Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | 26 October 2023 | 15(10): 23977–23989

 

 

ISSN 0974-7907 (Online) | ISSN 0974-7893 (Print) 

https://doi.org/10.11609/jott.8549.15.10.23977-23989

#8549 | Received 23 May 2023 | Final received 01 September 2023 | Finally accepted 02 October 2023

 

 

 

Vertebrate assemblages on fruiting figs in the Indian eastern Himalaya’s Pakke Wildlife Sanctuary

 

Akangkshya Priya Gogoi 1, Janmejay Sethy 2, Awadhesh Kumar 3, Dipika Parbo 4, Murali Krishna Chatakonda 5    & Ajay Maletha 6

 

1,2,5,6 Amity Institute of Forestry and Wildlife, Amity University, Noida, Uttar Pradesh 201003, India.

3,4 Department of Forestry, North-Eastern Regional Institute of Science and Technology, Nirjuli, Arunachal Pradesh 791109, India.

1 akansagogoi@gmail.com, 2 jsethy@amity.edu (corresponding author), 3 adk@nerist.ac.in, 4 parbodipika@gmail.com,

5 mkchatakonda@amity.edu, 6 amaletha@amity.edu

 

 

Editor: Anonymity requested.          Date of publication: 26 October 2023 (online & print)

 

Citation: Gogoi, A.P., J. Sethy, A. Kumar, D. Parbo, M.K. Chatakonda & A. Maletha (2023). Vertebrate assemblages on fruiting figs in the Indian eastern Himalaya’s Pakke Wildlife Sanctuary. Journal of Threatened Taxa 15(10): 23977–23989. https://doi.org/10.11609/jott.8549.15.10.23977-23989

 

Copyright: © Gogoi et al. 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: The study was financially supported by NMHS, GBPNIHESD, Almora, Uttarakhand [Project letter no. GBPNI/NMHS-2017-1BISG-05/610 dated 26.02.2018].

 

Competing interests: The authors declare no competing interests.

 

Author details: Akangkshya Priya Gogoi is currently working as a senior project officer at WWF India, Dehradun and she is doing her research on wildlife ecology and management. Janmejay Sethy is affiliated with the Amity Institute of Forestry and Wildlife, Amity University,  he is working in the conservation and management of endangered species in the northeastern states of India. Awadhesh Kumar is currently working as a professor in the Department of Forestry, North-Eastern Regional Institute of Science and Technology and he is more interested in wildlife ecology, animal behaviour, wildlife conservation and management in the eastern Himalayan landscape. Dipika Parbo is associated with the Department of Forestry, North-Eastern Regional Institute of Science and Technology and she is currently working on plant ecology in northeastern states of India. Murali Krishna Chatakonda is affiliated with the Amity Institute of Forestry and Wildlife, Amity University, Currently, he is in a phase to expand his knowledge on small mammalian taxa from different regions of the eastern Himalaya and to look at the ecology and site-specific challenges that the species face. Also, he is more interested in building cross-country collaborations in this field and has recently initiated the same. Ajay Maletha is affiliated with the Amity Institute of Forestry and Wildlife, Amity University, he is interested in investigating the drivers of land use changes in high altitude timberline ecotone and explore the use of remote sensing technology for the assessment of rare, endangered and threatened (RET) species and develop the strategies for their in-situ conservation.

 

Author contributions: Study conception and design: Akangkshya Priya. Gogoi, Janmejay Sethy, Awadhesh Kumar, Murali Krishna Chatakonda; data collection: Akangkshya Priya. Gogoi and Dipika Parbo; analysis and interpretation of results: Akangkshya Priya. Gogoi, Janmejay Sethy and Ajay Maletha; draft manuscript preparation: Akangkshya Priya.Gogoi, Janmejay Sethy, Murali Krishana Chatakonda, Awadhesh Kumar and Ajay Maletha. All authors reviewed the results and approved the final version of the manuscript.

 

Acknowledgements: We would like to acknowledge the director of Amity Institute of Forestry and Wildlife, Amity University, Noida for his constant support. We thank Mr. Tana Tapi, DFO and Mr. Rambia Kime, range officer, Pakke Tiger Reserve for granting permission to conduct this study. The successful completion of this study was possible due to the help of forest guards of Pakke Tiger Reserve, Mr. Anurag Vishwakarma, Mr. Pinaki Adhikari, Ms. Dina Brah, and Saurav Chaudhary, for this we would like to give our special thanks to them.

