Journal
of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | 26 April 2021 | 13(5):
18177–18188
ISSN 0974-7907 (Online) | ISSN 0974-7893 (Print)
https://doi.org/10.11609/jott.6528.13.5.18177-18188
#6528 | Received 05 August 2020 | Final received 06 March
2021 | Finally accepted 21 March 2021
Avian diversity in a fragmented landscape of central Indian forests (Bhopal
Forest Circle)
Amit Kumar 1,
Yogesh Dubey 2 & Advait Edgaonkar 3
1,2,3 Indian Institute of
Forest Management, 357, Bhadbhada Road, Nehru Nagar,
Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh 462003, India.
1 amitkumarkush834@gmail.com
(corresponding author), 2 ydubey@iifm.ac.in, 3 advaite@iifm.ac.in
Editor: H. Byju, Independent Researcher,
Coimbatore, India. Date of
publication: 26 April 2021 (online & print)
Citation: Kumar, A., Y. Dubey
& A. Edgaonkar (2021). Avian diversity in a fragmented
landscape of central Indian forests (Bhopal Forest Circle). Journal of Threatened
Taxa 13(5): 18177–18188. https://doi.org/10.11609/jott.6528.13.5.18177-18188
Copyright: © Kumar et al. 2021. 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: None.
Competing interests: The authors
declare no competing interests.
Author details: Amit Kumar is a PhD scholar at Indian Institute of Forest
Management (Research Centre), Bhopal, registered at Forest Research Institute
University, Dehradun. He holds a post graduation
degree in Environment Management from Forest Research Institute University,
Dehradun. He is studying the impact of plot level and patch level variables on
avian community in fragmented forest patches of Bhopal Forest Circle, Madhya
Pradesh for his PhD. Dr. Yogesh K. Dubey works as a Professor
with Indian Institute of Forest Management, Bhopal in the faculty area of
Ecosystem and Environment Managment. Dr. Yogesh is
Chairperson of PG programs of the Institute. He holds a master Degree in
Wildlife Science and PhD in Forestry from FRI Deemed University. His Doctoral
work was in Tadoba Andhari
Tiger Reserve, Maharashtra. At IIFM, he is also the Chairperson of Center for
Human wildlife conflict Management. He research interests are in areas related
to wildlife conservation, Biodiversity inclusive impact assessment and
Sustainable Ecotourism. Dr. Advait Edgaonkar is
Assistant Professor at IIFM, Bhopal. He teaches wildlife management and impact
evaluation, and does research on ecosystem services.
Author contribution: YD and AE helped in
designing the study and reviewing the article. AK conducted the fieldwork and
wrote the article.
Acknowledgements: We sincerely thank
Madhya Pradesh Forest Department for giving us permission to work in the
forests of Bhopal Forest Circle. We would also like to thank Mr. Suman Raju for
his images of the BFC landscape.
Abstract: With increasing
fragmentation of natural areas and a dramatic reduction of forest cover in
several parts of the world, quantifying the impact of such changes on species
richness and community dynamics has been a subject of much concern. Therefore, this study intends to assess
avifaunal biodiversity in fragmented forests.
Forest patches between the sizes of 10ha and 700ha were identified in
Bhopal Forest Circle (BFC), which covers the Vindhyan
plateau. Forest patches were classified
based on their size and degree of isolation.
A sample of 21 forest fragments was selected using proportional
sampling. Bird surveys were conducted
using the point count method at each site.
Three replicates were taken at each site. Avian species richness of each patch was calculated. The results suggest that species richness is
positively associated with the size of the forest patches. Larger forest patches such as Binapur (166ha, Chao 1= 73), Sayar
(107ha, Chao 1= 78) and Kalyanpura (133ha, Chao 1=
80) had relatively high species richness, except for patches including Narsinghgarh (393ha, Chao 1= 28) and Singota
(184ha, Chao 1= 45) with high levels of anthropogenic disturbance. Smaller forest patches were found to have
fewer bird species, although small forest patches with lesser degrees of
anthropogenic disturbance such as Lalghati (99ha,
Chao 1 = 62), Lasudli (16ha, Chao 1 = 65), Ghot (36ha, Chao 1 = 53), and Nasipur
(23ha, Chao 1 =52) were more diverse than other patches. These patches were more protected due to
being sacred groves (Lalghati and Lasudli)
or under private ownership (Ghot and Nasipur). A total of
131 bird species were recorded from all the sampled forest patches. These results suggest that forest patches
embedded in an agrarian landscape play a vital role in conserving biodiversity,
hence conservation efforts should also be focused on these forest fragments.
Keywords: Avian diversity,
BFC, degree of isolation, Forest patches, patch size.
INTRODUCTION
Habitat destruction
is taking place at an alarming rate in various parts of the world. Land-use and land cover change are major
causes of biodiversity loss. Vast
continuous tropical forests have been transformed into remnant forests
scattered across human-dominated areas in the last few decades due to growth in
populations and changes in technology (Wiens 1995; Hill et al. 2011). This conversion of continuous forests into
many smaller forest patches leads to physical and biological changes in the
forest environment, which lead to changes in habitat structure, and
subsequently to biodiversity loss. These
physical and biological changes are reduced patch size, increased degree of
isolation and increase in new habitat types; however, overall suitable habitat
decreases with habitat fragmentation resulting in loss of species diversity (Andren 1994). The
fragmentation of the patches also leads to more significant exposure to human
land uses along fragment edges commencing persistent changes to the ecological
structure and function of the remaining fragments leading to loss of
biodiversity (Shahabuddin & Terborgh 1999; Feeley et al. 2007). Forest patches resulted from the change in
land use and land cover can be defined as relatively homogenous areas which
differ from its surrounding land use within the landscape (Peters et al.
