Journal of Threatened Taxa |
www.threatenedtaxa.org | 26 October 2023 | 15(10): 24009–24015
ISSN 0974-7907
(Online) | ISSN 0974-7893 (Print)
https://doi.org/10.11609/jott.8324.15.10.24009-24015
#8324 | Received 14
December 2022 | Final received 08 August 2023 | Finally accepted 29 September
2023
Studies on the response of
House Sparrow Passer
domesticus to artificial nest-boxes in rural Arakkonam
and Nemili taluks, Vellore District, Tamil Nadu, India
M. Pandian
No. F1901, AIS Housing Complex, Natesan Nagar West, Virugambakkam,
Chennai, Tamil Nadu 600092, India.
Editor: H. Byju,
Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu, India. Date of publication: 26 October
2023 (online & print)
Citation: Pandian, M. (2023). Studies on the response of House Sparrow Passer
domesticus to artificial nest-boxes in rural Arakkonam and Nemili taluks,
Vellore District, Tamil Nadu, India. Journal of Threatened Taxa 15(10): 24009–24015. https://doi.org/10.11609/jott.8324.15.10.24009-24015
Copyright: © Pandian 2023.
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 author declares no competing interests.
Author details: M. Pandian has completed M.Sc., Ph.D., in botany and BLIS from University of Madras and Bachelor of Education (B.Ed.) from Annamalai University, Chidambaram and now serves in Tamil Nadu Police Department. His area of interest is ecology and nesting biology of birds and published a few papers on House Sparrows, Baya Weavers, Streaked Weaver and Black-breasted Weaver, Grey Francolins, Indian Flying Fox, munias and Ring-necked Parakeets.
Acknowledgements: I thank D. Balaji (Mailam), Frank Sadrack (Arakkonam), and S. Sumathi (Chennai) for assistance in
collection of data and photography, A. Giridharan (Minnal), T. Selvapandian (Narasingapuram), and P. Poornima (Odisha) for data
analysis/ preparation of study area map.
Abstract: This study evaluated the response
of House Sparrows Passer domesticus to
artificial nest-boxes installed in human dwellings in 30 villages in Arakkonam and Nemili taluks,
Vellore District, Tamil Nadu between February and July 2019, with help of
school students who installed 245 artificial nest-boxes in their houses. House
Sparrows attempted to build nests in 32 nest-boxes by frequent visits, built
partial nests in 51, and built active nests followed by successful breeding in
32 nest-boxes; there was no response to the remaining 130. A significant
relationship was detected between the type of house and the adoption of boxes
by the birds. The maximum response was seen in tiled houses, followed by
concrete and thatched houses. House Sparrows preferred nest-boxes placed at
heights between 3 and 4 m. At the end of the breeding season, a total of 80
chicks successfully emerged from 32 active nests. Some mortality in adult birds
due to ceiling fans and predatory animals such as House Crows and Domestic Cats
was reported. Active nests in nest-boxes and birds were found in villages where
mobile phone towers were installed. Of 32 active nests enumerated in
nest-boxes, 22 were found within a 500 m radius of mobile phone towers, two
from 500–1,000 m and eight from 1,000–2,000 m. Further study is planned to
examine the relationship between mobile towers and nest site selection by
sparrows. A survey done through a questionnaire reveals that 95% of residents
were aware of and concerned about the declining populations of House Sparrow.
Keywords: Active nests, Electromagnetic
radiations, Mobile-phone towers, Nesting sites, Predatory animals.
INTRODUCTION
The House Sparrow Passer domesticus, a native of Eurasia, is the most widespread
bird in the world (Anderson 2006) and its geographical range extends over
Europe, North Africa, and parts of Asia including the Indian subcontinent (Ali
& Ripley 1987). These sparrows prefer holes or crevices near roofs of human
residences as nesting sites (Ali & Ripley 1987). They have been declining
since the 1980s in several parts of the world, including Europe (Kelcey & Rheinwald 2005;
Kekkonen et al. 2011), where the decline may be due to changes in farming
practices, use of pesticides/herbicides, and predation. The species was
red-listed in the U.K. in 2002 as a result of population decline (Summers-Smith
1988, 2005). Loss of suitable nesting sites and foraging habitats are the
reasons for declining populations of House Sparrow in urban and suburban
landscapes (Robinson et al. 2005).
