Journal of Threatened
Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | 26 February 2025 | 17(2): 26494–26503
ISSN 0974-7907 (Online)
| ISSN 0974-7893 (Print)
https://doi.org/10.11609/jott.9379.17.2.26494-26503
#9379 | Received 23
August 2024 | Final received 06 January 2025 | Finally accepted 07 February
2025
Avian diversity in
wetlands of southwestern Kerala of India during COVID
Vijayakumari Sudhakaran
Bindu 1 & S. Sajitha 2
1,2 Post Graduate
Department of Zoology, Milad E Sherief Memorial
College, Kayamkulam, Alapuzha,
Kerala 690502, India.
1 drvsbindu@gmail.com
(corresponding author), 2 drsajiv@yahoo.com
Editor: H. Byju,
Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu, India. Date of publication: 26 February
2025 (online & print)
Citation: Bindu, V.S. & S. Sajitha (2025). Avian diversity in wetlands of
southwestern Kerala of India during COVID. Journal of Threatened Taxa 17(2): 26494–26503. https://doi.org/10.11609/jott.9379.17.2.26494-26503
Copyright: © Bindu & Sajitha 2025. Creative Commons
Attribution 4.0 International License. JoTT allows
unrestricted use, reproduction, and distribution of this article in any medium
by providing adequate credit to the author(s) and the source of publication.
Funding: This study received no external funding.
Competing interests: The authors declare no competing interests.
Author details: Dr. Vijayakumari Sudhakaran Bindu, of the Department of Zoology, MSM College, Kayamkulam (University of Kerala), is a leading expert on the avian, butterfly, and fish diversity of the region, where she is actively engaged in research. Her primary research interests include biodiversity, chemical ecology, and environmental DNA, and she has made significant contributions to field ecology and ecotoxicology. Ms. S. Sajitha, an independent researcher and MSc Zoology graduate from the same department, is an avid bird watcher in the Kollam district.
Author contributions: The authors contributed equally in the preparation of the manuscript.
Acknowledgements: We gratefully acknowledge the assistance of those who helped with field data collection, as well as the Kollam district authorities for their support in facilitating this study.
Abstract: The COVID-19
pandemic, known as the COVIDian era, has impacted
ecosystems worldwide, including wetlands, which are essential habitats for
avian biodiversity. The study on bird diversity in the wetlands of Kollam
District, southwestern part of Kerala, employed a combination of field surveys
and observational methods to assess the avian communities across various
habitats. The survey areas were selected based on their significance as wetland
ecosystems and included Polachira, Pozhikkara, and associated wetlands within Kollam District.
The study documented 98 bird species across 41 families and 15 orders.
Passeriformes was the most diverse order with 37 species, followed by Pelecaniformes and Charadriiformes
with 13 species each. Apodiformes, Podicipediformes, and Psittaciformes
each had a single recorded species. Ardeidae was the
most abundant family with 10 species, followed by Rallidae
(six species), Sturnidae, and Scolopacidae
(five species each). Among the bird species recorded, 16 were migratory, 76
were resident, and six were local migrants. The study assessed bird diversity
across Polachira, Pozhikkara,
and associated wetlands using various indices, including Simpson, Simpson’s λ,
Simpson’s D, Margalef, Berger-Parker, Shannon-Wiener,
and Pielou. Shannon-Wiener diversity index at Polachira is 4.46, Pozhikkara
4.47 and associated wetlands is 4.45, which suggests that the overall avian
diversity is comparable among these wetlands. Pozhikkara
appears to have slightly higher species richness (Margalef’s
index 14.64) and slightly lower dominance (Berger-Parker index 35.90) compared
to the other two sites. This study
elucidates the effects of pandemic-related disruptions on bird populations,
highlighting the resilience and vulnerabilities of avifauna in wetland
ecosystems.
Keywords: Avian diversity,
Berger-Parker, biodiversity indices, COVIDian era, Margalef, Pielou, Polachira, Pozhikkara,
Shannon-Wiener.
Introduction
The onset of the
COVID-19 pandemic in early 2020 introduced unprecedented challenges to both
human society and natural ecosystems, potentially influencing bird populations
and their habitats in complex ways (Warrington et al. 2022).
While wetlands in
India are recognized for their ecological significance, there is a notable gap
in understanding the dynamics of wetland bird populations, particularly in the
context of the COVID-19 pandemic, termed the COVIDian
era (Madhok & Gulati 2022). The impact of the pandemic on wetland
ecosystems and avian biodiversity remains understudied, despite its potential
to induce both direct and indirect effects on bird populations. Investigating
the diversity of wetland birds in the Kollam District during the COVIDian era can elucidate how anthropogenic disturbances
and environmental changes interact to shape avian communities in these critical
habitats.
The COVID-19 pandemic
has influenced the diversity and distribution of wetland birds in Kollam
District, with potential alterations in species composition and abundance. The
reduction in human disturbances, such as tourism and industrial activities,
during lockdown periods, may have provided temporary respite for certain bird
species, leading to shifts in their population dynamics (Cooke et al. 2021;
Friedrich et al. 2021). Conversely, changes in land use patterns and habitat
degradation may have posed challenges to wetland bird conservation efforts,
affecting the overall resilience of avian communities. This study is to enhance
the understanding of the dynamics of wetland bird populations in the context of
the COVID-19 pandemic, contributing valuable insights to conservation and
management efforts in wetlands and beyond. This study aimed to investigate the
impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on avian diversity within the diverse wetland
ecosystems of Kollam District, southwestern Kerala, India. The study sites, Polachira, Pozhikkara, and
associated wetlands within the district, were specifically chosen to represent
a range of wetland types. This diversity allowed for a comprehensive assessment
of avian responses to potential pandemic-related disruptions across different
wetland ecosystems.