2009). Recent studies indicate that the
fragmentation has impacts on biotic interactions between species (Morris 2010)
and if not focused can lead to a cascade effect in the tropical ecosystem,
rising concerns on viability of these patches in long-term conservation (Hill
et al. 2011). Forest remnants or patches
need attention due to an increase in their number as a result of the
intensification of agriculture and deforestation. These patches can play a vital role in
conserving the biodiversity and overall health of the ecosystem in a
landscape. There is a lack of
information on the biodiversity of forests patches in human-modified
landscapes, especially in rural areas.
Conservation studies have focused on areas with a high diversity of
flora and fauna, i.e., protected areas.
But forest patches demarcated as reserve forests, situated in rural
landscapes are deprived of attention from conservationists (Chazdon et al. 2009).
These patches can play a vital role in providing refuge to important
species and act as a stepping stone in corridor development. The forest patches in these landscapes are of
different size, shape, degree of isolation, and degree of disturbance. Together, these patches can support a variety
of flora and fauna and save important species from local extinction. Therefore, there should be studies based on
integrated landscape conservation approach in these fragmented landscapes. These studies should be focused on population,
their dispersal, habitat use, the effect of context, connectivity and degree of
disturbance on the population of local flora and fauna (Chazdon
et al. 2009). There have been various
studies across the world in which community structure and composition of
vegetation and animals were examined.
Many of them also investigated the effect of patch level as well as
landscape levels variables on the composition and configuration of the flora
and fauna of the forest patches. There
are also studies where community dynamics were examined in forest patches.
Oliver et al. (2011),
in their study in urban parks found that park area was the best predictor of
species richness of resident birds and for migratory species, the best
predictors were habitat diversity and developed area within the park. In another study conducted to study the
influence of regional gradients in land-use on richness, composition and
turnover of bird assemblages in small forests, it was again concluded that
patch area is one of the most important variables at patch level which affects
the richness of the bird communities (Bennett et al. 2004). Similarly, a study conducted in urbanized
tropical islands it was concluded that patch size has the highest predictive
power in explaining the species richness of the resident birds of the forest
patches (Suarez-Rubio & Thomlinson 2009).
A study on relative effects of fragment size and connectivity on bird
communities in Atlantic rain forests suggest that only terrestrial
insectivores, omnivores and frugivorous birds were affected by patch area. Other feeding guilds such as understory
insectivores, nectarivorous, and others were not
affected by the area of the patch (Martensen et al.
2008).
There have been also
attempts to study the effect of landscape and patch level variables on animal
groups other than birds. A study
conducted in medium- and large-sized terrestrial mammals in a fragmented rain
forest by Garmendia et al. (2013) suggests that
number of species increases with increase in the size of the fragmented
patch. Effect of landscape metrics on
butterfly species richness was studied at different spatial scale and they
found a significant impact of spatial scale on landscape-butterfly richness
relationship (Rossi & Halder 2010).
To understand the
community structure, composition and role of these forest patches, there is a
need to measure of biodiversity. Species
richness is the most common measure of biodiversity but it is difficult to
measure the species richness of all flora and fauna present in the study
area. Therefore, sample and survey
surrogate or indicators of biodiversity are taken. There is an assumption that the diversity of
these indicators is correlated with the diversity of other groups of species
(Rossi & Halder 2010). Avian species
diversity of a forest patch embedded in a landscape mosaic can be a good
biodiversity indicator. The avian
diversity in these forest patches will be dependent on various factors
affecting the habitat and animals at different spatial scale. Local variables deciding the avian diversity
are vegetation composition and structure, forest ground cover, canopy closure,
size of the patch, and shape of the patch.
At a landscape scale, variables affecting the avian diversity are the
degree of isolation, connectivity, proximity to other forest fragments and
patch density. Avian diversity can be
observed simply as species richness.
Species richness is the simplest method of characterizing a community’s
diversity. Species diversity is
described as species richness, which is the number of species and evenness
which is how equally abundant species are within the community. The community in which all the species
present are equally abundant is considered to be even. Population with a large number of species and
high evenness is considered to be more diverse (Magurran
1988). In this study, vegetation
attributes of the sampled patches of BFC were calculated the vegetation
attributes of the sampled forest patches of Bhopal Forest Circle (BFC), which
is a part of Vindhyan and Malwa
plateau. Bird species richness
(observed) was determined. Undetected
species of birds were also estimated using Chao 1 and abundance-based coverage
(ACE) estimators. This study was
conducted in BFC of Madhya Pradesh during 2015 to 2018. This study intends to estimate the species
richness in the forest fragments of central Indian landscape. Forest fragments were selected following
Island Biogeography Theory by MacArthur & Wilson (1967).
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Study area
The study was
conducted in Bhopal Forest Circle of Madhya Pradesh forests from March 2015 to
May 2018. BFC consists of six forest
divisions: Bhopal, Sehore, Rajgarh,
Vidisha, Raisen, and Obaidullaganj (Fig. 1; Image 1,2). All the divisions except Rajgarh
come under Vindhyan Plateau agro-climatic
region while Rajgarh comes under Malwa
Plateau region. BFC consists of tropical
dry deciduous forests. BFC has a total forest area of about 6,906.93km2. Out of which reserved forest is 4,076.72km2,
the protected forest is 2,761.98km2, and the unclassified forest is
68.23km2 (MP Forest 2020).
Forest
Twenty-Two forest
subtypes have been identified in Madhya Pradesh as per the classification by
Champion & Seth (1968). These forest
types belong to three groups, viz.: tropical dry deciduous forest, tropical
moist deciduous forest, and tropical thorn forest. Tropical dry deciduous forest is the dominant
group. Within sub-groups, dry teak
forest is dominant (26.40%) followed by southern dry mixed deciduous forest
(24.55%) and northern mix dry deciduous forest (18.55%). Rest of the forest types occupy less than 6%
of forests cover (FSI, 2019). The BFC is
characterized by tropical dry deciduous forest (Group 5). The major sub-groups of Group 5 and Group 6
forest types found in the study area encompass the following:
5A/C 1b dry teak
forest
5A/C3 southern dry
mixed deciduous forest
5/DS1 dry deciduous
scrub
5/E1 Anogeissus pendula forest
The major species is
Teak Tectona grandis
in dry teak forests while Butea monosperma, Diospyros
melanoxylon, Acacia catechu, Anogeissus latifolia,
Wrightia tinctoria,
Lannea coromandelica,
and Cassia fistula are major species of mixed forests. Anogeissus
pendula forest is dominated by Anogeissus
pendula along with Anogeissus latifolia. Tree
species found in dry deciduous scrub forests are Butea monosperma,
Acacia leucophloea, Lannea
coromandelica, Diospyros melanoxylon,
and Anogeissus latifolia. In BFC, there are four protected areas; out
of which three are wildlife sanctuaries (WS): Ratapani
WS, Singhori WS, Narsinghgarh
WS, and one is a national park: Van Vihar National
Park (Table 1).