In India, sparrow populations are
reported to have decreased considerably in Bengaluru, Delhi, Mumbai, and
Hyderabad (Rajashekar & Venkatesha
2008; Daniels 2008; Khera et al. 2010; Bhattacharya
et al. 2010; Ghosh et al. 2010). Rahmani et al.
(2013) have stated that House Sparrows and their nests were found in fewer places
in India during 2005–2012 when compared to the time before 2005. This is
because the bird prefers holes or crevices near roofs of human residences as
nesting sites (Ali & Ripley 1987).
The declining trend is consistent in all the regions and major cities
except Coimbatore (Rahmani et al. 2013). The IUCN Red
List has evaluated the House Sparrow’s conservation status as ‘Least Concern’ (BirdLife International 2018).
House Sparrows are flexible in
selection of nesting sites, and will build nests in
places such as artificial nest-boxes when modern buildings lack suitable
nesting sites (Shaw et al. 2008). Availability of nesting sites is a major
factor that determines House Sparrow populations in urban areas (Anderson
2006). In India, the response of House Sparrow towards artificial nest-boxes
has been poorly studied. In India, maximum numbers of active nests were found
in wall cavities followed by artificial/man-made nest boxes (Rahmani et al. 2013). In view of urbanization and lack of nesting
sites in the modern buildings the House Sparrow populations had preferred
artificial nest-boxes in Udhagamandalam urban areas in Nilgiris
District (Jayaraman et al. 2017).
In view of
the growing concern over the decline of House Sparrow population in India, in
this paper I sought answers to the questions considering their habitats, with
specific reference to Arakkonam and Nemili taluks in Vellore District, Tamil Nadu, India. The
following objectives were kept in mind: 1. How do House Sparrows respond
towards artificial nest-boxes? 2. What types of houses are preferred by the
bird and heights preferred to build nests? 3. What are the impacts of
electrical appliances and predatory animals on House Sparrows?,
and 4. What is the correlation between mobile towers and site selection by
House Sparrows?
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Study Area
Arakkonam (13.07 N & 79.67 E) and Nemili (12.58 N & 78.50 E) taluks, Vellore District
occur in the northeastern part of Tamil Nadu, 70 km from Vellore Town
(12.25–13.25 N and 78.25–79.83 E) and 71 km west from Chennai (13.08–80.28 E)
covering 828 km2 with a human population of c. 500,000 (2011
census). The present study was undertaken in 30 villages in Arakkonam
and Nemili taluks (Figure 1). The principal
occupation of residents here is agriculture followed by weaving. The average
elevation from the sea level is about 81 m. The maximum and minimum annual
temperatures in the district are 34.1 oC
and 22.4 oC, respectively. The average
annual rainfall is 1,000 mm (www.tn.gov.in).
Methods
With help of four school teachers
and five informants/field assistants, I identified 30 villages having House
Sparrow populations. Artificial nest-boxes (245) made of hard cardboard (12 X
12 X 12 cm size) were distributed to 245 students (6th to 12th
standard) of three higher secondary schools (one in Nemili
Taluk and two in Arakkonam Taluk) during the first
week of December 2018. Supplementary cushion materials like fibres,
leaves, twigs or any other plant materials were not placed inside the nest
boxes because birds would place nest materials once it selects the nest-boxes
for nesting. The students were briefed about the life cycle of House Sparrows
including breeding period and were instructed to hang the nest-boxes in their
houses at reasonable heights (above 3 m) beyond the reach of human beings and
predatory animals. Out of 300 nest-boxes distributed, students had placed 245
nest-boxes in their houses at the end of the third week of December 2018.
Students had placed 80% of nest-boxes (195) facing outwards/exteriors from the
houses and in the remaining 20% nest-boxes (50) the entrances were facing
inwards to the houses. The remaining 55 students had not responded and did not
place nest-boxes in their houses. The students placed nest-boxes at various
heights ranges from 3–8 m depending on their type of houses. Nest boxes placed
at 7–8 m height was in the upper floor of concrete houses. Hence, the study was
carried out only on those 245 houses where nest-boxes were installed. Between
February and July 2019, all the houses (245) were visited and the response of
House Sparrows towards nest-boxes was studied.