Material and methods
Study area
The study area
encompassed Kollam District, located along the southwestern coast of Kerala,
India, bordering the Arabian Sea. Within the district, this study specifically
focused on the avian diversity of Polachira, Pozhikkara, and associated wetland ecosystems. The location
map of the study area is depicted in Figure 1.
Polachira
Polachira (8.83 °N, 76.70 °E) holds a diverse range of
aquatic habitats, including marshes and shallow water bodies spanning over 600
ha. Polachira is primarily composed of paddy fields,
characterized as ‘Moonupoovu Nilam,’
allowing farmers to cultivate rice thrice annually. Soil is highly fertile
promising substantial yield. A significant challenge faced by farmers is the
perpetual waterlogging of the fields. Polachira’s
rich biodiversity, particularly the abundance of fish and mussels, attracts
numerous avian fauna including migratory birds. Its
proximity to urban centres makes it an accessible
location for studying wetland bird diversity.
Pozhikkara
Pozhikkara (8.81 °N, 76.65 °E) is a small town on the
western border of the Paravur in Kollam District,
flanked by the Arabian Sea on one side and the backwaters on the other side. Pozhikkara is a heritage site in Kerala blessed with
estuaries, backwaters and a sublime beach. The ecology of this region is
unique. It has flora and fauna that adapt to both saltwater and freshwater.
This coastal wetland presents a unique opportunity to examine the avian fauna
associated with estuarine and coastal habitats, offering insights into the ecological
significance of these transitional ecosystems.
Associated wetlands
In addition to Polachira and Pozhikkara, the
study also includes associated wetlands (8.82 °N, 76.67 °E) in the form of
paddy fields and marshy areas between Polachira and Pozhikkara. These diverse wetlands provide habitat for a
variety of bird species, contributing to the overall richness of avian
biodiversity in the region.
Methods
The study on bird
diversity in the wetlands employed a combination of field surveys and observational
methods to assess the avian communities. Field observations were conducted from
May 2020 to April 2021. Bird species richness, abundance, and distribution
patterns were documented using standardized bird-watching protocols and
ecological surveys. Field surveys were conducted monthly over 12 months to
investigate bird diversity within each wetland. Surveys were conducted during
morning (0600–1000 h) and evening (1600–1900 h) (Byju
et al. 2023) to capture diurnal and nocturnal avian activity, with particular
attention being paid to dawn and dusk periods when bird activity is typically
high. Field researchers and trained ornithologists conducted systematic surveys
of wetland habitats, utilizing binoculars, telescopes, and field notebooks to
record bird sightings. Transect surveys along pre-established routes
ensured comprehensive coverage of the diverse wetland habitats and
microenvironments within the study area (Buckland et al. 2008). Bird surveys
were conducted along established transects within the wetlands. Three- line
transects were established within each of the three wetlands. Each transect was
500 × 100 m2. Line transect methodology was employed, with observers
walking along predetermined paths and recording all bird species detected
within a specified distance of 50 m on either side. Along each transect, three
sampling points were designated at 150-m intervals. At each sampling point, a
point count method was employed. Observers remained stationary for a 30-min
period, recording all bird species seen or heard (Nadeau et al. 2008) within a
50-m radius. A 5-min settling period was allowed at each point to minimize
disturbance to bird activity.
Avian diversity
indices at different sites were calculated using the Shannon- Wiener index
(Shannon & Weaver 1949), Berger-Parker index (Berger & Parker 1970), Pielou index (Pielou 1969) Margalef index and Simpson index D (Margalef
1958).
I. Shannon- Wiener
Diversity Index:
The Shannon Diversity
Index is represented as H’, where pi denotes the relative abundance of each
group of organisms.
H’ = –∑ pi1n(pi)
II. Berger-Parker
Index:
The Berger-Parker
Index, denoted as d, is calculated as Nmax divided by
N, where Nmax represents the number of individuals in
the most abundant group, and N represents the total number of individuals.
III. Margalef Index:
The Margalef Index, denoted as dMa,
is computed as (S–1) divided by the natural logarithm of N, where S stands for
the species number and N indicates the total number of individuals.
IV. Simpson Index:
The Simpson Index,
represented as λ, is calculated as the sum of the squared proportions of
individuals, where pi represents the proportion of individuals belonging to
each species.
λ=∑ pi2
V. Gini-Simpson
index:
The Gini-Simpson
Index, labeled as D, is derived as 1 minus the Simpson Index (λ), where λ
denotes the Simpson Index.
VI. Pielou index:
The Pielou Index, represented as E’, is calculated as the sum
of pi multiplied by the logarithm of pi, divided by the logarithm of the total
number of species (R), where pi represents the relative abundance of each
species.