Sampling
The sampling unit of
the study is a forest patch. A patch is
defined as a relatively homogenous area which differs from its surrounding land
use within the landscape (Peters et al. 2009).
Patches were identified using Google Earth Pro, FRAGSTATS and ArcGIS
10.3. The forest patches were manually
digitized using ArcGIS and Google Earth Pro and then they were used as the
input file for FRAGSTATS program to get patch characteristics like their size
and degree of isolation. A total of 98
patches were found in the study area.
The area of these forest patches is in the range of 10–500 ha.
Sampling of patches
The basis of sampling
was the area of patch and degree of isolation.
Patches were grouped into four classes, i.e., (i)
large area and high degree of isolation (8 patches), (ii) large area and less
degree of isolation (36 patches), (iii) small area and high degree of isolation
(6 patches), and (iv) small area and low degree of isolation (48 patches). Forest patches smaller than 100ha were
considered as smaller patches while more than 100ha were considered larger
patches. Forest patches having ENN
distance of less than 1,500m from nearest forest were considered as patches
with lower degree of isolation and vice versa.
Out of the total 98 patches, 21 patches were sampled out using weighted
stratified random sampling (Fig. 2).
Samples were taken from each of the four classes based on their percentage
of the total number of patches found in the study area (Table 2).
During the field data
collection surveys, if the patch was found to be not suitable for bird surveys
due to higher forest degradation and their conversion into scrubland,
resampling from the same strata was done.
For example, if a sampled forest patch from large size and the large
degree of isolation strata is found to be not suitable for the survey, another
patch from the same group was randomly picked.
Field data collection
Bird survey
Breeding bird
diversity of each forest patch was sampled using the point count method in
which bird survey points were predefined within the forest patch, and at each
point, bird surveys were done for 10 minutes each. Point count method was preferred over other
methods since it is better suited for patchily distributed populations and for
shy birds that would otherwise hide and escape detection. The points were selected within the forest
patch following systematic random sampling.
The minimum distance between two consecutive points was 500 m to avoid
double counting. At each of these
points, birds were surveyed visually as well as acoustically. The distance of the birds to the observer was
also recorded using a laser rangefinder.
In case of birds heard only, the distance was recorded in four distance
classes, i.e., 0–10 m, 10–20 m, 20–50 m, and >50m. Each point was surveyed for three consecutive
days during one replication. Bird
surveys were avoided during cloudy or rainy days. Surveys were carried out in mornings
06.00–09.00 h and in evenings 16.00–18.00 h.
Avian species
richness
Species richness is
the simplest method of characterising community/population diversity. Species richness is the basis of many
ecological models like Island Biogeography Theory (McArthur & Wilson 1967),
the intermediate disturbance hypothesis (Connell 1978), as well as more recent
models of neutral theory (Hubbell 2001), and meta-community structure (Leibold et al. 2005).
These theories try to generate quantitative predictions of the number of
coexisting species in a community; however, though it is a simple measure of
diversity, it is still difficult to estimate accurately. It is always an underestimation of the
surveyed community. To correct for this
underestimation of species richness, there are many sampling models and
estimators of asymptotic richness to estimate the undetected species (Gotelli et al. 2011).
For the present study, Chao 1 (Eq. 1), ACE (Eq. 2) and Jackknife estimators were used to estimate the undetected
species of birds. These estimators are
used for abundance data. Therefore, the
estimators were used to calculate the estimated species richness using the
Palaeontology Statistics (PAST 3.0) program (Hammer et al. 2001).
a. Chao 1
Chao1 = S + F1(F1 - 1) / (2 (F2 + 1)), where F1 is the
number of singleton species and F2 the number of doubleton species.
b.
ACE: Abundance Coverage-based Estimator of species richness
(1)
Where:
is the number of
rare species in a sample (each with 10 or fewer individuals).
is the number of
abundant species in a sample (each with more than 10 individuals)
is the total
number of individuals in the rare species.
is the sample
cover estimate which is the proportion of all individuals in rare species that
are not singletons.
is the
coefficient of variation ,
(2)
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Therefore, in this
study, 21 forest patches were surveyed for bird species diversity. A total of 131 bird species were recorded in
the study area (21 forest patches).
Table 3 classifies these species as Resident or Migratory; 31 out of 131
species were migratory.
Avian species
richness estimation
The total number of
species recorded in the patches during the field surveys is the observed
species richness. Species richness of
each patch was calculated using the bird survey data, but the observed species
richness is not the true number of species present in the forest patches. There are always bird species which get
undetected due to various reasons. To
correct the species richness for all these forest patches, species richness
estimators for abundance data were applied to the data. Chao 1 and ACE estimators were used in PAST
3.0 software. Non-parametric species
estimators like Chao 1 and ACE, extrapolate the observed data to find the
‘true’ number of species present in the study area (Colwell & Coddington
1994). These estimators use the number
of rare species found in the sample to estimate more number of species likely
to get undetected. Species richness
estimators for abundance data were applied to the survey data to estimate the
improved species richness in these forest patches. Chao 1 and ACE estimators were used in PAST
3.0 software (Table 4).