The nest-boxes and birds were surveyed between
0600 h & 0900 h and 1500 h & 1800 h over the mentioned six months.
Students who received and placed nest-boxes had spent time to observe the nest
boxes in the morning (0600–0830 h) and in the evening (1600–1800 h) and during
holidays they spent more time (0600–1800 h) to monitor the activity of birds.
Then they were interviewed within the age group (between 11–17 years) at the
end of the breeding season, i.e., during July 2019 and concluded during 20
August 2019. Elderly persons (age 60–70 y) were interviewed using a questionnaire
in Tamil language.
The breeding of this species
occurred between February and July 2019. Details such as types of houses,
responses of birds toward nest-boxes such as number of attempts to visit
nest-boxes, number of partially built nests, number of active nests and
successful breeding, number of chicks grown and flown from each successful
nest, impact of electrical ceiling fans, accidental fall of eggs/chicks, extent
of increase or decrease in the populations of House Sparrow and impact of
predatory animals. The heights of nest-boxes from the floor of the houses were
measured using measuring tape. The study on the breeding biology of House
Sparrows such as number of eggs laid, incubation, and hatching in the active
nests was not done, as it would cause harm to the breeding of this species. The
numbers of mobile phone towers in the villages were verified and listed.
Photograph was made using a digital camera without disturbing the nests and
birds.
Chi-Square test was applied to
determine whether any significant differences exist between the types of houses
(namely concrete flat-terraced houses and tile-rooftop houses) and the
selection of nesting sites by House Sparrows. For analysis, SPSS (Statistical
Package for Social Sciences) software was used. The test of significance was
assessed at p<0.05. Since the number of thatched houses (6) and shops (2)
were few in number, they were ignored and not taken for analysis. Collected
data were tabulated, analysed, and given as graphical
representations.
RESULTS
Of 245 nest-boxes placed in 30
villages, House Sparrows responded to 47% (115) and no response was found
towards the remaining 53% (130). The House Sparrows visited 32 nest boxes but
did not nest, in 51 nest-boxes birds built partial nests, and 32 pairs built
complete and active nests (Table 1). Maximum response of birds to nest-boxes
was reported in tiled houses (64 nest-boxes), followed by concrete houses (47).
Similarly, maximum numbers of attempts occurred in concrete houses (21),
followed by tiled houses (10). Successful breeding occurred in 21 nest-boxes
installed in tiled houses followed by 10 in concrete house and a solitary case
reported in thatched house.
House Sparrows preferred to nest
(65%) in nest-boxes which were placed between 3 m and 4 m height. Sparrows did
not inhabit or lay eggs in nest-boxes which were installed above 7 m height. In
these limited observations, the birds preferred to select artificial nest-boxes
in the ground floor for the construction of nests (Figure 2).
Out of 245 nest-boxes, the
entrance of 80% (195) were found facing outwards/exteriors from the houses and
in the remaining 20% (50) the entrances were facing inwards. At the end of the
breeding season, the response of House Sparrows towards nest-boxes which were
facing outward from the houses were found higher (50%; 97) than the nest-boxes
facing interior of the houses (36%; 18). Though the nest-boxes installation was
skewed, proportionately the birds preferred a greater number of nest-boxes
facing exterior from the houses than the nest-boxes facing interior of the
houses in the study area (Table 2).
A significant relationship exists
between the type of house and attempts to use nest-boxes (X2 =
7.069; p <0.008) and partially built nests (X2 = 4.155; p
<0.042). But no significant relationship exists between the types of houses
and construction of active nests (X2 = 2.548; p <0.11) (Table 3).
Study revealed that the birds had shown more preference towards artificial
nest-boxes placed in tiled houses than concrete houses in the studied villages.