Results
In the present study,
98 species of birds belonging to 41 families and 15 orders were recorded. Order
Passeriformes dominated with 37 species followed by Pelecaniformes
and Charadriiformes with 13 species each. The orders Apodiformes, Podicipediformes,
and Psittaciformes exhibited the lowest species
richness, each represented by a single species. Family Ardeidae
dominated with 10 species followed by Rallidae with
six species and Sturnidae and Scolopacidae
with five species each. Among 98 recorded avifauna, 16 were migratory, 76 were
residents and six were local migrants. Order Charadriiiformes
dominated with eight migratory species followed by Passeriformes with four
species, Coraciiformes with two species. The lowest
number of migratory bird species were reported from orders Ciconiiformes
and Palecaniformes with one species each. Order
Passeriformes dominate with 33 resident bird species followed by Pelecaniformes, Gruiformes, Coraciiformes, Piciformes, Ciconiiformes, Anseriformes, Cuculiformes, Accipitriformes, Podicipediformes, Psittaciformes,
Suliformes, and Apodiformes.
Six species of local migrants were observed of which order Pelecaniformes
dominated with four bird species. According to the IUCN Red List (2024), the Asian
Woolly-necked Stork was the only ‘Near Threatened’ species, while all other
bird species observed in the study were categorized as ‘Least Concern’.
Residential status, IUCN status, order, and family-wise distribution of bird
species are depicted in Table 1.
Biodiversity indices
The diversity indices
such as Simpson index, Simpson index —λ, Simpson index —D, Margalef
index, Berger-Parker index, Shannon- Wiener index and Pielou
index in the Polachira, Pozhikka
associated wetlands are shown in Table 2.
The Berger-Parker
index, which measures the dominance of the most abundant species, is
consistently high across Polachira, Pozhikkara, and associated wetlands. The Margalef index, which primarily reflects species richness,
shows relatively high values across all sites. Simpson’s index λ and Pielou’s evenness index both indicate relatively high
evenness within the avian communities. The Shannon-Wiener index, a
comprehensive measure of diversity, shows very similar values across all three
sites (4.46, 4.47, and 4.45). This suggests that the overall avian diversity is
comparable among these wetlands.
Discussion
Increases in human
population facilitate urbanization globally which in turn leads to changes in
the structure and ecology of landscape ultimately leading to biodiversity loss
due to anthropogenic threats (McKinney 2006; Rocha & Fellowes 2018). Populations
of birds, which are one of the most common wild fauna in the urban area, are
facing threats and have been declining as a result of the rapid
urbanization-expansion process (Bolwig et al. 2006; Strohbach 2009; Evans et al. 2011; Gatesire
et al. 2014). In the present study, 98 species of birds belonging to 41
families and 15 orders from Pozhikkara, Polachira, and associated wetlands were recorded.
Twenty-four species of birds in 11 families and nine orders were reported from
wetlands in Kollam, mainly Kandachira and nearby
paddy fields (Anoop et al. 2017). From large stretches of wetlands in the form
of paddy fields, ponds and canals in Chadayamangalam and Nilamel in Kollam
District 14 species of birds belonging
to five families
were identified (Lekshmy 2014). The
Berger-Parker index, which measures the dominance, in the present study
suggests that a few species such as Anas poecilorhyncha,
Ardea intermedia, Fulica
atra, Porphyrio
poliocephalus, Dendrocygna
javanica, Hirundo
rustica, Egretta
garzetta dominate the avian communities in these
wetlands. Simpson’s index λ (0.01) and Pielou’s
evenness index (0.97) suggests that some species such as Anas poecilorhyncha, Ardea
intermedia may be more abundant than Vanellus
indicus and Corvus culminatus,
the distribution of individuals among species is relatively equitable. The Margalef index indicates a considerable number of
bird species present in each wetland. The Shannon-Wiener index (Polachira 4.46, Pozhikkara 4.47,
and associated wetlands 4.45) suggests that the overall avian diversity is
comparable among these wetlands of study. Species richness showed similar
values among the three study sites, with minimum variations and associated
wetland had slightly higher dominance (based on Berger-Parker index 37.20)
compared to the other two sites. Overall, all three wetland sites exhibit
relatively high species richness, moderate dominance, and high evenness in
their avian communities. The similar values of the Shannon-Wiener index (4.45–4.47)
across all sites suggest that the overall avian diversity is comparable among
these three wetlands. Laseetha et al. (2023) reported
86 bird species in Polachira and associated wetlands.
The study recorded a higher bird diversity of 98 species across Pozhikkara, Polachira, and
associated wetlands. This apparent increase in species richness, particularly
during a period of restricted human activity (lockdown), may suggest increased
human encroachment on these natural habitats.
The COVID-19 pandemic
brought about unexpected changes in humans such as social distancing, remote
work, and lockdowns (Zellmer et al. 2020) which, throughout
the world, led to a marked pollution reduction in the air (Venter et al. 2020)
and noise (Lecocqm et al. 2020), which created an
environment potentially benefiting bird communication, foraging, and breeding
success and improved air quality had positive impacts on bird health and
foraging opportunities. Noise pollution negatively affects bird abundance and
distribution (McClure et al. 2013; Shannon et al. 2015), as it interferes with
mating signals and defense mechanisms (Slabbekoorn 2013). Water bodies polluted with biological
wastes, which in turn affect biological oxygen demand, can cause significant
damage to the abundance of aquatic invertebrates, zooplankton and fish (Schirmel et al. 2016), and can also affect bird populations
(Klemetsen & Knudsen 2013; Mallin
et al. 2016). The analysis of water quality parameters such as suspended
particulate matter (SPM) concentration in Asthamudi
Lake in Kollam District using Landsat 8 OLI image shows that the concentration
of SPM values in lockdown (mean SPM 8.01 mg/l) is lower than that of
pre-lockdown (10.03 mg/l) and last five-year average (9.1 mg/l) (Aswathy et al. 2021). Noise pollution significantly impacts
avian abundance and occupancy by disrupting critical acoustic communication
pathways (Shannon et al. 2015). Elevated noise levels can mask crucial
vocalizations, such as mating calls and alarm calls, hindering successful
reproduction and increasing vulnerability to predation (Slabbekoorn
2013). Air quality is also attributed for increase in avifauna diversity.
