Journal of Threatened Taxa |
www.threatenedtaxa.org | 26 January 2020 | 12(1): 15140–15153
ISSN 0974-7907 (Online) | ISSN 0974-7893
(Print)
doi: https://doi.org/10.11609/jott.5267.12.1.15140-15153
#5267 | Received 23 July 2019 | Final
received 03 December 2019 | Finally accepted 20 December 2019
Composition,
diversity and foraging guilds of avifauna in agricultural landscapes In
Panipat, Haryana, India
Parmesh Kumar 1 &
Sharmila Sahu 2
1,2 Department of Zoology, Institute
of Integrated & Honors Studies, Kurukshetra
University, Kurukshetra, Haryana 136119, India.
1 parmeshkuk@rediffmail.com
(corresponding author), 2 sharmilaruhil@gmail.com
Abstract: Avian communities are very good
indicators of integrity and stability of ecosystem structure and functions.
Assessment of bird assemblages in different landscapes is therefore emphasized
from an environmental monitoring viewpoint.
Bird surveys were carried out from April 2015 to March 2016 to document
the avian species assemblage of agricultural landscapes in Panipat, Haryana,
India. Point-transect in amalgam with
opportunistic encounter methods were used to collect data. A total of 101 bird species under 44 families
and 15 orders were recorded from the study area. The bird species richness was highest for
the order Passeriformes (48), followed by Pelecaniformes
(15), Charadriiformes (6), and the remaining 12
orders. Ardeidae
was the most diverse bird family in the study area. Among the recorded avifauna, 77 species were
residents, 18 species were winter migrants and six species were summer
migrants. Species richness was recorded
to be highest in the month of January compared to the remaining months. Species richness, abundance, diversity and
evenness differed significantly (P < 0.05) between seasons as well as among
the agricultural landscapes. Most bird
species were insectivorous (36) followed by carnivorous (26), omnivorous (24),
granivorous (9), frugivorous (5) and nectarivorous
(1). Painted Stork Mycteria
leucocephala, Black-necked Stork Ephippiorhynchus asiaticus,
Black-headed Ibis Threskiornis melanocephalus, and Alexandrine Parakeet Psittacula eupatria
are four Near Threatened species found in this region. Interestingly, five species having globally
declining population trends are still common in the study area. The observed richness of avian species in the
study area calls for further studies on habitat preference, seasonal changes,
nest ecology, and breeding biology to understand species specific roles of birds
in agro-ecosystems.
Keywords: Agroecosystem, avian communities,
ecosystem structure, point-transect, species diversity.
Editor: Rajiv S. Kalsi, M.L.N. College,
Haryana, India Date of publication: 26 January 2020
(online & print)
Citation: Kumar, P. & S. Sahu (2020). Composition,
diversity and foraging guilds of avifauna in agricultural landscapes In
Panipat, Haryana, India. Journal of Threatened Taxa 12(1): 15140–15153. https://doi.org/10.11609/jott.5267.12.1.15140-15153
Copyright: © Kumar & Sahu 2020. 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 research did
not receive any specific grant
from funding agencies in the public,
commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
Competing interests: The authors
declare no competing interests.
Author details: Dr. Parmesh Kumar is Associate Professor of Zoology, Institute of Integrated & Honors
Studies, Kurukshetra University. He has published dozens of papers in the
national and international journals and few book chapters on biodiversity specifically
on avifauna of Haryana. His field of research includes wildlife ecology and
animal behaviour. Sharmila
Sahu is a research scholar and pursuing her
PhD from Department of Zoology, Kurukshetra University.
Author contribution: PK conceived and designed the
study as well as wrote the final draft of the manuscript. SS performed the
field surveys, analysed the data and prepared rough
draft of the manuscript. Both authors read and approved the final manuscript.
Acknowledgements: We thank the Department of
Zoology, Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra for providing necessary research
facilities. We are grateful to Dr. Omvir Singh for preparing the map of the study area.
INTRODUCTION
Agroecosystems are among the most
productive ecosystems on earth, occupying 38% of the earth’s terrestrial area
(Foley et al. 2011). In addition to
various ecosystem services, agricultural landscapes serve as unique habitats
for a huge diversity of wildlife including invertebrates, amphibians, reptiles,
birds, and mammals (Bambaradeniya et al. 1998). Birds constitute an important component of
the biotic community in the agro-ecosystems and
execute varied functional roles as seed dispensers, pollinators, scavengers,
nutrient depositors, predators of insect pests and rodents (Dhindsa
& Saini 1994; Whelan et al. 2008; Sekercioglu
2012). Because of the variety of
ecological functions performed by birds, they are generally recognised as
valuable indicators of the overall biodiversity in agricultural landscapes (Malhi 2006).
Birds are known to play a dual
role as pests and as biological control agents of insect pests in
agroecosystems (Dhindsa & Saini 1994; Bianchi et
al. 2006; Narayana et al. 2019). The
agricultural landscapes provide a concentrated and highly predictable source of
food to many bird species in the form of grains, seeds, fruits, green vegetation of the crop
plants, grasses, weeds, insects, other invertebrates, and rodents (O’Connor
& Shrubb 1986; Dhindsa
& Saini 1994; Asokan et al. 2009). In agro-ecosystems,
most bird species are insectivorous and play an important role in maintaining
the population of insect pests and thereby are beneficial to farmers (Asokan et al. 2009).
Studies of avian diversity in agricultural landscapes of India, however,
are very limited compared to natural and protected ecosystems (Dhindsa & Saini 1994; Hossain & Aditya 2016;
Narayana et al. 2019).
In the past few decades, Haryana
State has witnessed tremendous changes in its agroecosystem owing to intensive
agriculture and its mechanization, excessive use of pesticides and fertilizers
along with rapid urbanization and industrial growth. All these developmental activities have
resulted in several ecological changes in the agroecosystems, and consequently
affected the avifauna of the state. As a
result, documentation of bird assemblages in agroecosystems need priority to
assess the impact of changing natural habitat and agricultural practices
(Mallik et al. 2015; Hossain & Aditya 2016; Mukhopadhyay & Mazumdar
2017; Narayana et al. 2019). Information
on species richness and community structure of birds will help in developing
suitable conservation strategies for sustaining birds without interfering with
the objective of intensive agricultural practices in heterogeneous agricultural
landscapes (Dhindsa & Saini 1994; Sundar & Kittur 2013; Hossain
& Aditya 2016). Panipat is one of
the agriculturally advanced districts of Haryana, India. Till date no data is available on the bird
diversity in agricultural landscapes of the district. In this context, the present study made an
attempt to record species composition and diversity of avian fauna in
agricultural landscapes of the district Panipat, Haryana.
MATERIALS
AND METHODS
Study area
The study was conducted in all
five development blocks (Panipat, Samalkha, Israna, Bapoli and Madlauda) of district Panipat, Haryana, India, taking at
least two study sites in each development block. Panipat, is situated between 29.150–29.450 0N
and 76.633–77.150 0E at an elevation of 244.5m and has an area of
1,268km2 (Figure 1). A brief
description of the selected agricultural landscapes is given in Table 1. Net area sown in the district is 93,000ha
which constitutes 71% of the total area.
