Journal of Threatened
Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | 26 May 2026 | 18(5): 28900–28910
ISSN 0974-7907 (Online) | ISSN 0974-7893 (Print)
https://doi.org/10.11609/jott.9973.18.5.28900-28910
#9973 | Received 31 May 2025 | Final received 25 April 2026| Finally
accepted 12 May 2026
Avifaunal diversity in
agroecosystems: a case study from Uttar Pradesh, India
Fatima Khan 1 & Kaleem Ahmed 2
1,2 Department of Wildlife Sciences,
Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh, Uttar Pradesh 202002, India.
1 fatima.amu01@gmail.com, 2 kahmed.wl@amu.ac.in
(corresponding author)
Abstract: Birds play a crucial role as
indicators of environmental health, making them valuable for conservation
assessments. This study presents a systematic checklist of bird species
composition, diversity patterns, and foraging guild structures in the Nautanwa agroecosystem of Maharajganj
District, Uttar Pradesh. Field surveys were conducted using the point count
method across agricultural fields, human settlements, rivers, and wetlands
between April and May 2022. A total of 52 bird species, spanning 47 genera, 28
families, and 13 orders, were recorded. Passeriformes emerged as the dominant
order, while Ardeidae and Sturnidae
were the most represented families. The overall bird density was ~12 individuals
per ha, with the highest density in human habitats and the lowest in
agricultural fields, indicating the influence of habitat heterogeneity on avian
abundance. Diversity and richness indices were highest in river habitats and
lowest in wetlands, underscoring the importance of habitat mosaics for
supporting avian communities. Six foraging guilds were identified, with
omnivores (51%) and insectivores (19%) being the most prevalent, reflecting
birds’ adaptability to diverse food resources in agroecosystems. The presence
of two ‘Vulnerable’ species—the Sarus crane Antigone
antigone and the Lesser adjutant Leptoptilos javanicus—and
one ‘Near Threatened’ species highlight the conservation value of these
agricultural landscapes. The findings highlight the importance of considering
agroecosystems in broader conservation strategies and emphasize the need for
continued monitoring to protect vulnerable bird species in these dynamic
environments.
Keywords: Birds, conservation, density,
feeding guilds, insectivorous, point count, richness, status, vulnerable,
wetlands.
Editor:
S. Balachandran, Bombay Natural History
Society, Mumbai, India. Date of publication: 26 May 2026
(online & print)
Citation:
Khan, F. & K. Ahmed (2026).
Avifaunal diversity in agroecosystems: a case study from Uttar Pradesh, India.
Journal of Threatened Taxa 18(5):
28900–28910. https://doi.org/10.11609/jott.9973.18.5.28900-28910
Copyright:
© Khan & Ahmed 2026.
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: Self-funded.
Competing interests: The authors declare no competing interests.
Author details: Fatima Khan completed her post-graduation from the Department of Wildlife Sciences at Aligarh Muslim University. Dr. Kaleem Ahmed serves as a faculty member in the Department of Wildlife
Sciences at Aligarh Muslim University. His research interests cover multiple dimensions of wildlife ecology, with particular emphasis on leopard ecology in human–wildlife conflict areas of western Uttar Pradesh and the effects of heat stress on birds through the application of remote sensing and GIS techniques. He is also involved in research focusing on avian ecology in the Himalayan region.
Author contribution: FK: field work, first manuscript draft. KA: conceptualization, supervision, evaluation,
editing and proof reading
Acknowledgments: The authors thank the Department of Wildlife Sciences for providing basic facilities during the field study and report writing.
Introduction
India is home to many habitats and ecosystems, with a
rich diversity of plants and animals. The agricultural frontier has rapidly
expanded due to the growth of human populations (Velásquez
et al. 2021) and one of the most frequent land-use changes has been the
conversion of natural ecosystems to agricultural fields (Barral
et al. 2015). Agricultural areas cover nearly 37% of the terrestrial surface of
Earth, and provide many ecosystem services and is
influenced by anthropogenic activities and natural cycles (FAO 2025).
Birds are key indicators of environmental conditions
and are pivotal in conserving threatened vertebrates (Ikin
et al. 2016). Birds are versatile in their ecological adaptations and respond
swiftly to habitat changes. They are easily monitored and play crucial
ecological roles such as seed dispersal, pest control, and pollination (Wenny
et al. 2011). Agricultural landscapes provide a focused and predictable supply
of bird food (Kumar & Sahu 2020). This food
includes seeds, grains, fruits, grasses, weeds, arthropods, and rodents (Asokan et al. 2009).
Agriculturists benefit from birds as natural pest
control agents, consuming harmful insects and pests within the agroecosystem (Dhindsa & Saini 1994; Bianchi et al. 2006; Asokan et al. 2010; Narayana et al. 2019). Although
agriculture covers approximately 60.45% of the total land area (Anonymous
2021a), conservation efforts are concentrated on natural forests or protected
areas, despite the global protected area coverage being only 15.40% (Anonymous
2021b). Agricultural ornithology studies in India have been limited, with a
major focus on vulnerable species (Mukherjee et al. 2002). There is a growing
shift towards conservation outside protected areas, acknowledging the
significant impact of agricultural landscapes on bird habitats, as explored in
research addressing habitat loss, fragmentation, and avifauna changes (Brock
& Jarman 2000; Mac Nally et al. 2000; Woinarski et al. 2000).