 

 

Abstract: Ficus is undeniably one of the most important plants in the tropical forest in the Indian eastern Himalaya. The species composition and assemblages were analysed on fruiting figs on the west bank of Pakke Wildlife Sanctuary (PWS), Arunachal Pradesh. Figs trees are often ecologically significant keystone species because they sustain the population of the many seed-dispersing animals that feed on these fruits. This research endeavors to comprehend the dynamics of vertebrate assemblages inhabiting fruiting figs within the West bank of PWS. Over a span of 60 days and a cumulative 89 hours of observation, both direct sightings and indirect indicators of vertebrate presence were integrated. The outcome revealed a diverse spectrum of 54 vertebrate species, comprising 43 avian and 11 mammalian species, distributed across four Ficus species; concurrently, alternative plant species accommodated 28 avian and four mammalian species. Among these, the pre-eminence of green pigeons within Ficus species underscores their feeding behaviors, underscoring the vital role of figs as a dietary cornerstone within PWS’s west bank. Notably, the comparative underrepresentation of vertebrates on the local fig species Ficus drupacea offers intriguing insights. The findings substantiate the significance of figs as a nourishment resource and instigate the necessity for extended investigations to fully unravel the intricate reliance of vertebrates on Ficus species within the tapestry of tropical forests.

 

Keywords: Biodiversity community structure, habitat, keystone resources, species coexistence, tropical forest.

 

 

Introduction

 

Ficus is one of the largest genera of woody species in the tropics and subtropics (Janzen 1979; Berg 1989; Harrison 2005) with approximately 750 species occurring globally (Berg 2005). India has 115 Ficus taxa belonging to 89 species and 26 intra-specific taxa (Chaudhary et al. 2012); 58 species have been reported from Arunachal Pradesh alone (Buragohain 2014). Tropical forests are a rich source of food for animals dependent on fruit (Fleming et al. 1987; Corlett 1998), where Ficus is identified as a vital ‘keystone’ food resource that attracts tropical frugivorous animals (Kinnaird et al. 1996; Kannan & James 1999; Kissling et al. 2007). Keystone plants play a significant role in setting the carrying capacity of the frugivore community and in the tropics, the diversity and abundance of Ficus (figs) correlate with the diversity or richness of frugivores (Goodman et al 1997). Ficus sustain diverse organisms owing to dense foliage and moisture retention capacity that provides an ideal habitat in terms of nesting, roosting, and perching grounds for vertebrate species (Vanitharani 2006). Although figs are considered keystone species, this concept usually signifies the whole Ficus community rather than a single species (Kinnaired et al. 1999). The existence of different Ficus dispersal guilds implies that fig preference of frugivores is influenced by chemical, and morphological variables such as size, colour, display mechanism and habitat characteristics such as forested, disturbed, and urban. (Sanitjan & Chen 2009; Lok et al. 2013; Daru et al. 2015). Different species of figs differ in their nutrient content nevertheless; a single species is insufficient to provide adequate nutrients to the species that depend on it (Wendeln et al. 2000). Non-bird dispersal Ficus often display their figs in places where it is not convenient for the birds (Lambert 1989a; Shanahan & Crompton 2001). These traits help Ficus species to attract discrete frugivore species which, in return guide frugivores while selecting suitable fruits. A global review of figs and vertebrates revealed that 1,274 bird and mammal species in 523 genera and 92 families are known to eat figs apart from the small number and fish and reptiles (Shanahan et al. 2001).

Studies on fig dependency on vertebrates in India particularly in northeastern India are scanty where the Ficus diversity is higher and usually such studies are species-specific (Datta & Rawat 2008; Krishna et al. 2014). Therefore, the present study was planned to investigate the vertebrate assemblages, inter-species differences among the fruiting Ficus and non-ficus species and Ficus preference of vertebrates over a period of 60 days to understand how Ficus species form the focal points for vertebrate assemblages in Pakke Wildlife Sanctuary of Arunachal Pradesh, India. Thus, providing insights into vertebrates that are dependent on figs in this region.

 

 

Methods

 

Study Site

This study was conducted in Pakke Wildlife Sanctuary (PWS) 27.430278 N to 93.4025 E and 28.369167 N to 94.360833 E located in the Pakke Kesang district, Arunachal Pradesh. It is one of the best-managed protected areas of the state among the 13 protected areas and is famous for the two major flagship species, viz., hornbills and tiger. PWS shares its boundary with Nameri Tiger Reserve, Doimara Reserve Forest, Papum Reserve Forest, Tenga Reserve Forest, and Sessa Orchid Sanctuary and it is surrounded by Pakke River in the east Kameng River in the west and north. The rugged and hilly terrain encompasses elevational diversity, ranging 150–2,000 m. The forest falls under the classification of Assam Valley tropical semi-evergreen forest 2B/C1 according to Champion & Seth (1969). It has a tropical and subtropical climate where October to February is the coldest month (Birand & Power 2004), and May and June are the hottest. Park receives rainfall from south-west monsoon (May–September) and north-east monsoon (November–April). The average annual rainfall ranges 2,086.9–2,972.7mm (humid subtropical region-cold humid regions) and the average mean maximum and minimum temperatures are 29.50 C and 17.70 C in the humid subtropical region and 21.40 C and 2.40C in the cold humid region (Buragohain 2014). The floristic and climatic conditions provide rich faunal diversity in the sanctuary by documenting 60 species of mammals, 282 species of birds (Kumar 2014) and home to around 340 species of butterflies (Sondhi & Kunte 2014). The area holds four species of hornbill and is stated to be one of the best places for frequent sightings of hornbill species in the state (Datta 2001).