To count in
undetected species and estimate the true species richness, species richness
estimators were applied to the overall species richness data (Table 5). The estimators used were Chao 1, Jackknife 1, Jackknife 2, and
Bootstrapping.
DISCUSSION
Continuous forest
areas outside protected areas are always at risk of habitat destruction and
fragmentation, which leads to biodiversity loss and local extinction of certain
species too. There have been various
studies globally on fragmented forest patches (natural and plantations). There are very few studies from the Indian
subcontinent, which are restricted mainly to plantations (Daniels et al. 1992;
Bhagwat et al. 2005; Raman 2006; Bali et al. 2007); however, forest fragments
outside-protected areas in the central Indian landscape have not been studied
for its role in conserving biodiversity.
In this study, avian diversity of these isolated forest patches has been
studied to understand the role these forest patches can play in conserving
biodiversity in an agrarian landscape.
The results from this
study suggest that forest patches with larger sizes such as Binapur
(size= 166ha, Chao 1= 73), Sayar (size= 107ha, Chao
1= 78), and Kalyanpura (size= 133ha, Chao 1= 80),
were having higher avian diversity except for forest patches Narsinghgarh (size= 393ha, Chao 1= 28), Singota
(size= 184ha, Chao 1= 45) with higher degree of anthropogenic disturbances in
the form of cattle grazing, fuelwood collection, and collection of non-timber
forest products such as Mahua Madhuca latifolia, Tendu Diospyros
melanoxylon leaves, and natural gum. Smaller forest patches were found to have
fewer bird species; however, smaller forest patches with less degree of
anthropogenic disturbances such as Lalghati (size=
99ha, Chao 1= 62), Lasudli (size= 16ha, Chao 1= 65), Ghot (size= 36ha, Chao 1= 53), and Nasipur
(size= 23ha, Chao 1= 52) were more diverse than other smaller patches. These smaller patches were more protected due
to being a sacred grove (Lalghati and Lasudli) and private ownership (Ghot
and Nasipur).
A study conducted in Columbian Andes in 2010 studied the effects of
landscape structure on bird’s richness.
They found that patch area is a key driver of species richness. Species richness increases towards large
patches but the effect of patch area decreases when other factors like human
disturbance come into scenario (Aubad et al.
2010). In various other studies, it has
been found that patch size affects the avian diversity significantly (Garmendia et al. 2013; Herrando
& Brotons 2002; Aubad
et al. 2010). A study conducted on
sacred groves of Western Ghats suggests that patch size does not influence the
diversity of birds, trees, and macro fungi (Bhagwat et al. 2005). This study suggests that the avian diversity
in forest patches in an agrarian landscape depends on patch size and protection
status of these patches. Forest patches
with more protection due to its status of sacred grove and private ownership
had more avian diversity even when the size of the patch was smaller.
CONCLUSION
In studies around the
world, forest fragments were found to be rich in biodiversity. They provide habitat to various kind of plant
and animal species. Therefore, there is
a need to conserve and connect these forest patches embedded in the landscape
matrix. The present study estimates the
biodiversity of fragmented forest patches of BFC. Results of the study suggest that forest
patches can support good bird diversity even after a high anthropogenic
pressure in the form of grazing, fuelwood collection, and NTFPs
collection. Nevertheless, patches with
anthropogenic disturbances were found to have less diversity of birds in
comparison to patches with lesser disturbance.
Patch size certainly have a positive effect on bird diversity; however,
human disturbance also affects the avian community dynamics in these forest
patches. This study recorded 131 species
of birds from 21 forest patches from the Vindhyan
plateau. This is a good number of
species, since the total number of species found in the two nearby wildlife
sanctuaries are:
1. Ratapani Wildlife Sanctuary (153 species, 10 checklists)
and
2. Narsinghgarh Wildlife Sanctuary (65 species, 2 checklists)
(ebird 2020).
The study area is
poorly studied for its biodiversity.
These forest patches are of different sizes and have a different degree
of isolation. A few forest patches like Ghot (privately owned) and Lasudli
(sacred grove) are smaller but have high avian diversity due to their protected
status. On the other hand, patches such
as Pathariya and Amgawa are
larger patches with low avian diversity due to higher anthropogenic pressure in
the form of grazing, fuelwood collection, and non-timber forest products
collection. Therefore, it can be
suggested that the diversity in forest patch or fragments not just depends on
its size and degree of isolation but also on the degree of anthropogenic
disturbance. The ideal scenario would be
larger patch size, a lesser degree of isolation (i.e., higher connectivity) and
least anthropogenic pressure. The avian
diversity was good in forest patches as well as the overall study area despite
the anthropogenic pressure. This study fulfills the gap of biodiversity data from the study
area. Even the wildlife sanctuaries in
the study area have been poorly studied for its biodiversity, which makes this
study important. This study also focuses
on the need to conserve the forest patches by connecting the forest fragments
and reducing the anthropogenic pressure as they play a vital role in providing
habitat to various flora and fauna.
Protecting these forest patches will help in conserving the biodiversity
of the whole landscape.
Table 1. Protected areas of BFC.
|
|
Name of protected area |
Establishment year |
Area (km2) |
District |
|
1 |
Narsinghgarh WS |
1978 |
59.19 |
Rajgarh |
|
2 |
Van Vihar NP |
1979 |
4.45 |
Bhopal |
|
3 |
Ratapani WS |
1978 |
823.84 |
Raisen |
|
4 |
Singhori WS |
1976 |
287.91 |
Raisen |
Table 2. Sampling of forest patches.
|
|
Large size with high ENN |
Large size with low ENN |
Small size with high ENN |
Small size with low ENN |
Total number of patches |
|
Patches |
8 |
36 |
6 |
48 |
98 |
|
Total patches (%) |
8.16 |
36.73 |
6.12 |
48.98 |
100 |
|
Samples |
2 |
8 |
1 |
10 |
21 |
*ENN—Euclidean nearest neighbor
distance
Table 3. Bird species recorded
during the survey from the 21 forest patches of central Indian forest
landscape.