Lockdowns led to significant reductions in PM 2.5 and other pollutants in
megacity of Delhi (Mahato et al. 2020) and 22 cities
covering different regions of India (Sharma et al. 2020). Air Quality
Index (AQI) temporal variability in Kollam demonstrated improved air quality
during the lockdown period (median: 49, range: 30–105) compared with both the
pre-lockdown (median: 89, range: 48–205) and post-lockdown (median: 75, range:
47–124) periods (Thomas et al. 2023). The exposure to particulate matter can
negatively impact species diversity (Sanderfoot &
Holloway 2017; Liang et al. 2020). The observed increase in bird diversity in
this study may be partly attributed to the improved air quality conditions
experienced during the lockdown period.
Decreased human
activity due to lockdowns and travel restrictions have led to reduced
disturbance to bird habitats as restricted movement of humans helped the
unrestricted movement of wild animals and birds during the pandemic period (Sahagun 2020). Diversity is an
important ecological indicator for estimating the health and quality of
ecosystems and birds play crucial roles in natural activities such as pest control,
pollination and seed dispersal (Jaman et al. 1999).
Anthropogenic activities such as poisoning, hunting, trapping, killing and
destroying the habitat of birds compel birds to change their habitats due to
scarcity of food and shelter (Rajia et al. 2015; Shome et al. 2020). A survey conducted by Lekshmy (2014) in the Nilamel and
Chadayamangalam regions in Kollam and post COVID
avian survey of Laseetha et al. (2023) in the Polachira Wetland reported a total of 14 and 86 bird
species respectively. In the present study, conducted during the COVID-19
lockdown period, documented an extensive avian diversity in the Kollam region.
This notable increase in bird diversity, observed during the time of reduced
anthropogenic activity, suggests the relationship between human disturbance and
local avifauna.
Conclusion
This study provides
valuable insights into the avian diversity within the Polachira,
Pozhikkara, and associated wetlands of Kollam
District during the COVID-19 pandemic. The study reveals a consistent pattern of
high species richness and moderate evenness across all study sites. The study
suggests a moderate level of dominance by a few species, the overall avian
diversity remains remarkably similar among these wetlands. These findings
emphasize the importance of these wetland ecosystems in supporting diverse
avian communities within Kollam District.
Table 1.
Residential status, IUCN status, order, and family-wise distribution of bird
species.
|
|
Common name |
Scientific name |
Order |
Family |
Residential status |
IUCN Red List
status |
|
1 |
Brahminy Kite |
Haliastur indus |
Accipitriformes |
Accipitridae |
LM |
LC |
|
2 |
Black Kite |
Milvus migrans |
Accipitriformes |
Accipitridae |
R |
LC |
|
3 |
Western Marsh
Harrier |
Circus aeruginosus |
Accipitriformes |
Accipitridae |
R |
LC |
|
4 |
Lesser
Whistling-Duck |
Dendrocygna javanica |
Anseriformes |
Anatidae |
R |
LC |
|
5 |
Indian Spot-billed
Duck |
Anas poecilorhyncha |
Anseriformes |
Anatidae |
R |
LC |
|
6 |
Asian Palm Swift |
Cypsiurus balasiensis |
Apodiformes |
Apodidae |
R |
LC |
|
7 |
Indian Swiftlet |
Aerodramus unicolor |
Apodiformes |
Apodidae |
R |
LC |
|
8 |
Red Wattled Lapwing |
Vanellus indicus |
Charadriiformes |
Charadriidae |
R |
LC |
|
9 |
Kentish Plover |
Charadrius alexandrines |
Charadriiformes |
Charadriidae |
M |
LC |
|
10 |
Tibetan Sand-Plover |
Charadrius mongolus |
Charadriiformes |
Charadriidae |
M |
LC |
|
11 |
Pacific
Golden-Plover |
Pluvialis fulva |
Charadriiformes |
Charadriidae |
M |
LC |
|
12 |
Bronze- winged
Jacana |
Metopidius indicus |
Charadriiformes |