There are 19 villages located in the eastern periphery of the sanctuary and the population is dominated by Nyishi; a major ethnic tribe of the state (Vishwakarma et al. 2021). Their livelihood involves the collection of non-timber forest produce, hunting and fishing, shifting agriculture and cultivation of rice (Datta et al. 2008; Hui et al. 2012), maize and millets. The West Bank area (26.938° N, 92.911° E) with an elevation of 150–600 m (Datta & Rawatt 2008) of the sanctuary was selected to document the assemblage of vertebrate species on fruiting Ficus species found in the area, as it is located approximately 3 km away from the office of Pakke headquarter (Seijosa) and reachable site for the tourist (Figure 1).

                                                   

Method and materials

During the study period, the existing nature trail in the study area was first surveyed to locate fruiting Ficus species and fruiting and flowering non-ficus plants. Secondly, bird surveys were conducted on the nature trail twice a week (16 days) from 0600–1000 h and 1300–1600 h to record the bird species of the site usually when the vertebrate fauna was active. Four Ficus species with over 40% ripe fruits found in the nature trail were chosen and tagged as suitable focal Ficus trees to document the vertebrate assemblage. Ficus geniculata and Ficus altissima are hemi-epiphytic axillary (inflorescence present in the leaf axis) plants, while Ficus variegata is a cauliflorous (inflorescence present in the trunk) tree. Fruiting and flowering non-ficus plants present within a 10-m radius of the focal Ficus species were also documented to compare the vertebrate assemblage with Ficus plants. Ficus species were distinguished by referencing the taxonomic framework established by Buragohain (2014). Avian identification was facilitated through the utilization of established field guides authored by Grimmett et al. (2016), while for mammalian species classification, the field guide ‘Mammals of India’ by Menon (2014) served as a point of reference.

Scan sampling for vertebrate species, including both mammal and bird assemblages on focal trees and non-ficus plants, was conducted between February and April 2019. The survey encompassed both direct sightings and indications of vertebrate presence. Over the 60-day (89-h) study period, selected focal Ficus species were visited biweekly, with observations carried out twice a week during the time intervals of 0600–0900 h and 1330–1630 h. A total of 44 scan sample episodes were performed, each averaging 3-h per scan, and yielding an average of two samples per day. During each scan of focal species, the species name, the total count of visiting individuals, and the overall time spent by the visiting vertebrate species were meticulously documented. In the case of non-ficus plants, the name of the visiting vertebrate species and the total count of species encountered during each scan were recorded.

In this study, the vertebrate species data associated with each focal Ficus species were compared during scanning sessions with the data collected from the neighboring non-ficus fruiting and flowering plants. The recorded vertebrate species counts for both focal Ficus and non-ficus species were categorized into four rankings: 1 for counts between 0 and 5, 2 for counts between 6 and 11, 3 for counts between 12 and 17, and 4 for counts exceeding 18. This ranking system aimed to quantify the variation in vertebrate assemblages between Ficus and non-ficus plants, with statistical analysis performed using the Mann-Whitney U test. Furthermore, the spatial distribution of species was analyzed by considering the number of vertebrate species visiting each focal species, employing the variance-to-mean ratio (VMR). The VMR, a tool for discerning spatial object distribution, indicated random distribution at VMR = 1.0, clump distribution at VMR > 1.0, and uniform distribution at VMR < 1.0, as per Datta & Rawatt (2008). Additionally, to evaluate the similarity of vertebrate species among different Ficus species, the Jaccard similarity index was computed, shedding light on species likeness within the focal Ficus species’ group.

Vertebrates directly observed feeding on figs were categorized into three groups: frugivorous birds (including Bulbuls, Barbets, Pigeons, Hornbills, Mynas, Orioles, and Asian fairy bluebirds) following Naniwadekar et al. (2019), opportunistic feeders of figs (occasionally consuming figs), and mammals (detailed in Appendix 2). The preference of vertebrate species for specific Ficus species was determined using data on the number of individuals, total time spent, and visit frequency, applying the formula established by Ragusa-Netto (2002). Ficus variegata was excluded from Ficus preference analysis due to its infrequent encounters throughout the sampling period Let, Px = {Mean individual/scan * Mean visiting time duration of species/ scan * visiting frequency (no. of time a species visited a focal tree throughout the survey}, P = Presence value of a vertebrate species in a focal Ficus species, x = Ficus species.

