitat is
providing shelter and acting as a breeding ground for many bird species, there
is a need for an awareness campaign and bio-monitoring programmes
for maintaining and protecting the avian heritage. However, if proper steps are
not taken, the available richness of these glorified birds is under threat due
to uncontrolled urbanization constraints. These may severely affect the
ecological balance and alter the avian diversity of this Lake. Future research should
deploy radio-telemetry for hills-lake connectivity and functional trait
analyses to quantify resilience thresholds under climate-urban gradients.
Table 1. The updated list of
bird species recorded in Karanji Lake, Mysuru.
|
|
Common name |
Scientific name |
IUCN Red List |
Diet |
|
I |
Accipitriformes |
|||
|
i |
Accipitidae |
|||
|
1 |
Shikra |
Accipiter badius |
LC |
CV |
|
2 |
Black Kite |
Milvus migrans |
LC |
CV |
|
3 |
Brahminy Kite |
Haliastur Indus |
LC |
CV |
|
II |
Anseriformes |
|||
|
ii |
Anatidae |
|||
|
4 |
Indian Spot-billed Duck |
Anas poecilorhyncha |
LC |
OV |
|
5 |
Lesser Whistling-Duck |
Dendrocygna javanica |
LC |
OV |
|
iii |
Phasianidae |
|||
|
6 |
Indian Peafowl |
Pavo cristatus |
LC |
OV |
|
III |
Bucerotiformes |
|||
|
iv |
Bucerotidae |
|||
|
7 |
Indian Grey Hornbill |
Ocyceros birostris |
LC |
OV |
|
v |
Upupidae |
|||
|
8 |
Common Hoopoe |
Upupa epops |
LC |
OV |
|
IV |
Charadriiformes |
|||
|
vi |
Charadriidae |
|||
|
9 |
Red-wattled
Lapwing |
Vanellus indicus |
LC |
CV |
|
vii |
Jacanidae |
|||
|
10 |
Bronze-winged Jacana |
Metopidius indicus |
LC |
CV |
|
viii |
Scolopacidae |
|||
|
11 |
Green Sandpiper |
Tringa ochropus |
LC |
OV |
|
12 |
Common Sandpiper |
Actitis hypoleucos |
LC |
CV |
|
13 |
Wood Sandpiper |
Tringa glareola |
LC |
CV |
|
V |
Ciconiiformes |
|||
|
ix |
Ciconiidae |
|||
|
14 |
Painted Stork |
Mycteria leucocephala |
LC |
CV |
|
VI |
Columbiformes |
|||
|
x |
Columbidae |
|||
|
15 |
Rock Dove |
Columba livia |
LC |
OV |
|
16 |
Spotted Dove |
Spilopelia chinensis |
LC |
GV |
|
VII |
Coraciiformes |
|||
|
xi |
Alcedinidae |
|||
|
17 |
Common Kingfisher |
Alcedo atthis |
LC |
PV |
|
18 |
White-throated Kingfisher |
Halcyon smyrnensis |
LC |
PV |
|
19 |
Stork-billed Kingfisher |
Pelargopsis capensis |
LC |
PV |
|
VIII |
Cuculiformes |
|||
|
xii |
Cuculidae |
|||
|
20 |
Greater Coucal |
Centropus sinensis |
LC |
OV |
|
21 |
Asian Koel |
Eudynamys scolopaceus |
LC |
OV |
|
22 |
Common Hawk-Cuckoo |
Hierococcyx varius |
LC |
IV |
|
IX |
Gruiformes |
|||
|
xiii |
Rallidae |
|||
|
23 |
Eurasian Coot |
Fulica atra |
LC |
OV |
|
24 |
Eurasian Moorhen |
Gallinula chloropus |
LC |
OV |
|
25 |
Grey-headed Swamphen |
Porphyrio poliocephalus |
- |
OV |
