Journal of Threatened Taxa |
www.threatenedtaxa.org | 26 October 2022 | 14(10): 21936–21945
ISSN 0974-7907 (Online) | ISSN 0974-7893
(Print)
https://doi.org/10.11609/jott.7565.14.10.21936-21945
#7565 | Received 10 July 2021 | Final
received 24 August 2022 | Finally accepted 21 September 2022
A
comparison of the breeding biology of White-throated Kingfisher Halcyon smyrnensis Linnaeus, 1758 in plains and hilly areas of Bangladesh
1
likhi.habibon@gmail.com (corresponding author), 2
noorjahansarker@gmail.com, 3 shawkat194@gmail.com
Abstract: The breeding biology
of White-throated Kingfisher Halcyon smyrnensis
was studied in plains and hilly areas from September 2008 to August 2011. Four
villages under Savar upazilla
were selected for plains, and Chittagong University Campus, Chattagram
for the hilly area. The breeding season started in February in hills and April
on plain. Mean (SD) time required to build a new nest was 11.3 (3.9) days in
plains and 15.3 (0.57) days in hills. Clutch size was 3–4 in hills and 3–7 in
plains. Mean egg parameters (length, width, and weight) and mean egg volume and
surface area were similar in both areas. The mean incubation period on plains
was 16.4 (1.2) days, in hills 14.1 (0.7) days. On plains fledging success was
52%, compared to 57% in hills. Theft by local inhabitants was a major reason
for fledgling loss in plains, hence increased public awareness may reduce
nestling mortality and increase breeding success.
Keywords: Breeding season,
breeding success, fledglings, hatchling, nest, nestling mortality, ornithology.
Editor: H. Byju,
Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu, India. Date of publication:
26 October 2022 (online & print)
Citation: Naher,
H., N.J. Sarker & S.I. Khan (2022). A comparison of the breeding biology
of White-throated Kingfisher Halcyon smyrnensis
Linnaeus, 1758 in plains and hilly areas of Bangladesh. Journal of Threatened Taxa 14(10): 21936–21945. https://doi.org/10.11609/jott.7565.14.10.21936-21945
Copyright: © Naher et al. 2022. Creative Commons Attribution 4.0
International License. JoTT allows unrestricted use, reproduction, and
distribution of this article in any medium by providing adequate credit to the
author(s) and the source of publication.
Funding: Ministry
of Science, Information and Communication Technology
(Bangabondhu
fellowship), Bangladesh.
Competing interests: The authors declare no competing interests.
Author details: Habibon Naher is working as an associate professor of the Department of Zoology, Jagannath University, Bangladesh. She has involved in
teaching and 22 years research experience in ornithology, primatology and
conservation genetics. Noor Jahan Sarker is a former professor at Department of
Zoology, University of Dhaka, Bangladesh. She had 45 years of teaching and
research experience. Her research interests are in ornithology, primatology and
conservation biology. Shawkat Imam Khan is working as an assistant
keeper (Zoology), Department of Natural History, Bangladesh National Museum,
Dhaka, Bangladesh. He has involved in wildlife research from last 22 years in
ornithology, primatology and wildlife conservation.
Author contributions: NJS has played a crucial role in monitoring
and guiding the work. SIK has carried out field survey, data collection and HN
also executed field study, data analysis and documentation.
Acknowledgements: We are thankful to
local people for their help during field work; Chairman Department of Zoology,
University of Dhaka, Bangladesh for necessary support to conduct the research;
editor and reviewers for their valuable comments.
INTRODUCTION
The Least Concern,
common, resident and widely distributed White-throated Kingfisher Halcyon smyrnensis Linnaeus, 1758 inhabits different types of
habitats and water bodies (IUCN 2015) throughout Bangladesh. It feeds on fish,
arthropods, amphibians, and reptiles (Naher & Sarker 2014) and prefers to nest in sandy-loam steep
hills/mounds near or far from water bodies (Naher
& Sarker 2016). The high porosity of sandy soils
provides better ventilation, which is important to diffuse gases to maintain a
tolerable level of O2 and CO2 in the nest
cavities (White et al. 1978). Studies are available on the feeding behavior and
breeding biology of White-throated Kingfisher in India (Yahya & Yasmin
1991; Balasubramanian 1992; Oomen & Andrews 1996,
1998; Asokan et al. 2009, 2010; Palkar
et al. 2009). In Bangladesh, several studies have been done on feeding behavior
(Naher & Sarker
2015a,b, 2016, 2018), but information on breeding is limited. As wetland
habitats are rapidly declining and water pollution is increasing alarmingly, it
is important to determine the breeding biology of this species to make a
conservation plan. This study aimed to establish a morphometric analysis of
eggs, hatchlings and fledglings, breeding success, and the causes of eggs and
hatchling loss.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
Study area
The study was carried
out from September 2008 to August 2011. The study was done in Madhabchala (23.886 oN
& 90.253 oE), Boro-Walia
(23.886 oN & 90.251 oE), Sinduria (23.883 oN & 90.236 oE),
and Kashipur (23.884 oN & 90.242 oE) villages under Savar
Upazilla in Dhaka district, west of the Jahangirnagar
University Campus (Image 1). These villages are situated on plain land (4–7 m).