|
|
Common name |
Scientific name |
Resident or migratory |
|
1 |
Ashy-crowned Sparrow-lark |
Eremopterix griseus (Scopoli, 1786) |
Resident |
|
2 |
Ashy Drongo |
Dicrurus leucophaeus (Vieillot, 1817) |
Migratory |
|
3 |
Ashy Prinia |
Prinia socialis (Sykes, 1832) |
Resident |
|
4 |
Asian Koel |
Eudynamys scolopaceus (Linnaeus, 1758) |
Resident |
|
5 |
Asian Palm-swift |
Cypsiurus balasiensis (Gray, 1829) |
Resident |
|
6 |
Indian Paradise Flycatcher |
Terpsiphone paradise (Linnaeus, 1758) |
Resident |
|
7 |
Barn Swallow |
Hirundo rustica (Linnaeus, 1758) |
Migratory |
|
8 |
Barred Buttonquail |
Turnix suscitator (Gmelin, 1789) |
Resident |
|
9 |
Bay-backed Shrike |
Lanius vittatus (Valenciennes, 1826) |
Migratory |
|
10 |
Baya Weaver |
Ploceus philippinus (Linnaeus, 1766) |
Resident |
|
11 |
Black Drongo |
Dicrurus macrocercus (Vieillot, 1817) |
Resident |
|
12 |
Black Kite |
Milvus migrans (Boddaert, 1783) |
Resident |
|
13 |
Black Redstart |
Phoenicurus ochruros (Gmelin, 1774) |
Migratory |
|
14 |
Black-rumped Flameback |
Dinopium benghalense (Linnaeus, 1758) |
Resident |
|
15 |
Black-winged Kite |
Elanus caeruleus (Desfontaines, 1789) |
Resident |
|
16 |
Blue Rock-thrush |
Monticola solitarius (Linnaeus, 1758) |
Migratory |
|
17 |
Blyth's Reed-warbler |
Acrocephalus dumetorum (Blyth, 1849) |
Migratory |
|
18 |
Bonelli's Eagle |
Aquila fasciata
(Vieillot, 1822) |
Resident |
|
19 |
Booted Warbler |
Iduna caligata (Lichtenstein, 1823) |
Migratory |
|
20 |
Brahminy Starling |
Sturnia pagodarum (Gmelin, 1789) |
Resident |
|
21 |
Indian Pygmy Woodpecker |
Dendrocopos nanus (Vigors, 1832) |
Resident |
|
22 |
Brown Rockchat |
Cercomela fusca (Blyth, 1851) |
Resident |
|
23 |
Brown Shrike |
Lanius cristatus (Linnaeus, 1758) |
Migratory |
|
24 |
Cattle Egret |
Bubulcus ibis (Linnaeus, 1758) |
Resident |
|
25 |
Chestnut-bellied Sandgrouse |
Pterocles exustus (Temminck, 1825) |
Resident |
|
26 |
Chestnut-shouldered Petronia |
Gymnoris xanthocollis (Burton, 1838) |
Resident |
|
27 |
Chestnut-tailed Starling |
Sturnia malabarica (Gmelin, 1789) |
Migratory |
|
28 |
Common Babbler |
Turdoides caudate (Dumont, 1823) |
Resident |
|
29 |
Common Chiffchaff |
Phylloscopus collybita (Vieillot, 1817) |
Migratory |
|
30 |
Common Hawk-cuckoo |
Hierococcyx varius (Vahl, 1797) |
Resident |
|
31 |
Common Hoopoe |
Upupa epops (Linnaeus, 1758) |
Resident |
|
32 |
Common Iora |
Aegithina tiphia (Linnaeus, 1758) |
Resident |
|
33 |
Common Kestrel |
Falco tinnunculus
(Linnaeus, 1758) |
Migratory |
|
34 |
Common Myna |
Acridotheres tristis (Linnaeus, 1766) |
Resident |
|
35 |
Common Stonechat |
Saxicola torquatus (Linnaeus, 1766) |
Migratory |
|
36 |
Common Tailorbird |
Orthotomus sutorius (Pennant, 1769) |
Resident |
|
37 |
Common Woodshrike |
Tephrodornis pondicerianus (Gmelin,
1789) |
Resident |
|
38 |
Coppersmith Barbet |
Psilopogon haemacephalus (Müller, 1776) |
Resident |
|
39 |
Crested Bunting |
Emberiza lathami (Gray, 1831) |
Migratory |
|
40 |
Crested Lark |
Galerida cristata (Linnaeus, 1758) |
Resident |
|
41 |
Crested Treeswift |
Hemiprocne coronate (Tickell, 1833) |
Resident |
|
42 |
Dusky Crag Martin |
Ptyonoprogne concolor (Sykes, 1832) |
Resident |
|
43 |
Egyptian Vulture |
Neophron percnopterus (Linnaeus, 1758) |
Resident |
|
44 |
Eurasian Collared-dove |
Streptopelia decaocto (Frivaldszky, 1838) |
Resident |
|
45 |
Indian Golden Oriole |
Oriolus Kundoo (Sykes, 1832) |
Resident |
|
46 |
Great Tit |
Parus major (Linnaeus, 1758) |
Resident |
|
47 |
Greater Coucal |
Centropus sinensis (Stephens, 1815) |
Resident |
|
48 |
Green Bee-eater |
Merops orientalis (Latham, 1802) |
Resident |
|
49 |
Greenish Warbler |
Phylloscopus trochiloides (Sundevall,
1837) |
Migratory |
|
50 |
Grey-bellied Cuckoo |
Cacomantis passerines (Vahl, 1797) |
Migratory |
|
51 |
Grey-breasted Prinia |
Prinia hodgsonii (Blyth, 1844) |
Resident |
|
52 |
Grey Francolin |
Francolinus pondicerianus (Gmelin,
1789) |
Resident |
|
53 |
Grey-necked Bunting |
Emberiza buchanani (Blyth, 1844) |
Migratory |
|
54 |
Griffon Vulture |
Gyps fulvus