|
26 |
White-breasted Waterhen |
Amaurornis phoenicurus |
LC |
OV |
|
X |
Passeriformes |
|||
|
xiv |
Acrocephalidae |
|||
|
27 |
Sykes’s Warbler |
Iduna rama |
LC |
IV |
|
28 |
Clamorous Reed Warbler |
Acrocephalus stentoreus |
LC |
IV |
|
29 |
Blyth’s Reed Warbler |
Acrocephalus dumetorum |
LC |
IV |
|
30 |
Booted Warbler |
Iduna caligata |
LC |
IV |
|
xv |
Aegithinidae |
|||
|
31 |
Common Iora |
Aegithina tiphia |
LC |
IV |
|
xvi |
Apodidae |
|||
|
32 |
Asian Palm Swift |
Cypsiurus balasiensis |
LC |
IV |
|
33 |
Little Swift |
Apus affinis |
LC |
IV |
|
xvii |
Campephagidae |
|||
|
34 |
Small Minivet |
Pericrocotus cinnamomeus |
LC |
IV |
|
35 |
Black-headed Cuckooshrike |
Coracina melanoptera |
LC |
IV |
|
xviii |
Chloropseidae |
|||
|
36 |
Jerdon's Leafbird |
Chloropsis jerdoni |
LC |
OV |
|
xix |
Cisticolidae |
|||
|
37 |
Common Tailorbird |
Orthotomus sutorius |
LC |
OV |
|
38 |
Ashy Prinia |
Prinia socialis |
LC |
IV |
|
xx |
Corvidae |
|||
|
39 |
House Crow |
Corvus splendens |
LC |
OV |
|
40 |
Large-billed Crow |
Corvus macrorhynchos |
LC |
OV |
|
xxi |
Dicaeidae |
|||
|
41 |
Pale-billed Flowerpecker |
Dicaeum erythrorhynchos |
LC |
OV |
|
xxii |
Dicruridae |
|||
|
42 |
Black Drongo |
Dicrurus macrocercus |
LC |
IV |
|
43 |
Ashy Drongo |
Dicrurus leucophaeus |
LC |
IV |
|
xxiii |
Estrildidae |
|||
|
44 |
Scaly-breasted Munia |
Lonchura punctulata |
LC |
OV |
|
45 |
White-rumped
Munia |
Lonchura striata |
LC |
GV |
|
xxiv |
Hirundinidae |
|||
|
46 |
Red-rumped
Swallow |
Cecropis daurica |
LC |
IV |
|
47 |
Barn Swallow |
Hirundo rustica |
LC |
IV |
|
xxv |
Monarchidae |
|||
|
48 |
Indian Paradise Flycatcher |
Terpsiphone paradisi |
LC |
IV |
|
xxvi |
Motacillidae |
|||
|
49 |
Forest Wagtail |
Dendronanthus indicus |
LC |
IV |
|
50 |
Gray Wagtail |
Motacilla cinerea |
LC |
CV |
|
51 |
White-browed Wagtail |
Motacilla maderaspatensis |
LC |
IV |
|
xxvii |
Muscicapidae |
|||
|
52 |
Asian Brown Flycatcher |
Muscicapa dauurica |
LC |
IV |
|
53 |
Indian Robin |
Saxicoloides fulicatus |
LC |
OV |
|
54 |
Oriental Magpie Robin |
Copsychus saularis |
LC |
OV |
|
55 |
Tickell’s Blue Flycatcher |
Cyornis tickelliae |
LC |
IV |
|
56 |
White-rumped
Shama |
Copsychus malabaricus |
LC |
IV |
|
xxviii |
Nectariniidae |
|||
|
57 |
Purple-rumped
Sunbird |
Leptocoma zeylonica |
LC |
NV |
|
58 |
Purple Sunbird |
Cinnyris asiaticus |
LC |
NV |
|
xxix |
Oriolidae |
|||
|
59 |
Indian Golden Oriole |
Oriolus kundoo |
LC |
OV |
|
xxx |
Paridae |
|||
|
60 |
Cinereous Tit |
Parus cinereus |
- |
IV |
|
xxxi |
Phylloscopidae |
|||
|
61 |
Green Warbler |
Phylloscopus nitidus |
LC |
IV |
|
xxxii |
Pittidae |
|||
|
62 |
Indian Pitta |
Pitta brachyura |
LC |
CV |
|