At the backyard of most of the houses of these villages, people dig holes to
dump their daily household wastages. At the vertical site of these holes (1–3 m
deep from the ground), the kingfishers built their nests. They nested on the
vertical side of the mound, which was newly cut down for other purposes. One
nest was built at Madhabchala and one in Boro-Walia in 2009, which were reused in 2010. One nest was
built at Kashipur in 2010 and one at Sinduria in
2011. Three nests were recorded in Chittagong University Campus (CUC) (22.281 oN & 91.472 oE)
(Image 1) in Chattagram. The CUC is located at the
village Fatehpur under Hathazari Upazila
of Chattagram District. The CUC stretches over an
area of 7 km² which is dominated by hills, valleys, creeks, streams, lakes,
crop fields, grass, and fallow lands (Kabir et al. 2017). Seventy-two percent
of the campus area is hilly and comprises of small hills which are 15–90 m high
(Islam et al. 1979) and the remaining areas are either plains or valleys (Islam
et al. 1979). Hills and plains are ornamented with hilly streams (Kabir et al.
2017) and some creeks (Islam et al. 1979). The mixed-evergreen
vegetation (Champion 1936) of this area is now converted into secondary growth
(Ahsan & Khanom 2005) due to anthropogenic
factors (Kabir et al. 2017). About 665 plants species have been reported in CUC
(Alam & Pasha 1999). The major habitats
for the birds in the CUC are: Katapahar, botanical
garden, south campus, Vice Chancellor’s Hill, and north side of the Shaheed Abdur Rab Hall (Image 1).
Residential area for students and faculty building are located on hills of CUC.
Hills are connected with different roads (Image 1). Two nests were built on
Vice Chancellor’s Hill and another nest was built on Katapahar.
Methods
Courtship and pair
formation behavior was observed on plains only, and involved key elements: (i) advertising display: one bird squatting on a tree
branch, calling and jerking its head right and left and flying from one branch
to another around the other bird, (ii) head bobbing: squatting on
a tree branch, head jerking up and down while neck and nape drew back and
almost or actually touched the back, (iii) mutual display: one bird displayed,
and the other joined with and did the same while both birds sat side by side on
the same or different branches (0.05–2 m, median = 1.5 m, no. of observations =
42), (iv) courtship flight: while the receiver sat beside the advertiser and
calling one by one, in between calling the synchronized flight occurred while
the pair called harshly together, ‘Crack…crack…crack…crack’, (v) courtship
feeding: one bird offered fish to other and the other bird held the fish at the
tail first and then swallowed turned to the head first, sometimes engulfed or
gave it back to first bird and it engulfed while the pair spent some time
through this behaviour, and (vi) mounting: while one
bird mounted over another with or without cloaca contact.
Incubation period:
Focal animal sampling (Altman 1974) at 5-minute intervals was recorded for
incubation on different days subdivided into four time periods: 0700–1000 h
(morning), 1001–1300 h (late morning), 1301–1600 (afternoon), and 1601–1900 h
(evening). Two nests were followed for these activities on plains to find out
the percentage of time spent in incubation at different day periods.
Egg measurement: Each
egg was marked as I, II, III, and so on with permanent ink and measured with
slide calipers and weighed to the nearest 0.5 g with a digital pan balance.
Egg volume and egg
surface area were calculated using the following formula (Narushin
2005; Muzaffar et al. 2012):
Egg volume =
(0.6057–0.0018B) LB2
Where L = maximum
length in mm and B = maximum breadth in mm.
Egg surface area, S,
was calculated as S = (3.155 - 0.0136L + 0.0115B) LB, in which both L and B are
taken in millimeters.
The breeding success
was calculated by using the following formulae:
Hatching success (%)
= (No. of eggs hatched / total no. of eggs laid) x 100
Fledging success (%)
= (No. of nestlings fledged / total no. of nestlings hatched) x 100
Breeding success (%)
= (No. of eggs laid / No. of nestlings fledged) x 100
RESULTS
Breeding season
The breeding season
was February to July in hilly area and April to August in plain land. Pair
formation occurred through a course of displaying behavior. At first, one bird
started its advertising display to attract other bird, by squatting on bamboo,
electric wire or any other support over the water which continued for 7–10 days
(avg. 8.4 ± 1.3, n = 10). This behavior was followed by head bobbing which
occurred 8–17 times per minute (mean 13.8 ± 3.2, n = 10). Head bobbing was
followed by courtship flight which was recorded for 1–3 days (mean 1.8 ± 1, n =
6) through which pair formation occurred permanently. It involved chasing each
other with calling and one bird caught fish and offered to another in between
courtship flight. Mounting took place after permanent pair formation which
lasted 1–3 seconds when cloaca contact did not occur, but extended up to 3–7
sec (4.5 ± 1, n = 12) while cloaca contact occurred. During mounting both birds
flapped their wings and called. After mating, they flew away from each other
towards the nearby branches and preened their feathers for 1–5 minutes (median
4.2, n = 12).