Jacanidae |
R |
LC |
|
13 |
Pheasant-tailed
Jacana |
Hydrophasianus chirurgus |
Charadriiformes |
Jacanidae |
R |
LC |
|
14 |
Brown-headed Gull |
Chroicocephalus brunnicephalus |
Charadriiformes |
Laridae |
R |
LC |
|
15 |
Black-winged Stilt |
Himantopus himantopus |
Charadriiformes |
Recurvirostridae |
R |
LC |
|
16 |
Green Sandpiper |
Tringa ochropus |
Charadriiformes |
Scolopacidae |
M |
LC |
|
17 |
Common Sandpiper |
Actitis hypoleucos |
Charadriiformes |
Scolopacidae |
M |
LC |
|
18 |
Common Greenshank |
Tringa nebularia |
Charadriiformes |
Scolopacidae |
M |
LC |
|
19 |
Temminck's Stint |
Calidris temminckii |
Charadriiformes |
Scolopacidae |
M |
LC |
|
20 |
Common Snipe |
Gallinago gallinago |
Charadriiformes |
Scolopacidae |
M |
LC |
|
21 |
Painted Stork |
Mycteria leucocephala |
Ciconiiformes |
Ciconiidae |
R |
LC |
|
22 |
Asian Woolly-necked
Stork |
Ciconia episcopus |
Ciconiiformes |
Ciconiidae |
R |
NT |
|
23 |
White Stork |
Ciconia ciconia |
Ciconiiformes |
Ciconiidae |
M |
LC |
|
24 |
Asian Openbill |
Anastomus oscitans |
Ciconiiformes |
Ciconiidae |
R |
LC |
|
25 |
Yellow-footed
Green-Pigeon |
Treron phoenicopterus |
Columbiformes |
Columbidae |
R |
LC |
|
26 |
Spotted Dove |
Spilopelia chinensis |
Columbiformes |
Columbidae |
R |
LC |
|
27 |
Common Kingfisher |
Alcedo atthis |
Coraciiformes |
Alcedinidae |
R |
LC |
|
28 |
Pied Kingfisher |
Ceryle rudis |
Coraciiformes |
Alcedinidae |
R |
LC |
|
29 |
Indian Roller |
Coracias benghalensis |
Coraciiformes |
Coraciidae |
R |
LC |
|
30 |
White-throated
Kingfisher |
Halcyon smyrnensis |
Coraciiformes |
Halcyonidae |
R |
LC |
|
31 |
Chestnut-headed Bee
eater |
Merops leschenaultia |
Coraciiformes |
Meropidae |
R |
LC |
|
32 |
Blue-tailed
Bee-eater |
Merops philippinus |
Coraciiformes |
Meropidae |
M |
LC |
|
33 |
Asian Green
Bee-eater |
Merops orientalis |
Coraciiformes |
Meropidae |
M |
LC |
|
34 |
Greater Coucal |
Centropus sinensis |
Cuculiformes |
Cuculidae |
R |
LC |
|
35 |
Asian Koel |
Eudynamys scolopaceus |
Cuculiformes |
Cuculidae |
R |
LC |
|
36 |
Common Moorhen |
Gallinula chloropus |
Gruiformes |
Rallidae |
R |
LC |
|
37 |
White- breasted
Waterhen |
Amaurornis phoenicurus |
Gruiformes |
Rallidae |
R |
LC |
|
38 |
Western Swamphen. |
Porphyrio porphyrio |
Gruiformes |
Rallidae |
R |
LC |
|
39 |
Grey-headed Swamphen |
Porphyrio poliocephalus |
Gruiformes |
Rallidae |
R |
LC |
|
40 |
Eurasian Coot |
Fulica atra |
Gruiformes |
Rallidae |
R |
LC |
|
41 |
Watercock |
Gallicrex cinerea |
Gruiformes |
Rallidae |
R |
LC |
|
42 |
Blyth's Reed
Warbler |
Acrocephalus dumetorum |
Passeriformes |
Acrocephalidae |
M |
LC |
|
43 |
Clamorous Reed
Warbler |
Acrocephalus stentoreus |
Passeriformes |
Acrocephalidae |
R |
LC |
|
44 |
Ashy Woodswallow |
Artamus fuscus |
Passeriformes |
Artamidae |
R |
LC |
|
45 |
Common Tailorbird |
Orthotomus sutorius |
Passeriformes |
Cisticolidae |
R |
LC |
|
46 |
Zitting Cisticola |
Cisticola juncidis |
Passeriformes |
Cisticolidae |
R |
LC |
|
47 |
Plain Prinia |
Prinia inornata |
Passeriformes |
Cisticolidae |
R |
LC |
|
48 |
Ashy Prinia |
Prinia socialis |
Passeriformes |
Cisticolidae |
R |
LC |
|
49 |
House Crow |
Corvus splendens |
Passeriformes |
Corvidae |
R |
LC |
|
50 |
Indian Jungle Crow |
Corvus culminatus |
Passeriformes |
Corvidae |
R |
LC |
|
51 |
Rufous Treepie |
Dendrocitta vagabunda |
Passeriformes |
Corvidae |
R |
LC |
|
52 |
Large-billed Crow |
Corvus macrorhynchos |
Passeriformes |
Corvidae |
R |
LC |
|
53 |
Pale-billed
Flowerpecker |
Dicaeum erythrorhynchos |
Passeriformes |
Dicaeidae |
R |
LC |
|
54 |
Black Drongo |
Dicrurus macrocercus |
Passeriformes |
Dicruridae |
R |
LC |
|
55 |
Black/Ashy Drongo |
Dicrurus adsimilis |
Passeriformes |
Dicruridae |
R |
LC |
|
56 |