The existence of many entry/exit spaces between roof & wall, wall cavities,
and scaffold holes in the walls in tiled houses might have been the probable
reasons for the preference of tiled houses and these entry/exit spaces seldom
found in concrete houses. However, House Sparrow’s preference of houses need
further studies in larger areas covering urban and rural habitats. In the
present study the observation of fewer chicks, i.e., one to two chicks per
active nest (18 out of 32 nests) could be considered a matter of great concern
(Table 4).
Incidents of adult House Sparrows suffering
mortality by collision with the blades of ceiling fans occurred in 10 houses,
i.e., two birds in concrete houses and eight in tiled houses in the study area.
Three incidents of accidental fall of chicks in concrete houses and two
incidents of fall of eggs in tiled houses were also reported. In the present
study, incidents of predators visiting nest-boxes and causing disturbance to
adult birds were found in 39 houses (concrete house 21; tiled house 18).
Residents reported that House Crows Corvus splendens and Domestic Cats Felis
catus had caused disturbances to House Sparrows.
These predatory animals disturbed adult House Sparrows during nest-building and
delivery of food to chicks. Residents stated that House Crows in 30 houses and
Domestic Cats in nine houses had caused disturbances to House Sparrows by
chasing the latter.
In the
present study active nests and birds were found in villages where mobile-phone
towers were installed. The analysis on the locations of active nests found in
nest-boxes and their proximity to mobile-phone towers in the villages revealed
that 22 active nests were found within 500 m radius from mobile-phone towers,
two active nests occurred between 500 m and 1,000 m radius and another two
nests beyond this up to 2,000 m radius from mobile-phone towers. In case of
remaining six nests, no mobile towers were found within 2,000 m radius from the
nesting sites.
A closed type questionnaire
survey revealed that 95% of the adult residents were aware of and concerned
about the declining populations of House Sparrow in general, and particularly
in their villages.
DISCUSSION
The response of House Sparrow
towards artificial nest boxes was greater in Udhagamandalam, Tamil Nadu
(Jayaraman 2017). The number of House Sparrow breeding pairs in the nest boxes
was increased to 50% over a period of five years in Poland (Dulisz
et al. 2022). In India, next to wall cavities, maximum numbers of nests were
found in the artificial/man-made nest boxes (Rahmani
2013). In the present study, the response of P. domesticus
to 47% of the total artificial nest-boxes matches with the views of Jayaraman
(2017), Rahmani (2013), and Dulisz
et al. (2022). The British Trust for Ornithology has suggested that the heights
of nest-boxes should be 3 m above the ground. In the present study also,
responses of P. domesticus were found maximum
in the nest-boxes which were placed between 3 m and 4 m heights.
House Crows predate nests of
House Sparrow in Delhi (Khera et al. 2010) and
Domestic Cats in Bandel region of West Bengal and
Chennai in Tamil Nadu (Daniels 2008; Ghosh et al. 2010). Similarly, in the
present study, incidents of nest predation by House Crows and Domestic Cats
were recorded and hence, it corroborates with the earlier mentioned findings.
Clutch size is determined by
various environmental factors, age of the female, breeding density, and the
usual clutch size is composed of 4–5 eggs (Summers-Smith 1988; Anderson 2006).
In all the active nests (32), 1–5 nestlings came out at the end of their
breeding. Cases of eggs not hatched and mortality of chicks within the
nest-boxes were not studied in the present investigation. Detailed study alone
will throw more light on the causes for such reduced number of nestlings, i.e.,
one or two per active nest in the study area.
Electromagnetic
radiations from mobile-phone towers are linked to population declines of House
Sparrow in Europe (Crick et al. 2002; Balmori &
Hallberg 2007; Everaert & Bauwens
2007). Although equal numbers of nest-boxes were not installed at equal
distance from mobile-phone towers, considerable number of active nests occurred
within 500 m radius from mobile-phone towers. However, in the event of
existence of mobile-phone towers in almost all villages, the exact impact of
mobile-phone towers on the breeding of House Sparrows in the larger
geographical areas need further study.
CONCLUSION
The present study reveals that
the rural Arakkonam and Nemili
taluks in Vellore District are potential breeding grounds of the House Sparrow.