Agricultural activities of the district are dependent on tube wells and
canals. The district is mainly drained
by the river Yamuna and its tributaries.
Rice-wheat cropping system dominates with the consequent marginalization
of pulses and oilseed. Sugarcane is also
being grown in the study area as a cash crop.
The district forms a part of the Indo-Gangetic alluvial plain with flat
terrain. The study area experiences
sub-tropical climate with three major seasons, i.e., rainy (July to September),
a cool dry (October to February) and the hot dry season (March to June). Temperature is as high as 450 C in
summer and as low as 30 C in winter.
The average annual rainfall in the district is 467mm and generally
increases from south-west to north-east.
Most of the precipitation is received during the monsoon and some rain
is also received during the cold season in association with passing western
disturbances.
Data collection
Bird surveys were conducted in
selected sites on a fortnightly basis from April 2015 to March 2016.
Point-transect method was used to record bird species (Sutherland 2006;
Narayana et al. 2019). One-km transect
was laid at each study site and a point was marked at every 200m distance and
the birds species were recorded in 20m radius.
On arrival at a survey point, an initial 5min settling-down period was
used prior to counting the birds and 15min were spent at each point to count
and record all birds observed. Each
point location on transect was surveyed as many as 24 times during the entire
study period. Birds were counted at
their point of first detection and care was taken to ensure that the same birds
were not counted again. Birds were counted
directly, aided by a pair of field binoculars (Nikon 8 x 40), during hours of
peak activity 06.00–10.00 h or 16.00–18.00 h.
Bird species, number of individuals and habitat were recorded. Overpasses except for habitually aerial bird
species such as swallows and swifts were not recorded. Call notes of birds were also used for
locating the birds. Field visits were
carried out on foot only on days with suitable weather conditions (i.e., in the
absence of rain or strong wind). The
direction of point-transects and the timing of observations was alternated
during every subsequent visit. In
addition, opportunistic observations of birds at other times were also included
to document a comprehensive checklist.
Identification of birds was done following Grimmett et
al. (2011). Taxonomic position (order
and family), common, and scientific names of recorded bird species were
assigned following Praveen et al. (2016).
For residential status, birds were categorised
as resident, winter visitor and summer visitor on the basis of presence or
absence in the study area (Kumar et al. 2016).
We also assigned a local status to each species on the basis of the
percentage of frequency of sightings following Mackinnon & Phillipps (1993) as common (C)—sighted on 80–100% of field
visits, fairly common (FC)—sighted on 60–79.9% of field visits, uncommon
(UC)—sighted on 20–59.9% of field visits, and rare (RA)—sighted on less than
19.9% of field visits. For determination
of the feeding guilds, foraging birds were observed by focal sampling method
using field binoculars and data were obtained on the type of food taken by the
species. The probable food items
collected from the feeding sites further helped in substantiating the
observations and in evaluating the availability of food. On the basis of direct observations and
description given by Ali & Ripley (1987), recorded bird species were
categorized into six major feeding guilds (Figure 2): insectivorous (species
that feed exclusively on insects), carnivorous (species that feed mainly on
non-insect invertebrates and vertebrates), granivorous (species that feed on
grains/seeds), frugivorous (species that feed predominantly on fruits), nectarivorous (species that feed on floral nectar), and
omnivorous (species that feed on both plant parts and other animals).
Species richness was calculated
as total number of bird species observed in the study area. The relative diversity (RDi)
of bird families was calculated using the following formula (Torre-Cuadros et al. 2007):
Number of bird species in a family
RDi = –––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
x 100
Total number of species
Species similarity between any
two agricultural landscapes was measured by Jaccard’s similarity index as
Jaccard’s similarity index (Cj) = a / (a + b + c)
where a is number of species
common to both the landscapes, b is number of the species unique to the first
landscape and c is the number of the species unique to the second landscape. Shannon–Wiener’s diversity and species
evenness indices of birds were estimated using PAST version 3.26 software. We pooled the recorded field data
corresponding to two seasons, i.e., summer (April–September) and winter
(October–March) to test the seasonal variation of bird assemblages in the study
area. Two way ANOVA Tukey HSD test were
used to analyse difference in the values of diversity
and other indices of bird population between seasons and among the five
selected agricultural landscapes at 5% level of significance (SPSS 24.0
version). The conservation status of
recorded bird species and their global population trend (decreasing,
increasing, stable or unknown) were compiled from the Red List of IUCN (2019).
RESULTS
AND DISCUSSION
A total of 101 species of birds
belonging to 82 genera, 44 families, and 15 orders were recorded during the
study period (Table 2). The study area
supports about 8% of the total avian species found in India (Praveen et al.
2016) and this richness of avifauna is comparable with reports of earlier
studies carried out in agricultural landscapes in different parts of
India. For instance, Abdar
(2014) recorded 97 species from agricultural habitats of the Western Ghats,
Maharashtra; Hossain & Aditya (2016) encountered 144 bird species from
Burdwan, West Bengal; and Narayana et al. (2019) recorded 128 species of birds
belonging to 59 families and 19 orders from agricultural landscapes of Nalgonda
District in Telangana State. A maximum
number of bird species belonged to the order Passeriformes (48), followed by Pelecaniformes (15), Charadriiformes
(6), and the remaining, 12 orders. More
than half (68.3%) of the species recorded during the study belonged to one of
three orders (Passeriformes, Pelecaniformes, and Charadriiformes).
These results are in agreement with previous records that order
Passeriformes constitutes the most predominant avian taxa in India (Praveen et
al. 2016).
Analysis of data on relative
diversity revealed that Ardeidae was the most diverse
bird family in the study area (8 species, RDi = 7.92)
followed by Muscicapidae (7 species, RDi = 6.93), Motacillidae (6
species, RDi = 5.94), while 22 families, Podicipedidae, Apodidae, Phalacrocoracidae, Recurvirostridae,
Jacanidae, Strigidae, Bucerotidae, Upupidae, Picidae, Meropidae, Coraciidae, Alcedinidae, Campephagidae, Oriolidae, Dicruridae, Nectariniidae, Passeridae, Alaudidae, Acrocephalidae, Pycnonotidae, Sylviidae, and Zosteropidae, were
poorly represented in the study area with a single species in each (RDi= 0.99; Table 3).
Muscicapidae is the largest family of birds in
India (Manakadan & Pittie
2001). In the study area, however, Ardeidae showed the highest diversity of species, followed
by Muscicapidae.
Nevertheless, several other studies have also found Ardeidae
to be the most diverse avian family, particularly in agricultural habitats,
urban areas, and wetlands in India (Basavarajappa
2006; Kumar 2006; Vijayan et al. 2006; Dal & Vaghela
2015; Mukhopadhyay & Mazumdar 2017).
Of the total species identified, 35 species (34.65%) were recorded from
all the five selected agricultural landscapes, but 66 species (65.34%) were
spotted at some specific agricultural landscapes only. The similarity in species composition of
birds as measured by Jaccard’s index, between the five selected agricultural
landscapes is shown in Table 4. These
results revealed that Panipat and Israna blocks
(0.685) showed a maximum similarity in bird communities, while species’
similarity of Samalkha with Madlauda
was recorded to be the minimum (0.487).