 TPx = Sum of (Px) of all vertebrate species assembled in the focal Ficus species

Tree preference (percentage) = Px / TPx * 100

 

 

Results

 

A total of 15 individuals of five Ficus species, viz., Ficus nervosa (1), Ficus drupacea (7), Ficus geniculata (3), Ficus altissima (2), & Ficus variegata (2) and 13 species (n = 41) of non-ficus fruiting and flowering plants representing 10 families; Canarium resiniferum, Duabanga grandiflora, Sterculia villosa, Sterculia colorata,  Tetrameles nudiflora, Shorea robusta, Dysoxylum binectariferum, Artocarpus chaplasha, Polyalthia simiarum, Chisocheton paniculatus, Aglaia spectabilis, Phlogacanthus thyrsiformis (shrub), Dilenia indica (Appendix 3) was recorded. Ficus drupacea, Ficus geniculata and Ficus altissima are hemi-epiphytic axillary (inflorescence present in the leaf axis) plants while Ficus variegata is cauliflorous (inflorescence present in the trunk) tree. 

 

Vertebrate diversity in the West bank area of PWS

During the study, a total of 64 vertebrate species within four focal Ficus species and the surrounding non-ficus fruiting and flowering plants were identified Among these, there were 53 bird species belonging to 29 families and 43 genera, as well as 11 mammal species from seven families and 10 genera (Figure 2). It’s important to note that across the entire study duration, the nature trail recorded a comprehensive total of 98 bird species representing 39 families and 76 genera, and this information is provided in Appendix 1.

 

Vertebrate assemblage

Recorded were 43 species of birds (21 families, 34 genera) and 11 species of mammals (7 families, 10 genera) in focal Ficus species, namely, variegata, drupacea, altissima, and variegata. Additionally, 28 species of birds (21 families, 23 genera) and four species of mammals (3 families, 4 genera) were found in fruiting and flowering non-ficus plants within a 10 m radius of the focal Ficus species (Figure 2). The highest vertebrate assemblage was observed in Ficus variegata, accounting for 61% (29 bird species, 4 mammal species), followed by Ficus drupacea at 54% (22 bird species, 7 mammal species), Ficus altissima at 37% (19 bird species, 1 mammal species). The lowest vertebrate assemblage was recorded in Ficus variegata, constituting 7% (3 bird species, 1 mammal species) (Figure 3). The most prevalent vertebrate species within Ficus were green pigeons (4 species, 70.2 individuals/scan), followed by mynas (1 species, 32.3 individuals/scan), bulbuls (6 species, 28.3 individuals/scan), hornbills (3 species, 13.4 individuals/scan), Asian fairy bluebirds (1 species, 12.4 individuals/scan), along with other bird species (19 species, 9.8 individuals/scan), mammals (11 species, 7.3 individuals/scan), opportunists (4 species, 7.1 individuals/scan), barbets (3 species, 5.2 individuals/scan), and orioles (2 species, 2.2 individuals/scan) (Figure 4).

Birds visited the Ficus species more frequently during the different times. The mean vertebrate assemblage (clockwise direction) in fig trees (21.5 ± 12.9), Ficus geniculate (11.3 ± 4.9), Ficus drupacea (7.3 ± 3.6), Ficus altissima (7.6 ± 3), Ficus variegata (0.6 ± 0.7), and non-ficus fruiting & flowering trees (6.4 ± 5, 6.9 ± 2.07, 5.27 ± 2.53, 3.82 ± 1.5 within 10 m radius) (Figure 5).

 

Comparison of vertebrate species between Ficus versus non-ficus plants

Both bird and mammal surveys in the study site recorded the maximum number of vertebrate species at focal Ficus at 44% and 84.4% respectively as compared to non-ficus plants at 29% and 50% (Figures 2 & 6). On the other hand, 32 vertebrate species in Ficus and 10 vertebrate species in non-ficus recorded during the scan sampling were unique or specifically confined themselves to either Ficus or non-ficus. While 34 vertebrate species were common between Ficus and non-ficus plants (Appendix 1 and 2), the number of vertebrate species assembled in Ficus per scan was significantly different from non-ficus plants (U = 830, z = 5.99, p = 0.0001, critical value = 1.96). The average VMR for Ficus species is (1.5, Range 0.8–2.1) and for non-ficus plants is (0.8, Range 0.2–2.9).

 

Ficus tree preference

Less than 35% of the vertebrate species were similar among Ficus drupacea, Ficus variegata and Ficus altissima and almost zero similarity was recorded between Ficus variegata and other focal Ficus species (Figure 7). Ficus tree preference (percent) of bulbuls, barbets, green pigeons, hornbills, mynas, orioles, Asian fairy bluebirds, opportunists and mammals in the west bank is analysed in (Table 1).