The birds show a considerable response to artificial nest-boxes. Efforts need
to be taken to create further awareness among the general public, including
students, about the need to save House Sparrows and create more nesting sites
in newly constructed houses, government buildings, schools, and colleges,
besides placing nest-boxes. Predatory animals and accidental fall of eggs and
broods, and ceiling fans in human dwellings pose threats to the House Sparrow
populations. The impact of ceiling fans on the House Sparrow needs further
study as ceiling fans have become ubiquitous in rural areas. In order to
mitigate such mortality, installation nest-boxes near ceiling fans or halls
having ceiling fans may be avoided. A special management plan for Vellore
district must be established and it is essential to conduct sustained surveys
and monitor the nesting sites during the subsequent breeding seasons and
efforts should be taken to create suitable nesting habitats by installing more
artificial nest-boxes in the villages for successful breeding. The present
study was a model study of conservation of such a semi domesticated natural
avian population. Community participation to ensure installation of sufficient
number cavities in the newly constructed modern buildings and also
participation of like school/college students to place more
number of nest-boxes in the government buildings should be encouraged.
Table 1. Type of houses and
response of House Sparrow in the construction of nests in artificial nest-boxes
in the study area.
|
Type of Building |
Total no. of nest-boxes placed |
% of nest boxes placed |
No. of nest-boxes in which
birds attempted |
No. of nest-boxes where
partially built nests |
No. of active nests built |
Total no. of positive response |
% of positive response |
|
Tiled houses |
129 |
52.65 % |
10 |
33 |
21 |
64 |
26.12 % |
|
Concrete houses |
108 |
44.08 % |
21 |
16 |
10 |
47 |
19.18 % |
|
Thatched houses |
6 |
2.45 % |
1 |
1 |
1 |
3 |
1.22 % |
|
Grocery shops |
2 |
0.82 % |
0 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
0.41 % |
|
Total |
245 |
100% |
32 |
51 |
32 |
115 |
46.94% |
Table 2. Relationships between
orientation of entrance of nests boxes and response of House Sparrows.
|
Orientation of nest entrance |
Total no. of nest-boxes placed |
% |
Total no. of responses of House Sparrows |
% |
No. of mere attempts |
% |
No. of partially built nests |
% |
No. of active nests |
% |
|
Entrance of nest-boxes facing
out wards from houses |
195 |
79.6 |
97 |
39.59 |
28 |
11.43 |
42 |
17.14 |
27 |
11.02 |
|
Entrance of nest-boxes facing
in wards to houses |
50 |
20.4 |
18 |
7.35 |
4 |
1.63 |
9 |
3.67 |
5 |
2.04 |
|
Total |
245 |
100 |
115 |
46.94 |
32 |
13.06 |
51 |
20.82 |
32 |
13.06 |
Table 3. Chi-square test between
type of houses and response of House Sparrow to artificial nest-boxes.
|
Types of houses |
House Sparrows attempted to
adopt nest-boxes |
House Sparrows partially built
nests |
House Sparrows built active
nests and bred successfully |
|||||||||
|
Merely attempted |
Nil attempts |
No. of houses where partially
built nest |
Nil partial nests |
Active nests Successful
breeding occurred |
Nil breeding occurred |
|||||||
|
Count |
% |
Count |
% |
Count |
% |
Count |
% |
Count |
% |
Count |
% |
|
|
Tiled house |
10 |
7.8 |
119 |
92.2 |
33 |
25.6 |
96 |
74.4 |
21 |
16.3 |
108 |
83.7 |
|
Concrete House |
21 |
19.4 |
87 |
80.6 |
16 |
14.8 |
92 |
85.2 |
10 |
09.3 |
98 |
90.7 |
|
|
X2 = 7.069 ; p <0.008 |
X2 = 4.155 ; p <0.042 |
X2 = 2.548 ; p <0.11 |
|||||||||
Table 4. Details of number of
chicks fledge after successful breeding from nests built in artificial
nest-boxes of House Sparrow.
|
|
No. of active nests |
No. of chicks that came out
from active nests |
|
1. |
6 |
1 |
|
2. |
12 |
2 |
|
3. |
8 |
3 |
|
4. |
4 |
4 |
|
5. |
2 |
5 |
|
Total |
32 |
80 |
For figure
- - click here for full PDF
REFERENCES
Ali, S. &
S.D. Ripley (1987). Handbook of the Birds of India and Pakistan. Compact Edition.