White-rumped Munia |
Lonchura striata |
Passeriformes |
Estrildidae |
R |
LC |
|
57 |
Tricolored Munia |
Lonchura malacca |
Passeriformes |
Estrildidae |
R |
LC |
|
58 |
Scaly-breasted
Munia |
Lonchura punctulata |
Passeriformes |
Estrildidae |
R |
LC |
|
59 |
Barn Swallow |
Hirundo rustica |
Passeriformes |
Hirundinidae |
LM |
LC |
|
60 |
Red-rumped Swallow |
Cecropis daurica |
Passeriformes |
Hirundinidae |
M |
LC |
|
61 |
Brown Shrike |
Lanius cristatus |
Passeriformes |
Laniidae |
R |
LC |
|
62 |
Jungle Babbler |
Argya striata |
Passeriformes |
Leiothrichidae |
R |
LC |
|
63 |
Yellow-billed
Babbler |
Argya affinis |
Passeriformes |
Leiothrichidae |
R |
LC |
|
64 |
Western Yellow
Wagtail |
Motacilla flava |
Passeriformes |
Motacillidae |
M |
LC |
|
65 |
Paddyfield Pipit |
Anthus rufulus |
Passeriformes |
Motacillidae |
R |
LC |
|
66 |
Oriental
Magpie-robin |
Copsychus saularis |
Passeriformes |
Muscicapidae |
R |
LC |
|
67 |
Purple-rumped Sunbird |
Leptocoma zeylonica |
Passeriformes |
Nectariniidae |
R |
LC |
|
68 |
Black hooded Oriole |
Oriolus xanthornus |
Passeriformes |
Oriolidae |
R |
LC |
|
69 |
Indian Golden
Oriole |
Oriolus kundoo |
Passeriformes |
Oriolidae |
R |
LC |
|
70 |
Green Warbler |
Phylloscopus nitidus |
Passeriformes |
Phylloscopidae |
M |
LC |
|
71 |
Baya Weaver |
Ploceus philippinus |
Passeriformes |
Ploceidae |
R |
LC |
|
72 |
Red-whiskered
Bulbul |
Pycnonotus jocosus |
Passeriformes |
Pycnonotidae |
R |
LC |
|
73 |
Red-vented Bulbul |
Pycnonotus cafer |
Passeriformes |
Pycnonotidae |
R |
LC |
|
74 |
Common Myna |
Acridotheres tristis |
Passeriformes |
Sturnidae |
R |
LC |
|
75 |
Jungle Myna |
Acridotheres fuscus |
Passeriformes |
Sturnidae |
R |
LC |
|
76 |
Chestnut-tailed
Starling |
Sturnia malabarica |
Passeriformes |
Sturnidae |
R |
LC |
|
77 |
Common/Jungle Myna |
Acridotheres tristis |
Passeriformes |
Sturnidae |
R |
LC |
|
78 |
Malabar Starling |
Sturnia blythii |
Passeriformes |
Sturnidae |
R |
LC |
|
79 |
Cattle Egret |
Bubulcus ibis |
Pelecaniformes |
Ardeidae |
LM |
LC |
|
80 |
Large Egret |
Ardea alba |
Pelecaniformes |
Ardeidae |
LM |
LC |
|
81 |
Little Egret |
Egretta garzetta |
Pelecaniformes |
Ardeidae |
R |
LC |
|
82 |
Median Egret |
Ardea intermedia |
Pelecaniformes |
Ardeidae |
R |
LC |
|
83 |
Purple Heron |
Ardea purpurea |
Pelecaniformes |
Ardeidae |
R |
LC |
|
84 |
Indian Pond Heron |
Ardeola grayii |
Pelecaniformes |
Ardeidae |
R |
LC |
|
85 |
Night Heron |
Nycticorax nycticorax |
Pelecaniformes |
Ardeidae |
LM |
LC |
|
86 |
Medium Egret |
Ardea intermedia |
Pelecaniformes |
Ardeidae |
R |
LC |
|
87 |
White Egret sp. |
Ardea alba modesta |
Pelecaniformes |
Ardeidae |
R |
LC |
|
88 |
Grey Heron |
Ardea cinerea |
Pelecaniformes |
Ardeidae |
R |
LC |
|
89 |
Oriental Darter |
Anhinga
melanogaster |
Pelecaniformes |
Phalacrocoracidae |
R |
LC |
|
90 |
Oriental White Ibis |
Threskiornis melanocephalus |
Pelecaniformes |
Threskiornithidae |
LM |
LC |
|
91 |
Glossy Ibis |
Plegadis falcinellus |
Pelecaniformes |
Threskiornithidae |
M |
LC |
|
92 |
White-cheeked
Barbet |
Psilopogon viridis |
Piciformes |
Megalaimidae |
R |
LC |
|
93 |
Black-rumped Flameback Woodpecker |
Dinopium benghalense |
Piciformes |
Picidae |
R |
LC |
|
94 |
Common Flameback Woodpecker |
Dinopium javanense |
Piciformes |
Picidae |
R |
|
|
95 |
Little Grebe |
Tachybaptus ruficollis |
Podicipediformes |
Podicipedidae |
R |
LC |
|
96 |
Rose-ringed
Parakeet |
Psittacula krameri |
Psittaciformes |
Psittaculidae |
R |
LC |
|
97 |
Little Cormorant |
Phalacrocorax niger |
Suliformes |
Phalacrocoracidae |
R |
LC |
|
98 |
Indian Cormorant |
Phalacrocorax fuscicollis |
Suliformes |
Phalacrocoracidae |
LM |
LC |
LM—Local Migrant |
M—Migrant | R—Resident | LC—Least Concern | NT—Near Threatened.