Nest
After pair formation,
both the birds selected an abandoned, isolated and 900 sloppy
sandy-loam area near or away from human habitation. In plains (Savar), they built their nests at the vertical edge of the
ditch or pond or mound near human habitation. In hills (CUC), they built their
nests near the top of the hill. They built more than 80% (81.9 ± 6.7%) false
nests (1–5, 5.2 ± 2.3, n = 5) on either side of the true nest (Image 2, 3) in
plains but below 30% (27.8 ± 48.1%) in hills (5 false nests in case of one true
nest and other two had no false nests) which did not lead to any egg chamber
but the true nests ended in a widened egg chamber. The nests were excavated at
30–118 (46.7 ± 143.31, n = 12) cm down from the hill or mound top and 10.5–483
cm (122.7cm ± 143.31, n = 12) height from the ground or above water. The nest
was built at a higher height and larger horizontal length on hills than on
plains (Figure 1). They followed almost the same distance down from the top of
the hills, hillocks or mounds (Figure 1). The horizontal and vertical diameter
(dm) of both entrance (outer opening) and egg chamber
was larger in true nests in all sites (Figure 2). In the plains, they built
their nests at 30–94 cm down (67.7 ± 25.3, n = 7) from the top of the
mound/highland and 10.5–97 cm height from the ground. But in hills, they
preferred to nest at 48–126 cm down from the top hill and 31–1,524 cm height
from the base of the hills (673.7 ± 767.9, n = 3).
To build a new nest,
less time was required in plains (8–17 days, 11.3 ± 3.9 days) than hills (15–16
days, 15.33 ± 0.57 days) whereas in plains it required 8–12 days to reconstruct
the old nest (10.2 ± 1.8), but in hills no old nests were found to be used.
Egg laying
The eggs were laid
during April in hills and May–June in plains. They laid eggs on successive days
(78.4%, n = 24), one-day interval (8.1%) but two eggs were also laid in one day
(13.5%) (Table 1).
Clutch size
The clutch size
varied from 3–7 eggs (mean of 4.6 ± 1.3, n = 7). The clutch size was
smaller (3–4; 3.5 ± 0.7, n = 2) in hills than plains (3–7; 5 ± 1.2, n = 30).
Colour, shape and
morphometry of the eggs
The colour of the egg was white and they were almost round in
shape (Image 4). Overall, the length of the eggs varied from 2.7–3.03 cm (2.9 ±
0.09 cm, n = 37), the width 2.4–2.7 cm (2.6 ± 0.07 cm, n = 37) and the weight
7.8–10.8 g (10.04 ± 0.7, n = 37) (Table 2). The length is significantly
correlated with width (0.39, df = 35, p >0.05) and
weight (0.38, df = 34, p >0.05), and width is also
significantly correlated with weight (0.80, df = 35,
p >0.05).
In plains, the
average length (range 2.7–3.03, mean 2.87 ± 0.09 cm, n = 30) was slightly
larger than the hills (length: range, 2.81–3.1 cm, mean 2.93 ± 0.09 cm, n = 7)
but the mean weight was (range 7.8–10.8 g, mean 10.09 ± 0.6 g, n = 30) slightly
heavier than the hills; (weight: range, 8.5–10.5 g, mean 9.8 ± 0.7 g, n = 7),
the mean width was similar in hills (range, 2.5–2.7 cm, mean 2.6 ± 0.07 cm, n =
7), and plains (range, 2.4–2.7 cm, mean 2.6 ± 0.06 cm, n = 30).
Egg volume and
surface area
The egg volume (EV)
and the surface area (ES) were almost similar both in hills (EV: 10.8 cm3,
ES: 22.9 cm2) and plains (EV: 11 cm3, ES: 23.1 cm2).
Incubation
Both the partners
took part in incubation. After laying the first egg, the parents started to
incubate it. If one bird incubated, the other stayed outside the nest. They
continuously incubated for 2–40 min (19.3 min ± 9.5, n = 30) with taking 2–20
min (11.2 min ± 8.6, n = 30) rest and repeatedly did the same. As one bird
rested, another one entered in between 10–180 sec (74.6 sec ± 49.3, n = 30).
After 10 days, one of the parents left the nest. After that, only one bird
incubated the egg. Time spent in incubation was found to increase as the days
of incubation proceeded (Figure 3) and but this relation was not significantly
correlated (r = 0.9, df = 4, P >0.05). Spending
time in incubation also varied according to day periods (Figure 4).
Incubation period
The incubation period
ranged from 13–18 days (15.9 ± 1.5 days, n = 37), in plains it was larger
(14–18 days, 16.4 ± 1.2 days, n = 30) than hills, (13–15 days, 14.1 ± 0.7 days,
n = 7), 15–17 days was the most common (65.7%) followed by 16 days (16.2%), 18
days (13.5%), 14 days (13.5%) and 13 days (2.7%). Different clutches of
different nests had different incubation period and the test was statistically
significant (r = 0.53, df = 6, P <0.05).
Hatching
One (66.7%) to four
(4.8%) eggs was hatched in one day. The parent started to collect food for
hatchlings and fed their nestlings immediately after the first egg hatched out.