The highest species similarity recorded between Panipat and Israna block might be attributed to landscape
characteristics. Habitats with greater
structural similarity tended to present similar bird communities (Tubelis & Cavalcanti 2001; Andrade et al. 2018).
In the study area, 77 species
(76.23%) were residents, 18 (17.82%) were winter migrants, and 6 (5.94%) were
summer migrants. The spotting of a
considerable number of winter visitors can be attributed partly to the study
area being on the Central Asian Flyway and serving as a wintering site for
migratory birds that breed in the Palearctic region (Kumar et al. 2016). The highest number of bird species was
recorded at Bapoli block (77), followed by Samalkha block (68), Panipat block (62), Israna block (56), and Madlauda
block (51) as shown in Table 2. During
the summer and winter seasons, 83 and 95 bird species were recorded respectively. Seventy-seven bird species were common to
both seasons but six and 18 were exclusive to summer and winter seasons,
respectively. The species richness of
birds during summer and winter was significantly different (F1, 50 =
93.35, P < 0.05) and also varied significantly among the five agricultural
landscapes (F4, 50 = 86.09, P < 0.05, Table 5). Average species
richness of Bapoli block (65.50 ± 7.29) was
significantly higher (Tukey’s HSD test, all P < 0.05) than that of the
remaining four agricultural landscapes.
Species richness at Samalkha block (58.42 ±
5.81), however, showed non-significant differences (P > 0.05) with that of
Panipat block (54.67 ±4.94). The species
diversity of birds also varied significantly between the seasons (F1,50
= 93.70, P < 0.05) as well as among
the five landscapes (F4,50 =126.29, P < 0.05). Mean species diversity of Bapoli
block (3.78 ±0.04) was significantly higher than in the other four
agroecosystems (Tukey’s HSD test, all P < 0.05). But the average species diversity at Panipat
block (3.58 ±0.05) did not differ significantly (P > 0.05) from that of Israna block (3.57 ±0.04) and Madlauda
block (3.56 ±0.05). Species evenness
differed significantly between the summer and winter seasons (F1, 50
= 65.35, P < 0.05) and also among the five agroecosystems (F4,50
=85.15, P < 0.05). Average species
evenness at Madlauda block (0.95 ±0.01) was
registered significantly higher than the remaining agroecosystems (Tukey’s HSD
test, all P < 0.05). The average
species evenness at Samalkha block (0.90 ±0.01) did
not differ significantly (P >0.05) from that of Bapoli
block (0.90 ±0.02) and Panipat block (0.90±0.01). This relatively higher species richness,
diversity and abundance of birds recorded during the winter (as compared to summer)
might be due to the arrival of more migratory species during the winter season,
and variation in habitat conditions (Kumar et al. 2016; Rajashekara
& Venkatesha 2017). Bird species richness and community structure
differ from region to region (Karr & Roth 1971; Pearson 1975; Richards
1996). From the observations it is
evident that species richness and diversity of birds varied within the
geographical area considered in the present study. This difference in bird diversity among the
selected agroecosystems might be associated with availability of food, roosting
and nesting sites, predation pressure and human disturbance (Hossain &
Aditya 2016; Narayana et al. 2019). Crop
composition and farming intensity also determine the species richness and abundance
of birds in the agricultural landscapes (Cunningham et al. 2013). In the Bapoli
block, the selected agricultural landscape was
surrounded with patches of tall wooded trees, scrub and bushy type
stumpy vegetation, grasses and the wetlands (river Yamuna) which provided a mosaic of habitats, leading to
multiple and variety of the alternative food resources, and opportunities for
microhabitat segregation for the birds and, thus, registered highest species
richness and diversity (Hossain & Aditya 2016; Narayana et al. 2019). In contrast, agricultural landscape of Madlauda block being located in the vicinity of an
industrial area (Thermal Power Plant of Panipat) was exposed to enhanced
anthropogenic activities and adjacent land use alteration thus had the lowest
species richness and diversity (Hossain & Aditya 2016). Human activities and their direct
interference strongly disturb the avifauna (Hossain & Aditya 2016). This reflects that the basic requirements
such as food, shelter, roosting and nesting sites for bird communities are not
equally available in the different agricultural landscapes.
Monthly variations in species
richness of birds in the study area are depicted in Figure 3. Overall, a maximum number of bird species was
recorded in January (83 species), and minimum in August and September (77
species each). The variation in species
richness could be related with the arrival of migratory species. It is evident from the figure that species
richness of birds at study area begins to increase with the arrival of winter
visitors. The winter migratory birds
started appearing at study sites in October, gradually increased from November,
reached a peak in the month of January, then started declining and leave the
agricultural fields by April, flying back to their breeding grounds. Resident species were present throughout the
year and showed no seasonal variation, but the migratory species (winter
visitors and summer visitors) showed a definite species-specific pattern of
arrival and departure from the study area. We observed that the majority of the
winter migrants stayed in the agricultural fields from November to March. The summer visitors, including Pied Cuckoo, Drongo Cuckoo, Common Hawk Cuckoo, Pheasant-tailed Jacana,
Eurasian Golden Oriole, and Paddy field Warbler were spotted during summer
season (April–August) in the study area.
In this study, the recorded bird
species were categorized into six major feeding guilds (Figure 2). This
representation of major trophic guilds in the area indicated that the
agricultural landscapes hold a wide variety of food resources for birds. The insectivore guild was the most abundant
one with 36 species followed by carnivore (26), omnivore (24), granivore (9), frugivore (5) and nectarivore (1)
guild. The results of the present study
are consistent with the previously studied - that insectivore is the dominant
feeding guild in agricultural ecosystems in India (Dhindsa
& Saini 1994; Narayana et al. 2019). Maximum insectivorous bird species
belonged to Muscicapidae (7 species) and Motacillidae (6 species).
The results of the current study also reflect possible variation in
functional roles, feeding habits and resource utilization pattern of birds in
the agricultural landscapes. Most bird
species within the study area were insectivorous, indicating a rich abundance
of insects here. Insectivorous birds
play a crucial role in biological control of various insect pests thriving in
agriculture, horticulture, floriculture, and forests (Mahabal
2005; Thakur et al. 2010).
Indiscriminate use of chemical pesticides in the agricultural fields may
have severe ecological consequences and a grave effect on the birds of the
selected area. Insectivorous birds often
consume insects contaminated with pesticides (Sánchez-Bayo
et al. 1999), and thus these birds, being at a higher trophic level in food
chain, are at a high risk of suffering from the toxic effects of
bioaccumulation of such chemical pesticides (Sánchez-Bayo
2011).