Vertebrate groups observed in the Ficus trees, mean number of individuals, visiting frequency, visiting duration in each tree per scan and preference of vertebrate groups towards Ficus tree (Table 2).

The vertebrate assemblages and the dominant species recorded in Ficus plants in Tropical regions across different time and habitat types were compared. Data was collected from the literature as mentioned in the parenthesis (Lambert 1989a; Shanahan 2000; Sanitjan & Chen 2009; Barua & Tamuly 2011; Lok et al. 2013; Daru et al. 2015). The different parameters like LD = low disturbance, D = disturbed, F = Forest, A = agricultural matrix, and U = urban. (*) = only bird diversity was recorded, (^) = Current study, Jan. = January, Sept. = September, Oct. = October (Table 3) was assessed.

 

 

Discussion

 

This study provides information on distinct vertebrate assemblage in Ficus and non-ficus plants. Large vertebrate assemblage recorded at Ficus drupacea, Ficus geniculata, and Ficus altissima than non-ficus plants can be attributed to the fewer availability of ripened fruit in the study site (Fleming et al. 1987; Shanahan et al. 2001; Kissling et al. 2007). Majorly, Ficus plants had ripened fruits during the survey. Whereas the neighboring non-ficus plants were either in the flowering stage or had unripe fruits. The larger vertebrate assemblage at Ficus in our results also reflects the dispersal mechanism of the trees at PWS. The sampled hemi-epiphytic Ficus present their crop in the forest canopy and are generally considered bird dispersal species with a wide niche breadth. Therefore, they are capable of attracting a large diversity of birds and mammals including nomadic frugivores such as pigeons and hornbills (Lambert & Marshall 1991; Shanahan et al. 2001; Shanahan & Crompton 2001; Harrison & Shanahan 2005; Dutta & Rawatt 2008). For example, three-year study on frugivore and seed dispersal network in PWS recorded maximum number of frugivore birds in Ficus species, such as Ficus drupacea (25), Ficus geniculata (24), and Ficus altissima (20) (Naniwadekar et al. 2019). Consequently, these our findings are in line with the previous studies conducted in PWS which suggested greater vertebrate assemblages in Ficus species.

In southern Asian tropical forests, green pigeons (Lambert 1989a,b), bulbuls, barbets, hornbills (Kinnaird et al. 1996), and Asian fairy bluebird species are the primary groups of fig-eating birds (Corlett 1998; Shanahan et al. 2001; Sanitjan & Chen 2009; Barua & Tamuly 2011). The results demonstrated that the green pigeons dominated the vertebrate assemblage in Ficus in 89 h of observational study. It can be attributed to the voracious feeding nature of green pigeons, which are fig specialists that feed exclusively on figs (Lambert 1989a,b). Despite PWS having a rich faunal diversity, the study still recorded poor mammal assemblages. It might be because due to the presence of observers, which prohibited them from approaching the fruiting trees. Also, the survey did not cover the nocturnal mammals that feed on Ficus (Krishna et al. 2013).

The contention arises that while figs are universally regarded as a crucial tropical resource, not all fig species offer an equal bounty to vertebrate fauna. The findings distinctly unveil variations in the preferences of vertebrate species for different Ficus species. Among the focal Ficus species, Ficus drupacea emerges as the least favored by vertebrates. This trend is likely a result of factors such as the species’ smallest crop size (n = 3,240) (Sanitjan & Chen 2009) and differences in nutrient composition, notably calcium, potassium, and magnesium, among the focal Ficus species, despite its larger fig size. These particular nutrients play a pivotal role in eggshell development and bone growth (Kinnaird et al. 1999; Wendln & Runkle 2000; Daru et al. 2015). Minimal distinctions were noted for other Ficus parameters (see Appendix 4).

 

 

Conclusion

 

Hemi-epiphytic Ficus trees emerge as significant attractions for vertebrates, boasting a rich diversity of species and distinct appeal compared to fruiting and flowering non-ficus plants. Notably, Ficus altissima becomes a favored choice for barbets, green pigeons, hornbills, mynas, and mammals, while Ficus geniculata exclusively draws bulbuls, orioles, Asian fairy bluebirds, and opportunistic feeders. Amidst the array of frugivorous bird species within the west bank of PWS, green pigeons, particularly the Teron species, stand out as primary beneficiaries. Despite various frugivorous birds present, pigeons dominate the West bank, averaging 70.2 individuals per scan. The findings reveal a tendency for vertebrate assemblages to cluster more in Ficus trees compared to non-ficus plants, indicating intricate interactions between figs and frugivores. This study offers insights into Ficus trees’ pivotal role, emphasizing their ecosystem significance, potential for vertebrate-centered tourism, and vital conservation role in an eco-tourism context.