Table 2.
Biodiversity indices.
|
Wetland |
Berger-Parker index |
Margalef index |
Simpson index λ |
Simpson index D |
Shannon- Wiener index |
Pielou index |
|
Polachira |
34.70 |
14.52 |
0.01 |
0.99 |
4.46 |
0.97 |
|
Pozhikkara |
35.90 |
14.64 |
0.01 |
0.99 |
4.47 |
0.97 |
|
Associated Wetlands |
37.20 |
14.67 |
0.01 |
0.99 |
4.45 |
0.97 |
For
figures - - click here for full PDF
References
Anoop, C., P.V. Bhanu, R. Devika, B.S. Thasni, V. Devipriya, S. Reshma
& S. Fathima (2017). An investigation of the avian diversity in the wetlands
of Kollam District. B.Sc Project
Report. University of Kerala, 57 pp
Aswathy, T.S., A.L. Achu, S. Francis, G. Gopinath, S. Joseph, U. Surendran & P.S. Sunil (2021) Assessment of water
quality in a tropical Ramsar Wetland of southern
India in the wake of COVID-19, Remote Sensing Applications. Society and
Environment 23: 100604. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rsase.2021.100604
Berger, W.H. & F.L. Parker (1970). Diversity of
planktonic Foraminifera in deep-sea sediments. Science 168(3937):
1345–1347. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.168.3937.1345
Bolwig, S., D. Pomeroy, H. Tushabe & D. Mushabe (2006). Crops, trees, and
birds: biodiversity change under agricultural intensification in Uganda’s
farmed landscapes. Geografisk Tidsskrift - Danish Journal of Geography 106(2):
115–130. https://doi.org/10.1080/00167223.2006.10649561
Buckland, S.T., S.J. Marsden
& R.E. Green (2008). Estimating bird abundance: making methods work. Bird
Conservation International 18(S1): S91–S108. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0959270908000294
Byju, H., N. Raveendran, S. Ravichandran &
R. Kishore (2023). An annotated
checklist of the avifauna of Karangadu mangrove forest, Ramanatha-puram, Tamil
Nadu, with notes on the site’s importance for waterbird conservation. Journal
of Threatened Taxa 15(3):
22813–22822. https://doi.org/10.11609/jott.8356.15.3.22813-22822
Cooke, S.J., P. Soroye, J.L.
Brooks, J. Clarke, A.L. Jeanson, A. Berberi & J.R. Bennett (2021). Ten considerations
for conservation policy makers for the post-COVID-19 transition. Environmental
Reviews 29(999): 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1139/er-2021-0014
Evans, K.L., D.E. Chamberlain, B.J. Hatchwell, R.D. Gregory & K.J. Gaston (2011). What makes an urban
bird? Global Change Biology 17(1): 32–44. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2010.02247.x
Friedrich, J., J. Zscheischler
& H. Faust (2021). Social-ecological transformation and COVID-19:
the need to revisit working-class environmentalism. GAIA-Ecological
Perspectives for Science and Society 30(1): 18–22. https://doi.org/10.14512/gaia.30.1.5
Gatesire, T., D. Nsabimana, A. Nyiramana, J.L. Seburanga & M.O. Mirville
(2014). Bird diversity and distribution in relation to urban landscape types in
Northern Rwanda. Scientific World Journal 2014: 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1155/2014/157824
Jaman, M.F., S.U. Sarker & N.J. Sarker (1999). Food habits and
feeding behavior of Black Drongo, Dicrurus
macrocercus albirictus
(Hodgson). Bangladesh Journal of Zoology 26(2): 57–66.
Klemetsen, A. & R. Knudsen
(2013). Diversity and abundance of water birds in a subarctic lake during three
decades. Fauna Norvegica 33: 21–27. https://doi.org/10.5324/FN.V33I0.1584
Laseetha, T.G., K.J. Mohan, S. Jisha & B. Hari
(2023). Diversity of Charadriiform birds from a tropical wetland. Ecology,
Environment & Conservation 29: S129–S137. http://doi.org/10.53550/EEC.2023.v29i04s.022
Lecocq, T., S.P. Hicks, K.
van Noten, K. van Wijk, P. Koelemeijer, R.S.M. de Plaen, F. Massin, G. Hillers, R.E. Anthony, M.T. Apoloner
& H. Xiao (2020). Global quieting of high-frequency seismic noise
due to COVID-19 pandemic lockdown measures. Science 369(6509):
1338–1343. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abd2438
Lekshmy, S. (2014). Biodiversity of
wetland birds in Nilamel and Chadayamangalam,
Kollam, Kerala. Journal of Aquatic Biology and Fisheries 2: 303–307.
Liang, Y., I. Rudik, E.Y.
Zou, A. Johnston, A.D. Rodewald & C.L. Kling
(2020). Conservation cobenefits from air pollution
regulation: evidence from birds. Proceedings. National Academy of Science 117:
30900–30906. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2013568117
Madhok, R. & S. Gulati (2022). Ruling the
roost: avian species reclaim urban habitat during India’s COVID-19
lockdown. Biological Conservation 271: 109597. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2022.109597
Mahato, S., S. Pal &
K.G. Ghosh (2020). Effect of lockdown amid COVID-19 pandemic on
air quality of the megacity Delhi, India. Science of the Total Environment
730: 139086. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.SCITOTENV.2020.139086
Mallin, M., M. McIver, E.