Among the recorded avifauna, four
species namely, Painted Stork Mycteria leucocephala, Black-necked Stork Ephippiorhynchus
asiaticus, Oriental White Ibis Threskiornis melanocephalus
and Alexandrine Parakeet Psittacula eupatria are Near Threatened species, while the
remaining species are categorized as least concern species in the Red List of
IUCN (2019). Assessment of local
abundance revealed that 23 species were common, 35 species were fairly common,
25 species were uncommon and 18 species were rare in the study area (Table
2). When this local abundance status was
compared with the global population trend of the species (Figure 4), we found
that some species having a globally declining population trend were still
common in the study area. Five species
with globally declining population trends, Rock Pigeon Columba livia, Indian
Black Ibis Pseudibis
papillosa, Common Sandpiper
Actitis hypoleucos, Eurasian Hoopoe Upupa epops, and Rufous Treepie
Dendrocitta vagabunda were found to
be common in our study area, which
indicates that suitable resources for these avian species
are still available in these
agricultural landscapes. Hence, these species must be prioritized for regular and long-term monitoring
from a global bird conservation perspective.
Birds are a good
agency for dispersing seeds, pollinating plants, biological control of pests,
and thus have a vital role in continuing the ecological cycle (Lawson et al. 1998;
Gregory et al. 2008). Hence a decline in the diversity of birds
may induce a cascading effect on the food
chain, affecting multiple species and subsequently disrupting the species interactions and integrity of ecosystem functions (Whelan et al. 2008; Sekercioglu
et al. 2012). Regular and long-term monitoring
of avifauna is, therefore, an excellent means
of keeping watch on ecosystem
health. Assessment of the
species richness and composition of birds in a particular landscape is a prerequisite to assess their ecological
importance (Sekercioglu et
al. 2012; Hossain & Aditya
2016; Mukhopadhyay & Mazumdar
2017). In this
context the present study is
the first scientific documentation of avifaunal diversity
in the agricultural landscapes of the
district Panipat, Haryana, India. The findings of the present
study can be used as a baseline
for further research on conservation and management of existing bird species
in the agricultural landscapes. Regular and long-term monitoring
of bird assemblages
should be continued in the study area, emphasizing
seasonal abundance, habitat
use, nesting, feeding and breeding ecology
to supplement a holistic approach to conservation and management strategies for sustenance of ecosystem services
derived from the agricultural birds.
Table 1. Summary of general characteristics of the
selected agricultural landscapes.
|
Agricultural Landscape/ Block |
Co-ordinates |
Elevation (m) |
General features |
|
Panipat |
29.3950N
& 76.9680E |
219 |
Rice-wheat cropping system dominates with the
consequent marginalization of pulses and oilseed. Sugarcane is also being grown in the study
area as cash crop. Agricultural activities
are dependent on tube wells and on western Jamuna canal (WJC). Panipat Museum with dense vegetation is
located in the vicinity of the selected agricultural landscape. |
|
Samalkha |
29.2380N & 77.014°E |
227 |
Rice-wheat cropping system along with sugarcane
dominates in the landscape. The
selected agricultural landscape is surrounded by the wetland (river Yamuna). |
|
Israna |
29.2760N & 76.8510E |
231 |
Wheat and paddy are the main crops in the area.
Agricultural activities are mainly dependent on tube wells and distributaries
of WJC. Educational Institutions, temples and ponds are located in the
vicinity of selected agricultural landscape.
|
|
Bapoli |
29.3600N & 77.0570E |
234 |
Wheat, paddy
and sugarcane are the main agricultural crops grown in the area. The patches of tall wooded trees, orchards,
dense vegetation, grasses and the wetlands (river Yamuna) surrounding the
selected agricultural fields added to the rich habitat heterogeneity of the
selected area. |
|
Madlauda |
29.4010N & 76.8010E |
236 |
Paddy, wheat, sugarcane, mustard, jowar, bajra are
the crops grown in the area. Selected
agricultural landscape is irrigated by tube wells. The selected site was located in the
vicinity of industrial area (Thermal Power Plant of Panipat) with enhanced
anthropogenic activities. |
Table 2. List of bird species recorded from
agricultural landscapes of the district Panipat, Haryana, India together with
their respective taxonomic positions, residential status, feeding guild, local
status, landscape, IUCN Red List status, and global population trend.
|
|
Order/family /common name |
Scientific name |
Residential
status |
Feeding
guild |
Local status |
Agricultural
landscape |
Red List status |
Global
population trend |
||||
|
PA |
SA |
IS |
BA |
MA |
||||||||
|
|
Order: GALLIFORMES Family: Phasianidae |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 |
Indian Peafowl |
Pavo cristatus |
R |
O |
CO |
|
|
|
|
|
LC |
→ |
|
2 |
Black Francolin |
Francolinus francolinus |
R |
O |
UC |
|
|
× |
× |
|
LC |
→ |
|
3 |
Grey Francolin |
Francolinus pondicerianus |
R |
O |
FC |
|
|
|
× |
× |
LC |
→ |
|
|
Order: PHOENICOPTERIFOMES Family: Podicipedidae |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4 |
Little Grebe |
Tachybaptus ruficollis |
R |
C |
UC |
× |
× |
× |
|
× |
LC |
↓ |
|
|
Order: COLUMBIFORMES Family: Columbidae |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5 |
Rock Pigeon |
Columba livia |
R |
G |
CO |
|
|
|
|
|
LC |
↓ |
|
6 |
Eurasion Collared Dove |
Streptopelia decaocto |
R |
G |
FC |
× |
|
× |
|
× |
LC |
↑ |
|
7 |
Spotted Dove |
Spilopelia chinensis |
R |
G |
FC |
|
|
|
|
|
LC |
↑ |
|
8 |