xxxiii |
Pycnonotidae |
|||
|
63 |
Red-whiskered Bulbul |
Pycnonotus jocosus |
LC |
OV |
|
64 |
Red-vented Bulbul |
Pycnonotus cafer |
LC |
OV |
|
xxxiv |
Rhipiduridae |
|||
|
65 |
White-spotted Fantail |
Rhipidura albogularis |
LC |
IV |
|
xxxv |
Sturnidae |
|||
|
66 |
Common Myna |
Acridotheres tristis |
LC |
OV |
|
67 |
Jungle Myna |
Acridotheres fuscus |
LC |
OV |
|
68 |
Chestnut-tailed Starling |
Sturnia malabarica |
LC |
OV |
|
xxxvi |
Zosteropidae |
|||
|
69 |
Indian White-eye |
Zosterops palpebrosus |
LC |
HV |
|
XI |
Pelecaniformes |
|||
|
xxxvii |
Ardeidae |
|||
|
70 |
Purple Heron |
Ardea purpurea |
LC |
CV |
|
71 |
Indian Pond Heron |
Ardeola grayii |
LC |
OV |
|
72 |
Little Egret |
Egretta garzetta |
LC |
CV |
|
73 |
Intermediate Egret |
Ardea intermedia |
LC |
CV |
|
74 |
Great White Egret |
Ardea alba |
LC |
CV |
|
75 |
Cattle Egret |
Bubulcus ibis |
LC |
CV |
|
76 |
Gray Heron |
Ardea cinerea |
LC |
CV |
|
77 |
Black-crowned Night Heron |
Nycticorax nycticorax |
LC |
OV |
|
xxxviii |
Threskiornithidae |
|||
|
78 |
Red-naped
Ibis |
Pseudibis papillosa |
LC |
CV |
|
79 |
Black-headed Ibis |
Threskiornis melanocephalus |
NT |
CV |
|
80 |
Glossy Ibis |
Plegadis falcinellus |
LC |
CV |
|
XII |
Piciformes |
|||
|
xxxix |
Megalaimidae |
|||
|
81 |
Coppersmith Barbet |
Megalaima haemacephala |
LC |
FV |
|
82 |
White cheeked Barbet |
Psilopogon viridis |
LC |
FV |
|
xl |
Meropidae |
|||
|
83 |
Asian Green Bee-eater |
Merops orientalis |
LC |
IV |
|
84 |
Blue-tailed Bee-eater |
Merops philippinus |
LC |
IV |
|
xli |
Picidae |
|||
|
85 |
Black-rumped
Flameback |
Dinopium benghalense |
LC |
OV |
|
86 |
White-naped
Woodpecker |
Chrysocolaptes festivus |
LC |
OV |
|
XIII |
Podicipediformes |
|||
|
xlii |
Podicipedidae |
|||
|
87 |
Little Grebe |
Tachybaptus ruficollis |
LC |
CV |
|
XIV |
Psittaciformes |
|||
|
xliii |
Psittaculidae |
|||
|
88 |
Rose-ringed Parakeet |
Psittacula krameri |
LC |
FV |
|
XV |
Strigiformes |
|||
|
xliv |
Strigidae |
|||
|
89 |
Mottled Wood-Owl |
Strix ocellata |
LC |
CV |
|
XVI |
Sulliformes |
|||
|
xlv |
Anhingidae |
|||
|
90 |
Oriental Darter |
Anhinga melanogaster |
LC |
CV |
|
xlvi |
Pelecanidae |
|||
|
91 |
Spot-billed Pelican |
Pelecanus philippensis |
NT |
PV |
|
xlvii |
Phalacrocoracidae |
|||
|
92 |
Great Cormorant |
Phalacrocorax carbo |
LC |
PV |
|
93 |
Little Cormorant |
Microcarbo niger |
LC |
PV |
|
94 |
Indian Cormorant |
Phalacrocorax fuscicollis |
LC |
PV |
I (Capital roman numerals)—order
| I (sentence case roman numerals)—family | 1 (Arabic numerals)—species |
LC—Least Concerned | NT—Near Threatened | GV—Granivorous | CV—Carnivorous |
OV—Omnivorous | IV—Insectivorous | FV—Frugivorous | HV—Herbivorous.