The parents repeatedly collected food with an interval of 1–20 min (8.7 min ±
6.3, n = 35).
Hatching success
Overall, a good number
of eggs (13.5%) were destroyed due to infertility (n = 37). But it occurred
only in plains (13.7%, n = 30) and no egg was reported damaged in the hills.
Altogether, the hatching success was 85%. It was higher in hills (100%) than
plains (83.3%). than hills (3.5 nestlings).
Physical features of
the hatchling
The newly hatched
hatchling was naked with transparent body skin and flesh colored (Image 5). The
beak and claws were black. Their eyes were closed. Eyelids appeared large and
dark gray. Egg tooth was present which disappeared at the 9th–10th day of
hatching. The claw, wing and tail feathers were absent. The eyes were closed
which were beginning to open on the 5th–7th days and fully opened at 9th–10th
days after hatching.
The hatchlings were
measured on the day of hatching (Table 3). The body weight and length of
different body parts reached very close to an adult at the time of fledging.
Physical features of the fledglings’ were similar to adults except of size
(Image 6).
Fledging period
Overall, the fledging
periods ranged from 23–26 days (24.3 days ± 1) both in plains and hills. Most
(35.3%) of the hatchlings were fledged after almost a similar number of days
(24 days).
Fledging success
In total, the
fledging success was 53.1% (n = 32). It was lower (52%) in plains than hills
(57.1%). Overall, stealing (37.5%) and natural death (9.4%) were the causes of
fledgling loss. In plains, 48% fledgling were lost due to steal by local boys
and in hills 42.9% fledgling were lost due to natural death. Food shortage and
starvation may be the reason in hills as reduced food resource facilities were
recorded as mentioned earlier.
Breeding success
The breeding success
was 53.1% in relation to eggs hatched (n = 32) and 45.9% in relation to eggs
laid (n = 37) but it was lower (52%, n = 25, in relation to eggs hatched and
43.3%, n = 30, in relation to eggs laid) in plains than hills (57.1% in both
eggs hatched and laid, n = 7). Only 2.1 nestlings were able to fly per nest
overall. In plains it was better (2.2 nestlings per nest) than in hills (2
nestlings per nest).
Mortality rate
Overall, the
mortality rate was 46.9% in relation to eggs hatched (n = 32) and 54.1% in
relation to eggs laid (n = 37). It was higher in plains (16.7%) than hills (0%)
both with eggs laid and to eggs hatched (48% and 42.9%, respectively). The
mortality rate before hatching was less (13.5%) but after hatching it was
highly increased (40.1%).
DISCUSSION
The breeding season
started a little bit earlier in hilly areas than in plain lands. Most of the
observers around the world found the breeding season was more or less the same
as found in the present study (Whistler 1986; Ali & Ripley 1987; Grimmett et al. 1998; Govindarajalu
2008). Pair formation occurred via a course of courtship display involved head
bobbing and courtship flight. Ali & Ripley (1987) and Anderton & Rassmussen (2005) observed advertising display of
White-throated Kingfisher in India. Courtship flight was approached to
permanent pair formation by offering food to each other. Such courtship feeding
was reported during nest excavation of White-throated Kingfisher (Palker et al. 2009) and before fertilization in Pied
Kingfisher Ceryle rudis
(Cramp et al. 1988) which prepares the female to reproduce by providing her
with more resources (Cramp et al. 1988). Courtship feeding led to mounting
which occurred with or without cloacal contact. In between performing sexual
activities, both the partners selected an abandoned place for nesting and
started nest excavation. They built several false nests without egg chambers on
each side of the true nest to avoid predator risk. More false nests were built
in plains than hills as predator risk was high on plains. To protect eggs, the
pied kingfisher built 80% false nests which had no egg chambers (Cramp et
al. 1988). The nest height from the ground depends on the height of selected
mounds or hills, they are excavated at the highest height. Higher height was
observed in hills than in plains. Palker et al.
(2009) reported the nest was excavated in a vertical bank 150 cm high from the
ground. This height was higher than the present study on plains but lower than
in the hills as the height of the nesting site varied from place to place. The
nest contained longer horizontal lengths in hills than on plains. Nest building
time was more on excavating a new nest than rebuilding an old nest which was
also recorded in other species (Naher & Sarker 2016). Palker et al.
(2009) observed pairs occupying the same area for 3–4 years. They suggested
only ringing will confirm the reuse of a nest or site by the same pair. The
mean length of the nest hole in hills (70.3 ± 14.3 cm) is similar (69.00 ± 4.74
cm) to the findings of Govindarajalu (2008) in India.
The length of the nest hole in hills was larger than in plains (52.6 ± 18.5
cm). One meter-long horizontal tunnel-like nest ends excavated in a vertical
cutting of earth on the bank of a river, stream, nullah or a roadside land
cutting (Palker et al. 2009). The circumference of
the nest entrance hole opening was 8.64 ± 0.73 cm in India (Govindarajalu
2008). The depth of the egg chamber of the true nest in plains (11.5 ± 1.04 cm)
was almost similar to the findings (10.47 ± 1.86 cm) of Govindarajalu
(2008) but larger (14 ± 2 cm) in hills.