 

Table 1. Comparison of species assemblage among Ficus and non-ficus (NF) plants.

Man-Whitney U test

F. drupacea

NF

F. altissima

NF

F. variegata

NF

F. geniculata

NF

Mann-Whitney U

23

32.5

3

27

 p (<0.05)

0.0095

0.0635

0.0002

0.0081

Critical value

23

23

20

30

 

 

Table 2. Vertebrate groups observed in the Ficus trees, mean number of Individuals, visiting frequency, visiting duration in each tree per scan and preference of vertebrate groups towards Ficus tree in percentage.

 

Plant taxa

Bulbuls

Barbets

G. pigeons

Hornbills

Mynas

Orioles

Fairy birds

Opportunists

Mammals

Individuals/scan (Mean ± sd)

F. drupacea

13.5 ± 10.82

4.14 ± 4.85

47.3 ± 29

13 ± 19.34

9 ± 9.14

1 

14.5 ± 12.99

–

3.71 ± 5.02

F.  altissima

2

7.56 ± 3.97

115.2 ± 74.3

19.5 ± 16.78

48.9 ± 22.51

–

10.33 ±  3.35

1.667 ± 0.57

17 ± 0

F. geniculata

40.42 ± 31.64

3.8 ± 1.55

48.3 ± 36.2

1.67 ± 0.57

7.5 ± 2.12

2.5 ± 1.35

13.11 ± 7.93

9.83 ± 10.7

9.33 ± 3.51

Visiting frequency

F. drupacea

0.73

0.64

0.64

0.36

0.45

0.27

0.55

0.00

0.55

F. altissima

0.09

0.82

0.82

0.55

0.91

0.00

0.82

0.27

0.18

F. geniculata

1.00

1.00

0.83

0.67

0.25

0.17

0.83

0.75

0.50

Visiting time duration/scan (Mean ± sd)

F. drupacea

28.88 ± 28.01

20.43 ± 23.29

85.9 ± 46.9

7 ± 6.73

10.6 ± 13.13

8.67 ± 3.06

42.3 ± 41.5

–

27.33 ± 23.86

F.   altissima

4 

78.1 ±  52.8

152.9 ± 108.2

42 ±    35.9

87.3 ±  52.5

–

62.1 ±  33.3

6 ± 3

83 ± 52.3

F. geniculata

148.2 ± 79

23.4 ± 10.7

116.5 ± 65.1

21.67 ± 14.43

37.5 ± 10.61

65.5 ± 62.7

75.8 ± 54.5

68.5 ± 82.8

70 ± 43.6

Ficus tree preference (%)

F. drupacea

5

9

12

7

1

2

21

0

12

F. altissima

0

79

69

91

98

0

33

1

54

F. geniculata

95

12

18

2

1

98

46

99

34

 

 

Table 3. Vertebrate assemblages and the dominant species recorded in Ficus plants in tropical regions across different time and habitat types. Data was collected from (Lambert 1989a; Barua & Tamuly 2011; Senitjan & Chen 2009; Shanahan 2000; Daru et al. 2015; Lok et al. 2013). LD = low disturbance, D = disturbed, F = Forest, A = agricultural matrix, U = urban. (*) = only bird diversity was recorded, (^) = Current study, Jan. = January, Sept. = September, Oct. = October.

Location

Year

Sample size

Sampling  effort (h)

Sampling period

Species recorded (n)

Dominant species

Site type

Kuala lampat, Malaysia

1984–86

38

750

March–October

60*

Green Pigeons

LD

 Borneo, Malaysia

1998–99

34

700

March–September

69

Bulbuls, Pigeons

D, F

China

2004–06

32

816

May–June

30*

Bulbuls

D, F

Nigeria

2007–09

12

 –

March–June

48

Bulbuls, Yellow- fronted Tinker-bird

F

Assam, India

2009–10

59

177

September–September

67

Green Pigeons

A

Singapore

2013

43

 –

 –

104

Pigeons, Barbets

U

Arunachal Pradesh^

2019

4

89

January–May

64

Green Pigeons

F

 

 

For figures, image & Appendix – click here for full PDF

 

 

References

 

Barua, M. & J. Tamuly (2011). Report on conservation of figs and frugivores in Assam, India. Report submitted to The Rufford Foundation, 33 pp.

Berg, C.C. (1989). Classification and distribution of Ficus. Experientia 45: 605–611.

Berg, C.C. (2005). Moraceae diversity in a global perspective. Biologiska Skrifter 55: 423–440.