Table 2. Family-wise bird species
recorded in Karanji Lake, Mysuru.
|
|
Name of the family |
No. of bird species recorded |
% Occurrence |
|
Name of the family |
No. of bird species recorded |
% Occurrence |
|
1 |
Accipitridae |
3 |
3.19 |
25 |
Monarchidae |
1 |
1.06 |
|
2 |
Anatidae |
2 |
2.13 |
26 |
Motacillidae |
3 |
3.19 |
|
3 |
Phasianidae |
1 |
1.06 |
27 |
Muscicapidae |
5 |
5.33 |
|
4 |
Bucerotidae |
1 |
1.06 |
28 |
Nectariniidae |
2 |
2.13 |
|
5 |
Upupidae |
1 |
1.06 |
29 |
Oriolidae |
1 |
1.06 |
|
6 |
Charadriidae |
1 |
1.06 |
30 |
Paridae |
1 |
1.06 |
|
7 |
Jacanidae |
1 |
1.06 |
31 |
Phylloscopidae |
1 |
1.06 |
|
8 |
Scolopacidae |
3 |
3.19 |
32 |
Pittidae |
1 |
1.06 |
|
9 |
Ciconiidae |
1 |
1.06 |
33 |
Pycnonotidae |
2 |
2.13 |
|
10 |
Columbidae |
2 |
2.13 |
34 |
Rhipiduridae |
1 |
1.06 |
|
11 |
Alcedinidae |
3 |
3.19 |
35 |
Sturnidae |
3 |
3.19 |
|
12 |
Cuculidae |
3 |
3.19 |
36 |
Zosteropidae |
1 |
1.06 |
|
13 |
Rallidae |
4 |
4.27 |
37 |
Ardeidae |
8 |
8.52 |
|
14 |
Acrocephalidae |
4 |
4.27 |
38 |
Threskiornithidae |
3 |
3.19 |
|
15 |
Aegithinidae |
1 |
1.06 |
39 |
Megalaimidae |
2 |
2.13 |
|
16 |
Apodidae |
2 |
2.13 |
40 |
Meropidae |
2 |
2.13 |
|
17 |
Campephagidae |
2 |
2.13 |
41 |
Picidae |
2 |
2.13 |
|
18 |
Chloropseidae |
1 |
1.06 |
42 |
Podicipedidae |
1 |
1.06 |
|
19 |
Cisticolidae |
2 |
2.13 |
43 |
Psittaculidae |
1 |
1.06 |
|
20 |
Corvidae |
2 |
2.13 |
44 |
Strigidae |
1 |
1.06 |
|
21 |
Dicaeidae |
1 |
1.06 |
45 |
Anhingidae |
1 |
1.06 |
|
22 |
Dicruridae |
2 |
2.13 |
46 |
Pelecanidae |
1 |
1.06 |
|
23 |
Estrildidae |
2 |
2.13 |
47 |
Phalacrocoracidae |
3 |
3.19 |
|
24 |
Hirundinidae |
2 |
2.13 |
Total |
94 |
100 |
|
Table 3. Diversity Indices values of birds
recorded at Karanji Lake, Mysuru.
|
|
Diversity Indices |
Values |
|
1 |
Species richness |
94 |
|
2 |
Shannon-Wiener diversity Index |
3.1517 ± 0.31SE |
|
3 |
Simpson diversity Index |
0.6937 |
|
4 |
Pielou’s evenness |
0.694 |
For
images - - click here for full PDF
REFERENCES
Ahmed, T.