(Hablizl, 1783) |
Migratory |
|
55 |
House Crow |
Corvus splendens (Vieillot, 1817) |
Resident |
|
56 |
House Sparrow |
Passer domesticus
(Linnaeus, 1758) |
Resident |
|
57 |
Hume's Leaf-warbler |
Phylloscopus humei (Brooks, 1878) |
Migratory |
|
58 |
Indian Bushlark |
Mirafra erythroptera (Blyth, 1845) |
Resident |
|
59 |
Indian Grey Hornbill |
Ocyceros birostris (Scopoli, 1786) |
Resident |
|
60 |
Indian Nightjar |
Caprimulgus asiaticus (Latham, 1790) |
Resident |
|
61 |
Indian Peafowl |
Pavo cristatus (Linnaeus, 1758) |
Resident |
|
62 |
Indian Pitta |
Pitta brachyura
(Linnaeus, 1766) |
Migratory |
|
63 |
Indian Pond-heron |
Ardeola grayii (Sykes, 1832) |
Resident |
|
64 |
Indian Robin |
Saxicoloides fulicatus (Linnaeus, 1766) |
Resident |
|
65 |
Indian Roller |
Coracias benghalensis (Linnaeus, 1758) |
Resident |
|
66 |
Indian Silverbill |
Euodice malabarica (Linnaeus, 1758) |
Resident |
|
67 |
Jerdon's Leafbird |
Chloropsis jerdoni (Blyth, 1844) |
Resident |
|
68 |
Jungle Babbler |
Turdoides striata (Dumont, 1823) |
Resident |
|
69 |
Large-billed Crow |
Corvus macrorhynchos (Wagler,
1827) |
Resident |
|
70 |
Jungle Prinia |
Prinia sylvatica (Jerdon, 1840) |
Resident |
|
71 |
Large Cuckooshrike |
Coracina macei (Lesson, 1831) |
Resident |
|
72 |
Large Grey Babbler |
Argya malcolmi (Sykes, 1832) |
Resident |
|
73 |
Laughing Dove |
Spilopelia senegalensis (Linnaeus, 1766) |
Resident |
|
74 |
Lesser Whitethroat |
Sylvia curruca
(Linnaeus, 1758) |
Migratory |
|
75 |
Little Cormorant |
Microcarbo niger (Vieillot, 1817) |
Resident |
|
76 |
Long-billed Vulture |
Gyps indicus (Scopoli, 1786) |
Resident |
|
77 |
Long-tailed Shrike |
Lanius schach (Linnaeus, 1758) |
Resident |
|
78 |
Oriental Honey-buzzard |
Pernis ptilorhynchus (Temminck,
1821) |
Resident |
|
79 |
Oriental Magpie-robin |
Copsychus saularis (Linnaeus, 1758) |
Resident |
|
80 |
Oriental Turtle-dove |
Streptopelia orientalis (Latham, 1790) |
Migratory |
|
81 |
Oriental White-eye |
Zosterops palpebrosus (Temminck, 1824) |
Resident |
|
82 |
Paddyfield Pipit |
Anthus rufulus (Vieillot, 1818) |
Resident |
|
83 |
Painted Francolin |
Francolinus pictus (Jardine & Selby, 1828) |
Resident |
|
84 |
Painted Stork |
Mycteria leucocephala (Pennant, 1769) |
Migratory |
|
85 |
Pale-billed Flowerpecker |
Dicaeum erythrorhynchos (Latham, 1790) |
Resident |
|
86 |
Peregrine Falcon |
Falco peregrinus
(Tunstall, 1771) |
Resident |
|
87 |
Jacobin Cuckoo |
Clamator jacobinus (Boddaert, 1783) |
Migratory |
|
88 |
Pied Kingfisher |
Ceryle rudis (Linnaeus, 1758) |
Resident |
|
89 |
Plain Prinia |
Prinia inornata (Sykes, 1832) |
Resident |
|
90 |
Plum-headed Parakeet |
Psittacula cyanocephala (Linnaeus, 1766) |
Resident |
|
91 |
Purple Sunbird |
Cinnyris asiaticus (Latham, 1790) |
Resident |
|
92 |
Red Avadavat |
Amandava amandava (Linnaeus, 1758) |
Resident |
|
93 |
Red-breasted Flycatcher |
Ficedula parva (Bechstein, 1792) |
Migratory |
|
94 |
Red Collared Dove |
Streptopelia tranquebarica (Hermann, 1804) |
Resident |
|
95 |
Red-rumped Swallow |
Cecropis daurica (Linnaeus, 1771) |
Resident |
|
96 |
Red-vented Bulbul |
Pycnonotus cafer (Linnaeus, 1766) |
Resident |
|
97 |
Red-wattled Lapwing |
Vanellus indicus (Boddaert, 1783) |
Resident |
|
98 |
River Tern |
Sterna aurantia
(Gray, 1831) |
Resident |
|
99 |
Rock Bush-quail |
Perdicula argoondah (Sykes, 1832) |
Resident |
|
100 |
Rock Dove |
Columba livia
(Gmelin, 1789) |
Resident |
|
101 |
Rose-ringed Parakeet |
Psittacula krameri (Scopoli, 1769) |
Resident |
|
102 |
Rosy Starling |
Pastor roseus (Linnaeus, 1758) |
Migratory |
|
103 |
Rufous-fronted Prinia |
Prinia buchanani (Blyth, 1844) |
Resident |
|
104 |
Rufous-tailed Lark |
Ammomanes phoenicura (Franklin, 1831) |
Resident |
|
105 |
Rufous Treepie |
Dendrocitta vagabunda (Latham, 1790) |
Resident |
|
106 |
Scaly-breasted Munia |
Lonchura punctulata (Linnaeus, 1758) |
Resident |
|
107 |
Shikra |
Accipiter badius
(Gmelin, 1788) |
Resident |
|
108 |
Short-toed Snake-eagle |
Circaetus gallicus (Gmelin, 1788) |
Resident |
|
109 |
Sirkeer Malkoha |