Both the parents shared in building or reconstructing the tunnel-like
nest which was also reported by others (Palker et al.
2009; Naher & Sarker
2016). However, the White-throated Kingfisher is known to use various locations
for constructing its nest (Balasubramanian 1992; Palker
et al. 2009).
The egg laying period
in the hills of the present study (in late March to early April) was a little
bit later (May–June) in the plains. One to two days intervals were recorded in
egg laying time which was similar to Palker et al.
(2009) reports (24–48 h) but two eggs were laid in the same day was also
observed in the present study. A larger clutch size was recorded in plains than
in hills. Smaller clutch size (3–5 eggs, 3.7 ± 0.82) was recorded by Whistler
(1986), Ali & Ripley (1987), and Singer (1996). Larger clutch size was
recorded by Palker et al. (2009) (4–7 eggs, usually
5–6 eggs) and Govindarajalu (2008) (4 eggs). Clutches
of five eggs were common in plains. Reduced clutch size in hills may be due to
less food source around the nest as the site was far from agricultural lands,
grooves, ponds, paddy fields, electric lines, shrubs, and trees. But on plains,
they built their nests close to agricultural lands, grooves, ponds, paddy
fields, electric lines, shrubs, and trees from which the parents get more
opportunity to provide foods to the growing nestlings. The agricultural lands
and groves provided a variety of protein rich insects and other prey for the
growing nestlings as well as for the parents (Naher
& Sarker 2016). The nearest small trees,
shrubs, sticks and electric lines served as a perching site for overseeing the
nest and searching for prey (Asokan et al. 2010;
Naher & Sarker 2016).
Moreover, in hills they preferred to nest at the site where predator
pressure (such as local boys, snake, and monitor lizard) was less. This factor
may be responsible for larger clutch size in plains. The condition of the
breeding female, availability of resources necessary to produce eggs, time of
laying in the season and anticipated future availability of food for feeding
nestlings may influence the variability of clutch size (Klomp
1970; O’Connor 1984; Lessels & Krebs 1989). The
round-shape and white colour eggs are similar to
other studies in different regions (Whistler 1986; Ali & Ripley 1987;
Singer 1996; Palker et al. 2009) but spherical
(Whistler 1986), spherical oval (Ali & Ripley 1987; Palker
et al. 2009) shaped eggs were also reported in India. The measurement of
the length and breadth of the eggs has more or less coincided with other
findings (Whistler 1986). Similar sized eggs were found both in plains and
hills. Govindarajalu (2008) found almost similar
sized (2.9 ± 0.13 cm, width of 2.7 ± 0.13 cm) but lower weight eggs (7.9 ± 0.83
g) in comparison to present study. The physical condition and nutritional
status of the birds may vary from one place to another. Alternative incubation
by parents occurred in both sites which were also reported by others (Ali &
Ripley 1987; Singer 1996). Almost the same incubation period was recorded by
different studies (Ali & Ripley 1987; Singer 1996) but Palker
et al. (2009) and Oommen & Andrews (1993)
reported a longer period (21–22 days and 18–21 days, respectively).
Provisioning food sharing to the nestlings occurred by parents alternatively
was reported by Naher & Sarker
(2018) and Palker et al. (2009). Feeding by
both parents commenced two hours after the first chick hatched (Palker et al. 2009). When both the parents brought
food simultaneously, only one of them entered the nest while the other waited
outside (Palker et al. 2009).
Hatching success was
almost similar to the findings of Govindarajalu
(2008) at Nagapattinam (80%) in India. Higher
hatching success was found in hills but larger brood was recorded in plains.
Reduce hatching success in plains was recorded due to infertility but Palker et al. (2009) reported infertility and black
ants as the causes of egg loss. The eyes of the nestlings opened at the same
age found in Pied Kingfisher (9 days) (Cramp et al. 1988). Naked and
pink colour hatchlings of White-throated Kingfisher
were also recorded by Palker et al. (2009) in India
and Cramp et al. (1988) for Pied Kingfisher. More or less similar fledging
period was found in different studies in the world (Singer 1996; Palker et al. 2009; 20–21 days). Fledging success
was higher in Nagapattinam (82 ± 12.05%) in southern
India (Govindarajalu 2008). Human disturbances and
natural died were principle reasons to fledgling loss in the present study. Palker et al. (2009) recorded weaver ants, accidental
drowning, caving in of the nest chamber and, falling out of nest hole are the
causes of nestling loss and speeding vehicles to adult birds loss in Western Ghat of India. Breeding success was lower in the present
study than in the studies in southern India (Govindarajalu
2008; 75%) and Western Ghats of India (77.3%; Palker
et al. 2009). The mortality rate after hatching was higher in the present study
which was similar to another study in Western Ghats (23.7%; Palker
et al. 2009).