Birand, A. & S. Pawar (2004). An ornithological survey in north-east India. Forktail 20: 15–24

Borang, A., B.B. Bhatt, M. Tamuk, A. Borkotoki & J. Kalita (2008). Butterflies of Dihang–Dibang Biosphere Reserve of Arunachal Pradesh, Eastern Himalayas, India. Bulletin of Arunachal Forest Research 24(1 & 2): 41–53.

Buragohain, R. (2014). Studies on taxonomic diversity and socioeconomic value of moraceae in Arunachal Pradesh. PhD Thesis. Department of Forestry, Northeastern Regional Institute of Science and Technology, 331 pp.

Champion, H.G. & S.K. Seth (1968). A Revised Survey of Forest Types of India, Govt. of India Press, New Delhi, p. 404.

Chaudhary, L.B., J.V. Sudhankar, A. Kumar, O. Bajpai, R. Tiwari & G.V.S. Murthy (2012). Synopsis of the genus Ficus L. (Moraceae) in India. Taiwania 57(2): 193-216.

Choudhury, A. (2006). Pocket Guide to the Birds of Arunachal Pradesh. Gibbon Books,109 pp

Corlett, R.T. (1998). Frugivory and seed dispersal by vertebrates in the oriental (Indomalayan) region. Biological Reviews 73: 413–448.

Daru, B.H., K. Yessoufou, C. Nuttman & J. Abalaka (2015). A preliminary study of birds of fig Ficus species in Amurum Forest Reserve, Nigeria. Malimbus 37: 1–15.

Datta, A. & G.S. Rawat (2003). Foraging patterns of sympatric hornbills during the nonbreeding season in Arunachal Pradesh, northeast India. Biotropica 35: 208–218. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-7429.2003.tb00280.x

Datta, A., R. Naniwadekar & M.O. Anand (2008). Occurrence and observation status of small carnivores in two protected areas in Arunachal Pradesh, North-east India. Small Carnivore Conservation 39: 1–10.

Datta, A. & G.S. Rawat (2008). Dispersal modes and spatial patterns of tree species in a tropical forest in Arunachal Pradesh, northeast India. Tropical Conservation Science 1(3): 163–185. https://doi.org/10.1177/194008290800100302

Datta, A. (2001). An ecological study of sympatric hornbills and fruiting patterns in a tropical forest in Arunachal Pradesh. PhD Thesis. Saurashtra University, Rajkot, India, 246 pp.

Datta, A. (2002). Status of hornbills and hunting among tribal communities in eastern Arunachal Pradesh. Unpublished report. Wildlife Conservation Society and WCS-India Program, Bangalore.

Fleming, H., R. Theodore, R. Breitwisch & H.W. George (1987). Patterns of tropical vertebrate frugivore diversity. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 18(1): 91–109.

Goodman, M.S., J.U. Ganzhorn, W. Lucienne (1997). Observations at a Ficus Tree in Malagasy Humid Forest 1. Biotropica 29(4): 480–488. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-7429.1997.tb00042.x

Grimmett, R., C. Inskipp & T. Inskipp (2016). Birds of the Indian Subcontinent. 1st Edition. Bloomsbury Publishing India Pvt., New Delhi, 528 pp.

Harrison, D.R. (2005). Figs and the diversity of tropical rainforests. Bioscience 55(12):1053–1064.  https://doi.org/10.1641/00063568(2005)055[1053:FATDOT]2.0.CO;2

Harrison, R.D. & M. Shanahan (2005). Seventy-seven    Ways to be a Fig: Overview of a Diverse Plant Assemblage, pp. 111–127. In: Roubik D.W., S. Sakai & A.A.H. Karim (eds.). Pollination Ecology and The Rain Forest: Sarawak Studies. Springer, New York.

Janzen, D.H. (1979). How to be a fig. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 10(1): 13–51.

Kannan, R. & D.A. James (1999). Fruiting phenology and the conservation of the Great Pied Hornbill (Buceros bicornis) in Western Ghats of Southern India. Biotropica 31: 565–576.

Kinnaird, M.F., T.G. O’brien & S. Suryadi (1996). Population fluctuation in Sulawesi Red-Knobbed Hornbills: Tracking figs in space and time. Auk 113: 431–440.

Kinnaird, M.F., T.G. O’brien & S. Suryadi (1999). The importance of figs to Sulawesi’s imperiled wildlife. Tropical Biodiversity 6: 5–18.

Kissling, W.D., C. Rahbek & K. Böhning-Gaese (2007). Food plant diversity as broad-scale determinant of avian frugivore richness. Proceedings of the Royal Society B 274: 799–808.

Krishna, C.M., K. Kumar, P.C. Ray & K. Sarma (2013). Feeding observations of a Binturong Arctictis binturong group in Namdapha National Park, Arunachal Pradesh, India. Small Carnivore Conservation 49: 28–30.