Taccocua leschenaultia (Lesson, 1830) |
Resident |
|
110 |
Small Minivet |
Pericrocotus cinnamomeus (Linnaeus, 1766) |
Resident |
|
111 |
Indian Spot-billed Duck |
Anas poecilorhyncha
(Forster, 1781) |
Resident |
|
112 |
Spotted Dove |
Spilopelia suratensis (Gmelin, 1789) |
Resident |
|
113 |
Sulphur-bellied Warbler |
Phylloscopus griseolus (Blyth, 1847) |
Migratory |
|
114 |
Taiga Flycatcher |
Ficedula albicilla (Pallas, 1811) |
Migratory |
|
115 |
Tickell's Blue-flycatcher |
Cyornis tickelliae (Blyth, 1843) |
Resident |
|
116 |
Tickell's Leaf-warbler |
Phylloscopus affinis (Tickell, 1833) |
Migratory |
|
117 |
Tree Pipit |
Anthus trivialis (Linnaeus, 1758) |
Migratory |
|
118 |
Ultramarine Flycatcher |
Ficedula superciliaris (Jerdon,
1840) |
Migratory |
|
119 |
Verditer Flycatcher |
Eumyias thalassinus (Swainson, 1838) |
Migratory |
|
120 |
White-bellied Drongo |
Dicrurus caerulescens (Linnaeus, 1758) |
Resident |
|
121 |
White-browed Fantail |
Rhipidura aureola (Lesson, 1830) |
Resident |
|
122 |
White-eyed Buzzard |
Butastur teesa (Franklin, 1831) |
Resident |
|
123 |
White-naped Woodpecker |
Chrysocolaptes festivus (Boddaert, 1783) |
Resident |
|
124 |
White-rumped Vulture |
Gyps bengalensis
(Gmelin, 1788) |
Resident |
|
125 |
White-spotted Fantail |
Rhipidura albogularis (Lesson, 1832) |
Resident |
|
126 |
White-breasted Kingfisher |
Halcyon smyrnensis
(Linnaeus, 1758) |
Resident |
|
127 |
Wire-tailed Swallow |
Hirundo smithii (Leach, 1818) |
Resident |
|
128 |
Asian Woollyneck |
Ciconia episcopus (Boddaert, 1783) |
Resident |
|
129 |
Yellow-crowned Woodpecker |
Leiopicus mahrattensis (Latham, 1801) |
Resident |
|
130 |
Yellow-eyed Babbler |
Chrysomma sinense (Gmelin, 1789) |
Resident |
|
131 |
Yellow-footed Green-pigeon |
Treron phoenicopterus (Latham, 1790) |
Resident |
*Source of Latin names: IUCN Redlist
(IUCN 2020).
Table 4. Observed species richness
and estimated species richness of patches using Chao 1 and ACE estimators.
|
|
Patch classes |
Patch name |
Species richness observed |
Estimated species richness
(Chao1) |
Estimated species richness
(ACE) |
|
1 |
Small size with low ENN |
Ghatkhedi |
38 |
49 |
46.45 |
|
2 |
Lalghati |
57 |
62 |
65.43 |
|
|
3 |
Satgarhi |
53 |
56.75 |
59.76 |
|
|
4 |
Barkhedi |
35 |
39 |
40.41 |
|
|
5 |
Durang |
55 |
66.375 |
68.23 |
|
|
6 |
Nasipur |
49 |
52.27 |
55.86 |
|
|
7 |
Itkhedi |
43 |
44.5 |
46.79 |
|
|
8 |
Manakwada |
38 |
48.5 |
43.83 |
|
|
9 |
Small size with high ENN |
Padajhir |
41 |
47 |
48.46 |
|
10 |
Ghot |
50 |
53.27 |
57.14 |
|
|
11 |
Lasudli |
57 |
65.25 |
66.97 |
|
|
12 |
Durgapura |
35 |
37.62 |
40.55 |
|
|
13 |
Large size with low ENN |
Singota |
42 |
45 |
46.155 |
|
14 |
Kerwa |
43 |
48 |
50.82 |
|
|
15 |
Pathariya |
51 |
54 |
53.77 |
|
|
16 |
Kalyanpura |
61 |
80 |
74.38 |
|
|
17 |
Narsinghgarh |
27 |
28 |
29.76 |
|
|
18 |
Sayar |
61 |
78 |
75.83 |
|
|
19 |
Binapur |
64 |
73 |
75.8 |
|
|
20 |
Kishanpur |
46 |
50 |
51.24 |
|
|
21 |
Large size with high ENN |
Amgawa |
48 |
51 |
51.3 |
*ENN—Euclidean nearest neighbor
Table 5. Estimated
species richness of the study area.
|
|
Estimator |
Estimated species richness |
Standard error |
|
1 |
Chao 1 |
154.1 |
11.7 |
|
2 |
Jackknife 1 |
156.71 |
7.9 |
|
3 |
Jackknife 2 |
168.25 |
- |
|
4 |
Bootstrapping |
143.02 |
4.4 |
For
figures & images - - click here
REFERENCES
Andren, H. (1994). Effects of habitat
fragmentation on birds and mammals in landscapes with different proportions of
suitable habitat: a review. Oikos 355–366.
Aubad, J., P. Aragón,
& M.Á. Rodríguez (2010). Human access and landscape structure effects on
Andean forest bird richness. Acta Oecologica
36(4): 396-402.
Bali, A., A. Kumar & J. Krishnaswamy (2007). The mammalian
communities in coffee plantations around a protected area in the Western Ghats,
India. Biological Conservation 139(1–2): 93–102.
Bennett, A.F., S.A. Hinsley,
P.E. Bellamy, R.D. Swetnam & R. Mac Nally (2004). Do regional
gradients in land-use influence richness, composition and turnover of bird
assemblages in small woods? Biological Conservation 119(2):
191–206.