Laughing Dove |
Streptopelia senegalensis |
R |
G |
CO |
|
|
|
|
|
LC |
→ |
|
9 |
Yellow-legged Green Pigeon |
Treron phoenicopterus |
R |
F |
UC |
|
|
× |
|
× |
LC |
↑ |
|
|
Order: CAPRIMULGIFORMES Family: Apodidae |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
10 |
Indian House Swift |
Apus affinis |
R |
I |
UC |
× |
× |
× |
|
× |
LC |
↑ |
|
|
Order: CUCULIFORMES Family: Cuculidae |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
11 |
Greater Coucal |
Centropus sinensis |
R |
O |
CO |
|
|
|
|
|
LC |
→ |
|
12 |
Pied Cuckoo |
Clamator jacobinus |
S |
I |
UC |
|
× |
× |
|
× |
LC |
→ |
|
13 |
Asian Koel |
Eudynamys scolopaceus |
R |
O |
FC |
|
|
× |
|
× |
LC |
→ |
|
14 |
Drongo Cuckoo |
Surniculus lugubris |
S |
I |
RA |
× |
|
× |
|
× |
LC |
↓ |
|
15 |
Common Hawk Cuckoo |
Hierococcyx varius |
S |
I |
RA |
× |
|
× |
× |
× |
LC |
→ |
|
|
Order: GRUIFORMES Family: Rallidae |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
16 |
White-breasted Waterhen |
Amaurornis phoenicurus |
R |
O |
CO |
|
|
|
|
|
LC |
? |
|
17 |
Purple Swamphen |
Porphyrio porphyrio |
R |
O |
FC |
× |
× |
× |
× |
|
LC |
? |
|
|
Order: PELECANIFORMES Family: Ciconiidae |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
18 |
Painted Stork |
Mycteria leucocephala |
W |
C |
RA |
× |
× |
× |
|
× |
NT |
↓ |
|
19 |
Asian Openbill |
Anastomus oscitans |
W |
C |
RA |
× |
|
× |
× |
× |
LC |
? |
|
20 |
Black-necked Stork |
Ephippiorhynchus asiaticus |
W |
C |
RA |
× |
|
× |
× |
× |
NT |
↓ |
|
|
Family: Ardeidae |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
21 |
Black-crowned Night Heron |
Nycticorax nycticorax |
R |
C |
UC |
× |
× |
× |
|
× |
LC |
↓ |
|
22 |
Indian Pond Heron |
Ardeola grayii |
R |
C |
CO |
|
|
|
|
|
LC |
? |
|
23 |
Cattle Egret |
Bubulcus ibis |
R |
C |
CO |
|
|
|
|
|
LC |
↑ |
|
24 |
Grey Heron |
Ardea cinerea |
R |
C |
RA |
× |
× |
× |
|
× |
LC |
? |
|
25 |
Purple Heron |
Ardea purpurea |
R |
C |
RA |
× |
|
× |
× |
× |
LC |
↓ |
|
26 |
Great Egret |
Ardea alba |
W |
C |
UC |
× |
|
× |
|
× |
LC |
? |
|
27 |
Intermediate Egret |
Ardea intermedia |
W |
C |
UC |
|
|
|
|
|
LC |
↓ |
|
28 |
Little Egret |
Egretta garzetta |
R |
C |
UC |
× |
|
× |
|
× |
LC |
↑ |
|
|
Family: Threskiornithidae |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
29 |
Black-headed Ibis |
Threskiornis melanocephalus |
R |
C |
UC |
|
× |
|
|
× |
NT |
↓ |
|
30 |
Indian Black Ibis |
Pseudibis papillosa |
R |
C |
C |
|
|
|
|
|
LC |
↓ |
|
31 |
Glossy Ibis |
Plegadis falcinellus |
R |
C |
UC |
|
|
|
|
|
LC |
↓ |
|
|
Family: Phalacrocoracidae |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
32 |
Little Cormorant |
Microcarbo niger |
R |
C |
FC |
|
|
× |
|
× |
LC |
? |
|
|
Order: CHARADRIIFORMES Family: Recurvirostridae |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
33 |
Black-winged Stilt |
Himantopus himantopus |
R |
C |
CO |
|
|
|
|
|
LC |
↑ |
|
|
Family: Charadriidae |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
34 |
Little Ringed Plover |
Charadrius dubius |
W |
C |
UC |
× |
× |
× |
|
× |
LC |
→ |
|
35 |
Red-wattled
Lapwing |
Vanellus indicus |
R |
C |
CO |
|
|
|
|
|
LC |
? |
|
|
Family: Jacanidae |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
36 |
Pheasant-tailed Jacana |
Hydrophasianus chirurgus |
S |
O |
RA |
× |
× |
× |
|
× |
LC |
↓ |
|
|
Family: Scolopacidae |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
37 |
Common Sandpiper |
Actitis hypoleucos |
W |
I |
CO |
|
× |
|
× |
× |
LC |
↓ |
|
38 |
Common Redshank |
Tringa totanus |
W |
C |
FC |
× |
× |
|
|
|
LC |
? |
|
|
Order: ACCIPITRIFORMES Family: Accipitridae |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
39 |
Black-winged Kite |
Elanus caeruleus |
R |
C |
UC |
× |
× |
× |
× |
|
LC |
→ |
|
40 |
Shikra |
Accipiter badius |
R |
C |
FC |
|
|
|
|
|
LC |
→ |
|
41 |
Brahminy Kite |
Haliastur Indus |
R |
C |
RA |
× |
× |
× |
|
× |
LC |
↓ |
|
42 |
Black Kite |
Milvus migrans |
R |
C |
FC |
|
× |
|
× |
|
LC |
? |
|
|
Order: STRIGIFORMES Family: Strigidae |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
43 |
Spotted Owlet |
Athene brama |
R |
C |
FC |
|
|
|
|
|
LC |
→ |
|
|
Order: BUCEROTIFORMES Family: Bucerotidae |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
44 |
Indian Grey Hornbill |
Ocyceros birostris |
R |
O |
FC |
|
|
|
|
× |
LC |
→ |
|
|
Family: Upupidae |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
45 |
Common Hoopoe |
Upupa epops |
R |
O |
CO |
|
|
|
|
|
LC |
↓ |
|
|
Order: PICIFORMES Family: Picidae |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
46 |
Lesser Golden-Backed Woodpecker |
Dinopium benghalense |
R |
I |
RA |
× |
× |
× |
|
× |
LC |
→ |
|
|
Family: Ramphastidae |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
47 |
Brown-headed Barbet |
Psilopogon zeylanicus |
R |
F |
FC |
|
|
|
|
× |
LC |
→ |
|
48 |
Coppersmith Barbet |
Psilopogon haemacephalus |
R |
F |
FC |
|
|
|
|
× |
LC |
↑ |
|
|
Order: CORACIIFORMES Family: Meropidae |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
49 |
Green Bee-eater |
Merops orientalis |
R |
I |
CO |
|
|
|
|
|
LC |
↑ |
|
|
Family: Coraciidae |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
50 |
Indian Roller |
Coracias benghalensis |
R |
I |
FC |
× |
|
× |
× |
× |
LC |
↑ |
|
|
Family: Alcedinidae |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
51 |
White-throated Kingfisher |
Halcyon smyrnensis |
R |
C |
CO |
|
|
|
|
|
LC |
↑ |
|
|
Order: PSITTACIFORMES Family: Psittaculidae |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
52 |
Alexandrine Parakeet |
Psittacula eupatria |
R |
F |
RA |
|
× |
× |
|
× |
NT |
↓ |
|
53 |
Rose-ringed Parakeet |
Psittacula krameri |
R |
F |
CO |
|
|
|
|
|
LC |
↑ |
|
|
Order: PASSERIFORMES Family: Campephagidae |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
54 |