Oxford University Press, New Delhi, 737 pp.
Anderson,
T.R. (2006). Biology
of Ubiquitous House Sparrow: From Genes to Populations. Oxford University
Press, Oxford, 560 pp.
Balmori, A. & O. Hallberg (2007). The urban decline of the house
sparrow (Passer domesticus): a possible link
with electromagnetic radiation. Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine 26:
141–151.
Bhattacharya,
R., R. Roy, S. Ghosh & A. Dey (2010). Observations on house sparrow (Passer
domesticus) in Delhi, India. Urban Ecosystems
13: 111–116.
BirdLife International (2019). Passer domesticus
(amended version of 2018 assessment). IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2019:
e.T103818789A155522130. Accessed on 19 August 2018. https://doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2018-2.RLTS.T103818789A155522130.en
Crick, H., R.
Robinson, G. Appleton, N. Clark & A. Rickard (2002). Investigation into the causes
of the decline of starlings and Passer domesticus in
Great Britain. BTO Research Report N_290. Department for Environment, Food,
& Rural Affairs (DEFRA), London, 307 pp.
Daniels, R.J.R. (2008). Can we save the sparrow? Current
Science 95: 1527–1528.
Dulisz, B., A.M. Stawicka,
P. Knozowski, T.A. Diserens
& J.J. Nowakowski (2022). Effectiveness of using nest
boxes as a form of bird protection after building modernization. Biodiversity
and Conservation 31: 277–294.
Everaert, J. & D. Bauwens
(2007). A possible
effect of electromagnetic radiations from mobile phone base stations on the
number of breeding House Sparrow (Passer domesticus).
Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine 26(1): 63–72.
Ghosh, S., K.
Kim & R. Bhattacharya (2010). A survey on House Sparrow population decline at Bandel, West Bengal, India. Journal of Korean Earth
Science Society 31(5): 448–453.
Jayaraman,
A., B. Ramakrishnan & A. Samson (2017). Utilization of artificial nest
boxes by House Sparrow Passer domesticus in
urban areas of Udhagamanadalam, The Nilgiris, India. International Studies on Sparrows 41: 31–37.
Kekkonen, J., P.
Seppa, I.K. Hanski, H. Jensen, R.A. Vaisanen & J.E. Bromer
(2011). Low genetic differentiation
in a sedentary bird: house sparrow population genetics in a contiguous landscape. Heredity
106: 183–190.
Kelcey, J.G. & G. Rheinwald
(eds.) (2005). Birds in European Cities. St. Katharinen Publisher, Ginster Vertas,
Germany, 450 pp.
Khera, N., A. Das, S. Srivatsava & S. Jain (2010). Habitat-wise
distribution of the house sparrow
(Passer domesticus)
in Delhi, India. Urban Ecosystems 13: 147–153.
Rahmani, A.R., K. Karthik,
K. Sharma & S. Quader (2013). Investigating
causes of House Sparrow Passer domesticus population decline
in urban aub-habitats of
India. BNHS, India, 99 pp.
Rajashekhar, S. & M.G. Venkatesha
(2008). Occurrence of house sparrow, Passer domesticus indicus in and around Bangalore. Current
Science 94: 446–449.
Robinson, R.A.,
G.M. Siriwardena & H.P.Q. Crick (2005). Status and
population trends of Startling
Sturnus vulgaris
in Great Britain. Bird Study
52: 252–260.
Shaw, L., M.,
Chamberlain & Evans (2008). The House Sparrow (Passer
domesticus) in urban areas: reviewing
a possible link between post-decline distribution
and human socioeconomic status. Journal of Ornithology 149: 293–299.
Summers-Smith,
J.D. (1988). The Sparrows. T and AD Poyser
Ltd, Colton, UK.
Summers–Smith
J.D. (2005). Changes in the
house sparrow population in Britain. International
Studies on Sparrows 30: 23–37.