Conclusion
Wetland degradation
is the main threat to the White-throated Kingfisher as it lives in and around
wetlands. Various anthropogenic factors are responsible to reduce their
breeding success. Fish farmers used to trap them as they believed that they are
a nuisance for fish farms. The use of insecticides and pesticides may affect
their fertility as kingfishers built their nest beside paddy fields, fish
farms, and agricultural fields. Local boys become a nuisance as they destroy
the nests and nestlings just for fun. Public awareness is necessary to conserve
this species. Conservation messages should be included in the textbook at the
primary and secondary level to create awareness among students to prohibit the
destruction of wild animals including their nests and nestlings. Inserting
bamboo or stick or plantation of aquatic plants in between the crops in paddy
fields and agricultural land may provide them with more food items like
insects, fish or small snakes, amphibians, & tadpoles, the farmers can save
money by reducing pesticides use in the crop field, and decrease water
pollution.
Table 1. Nesting detail of White-throated
Kingfisher in different sites.
|
NS |
Year |
Egg laying dates |
Egg hating dates |
Fledging dates |
||||||||||||
|
|
|
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
|
|
M |
2009 |
14/6 |
15/6 |
15/6 |
16/6 |
17/6 |
18/6 |
|
28/6 |
28/6 |
28/6 |
29/6 |
4/7 |
2/7 |
3/7 |
Stolen |
|
B |
2009 |
3/7 |
4/7 |
5/7 |
7/7 |
8/7 |
|
|
19/7 |
20/7 |
UH |
21/7 |
UH |
|
|
13/8 |
|
C |
2009 |
12/4 |
14/4 |
15/4- |
- |
- |
|
|
28/4 |
30/4 |
1/5 |
|
|
|
|
Died |
|
M |
2010 |
8/4 |
10/4 |
10/4 |
11/4 |
12/4 |
|
|
25/4 |
25/4 |
27/4 |
27/4 |
27/4 |
|
|
20/5 |
|
B |
2010 |
12/5 |
13/5 |
13/5 |
- |
- |
|
|
UH |
UH |
UH |
|
|
|
|
UH |
|
C |
2010 |
22/4 |
23/4 |
23/4 |
24/4 |
- |
|
|
6/5 |
6/5 |
6/5 |
7/5 |
|
|
|
26/5 |
|
K |
2011 |
2/5 |
3/5 |
4/5 |
5/5 |
6/5 |
|
|
18/5 |
19/5 |
21/5 |
20/5 |
20/5 |
|
|
13/5 |
|
S |
2011 |
20/5 |
22/5 |
22/5 |
23/5 |
24/5 |
|
|
7/6 |
7/6 |
7/6 |
7/6 |
10/6 |
|
|
Stolen |
M—Madhabchala | B—Barawalia | C—Chittagong University Campus, Chattagram | S—Shinduria |
K—Kashipur | UH—Unhatched.
Table 2. Egg measurement of White-throated
Kingfisher in different locations.
|
Yr |
SA |
Egg measurement
(cm) |
avg± SD |
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
1st egg |
2nd egg |
3rd egg |
4th egg |
5th egg |
6th egg |
7th egg |
|||||||||||||||||||
|
L (cm) |
W (cm) |
Wt. (g) |
L (cm) |
W (cm) |
Wt. (g) |
L (cm) |
W (cm) |
Wt. (g) |
L (cm) |
W (cm) |
Wt. (g) |
L (cm) |
W (cm) |
Wt. (g) |
L (cm) |
W (cm) |
Wt. (g) |
L (cm) |
W (cm) |
Wt. (g) |
L |
W |
Wt. |
||
|
2009 |
M |
2.91 |
2.65 |
10.5 |
2.95 |
2.69 |
10.4 |
2.87 |
2.61 |
10.6 |
2.98 |
2.63 |
10.5 |
2.81 |
2.58 |
10.3 |
2.7 |
2.62 |
10.1 |
2.79 |
2.68 |
10.1 |
2.9±0.09 cm |
2.6±0.07 cm |
10.04±0.7 g |
|
B |
2.97 |
2.6 |
10 |
2.9 |
2.64 |
10.3 |
2.84 |
2.67 |
10.3 |
2.88 |
2.6 |
10.1 |
2.86 |
2.67 |
9.9 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||
|
C |
2.81 |
2.59 |
10.2 |
2.9 |
2.7 |
10.3 |
2.94 |
2.6 |
9.9 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||
|
2010 |
M |
2.94 |
2.63 |
10.5 |
2.89 |
2.67 |
10.3 |
3.03 |
2.63 |
10.4 |
2.92 |
2.59 |
9.9 |
2.86 |
2.59 |
10.2 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
|||
|
B |
2.83 |
2.52 |
7.8 |
2.8 |
2.4 |
7.9 |
2.81 |
2.53 |
9.4 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
||||
|
C |
2.9 |
2.6 |
9.2 |
2.9 |
2.5 |
8.5 |
3.0 |
2.7 |
10.3 |
3.1 |
2.7 |
10.5 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
||||
|
2011 |
K |
3.01 |
2.7 |
10.6 |
2.98 |
2.68 |
10.7 |
2.9 |
2.6 |
10.1 |
2.85 |
2.68 |
10.2 |
2.97 |
2.6 |
10.8 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
|
S |
S2.7 |
2.6 |
10.2 |
2.8 |
2.61 |
10.0 |
3.0 |
2.58 |
10.5 |
2.72 |
2.69 |
9.5 |
2.76 |
2.69 |
10.6 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
|||
M—Madhabchala
| B—Barawalia | C—Chittagong
University Campus, Chattagram | S—Shinduria | K—Kashipur | UH—Unhatched | L—Length | W—Width | Wt.—Weight.