Long-tailed Minivet |
Pericrocotus ethologus |
W |
I |
UC |
|
× |
× |
× |
× |
LC |
↓ |
|
|
Family: Oriolidae |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
55 |
Eurasian Golden Oriole |
Oriolus oriolus |
S |
O |
RA |
|
× |
× |
× |
× |
LC |
→ |
|
|
Family: Dicruridae |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
56 |
Black Drongo |
Dicrurus macrocercus |
R |
I |
CO |
|
|
|
|
|
LC |
? |
|
|
Family: Laniidae |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
57 |
Bay-backed shrike |
Lanius vittatus |
R |
I |
FC |
× |
|
|
|
|
LC |
→ |
|
58 |
Long-tailed Shrike |
Lanius schach |
R |
I |
FC |
× |
× |
|
|
|
LC |
? |
|
|
Family: Corvidae |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
59 |
RufousTreepie |
Dendrocitta vagabunda |
R |
I |
CO |
|
|
|
|
× |
LC |
↓ |
|
60 |
House crow |
Corvus splendens |
R |
O |
CO |
|
|
|
|
|
LC |
→ |
|
61 |
Large-billed Crow |
Corvus macrorhynchos |
W |
O |
UC |
|
|
|
|
|
LC |
→ |
|
|
Family: Nectariniidae |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
62 |
Purple Sunbird |
Cinnyris asiaticus |
R |
N |
FC |
|
|
|
|
|
LC |
→ |
|
|
Family: Ploceidae |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
63 |
Black-breasted Weaver |
Ploceus benghalensis |
R |
G |
UC |
× |
× |
× |
|
× |
LC |
→ |
|
64 |
Streaked Weaver |
Ploceus manyar |
R |
G |
UC |
× |
× |
|
× |
× |
LC |
→ |
|
65 |
Baya Weaver |
Ploceus philippinus |
R |
G |
FC |
× |
|
|
|
|
LC |
→ |
|
|
Family: Estrildidae |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
66 |
Indian Silverbill |
Euodice malabarica |
R |
G |
FC |
× |
|
× |
|
× |
LC |
→ |
|
67 |
Scaly-breasted Munia |
Lonchura punctulata |
R |
G |
FC |
|
|
|
|
|
LC |
→ |
|
|
Family: Passeridae |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
68 |
House Sparrow |
Passer domesticus |
R |
O |
UC |
|
|
|
|
|
LC |
↓ |
|
|
Family: Motacillidae |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
69 |
Paddyfield Pipit |
Anthus rufulus |
R |
I |
UC |
× |
|
× |
× |
|
LC |
→ |
|
70 |
Western Yellow Wagtail |
Motacilla flava |
W |
I |
UC |
|
|
|
|
× |
LC |
↓ |
|
71 |
Grey Wagtail |
Motacilla cinerea |
W |
I |
FC |
|
|
|
|
|
LC |
→ |
|
72 |
Citrine Wagtail |
Motacilla citreola |
W |
I |
FC |
|
× |
|
|
× |
LC |
↑ |
|
73 |
White-browed Wagtail |
Motacilla maderaspatensis |
R |
I |
FC |
|
|
|
|
|
LC |
→ |
|
74 |
White Wagtail |
Motacilla alba |
W |
I |
FC |
|
|
× |
|
× |
LC |
→ |
|
|
Family: Alaudidae |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
75 |
Crested Lark |
Galerida cristata |
R |
O |
RA |
× |
× |
× |
× |
|
LC |
↓ |
|
|
Family: Cisticolidae |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
76 |
ZittingCisticola |
Cisticola juncidis |
R |
I |
FC |
× |
|
× |
|
× |
LC |
↑ |
|
77 |
Ashy Prinia |
Prinia socialis |
R |
I |
FC |
|
|
|
|
|
LC |
→ |
|
78 |
Plain Prinia |
Prinia inornata |
R |
I |
FC |
|
× |
|
|
|
LC |
→ |
|
79 |
Common Tailorbird |
Orthotomus sutorius |
R |
I |
FC |
|
|
|
|
|
LC |
→ |
|
|
Family: Acrocephalidae |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
80 |
Paddyfield Warbler |
Acrocephalus agricola |
S |
O |
RA |
× |
× |
|
× |
|
LC |
↓ |
|
|
Family: Hirundinidae |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
81 |
Red-rumped
Swallow |
Cecropis daurica |
R |
I |
UC |
|
× |
× |
× |
× |
LC |
→ |
|
82 |
Wire-tailed Swallow |
Hirundo smithii |
R |
I |
C |
|
|
|
|
|
LC |
↑ |
|
83 |
Barn Swallow |
Hirundo rustica |
R |
I |
RA |
× |
|
× |
|
× |
LC |
↓ |
|
84 |
Plain Martin |
Riparia paludicola |
R |
I |
RA |
|
|
× |
× |
× |
LC |
↓ |
|
|
Family: Pycnonotidae |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
85 |
Red-vented Bulbul |
Pycnonotus cafer |
R |
O |
CO |
|
|
|
|
|
LC |
↑ |
|
|
Family: Sylviidae |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
86 |
Lesser Whitethroat |
Sylvia curruca |
W |
O |
UC |
× |
× |
× |
|
× |
LC |
→ |
|
|
Family: Zosteropidae |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
87 |
Oriental White-eye |
Zosterops palpebrosus |
R |
I |
UC |
× |
|
× |
|
× |
LC |
↓ |
|
|
Family: Leiothrichidae |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
88 |
Large Grey Babbler |
Argya malcolmi |
R |
O |
FC |
|
|
|
|
|
LC |
→ |
|
89 |
Common Babbler |
Argya caudata |
R |
O |
FC |
× |
|
|
× |
× |
LC |
→ |
|
90 |
Jungle Babbler |
Turdoides striata |
R |
O |
FC |
× |
× |
× |
× |
|
LC |
→ |
|
|
Family: Sturnidae |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
91 |
Asian Pied Starling |
Gracupica contra |
R |
O |
FC |
|
× |
|
|
|
LC |
↑ |
|
92 |
Brahminy Starling |
Sturnia pagodarum |
R |
O |
UC |
|
× |
× |
|
|
LC |
? |
|
93 |
Common Myna |
Acridotheres tristis |
R |
O |
C |
|
|
|
|
|
LC |
↑ |
|
94 |
Bank Myna |
Acridotheres ginginianus |
R |
I |
FC |
|
× |
|
|
× |
LC |
↑ |
|
|
Family: Muscicapidae |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
95 |
Indian Robin |
Saxicoloides fulicatus |
R |
I |
FC |
|
|
× |
× |
|
LC |
→ |
|
96 |
Oriental Magpie Robin |
Copsychus saularis |
R |
I |
FC |
|
|
|
|
× |
LC |
→ |
|
97 |
Verditer Flycatcher |
Eumyias thalassinus |
W |
I |
RA |
× |
× |
× |
|
× |
LC |
→ |
|
98 |
Bluethroat |
Cyanecula svecica |
W |
I |
RA |
|
|
× |
× |
× |
LC |
→ |
|
99 |
Black Redstart |
Phoenicurus ochruros |
W |
I |
UC |
|
|
× |
× |
× |
LC |
↑ |
|
100 |
Pied Bushchat |
Saxicola caprata |
R |
I |
CO |
|
|
|
|
|
LC |
→ |
|
101 |
Brown Rock Chat |
Oenanthe fusca |
R |
I |
CO |
|
|
|
|
|
LC |
→ |
R—Resident | S—Summer migrant | W—Winter migrant |
I—Insectivore | C—Carnivore | O—Omnivore | G—Granivore
| F—Frugivore | N—Nectarivore | CO—Common | FC—Fairly common | UC—Uncommon |
RA—Rare | PA—Panipat | SA—Samalkha | IS—Israna | BA—Bapoli | MA—Madlauda | IUCN—International Union for Conservation of
Nature | LC—Least Concern | NT—Near Threatened | →—Stable | ↓—Decreasing | ↑—Increasing | ?—Unknown.