Kumar, A. (2014). Avifauna of Pakke Tiger Reserve and adjacent localities, Arunachal Pradesh, India. Journal of Experimental Zoology 17(1): 55 – 67.

Lal, J.B. & R.C. Prajapathi (1990). Space-borne monitoring of shifting cultivation in northern region of India. Van Vigyan 28(3): 125–126.

Lambert, F.R. & A.G. Marshall (1991). Keystone characteristics of bird-dispersed Ficus in a Malaysian lowland rain forest. The Journal of Ecology 7: 93–809.

Lambert, F.R. (1989a). Fig-eating by birds in a Malaysian lowland rain forest. Journal of Tropical Ecology 5(4): 401–412.

Lambert, F.R. (1989b). Pigeons as seed predators and dispersers of figs in a Malaysian lowland forest. Ibis 131: 521– 527.

Lok, A.F.S.L., W.F. Ang, B.Y.Q. Leong, T.M. Ng, C.K. Yeo & H.T.W. Tan (2013). Native fig species as a keystone resource for the Singapore urban environment. Raffles Museum of Biodiversity Research, Singapore, 55 pp.

Menon, V. (2014). Indian Mammals - A Field Guide. Hachette Book Publishing India Pvt. Ltd. Gurgaon, 528 pp.

Mishra, C., M.D. Madhusudan & A. Datta (2006). Mammals of the high altitudes of western Arunachal Pradesh, eastern Himalaya: an assessment of threats and conservation needs. Oryx 40(1): 29–35. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0030605306000032

Naniwadekar, R., S. Chaplod, A. Dutta, A. Rathore & H. Sridhar (2019). Large frugivores matter: insights from network and seed dispersal effectiveness approaches. Journal of Animal Ecology 88(8): 1250–1262. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2656.13005

Panda, D.B.K., D.A. Alam & D.S. Sarkar (2016). Shifting Cultivation in North-East India: Trend, Benefits and Challenges 2(1): 85–114.

Pawar, S. & A. Birand (2001). A survey of amphibians, reptiles, and birds in Northeast India. Centre for Ecological Research and Conservation 118 pp.

Ragusa-Netto, J. (2002). Fruiting phenology and consumption by birds in Ficus calyproceras (Miq.) Miq. (Moraceae). Brazilian Journal of Biology 62(2): 339–346. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1519-69842002000200018

Raman, T.S. (2001). Effect of slash-and-burn shifting cultivation on rainforest birds in Mizoram, northeast India. Conservation Biology 15(3): 685–698. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1523-1739.2001.015003685.x

Sanitjan, S. & J. Chen (2009). Habitat and fig characteristics influence the bird assemblage and network properties of fig trees from Xishuangbanna, South-West China. Journal of Tropical Ecology 25: 161–170. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0266467409005847

Shanahan, M. (2000). Ficus seed dispersal guilds: ecology, evolution and conservation implications. PhD Thesis. University of Leeds (Centre for Biodiversity and Conservation/School of Biology), xiv+122 pp.

Shanahan, M. & S.G. Compton (2001). Vertical stratification of figs and fig-eaters in a Bornean lowland rain forest: How is the canopy different? Plant Ecology 153: 121–132. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1017537707010

Shanahan, M., S. Samson, S.G. Compton & R. Corlett (2001). Fig-eating by vertebrate frugivores: a global review. Biological Reviews 76(4): 529–572.

Sondhi, S. & K. Kunte (2014). Butterflies and Moths of Pakke Tiger Reserve. Titli Trust, Dehradun and Indian Foundation for Butterflies, Bangalore, vi+202 pp.

Tag, H., T. Mingki, O. Dai, P. Kalita, G. Nimachow & A.K. Das (2010). Higher Plant Diversity in Pakke Wildlife Sanctuary and Tiger Reserve in East Kameng District of Arunachal Pradesh: Checklist-I. Pleione 6(1): 149–162.

Thomas, D.W. (1984). Fruit intake and energy budgets of frugivorous bats. Physiological Zoology 57: 457– 467.

Vanitharani, J. (2006). Noteworthy representative of bat species in Agasthiyamalai Biosphere Reserve, Tamilnadu. Journal of Theoretical Experimental Biology 2(2): 47–59.

Vishwakarma, A., A. Kumar, S. Mangkhansuan, D. Parbo & M.K. Chatakonda (2021). Remnant flowering trees as avifaunal refuge in the fringe areas of Pakke Tiger Reserve, Arunachal Pradesh, India. Proceedings of Zoological Society 74: 249–261. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12595-020-00337-3

Wendeln, M.C., J.R. Runkle & E.K.V. Kalko (2000). Nutritional values of 14 fig species and bat feeding preferences in Panama. Biotropica 32(3): 489–501. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744 7429.2000.tb00495.x