Table 3. Measurement of different body parts
of the hatchling and fledgling with reference
|
Var |
Hatching at the
Catching time, range (meant sd) |
Fledgling at the
fledging time, Range (mean ± sd) |
Adult (ADW 2020) |
||
|
Plains (SAVAR) (n =
20) |
Hills (CUC) (n = 7 |
Plains (SAVAR) (n =
13) |
Hills (CUC) (n = 4) |
|
|
|
BW (g) |
12.5–16.5 (14.9 ± 1) |
12–15.9 (14.5 ± 1.3 |
63.3–73.9 (69.5 ± 3.2 |
68.9–73.3 (71.5 ± 1.9) |
65.5-81g |
|
BL (mm) |
50–69 (61.4 ± 5) |
60–67 (63.5 ± 3.1) |
185–230 (207.1 ± 4.1) |
182–203 (192 ±10.1) |
194 to 210 |
|
WL (mm) |
14.1–26 (19.9 ± 4) |
15–26 (21.8 ± 5.3) |
108–121 (112.1 ± 3.1) |
110–113.2 (111.8 ± 1.5) |
|
|
HL (mm) |
8.1–15 (11.3 ± 2.1) |
10.3–18 (13.9 ± 3.2) |
29.1–33.7 (30.7 ± 1.4) |
30–30.4 (30.1 ± 0.2) |
|
|
BeL (mm) |
2–4.5 (3.1 ± 0.9) |
2.4–5.2 (4.2 ± 1.3) |
39.9–42.5 (40.7 ± 0.7) |
36.7–42.3 (39.4 ± 2.3) |
|
|
FL (mm) |
16.3–19.5 (17.7 ± 1) |
18.3–19.8 (19.2 ± 0.7) |
28.3–30.7 (29.6 ± 0.7) |
30.1–0.1 (30 ± 30.2) |
|
|
TL (mm) |
8–9.8 (8.9 ± 0.5) |
9–9.9 (9.3 ± 0.4) |
14.6–15.8 (15 ± 0.4) |
14.4–15.5 (15 ± 0. 5) |
|
|
CL (mm) |
- |
|
4.6–5.6 (5.1 ± 4.6) |
5.1–5.3 (5.3 ± 0. 1) |
|
|
PL(mm) |
- |
|
57.1–74.6 (66.8 ± 5.7) |
68.4–73.1 (71 ± 2.4) |
|
|
RL(mm) |
- |
|
19.1–32.1 (27.5 ± 3.7) |
25.1–31.2 (28.3 ± 2.6) |
|
Var—Variables | BW—Body weight | BL—Body
length | WL—Wing length | HL—Head length | BeL—Beak
length | FL—Feet length | TL—Tarsus length | CL—Claw length | PL—Primaries
length | RL—Rectrices length.
REFERENCES
ADW (2020). Halcyon smyrnensis white-throated kingfisher. Animal
Diversity Web. http:// animaldiversity.org.>accounts>Halcyon_smyrnensis.
Accessed on 25 April 2020.
Ahsan, M.F. & N. Khanom
(2005). Birds of the Chittagong University Campus, Chittagong.
The Chittagong University Journal of Science 29(1): 77–88.
Alam, M.N. & M.K.
Pasha (1999). A floristic account of Chittagong University Campus. The
Chittagong University Journal of Science 23(1): 81–99.
Ali, S. & S.D. Ripley (1987). Compact handbook
of the birds of India and Pakistan. Oxford University Press, New York,
xvii+187 pp.
Altmann, J. (1974). Observational study
of behaviour: sampling methods. Behaviour
49: 227–267.
Anderton, J. & P. Rassmussen
(2005). Birds of South Asia. The Ripley Guide.
Vols. 1 & 2. Smithsonian Institution and Lynx Edicions,
Barcelona.
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):
27–33. https://doi.org/10.11609/JoTT.o2145.327-30
Asokan, S., A.M.S. Ali
& R. Manikannan (2010). Breeding biology of
the small bee-eater Merops orientalis (Latham, 1801) in Nagapattinam
District, Tamil Nadu, India. Journal of Threatened Taxa 2(4): 797–804. https://doi.org/
10.11609/JoTT.o2273.797-804
Balasubramanian, P. (1992). New nesting site of
the Indian white-breasted kingfisher Halcyon smyrnensis
fusca (Boddaert). Journal
of the Bombay Natural History Society. 89: 124.
Champion, H.G. (1936). A preliminary survey
of the forest types of India and Burma Indian Forest Records (new series). Silviculture
1(1): 365.
Cramp, S., R. Douthwaite, H.
Reyer & K. Westerturp
(1988). Ceryle rudis (Linnaeus). Pied Kingfisher. pp. 299–302. in H.