Table 3. Relative diversity index (RDi)
of various avian families in agricultural landscapes of district Panipat, Haryana, India.
|
Avian families |
Number of recorded species |
Relative diversity index ( RDi) |
|
Ardeidae |
8 |
7.92 |
|
Muscicapidae |
7 |
6.93 |
|
Motacillidae |
6 |
5.94 |
|
Columbidae, Cuculidae |
5 |
4.95 |
|
Accipitridae, Cisticolidae,
Hirundinidae, Sturnidae |
4 |
3.96 |
|
Phasianidae, Ciconiidae, Threskiornithidae, Corvidae, Ploceidae, Leiothrichidae |
3 |
2.97 |
|
Rallidae, Charadriidae, Scolopacidae, Ramphastidae, Psittaculidae, Laniidae, Estrildidae |
2 |
1.98 |
|
Podicipedidae, Apodidae, Phalacrocoracidae, Recurvirostridae,
Jacanidae, Strigidae, Bucerotidae, Upupidae, Picidae, Meropidae, Coraciidae, Alcedinidae, Campephagidae, Oriolidae, Dicruridae, Nectariniidae, Passeridae, Alaudidae, Acrocephalidae, Pycnonotidae, Sylviidae, Zosteropidae |
1 |
0.99 |
Table 4. Jaccard’s similarity index (Cj) of bird species between selected
agricultural landscapes of the study area.
|
Agricultural
landscape |
Panipat |
Samalkha |
Israna |
Bapoli |
|
Madlauda |
0.547 |
0.487 |
0.671 |
0.488 |
|
Bapoli |
0.616 |
0.611 |
0.602 |
|
|
Israna |
0.685 |
0.569 |
|
|
|
Samalkha |
0.604 |
|
|
|
Table 5. Species richness, abundance, species
diversity and species evenness of avifauna in the selected agricultural
landscapes of the district Panipat, Haryana
|
Agricultural landscape |
Diversity indices(mean± SE) |
||||||||||||
|
Species richness |
Number of birds |
Species diversity |
Species evenness |
||||||||||
|
Summer |
Winter |
Both |
Summer |
Winter |
Both |
Summer |
Winter |
Both |
Summer |
Winter |
Both |
||
|
Panipat |
51.00 ±2.19 |
58.33 ±4.08 |
54.67bc ±4.94 |
200.17 ±34.08 |
234.67 ±26.56 |
217.42abc ±34.25 |
3.54 ±0.02 |
3.62 ±0.04 |
3.58c ±0.05 |
0.90 ±0.00 |
0.89 ±0.01 |
0.90cde ±0.01 |
|
|
Samalkha |
54.00 ±2.00 |
62.83 ±4.83 |
58.42b ±5.81 |
210.83 ±33.23 |
246.83 ±20.43 |
228.83ab ±32.33 |
3.63 ±0.02 |
3.71 ±0.04 |
3.67b ±0.05 |
0.91 ±0.00 |
0.90 ±0.01 |
0.90c ±0.01 |
|
|
Israna |
44.17 ±2.86 |
51.33 ±2.66 |
47.75d ±4.58 |
164.17 ±23.96 |
205.17 ±23.27 |
184.67d ±31.07 |
3.54 ±0.02 |
3.61 ±0.02 |
3.57cd ±0.04 |
0.93 ±0.01 |
0.92 ±0.01 |
0.92b ±0.01 |
|
|
Bapoli |
59.50 ±3.02 |
71.50 ±4.64 |
65.50a ±7.29 |
230.83 ±25.21 |
265.67 ±18.12 |
248.25a ±27.73 |
3.75 ±0.02 |
3.81 ±0.03 |
3.78a ±0.04 |
0.92 ±0.01 |
0.89 ±0.01 |
0.90cd ±0.02 |
|
|
Madlauda |
39.67 ±2.58 |
45.83 ±3.06 |
42.75e ±4.20 |
155.50 ±36.78 |
209.50 ±25.17 |
182.50de ±41.21 |
3.53 ±0.03 |
3.60 ±0.04 |
3.56cde ±0.05 |
0.96 ±0.01 |
0.94 ±0.01 |
0.95a ±0.01 |
|
|
ANOVA F-value |
Season |
|
|
93.35 |
|
|
32.30 |
|
|
93.70 |
|
|
65.35 |
|
Landscape |
|
|
86.09 |
|
|
13.05 |
|
|
126.29 |
|
|
85.15 |
|
|
P-value |
Season |
|
|
0.00* |
|
|
0.00* |
|
|
0.00* |
|
|
0.00* |
|
Landscape |
|
|
0.00* |
|
|
0.00* |
|
|
0.00* |
|
|
0.00* |
|
*-significant
differences were found at 5% level of significance. Results in a column under various indices
followed by different letters indicate significant differences among different
agricultural landscapes at P < 0.05.
Results in a column followed by same letters indicate non-significant
differences among different agricultural landscapes at P > 0.05
(Two-way ANOVA and Tukey’s HSD post-hoc test).
REFERENCES
Abdar, M.R. (2014). Seasonal
diversity of birds and ecosystem
services in agricultural area of Western Ghats, Maharashtra state, India. Journal
of Environmental Science, Toxicology
and Food Technology 8(1):
100–105.
Ali, S. & S.D. Ripley (1987). Compact
Handbook of the Birds of
India and Pakistan together with those of
Bangladesh, Nepal, Bhutan and
Sri Lanka. Oxford University Press, Delhi, 737pp.
Andrade, R., H.L. Batemana, J. Franklinb & A.
Allen (2018). Waterbird community composition, abundance, and diversity along
an urban gradient. Landscape and Urban Planning 170:
103–111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2017.11.003
Asokan, S., A.M.S. Ali & R. Manikannan (2009).Diet of
three insectivorous birds in Nagapattinam District, Tamil Nadu, India-a preliminary
study. Journal of Threatened Taxa 1(6):
327–330. https://doi.org/10.11609/JoTT.o2145.327-30
Bambaradeniya, C.N.B., K.T. Fonseka & C.L. Ambagahawatte
(1998). A preliminary study of fauna and flora of a rice field in Kandy, Sri Lanka. Ceylon. Journal of Science (Biological Sciences) 25:
1–22.
Basavarajappa, S. (2006). Avifauna of agro-ecosystems
of Maidan area of Karnataka. Zoos’ Print Journal 21(4): 2217–2219. https://doi.org/10.11609/JoTT.ZPJ.1277.2217-9
Bianchi, F.J.J.A., C.J.H. Booij & T. Tscharntke (2006). Sustainable pest regulation in
agricultural landscapes: a review on landscape composition, biodiversity and
natural pest control. Proceedings of the Royal Society B 273: 1715–1727.
Cunningham, S.A., S.J. Attwood,
K.S. Bawa, T.G. Benton, L.M. Broadhurst, R.K. Didham, S. McIntyre, I. Perfecto, M.J. Samways, T. Tscharntke & J. Vandermeer
(2013). To close the
yield-gap while saving biodiversity will require multiple locally relevant
strategies. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 173: 20–27.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2013.04.007
Dal, P. & A.K. Vaghela (2015). Preliminary survey of avifaunal
diversity around Shetrunji River, Dhari,
India. Journal of Biology and Earth Sciences 5(1): 19–24.