& A. Khan (2022). Avifaunal feeding guilds’ response to landscape
compositional heterogeneity and their drivers in forest mosaic, Uttarakhand,
India. Journal of Tropical Ecology 38(4): 183–193. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0266467422000049
Ali, S. &
H. Whistler (1942–43). The birds of Mysore. Part I, II and III. Journal of the
Bombay Natural History Society. 43:130–147, 318–341, 573–595; 44: 9–26, 208–220.
Bhatnagar,
C.C.B et al. (2007). Vanishing habitats of aquatic birds in the city of lakes,
Udaipur: a case study. Indian Forester 133(10): 1395–1402.
Bhendekar, G. et al. (2024). Seasonal bird
diversity of an urban lake with the history of eutrophication and restoration.
Tropical Ecology 65(4): 592–608. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42965-024-00354-9
Bibby, C.J.
et al. (2000). Bird Census Techniques. 2nd Edition. Academic Press,
London, 302 pp.
BirdLife International (2026). BirdLife is the world leader in Bird Conservation. https://www.birdlife.org/
Buckland,
S.T. et al. (2001). Introduction to distance sampling: estimating abundance of
biological populations. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.
El-Sabaawi, R. (2018). Trophic structure in a rapidly urbanizing
planet. Functional Ecology 32(7): 1718–1728. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2435.13114
Francl, K.E. & G.D. Schnell (2002). Relationships of
human disturbance, bird communities, and plant communities along the land-water
interface of a large reservoir. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 73(1):
67–93. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1012615314061
Ghosh, M. et
al. (2022). Species composition and classification of guilds in birds with
respect to food and feeding behavior: evidences from suburban landscape in
Hooghly District, West Bengal. Asian Journal of Conservation Biology 11(1):
143–153. https://doi.org/10.53562/ajcb.67216
Gregory, R.D.
et al. (2004). The state of play farmland birds: population trends and
conservation status of lowland farmland birds in the United Kingdom. Ibis 146: 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1474-919X.2004.00358.x
Grimmett, R. et al.
(2013). Birds of the Indian Subcontinent.
Oxford University Press.
Grutters, B.M. et al.
(2015). Native and non‑native plants provide
similar refuge to invertebrate prey, but less than artificial
plants. PLoS One 10(4):
e0124455. https://doi.org/10.5061/dryad.11h73
Hagen, E.O. et
al. (2017). Impacts of
urban areas and their characteristics
on avian functional diversity. Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution 5: 84. https://doi.org/10.3389/fevo.2017.00084
Harisha, M.N. &
B.B. Hosetti (2017). Conservation
status, threats and diversity
of wetland birds of Dyamannana
lake (Kere), Bhadravathi Taluk, Shivamogga District, Karnataka, India. Environment and Ecology 35(4): 3071–3076.
IUCN (2026). The
IUCN Red List of Threatened
Species. Version 2025-2. https://www.iucnredlist.org.
Accessed on 02.vii.2026.
Jamakhandi, H.S. &
G.G. Kadadevaru (2024). Avifaunal
diversity and feeding guild structure in and around Unkal Lake: a semiarid
urban wetland in Karnataka, India. Indian Journal of Ecology 51(2): 453–467. https://doi.org/10.55362/IJE/2024/4258
Kaur, R. & O.S. Brraich (2021). Abundance and diversity of threatened
birds in Nangal Wetland, Punjab, India. Journal of
Threatened Taxa 13(12): 19733–19742. https://doi.org/10.11609/jott.4062.13.12.19733-19742
Kumara, H.N. et al.
(2010). Preparation of biodiversity
conservation plan for Mysore Forest Division. Technical report submitted to Karnataka Forest Department,
Mysore Forest Division, Mysore, Karnataka, India.
Meerhoff, M. & M. de
los Ángeles González-Sagrario
(2022). Habitat complexity in shallow
lakes and ponds: importance,
threats, and potential for restoration. Hydrobiologia 849(17): 3737–3760. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10750-021-04771-y
Mishra, D. et al.
(2007). Birds of Chamundi
Hills Reserve Forest, Mysore, Karnataka. Indian Birds
3(3): 82–86.