Fry, S. Keith, E. Urban, eds. The Birds of Africa. Vol III. Academic
Press, San Diego.
Govindarajalu, M. (2008). Ecology of the
White-breasted Kingfisher, Halcyon smyrnensis
(Linnaeus, 1758) with special reference to its population, foraging and
breeding in Nagapattinam, Tamil Nadu, India. PhD
Thesis. Department of Zoology, Bharathidasan University, India, 86 pp
Grimmett, R., C. Inskipp & T. Inskipp (1998). Birds of the
Indian Subcontinent. Oxford University Press, New Delhi, 888 pp.
Islam, A.T.M., M.S. Chowdhury, A.K.M.M. Hoque &
S.A. Malek (1979). Detailed
soil survey in Chittagong University Campus. Department of Soil Survey,
Chittagong, 207 pp.
IUCN Bangladesh (2015). Red List of
Bangladesh Volume 3: Birds. IUCN, International Union for
Conservation of Nature, Bangladesh Country Office, Dhaka, Bangladesh, xvi+676
pp.
Kabir, M.T., F. Ahsan, M.M. Rahman & M.M. Islam
(2017). A checklist of the avian fauna of Chittagong
University campus, Bangladesh. Journal of Threatened Taxa 9(6):
10325–10333. https://doi.org/10.11609/jott.1885.9.6.10325-10333
Klomp, J.R. (1970). The determination of
clutch size in birds – review. Ardea 58(1):
1–124.
Lessels, C.M. & J.R.
Krebs (1989). Age and breeding performance of European Bee-eater. Auk
106: 375–383.
Muzaffar, S.B., R. Gubiani
& S. Benjamin (2012). Reproductive Performance of the Socotra
Cormorant Phalacrocorax nigrogularis
on Siniya Island, United Arab Emirates: Planted
Trees Increase Hatching Success. Waterbirds
35(4): 626–630.
Naher, H. & N.J. Sarker (2014). Food and feeding habits of
White-throated Kingfisher (Halcyon smyrnensis) in Bangladesh. Bangladesh Journal of
Zoology 42(2): 237–249.
Naher, H. & N.J. Sarker (2015a). Prey capturing
techniques of White-throated Kingfisher (Halcyon smyrnensis)
in Dhaka, Bangladesh. Jagannath University Journal of Life and Earth Science
1(1): 95–102.
Naher, H. & N.J. Sarker (2015b). Preying frequency of White-throated Kingfisher, Halcyon
smyrnensis (Linnaeus, 1758) in Bangladesh.
ECOPRINT 22(1): 39–49.
Naher, H. & N.J. Sarker (2016). Nest and nest
characteristics of Common Kingfisher (Alcedo
atthis) and White-throated Kingfisher (Halcyon
smyrnensis) in Bangladesh. Bangladesh Journal
of Zoology 44(1): 99–109.
Naher, H. & N.J. Sarker (2018). Provisioned food to
the nestlings of common kingfisher (Alcedo atthis) and white-throated kingfisher (Halcyon smyrnensis) by their parents. Jagannath
University Journal of Life and Earth Sciences 4(2): 176–186.
Narushin, V.G. (2005). Egg geometry
calculation using the measurements of length and breadth. Poultry Science
84: 482–484.
Ó Connor, R.J. (1984). The growth and
development of birds. Wiley and Sons, New York.
Oommen, M. & M.I.
Andrews (1993). Breeding biology of the White-breasted Kingfisher, Halcyon
smyrnensis, pp. 177–180. In: Verghese,
A., S. Sridhar & A.K. Chakravarthy (eds.). Bird Conservation: Strategies
for the Nineties and Beyond. Ornithological Society of India, Bangalore.
Oommen, M. & M.I.
Andrews (1996). Awakening, roosting and vocalization behaviour of the White-breasted Kingfisher Halcyon smyrnensis fusca (Boddaert). Pavo 34: 43–46.
Oommen, M. & M.I.
Andrews (1998). Food and feeding habits of the White-breasted
Kingfisher Halcyon smyrnensis, pp. 132–136.
In: Dhindsa M.S., P. Shyamsunder
& B.M. Parasharya (Eds.). Birds in
Agriculture Ecosystem. Society for Applied Ornithology (India).
Palkar S.B., R.J. Lovalekar & V.V. Joshi (2009). Breeding biology of
White-breasted Kingfisher Halcyon smyrnensis. Indian
Birds 4: 104–105.
Singer, D. (1996). Collins Nature
guide Garden Birds of Britain and Europe. Harper Collins Publishers,
German, 159 pp.
Whistler, H. (1986). Handbook of
Indian Birds. Cosmo Publications, New Delhi, xxiv+438 pp.
White, F.N., G.A. Bartholomew & J.L. Kinney
(1978). Physiological and ecological correlates of tunnel
nesting in the European bee-eater, Merops apiaster. Physiological Zoology 51: 140–154.
Yahya, H.S. & S. Yasmin (1991). Earthworms in the
dietary of the White-breasted Kingfisher Halcyon smyrnensis
(Linn.). Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society 88: 454.