Dhindsa, M.S. & H.K. Saini (1994). Agricultural ornithology: an
Indian perspective. Journal of Bioscience 19(4): 391–402.
Foley, J.A., N. Ramankutty, K.A. Brauman, E.S.
Cassidy, J.S. Gerber, M. Johnston, N. D. Mueller, C. O’Connell, D.K. Ray, P.C.
West, C. Balzer, E.M. Bennett, S.R. Carpenter, J. Hill, C. Monfreda,
S. Polasky, J. Rockström,
J. Sheehan & S. Sieber (2011). Solutions for a cultivated
planet. Nature 478: 337–342.
Gregory, R.D., P. Vorisek, D.G. Noble, A.V. Strien,
A. Klvanova, M. Eaton, A.W.G. Meyling,
A. Joys, R.P.B. Foppen & I.J. Burfield
(2008). The
generation and use of bird population indicators in Europe. Bird
Conservation International 18: S223–S244.
Grimmett, R., C. Inskipp
& T. Inskipp (2011). Birds of the Indian
Subcontinent. Oxford University Press & Christopher Helm, London.
Hossain, A. & G. Aditya
(2016). Avian
Diversity in Agricultural Landscape: Records from Burdwan, West Bengal, India. Proceedings
of Zoological Society 69(1): 38–51. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12595-014-0118-3
IUCN (2019). The IUCN Red List of Threatened
Species, Version 2019-1. Downloaded on 20 July 2019; www.iucnredlist.org
Karr, J.R. & R.R. Roth
(1971). Vegetation
structure and avian diversity in several New World areas. American Naturalist
105: 423–435.
Kumar, A.B. (2006). A checklist of avifauna of the Bharathpuzha River basin, Kerala. Zoos’ Print Journal 21(8):
2300–2355. https://doi.org/10.11609/JoTT.ZPJ.1473.2350-5
Kumar, P., D. Rai & S.K.
Gupta (2016). Wetland bird
assemblage in rural ponds of Kurukshetra, India. Waterbirds
39(1): 86–98.
Lawson, J.H., D.E. Bignell, B. Bolton, G.F. Bloemers,
P. Eggleton, P.M. Hammond, M. Hodda,
R.D. Holt, T.B. Larsen, N.A. Mawdsley, N.E. Stork,
D.S. Srivastava & A.D. Watt (1998). Biodiversity inventories,
indicator taxa, and effects of habitat modification in tropical forest. Nature
391: 72–76.
MacKinnon, J. & K. Phillipps (1993). A Field Guide to the Birds of
Borneo, Sumatra, Java and Bali, the Greater Sunda
Islands. Oxford University Press, Oxford, 692pp.
Mahabal, A. (2005). Aves, pp. 275–339. In: The
Director (ed.). Fauna of Western Himalaya. Zoological Survey of India,
Kolkata, 359pp.
Malhi, C.S. (2006). Status of avifauna in
agricultural habitat and other associated sub-habitats of Punjab. Environment
and Ecology 24(1): 131–143.
Mallik, A., D.S. Chand, A. Singh
& S.P. Parida (2015). Studies on avifauna diversity of
agronomy field of O.U.A.T campus, Bhubaneswar, India. Current Life Sciences
1(2): 46–57.
Manakadan, R. &
A. Pittie (2001). Standardised
common and scientific names of the birds of the Indian subcontinent. Buceros 6(1): 1–37.
Mukhopadhyay, S. & S.
Mazumdar (2017). Composition,
diversity and foraging guilds of avifauna in a suburban area of southern West
Bengal, India. Ring 39: 103–120. https://doi.org/10.1515/ring-2017-0004
Narayana, B.L., V.V. Rao &
V.V. Reddy (2019). Composition of birds in agricultural landscapes Peddagattu and Sherpally area:
a proposed uranium mining sites in Nalgonda, Telangana, India. Proceedings
of Zoological Society 72(4): 355–363. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12595-018-0276-9
O’Connor, R.J. & M. Shrubb (1986). Farming and Birds. Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge, 539pp.
Pearson, D.L. (1975). Range extensions and new records
for bird species in Ecuador, Peru, and Bolivia. Condor 77: 96–99. https://doi.org/10.2307/1366765
Praveen, J., R. Jayapal & A. Pittie (2016). A Checklist of the birds of
India. Indian Birds 11(5&6): 113–172.
Rajashekara, S. & M.G. Venkatesha (2017). Seasonal incidence and diversity
pattern of avian communities in the Banglore
University Campus, India. Proceedings of the Zoological Society 70(2):
178–193. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12595-016-0175-x
Richards, P.W. (1996). The Tropical Rain Forest: An
Ecological Study. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 575pp.
Sánchez-Bayo,
F. (2011). Impacts of
agricultural pesticides on terrestrial ecosystems, pp. 63–87. In: Sánchez-Bayo, F., P.J. van den Brink & R.M. Mann (eds.) Ecological
Impacts of Toxic Chemicals. Bentham Science Publishers, Sharjah, 281pp.
Sánchez-Bayo,
F., R. Ward & H. Beasley (1999). A new technique to measure
bird’s dietary exposure to pesticides. Analytica Chimica
Acta 399: 173–183.
Sekercioglu, C.H. (2012). Bird functional diversity and
ecosystem services in tropical forests, agroforests and agricultural areas. Journal
of Ornithology 153(Suppl 1): S153–S161.
Sekercioglu, C.H., R.B. Primack & J. Wormworth (2012). The effects of climate change on
tropical birds. Biological Conservation 148: 1–18.
Sundar, K.S.G. & S. Kittur (2013). Can wetlands maintained for human use also help
conserve biodiversity? Landscape-scale patterns of bird use of wetlands in an
agricultural landscape in north India. Biological Conservation 168:
49–56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2013.09.016
Sutherland, W.J. (2006). Ecological Census Techniques:
A Handbook. Cambridge University Press, New York, 432pp.
Thakur, M.L., V.K. Mattu, H. Lal, V.N. Sharma, H. Raj & V. Thakur (2010). Avifauna of Arki
Hills, Solan (Himachal Pradesh), India. Indian
Birds 5: 162–166.
Torre-Cuadros,
M.D.L.A.L., S. Herrando-Perez & K.R. Young
(2007). Diversity and
structure patterns for tropical montane and premontane forests of central Peru,
with an assessment of the use of higher-taxon surrogacy. Biodiversity and
Conservation 16: 2965–2988.
Tubelis, D.P. & R.B. Cavalcanti
(2001). Community
similarity and abundance of bird species in open habitats of a central
Brazilian Cerrado. Ornitologia
Neotropical 12: 57–73.
Vijayan, L., S.N. Prasad, N. Sridharan & M.B. Guptha
(2006). Status of
Wetlands and Wetland Birds in Selected Districts of Tamilnadu.
Sálim Ali Centre for Ornithology & Natural
History, Coimbatore, 68pp. http://www.sacon.in/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/FT-2006-PR135s-STATUS-OF-WL-TN.pdf
Whelan, C.J., D.G. Wenny &
R.J. Marquis (2008). Ecosystem services provided by birds. Annals of the New York Academy
of Sciences 1134: 25–60.