Mysore Nature
(2025). Mysore Nature website. https://www.mysorenature.org/home.
Accessed on 02.vii.2026.
Nag, K.C. (2022). Height variations of Great Cormorant Phalacrocorax carbo sinensis nests in response to anthropogenic presence at two lakes in Bengaluru, India. Indian Birds 18(3): 74–78.
Nandhini, M. & J. Jagatheeswari (2024). Diversity and
conservation of wetland avifauna in Nanjarayan
Lake, Tiruppur, Tamil Nadu, India. Uttar Pradesh
Journal of Zoology 45(18):
254–267.
Naveen, K.S. et al.
(2026). Waterbird assemblage
structure, seasonal dynamics and anthropogenic Ppressures in Sengulam Lake, an
urban wetland of the Noyyal River Basin, south India. AgroEnvironmental Sustainability
4(2): 157–171. https://doi.org/10.59983/s2026040206
Naveen, K.S. et al.
(2025). Avifaunal diversity
of Chinnavedampatti Lake:
An urban wetland in Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu, India.
Journal of Experimental Zoology
India 28: 1383–1395. https://doi.org/10.51470/jez.2025.28.2.1383
Oksanen, J. et
al. (2025). vegan: Community ecology package. R package version 2.7‑2. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=vegan
Panda, B.P. et
al. (2021). Habitat heterogeneity and seasonal variations influencing avian community structure in wetlands. Journal of Asia-Pacific Biodiversity 14(1): 23–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.japb.2020.10.001
Peterson, M.I.
et al. (2025). Benefits of aquatic vegetation for fish in an
ecosystem dominated by an invasive piscivore. Freshwater Biology 70(5): e70045.
https://doi.org/10.1111/fwb.70045
Ramachandran,
R. et al. (2017). Hunting or habitat? Drivers of waterbird
abundance and community structure in agricultural wetlands of southern India. Ambio 46(5): 613–620. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-017-0907-9
Ramesh, T. et
al. (2020). Abundance, Assemblage, Habitat Characteristics and Seasonal
Diversity of Waterbirds at Kalpakkam,
South East Coast of India. Asian Journal of Conservation Biology 9(1): 156–166.
R Core Team
(2025). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation
for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. https://www.R-project.org
RStudio Team (2025). RStudio:
Integrated development for R. RStudio, PBC. http://www.rstudio.com/
Schmitt, C.J.
& S.V. Edwards (2022). Passerine birds. Current Biology 32(20):
R1149–R1154. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2022.08.061
Sekercioglu, C.H. (2006). Increasing
awareness of avian ecological function. Trends in Ecology & Evolution
21(8): 464–471. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2006.05.007
Sekercioglu, C.H. et al. (2016). Why Birds
Matter: Avian Ecological Function and Ecosystem Services. University of
Chicago.
Sol, C. et
al. (2020). The worldwide impact of urbanisation on
avian functional diversity. Ecology Letters 23(6): 962–972. https://doi.org/10.1111/ele.13495
Traut, A.H. & M.E. Hostetler (2004). Urban lakes and waterbirds: effects of shoreline development on avian
distribution. Landscape and Urban Planning 69(1): 69–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2003.08.009
Verma, M. et al. (2001). Economic valuation of Bhoj wetland for sustainable use. Unpublished project
report for World Bank assistance to Government of India, Environmental
Management Capacity‑Building, Indian Institute of
Forest Management, 35: 1–32, Bhopal.
Wetlands
International (2012). Waterbird Population Estimates
(5th ed.). Wetlands International, Wageningen, Netherlands.
Wickham, H.
(2016). ggplot2: Elegant Graphics for Data Analysis. Springer‑Verlag, New York.
Woo, I. et al. (2018). Enhanced invertebrate prey
production following estuarine restoration supports foraging for multiple
species of juvenile salmonids (Oncorhynchus spp.). Restoration Ecology
26(5): 964–975. https://doi.org/10.1111/rec.12658