Wambach & A. Robuck (2016). Algal blooms, circulators,
waterfowl, and eutrophic Greenfield Lake, North Carolina. Lake and Reservoir
Management 32: 168–181. https://doi.org/10.1080/10402381.2016.1146374
Margalef, R. (1958). Information theory
in ecology. General Systematics 3: 36–71.
McClure, C.J.W., H.E. Ware, J. Carlisle, G. Kaltenecker
& J.R. Barber (2013). An experimental investigation
into the effects of traffic noise
on distributions of birds: avoiding the phantom road. Proceedings of the
Royal Society B. 280(1773): 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2013.2290
McKinney, M.L. (2006). Urbanization as a
major cause of biotic homogenization. Biological Conservation 127:
247–260. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2005.09.005
Nadeau, C.P., C.J. Conway, B.S. Smith & T.E. Lewis
(2008). Maximising detection probability of wetland-
dependent birds during point-count surveys in northwestern Florida. The
Wilson Journal of Ornithology 120(3): 513–519. https://doi.org/10.1676/07-041.1
Pielou, E.C. (1969). An Introduction
to Mathematical Ecology. Wiley, New York, viii + 286 pp. https://doi.org/10.1002/bimj.19710130308
Rajia, S., M.M. Alam, G.W. Chowdhury, M. Akash & M.A. Islam (2015). Status and diversity
of birds of Ramna Park, Dhaka, Bangladesh. Bangladesh
Journal of Zoology 43(2): 291–301. https://doi.org/10.3329/bjz.v43i2.27399
Rocha, E.A. & M.D.E. Fellowes (2018). Does urbanization
explain differences in interactions between an insect herbivore and its natural
enemies and mutualists? Urban Ecosystems 21: 405–417. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11252-017-0727-5
Sahagun, L. (2020). Coyotes, falcons,
deer, and other wildlife are reclaiming L.A. territory as humans stay at home. Los
Angeles Times. Available at: https://www.latimes.com/environment/story/2020-04-21/wildlife-thrives-amid-coronavirus-lockdown
Sanderfoot, O.V. & T. Holloway (2017). Air pollution
impacts on avian species via inhalation exposure and associated outcomes. Environmental
Research Letters. 12: 083002. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aa8051
Schirmel, J., M. Bundschuh, M.H. Entling, I. Kowarik & S. Buchholz (2016). Impacts of invasive
plants on resident animals across ecosystems, taxa, and feeding types: a global
assessment. Global Change Biology 22(2): 594–603. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.13093
Shannon, C.E. & W. Weaver (1949). A Mathematical
Model of Communication. University of Illinois Press, Urbana. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1538-7305.1948.tb01338.x
Shannon, G., M.F. McKenna, L.M. Angeloni, K.R. Crooks, K.M.
Fristrup, E. Brown, K.A. Warner, M.D. Nelson, C. White, J.
Briggs, S. McFarland & G. Wittemyer (2015). A synthesis of
two decades of research documenting the effects of noise on wildlife. Biological
Reviews 91: 982–1005. https://doi.org/10.1111/BRV.12207
Sharma, S., M. Zhang, J.A. Gao, H. Zhang & S.H. Kota
(2020). Effect of restricted emissions during
COVID-19 on air quality in India. Science of the Total Environment 728: 138878.
https://doi.org/10.1016/J.SCITOTENV.2020.138878
Shome, A.R., M.M. Alam, M.F. Rabbe, M.M. Rahman
& M.F. Jaman (2020). Diversity, status,
and habitat usage of avifauna at Sadar Upazila, Magura, Bangladesh. Bangladesh
Journal of Zoology 48(2): 441–456. https://doi.org/10.3329/bjz.v48i2.52434
Slabbekoorn, H. (2013). Songs of the city:
noise-dependent spectral plasticity in the acoustic phenotype of urban birds. Animal.
Behaviour 85: 1089–1099. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ANBEHAV.2013.01.021
Strohbach, M.W., D. Haase & N. Kabisch (2009). Birds and the city:
urban biodiversity, land use, and socioeconomics. Ecology and Society
14(2): 31.
Thomas, G., J. Thomas, R.S. Devika, A. Krishnan, V.M.
Anju & J.N. Amrutha (2023). Impact of COVID-19
lockdown on ambient air quality in the southwest coastal urban regions of
India. Aerosol Science and Engineering 7: 303–314. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41810-023-00180-x
Venter, Z.S., K. Aunan, S.
Chowdhury & J. Lelieveld (2020). COVID-19 lockdowns
cause global air pollution declines. Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences 117: 18984–18990. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2006853117
Warrington, M.H., M.B. Schrimpf,
P.D. Brisay, M.E. Taylor & N. Koper (2022). Avian behaviour changes in response to human activity during the
COVID-19 lockdown in the United Kingdom. Proceedings of the Royal Society B.
289: 20212740. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2021.2740
Zellmer, A.J., E.M. Wood, T.
Surasinghe, B.J. Putman, G.B. Pauly,
S.B. Magle, S.L. Jesse, A.M.K. Cria
& M. Fidino (2020). What can we learn
from wildlife sightings during the COVID-19 global shutdown? Ecosphere
11(8): e03215. https://doi.org/10.1002/ecs2.3215