Bhagwat, S.A., C.G. Kushalappa,
P.H. Williams & N.D. Brown (2005). A landscape approach
to biodiversity conservation of sacred groves in the Western Ghats of
India. Conservation Biology 19(6): 1853–1862.
Champion, S.H. & S.K. Seth (1968). A revised survey of
the forest types of India. Govt. of India Publications, 297–299pp.
Chazdon, R.L., C.A. Harvey,
O. Komar, D.M. Griffith, B.G. Ferguson, M.
Martínez-Ramos & S.M. Philpott (2009). Beyond reserves: a
research agenda for conserving biodiversity in human-modified tropical
landscapes. Biotropica 41(2): 142–153.
Colwell, R.K. & J.A. Coddington (1994). Estimating
terrestrial biodiversity through extrapolation. Philosophical Transactions
of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 345: 101–118.
Connell, J.H. (1978). Diversity in
tropical rain forests and coral reefs. Science 199(4335):
1302–1310.
Daniels, R.J., N.V. Joshi & M. Gadgil
(1992). On the relationship between bird and woody plant
species diversity in the Uttara Kannada district of south India. Proceedings
of the National Academy of Sciences 89(12): 5311–5315.
eBird (2020). eBird:
An online database of bird distribution and abundance [web application]. eBird, Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, New York.
Available: http://www.ebird.org. Accessed on
17 July 2020.
Feeley, K.J., T.W. Gillespie,
D.J. Lebbin & H.S. Walter (2007). Species
characteristics associated with extinction vulnerability and nestedness rankings of birds in tropical forest
fragments. Animal Conservation 10(4): 493–501.
Garmendia, A., V.
Arroyo-Rodríguez, A. Estrada, E.J. Naranjo & K.E. Stoner (2013). Landscape and patch
attributes impacting medium-and large-sized terrestrial mammals in a fragmented
rain forest. Journal of Tropical Ecology 29(4): 331–344.
Gotelli, N.J. & R.K.
Colwell (2011). Estimating species richness. Biological
Diversity: Frontiers in Measurement and Assessment 12: 39–54.
Gotelli, N.J. & G.R.
Graves (1996). Null models in ecology. Smithsonian
Institution.
Hammer, Ø., D.A.T. Harper, P.D. Ryan (2001). PAST:
Paleontological statistics software package for education and data analysis. Palaeontologia Electronica 4(1): 9.
Herrando, S. & L. Brotons (2002). Forest bird
diversity in Mediterranean areas affected by wildfires: a multi-scale
approach. Ecography 25(2): 161–172.
Hill, J.K., M.A. Gray, C.V. Khen, S. Benedick, N. Tawatao
& K.C. Hamer (2011). Ecological impacts of tropical forest
fragmentation: how consistent are patterns in species richness and nestedness? Philosophical Transactions of the Royal
Society of London B: Biological Sciences 366(1582): 3265–3276.
Hubbell, S.P. (2001). The unified
neutral theory of biodiversity and biogeography (MPB-32). Princeton
University Press.
Jennings, S.B., N.D. Brown & D. Sheil (1999). Assessing forest canopies and
understorey illumination: canopy closure, canopy cover and other
measures. Forestry: An International Journal of Forest Research 72(1):
59–74.
Leibold, M.A., M. Holyoak, N. Mouquet, P. Amarasekare,
J.M. Chase, M.F. Hoopes & M. Loreau (2004). The metacommunity
concept: a framework for multi-scale community ecology. Ecology Letters
7(7): 601–613.
MacArthur, R.H. & E.O. Wilson (1963). An equilibrium
theory of insular zoogeography. Evolution 17(4): 373–387.
Magurran, A.E. (1988). Diversity indices
and species abundance models, pp. 7–45. In: Ecological diversity and
its measurement. Springer, Dordrecht.
Martensen, A.C., R.G. Pimentel & J.P. Metzger (2008). Relative effects of
fragment size and connectivity on bird community in the Atlantic Rain Forest:
implications for conservation. Biological Conservation 141(9):
2184–2192.
Morris, R.J. (2010). Anthropogenic
impacts on tropical forest biodiversity: a network structure and ecosystem
functioning perspective. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal
Society of London B: Biological Sciences 365(1558): 3709–3718.
MP forest website: http://www.mp.gov.in/en/web/guest/forest.
Accessed on 18 July (2018).
Oliver, A.J., C. Hong-Wa, J.
Devonshire, K.R. Olea, G.F. Rivas & M.K. Gahl
(2011). Avifauna richness enhanced in large, isolated urban
parks. Landscape and Urban Planning 102(4): 215–225.
Peters, D.P., J.R. Gosz
& S.L. Collins (2009). Boundary dynamics in landscapes, pp. 458–463.
In: Levin, S.A. (ed.). The Princeton Guide to Ecology. Princeton, NJ:Princeton University Press.
Raman, T.S. (2006). Effects of habitat
structure and adjacent habitats on birds in tropical rainforest fragments and
shaded plantations in the Western Ghats, India. Forest Diversity and
Management. Springer, Dordrecht.
Rossi, J.P. & I. Van Halder (2010). Towards indicators
of butterfly biodiversity based on a multiscale landscape description. Ecological
Indicators 10(2): 452–458.
Shahabuddin, G., & J.W. Terborgh (1999). Frugivorous
butterflies in Venezuelan forest fragments: abundance, diversity and the
effects of isolation. Journal of Tropical Ecology 15(6):
703–722.
Suarez-Rubio, M. & J.R. Thomlinson (2009). Landscape and
patch-level factors influence bird communities in an urbanized tropical
island. Biological Conservation 142(7): 1311–1321.
Wiens, J.A. (1995). Habitat
fragmentation: island v landscape perspectives on bird conservation. Ibis 137(s1).
Wilson, E.O. & R.H. MacArthur (1967). The Theory
of Island Biogeography. Princeton University Press.
IUCN 2020. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version
2020-2. https://www.iucnredlist.org. Downloaded on 09 July 2020.