Although less than 1% of the world’s bird species are
primarily associated with agricultural habitats, nearly one-third of all bird
species use these landscapes at least occasionally (Sekercioglu
et al. 2007). Such species play a crucial role in agroecosystems by providing
key ecosystem services, including pest control, pollination, seed dispersal,
and nutrient deposition (Sekercioglu 2006).
Therefore, documenting and monitoring species assemblages in agroecosystems are
essential for understanding birds’ habitat and resource use in providing
ecosystem services. This will also help in understanding of the changes in bird
ecosystem services and ecological function in agricultural areas as a result of
the declines or increases in predators, seed dispersers, pollinators, and other
avian functional groups (Sekercioglu 2012).
Bird diversity in agricultural areas has been studied
by many authors in different parts of India: Assam (Ahmed & Dey 2014; Gogoi et al. 2023),
Chhattisgarh (Yashmita-Ulman et al. 2017), Haryana
(Kiran et al. 2022; Kumar & Sahu 2020), Karnataka
(Basavarajappa 2006; Athreya
et al. 2010), Maharashtra (Abdar 2014), Punjab (Malhi 2006; Kler & Manoj 2015; Kaur & Sidhu 2022; Kler
et al. 2022), Tamil Nadu (Jayasimhan &
Padmanabhan 2019), Telangana (Narayana et al. 2019), and West Bengal (Hossain
& Aditya 2016). Several studies have also been conducted in Uttar Pradesh
agroecosystems (Iqubal et al. 2003; Sundar 2006; Sundar & Kittur 2012); few studies have focused on eastern Uttar
Pradesh (Yashmita-Ulman & Singh 2021). It is
hypothesized that the heterogeneous agricultural habitats of the Terai region support a high diversity of avifauna with
distinct foraging guild structures, and that variations in crop composition,
vegetation cover, and resource availability influence species composition and
distribution within the agroecosystem. The present study addresses this gap by
documenting species composition, diversity patterns, and foraging guild
structure of avifauna in the Nautanwa agricultural
landscape of Maharajganj District, Uttar Pradesh,
thereby highlighting the ecological importance of Terai
agroecosystems.
Study area
The town of Nautanwa,
situated in the Maharajganj district of Uttar
Pradesh, India, with geographical coordinates of around 27.424o N
and 83.427o E (Figure 1). Nestled in the Terai
region at the foothills of the Shivalik Himalaya, it
has an average elevation of 89 m.
The study site consists of approximately 259 villages
(Census of India 2011). The region experiences an oppressive, partly cloudy wet
season and a mostly clear, hot dry season, with annual temperatures typically
ranging 11–37 °C, and rare extremes below 8 °C or above 41 °C (Weather Spark
2024). The Danda Stream and Rohini River serve as the
main water sources (Central Ground Water Board 2013). Agriculturally, Nautanwa follows the cultivation of Kharif and Rabi crops.
The town hosts a variety of tree species, including Ashoka Saraca
asoca, Neem Azadirachta
indica, Shisham Dalbergia sissoo, Peepal Ficus religiosa, Burflower Neolamarckia cadamba,
Banyan Ficus benghalensis,
Eucalyptus Eucalyptus grandis,
and Babool Vachellia
nilotica. The fauna includes Indian Grey Mongoose
Urva edwardsii,
Asian Palm Civet Paradoxurus hermaphroditu, Golden Jackal Canis
aureus, and Indian Fox Vulpes bengalensis
(Fatima Khan pers. obs. 2022).
Methods
Sampling sites were strategically selected across the
diverse study area, including agriculture, human habitats, rivers, and
wetlands. Bird surveys were conducted using point-count method (Ahmed 2010)
from April to May 2022. Point count surveys were conducted by establishing an
imaginary circular plot, with the observer positioned at the center. The
observer recorded all detections in every direction for a fixed duration of 10
minutes (Persulessy & Putuhena
2020). During the survey, birds were sampled by monitoring 50 permanently
established points. Each point was surveyed twice, resulting in a total
sampling effort of 100 point counts. Surveys were
conducted in the morning hours (0600–1030 h). The birds were recorded in a 50-m
radius from the point count to cover maximum species in the data set and points
were at least 200 m apart to avoid repetitive counting of the same individual
multiple times (Ahmed et al. 2023). At every point count, a
five minutes settling down time was given before recording the birds (Yashmita-Ulman & Singh 2021). On sighting the birds,
the species name, number of individuals and habitat was recorded. Data on
species presence on ground, stem, outer, middle or top canopy was also recorded
(Ahmed 2010). Birds flying across were not counted. The opportunistic counts
during the other time of the day were also included in the final checklist of
birds to ensure a more comprehensive documentation of avifaunal diversity;
however, these records were excluded from point count-based indices and statistical
analysis. Field guides (Ali & Ripley 1987; Grimmett
et al. 2011) were used for bird identification. The bird checklist was compiled
following Praveen & Jayapal (2025). The species
were also classified into major feeding guilds, i.e., insectivorous (I),
carnivorous (C), granivorous (G), frugivorous (F), nectarivores (N), and
omnivorous (O).
Analysis
Shannon-Wiener Index (H’) was used for diversity and Margalef’s Index (RI) for richness computations. The
program DISTANCE (Thomas et al. 2010) was used to compare models, assess
goodness-of-fit and determine estimates of bird density for the study period.
The different models were compared using Akaike’s information criteria
(Anderson et al. 1998). A matrix was formed of bird species and their mean
perch height and horizontal distance from trunk for each species. This data set
was used to generate guilds. Single linkage cluster diagrams were generated
using its nearest-neighbour method through
statistical software BioDiversity Pro (McAleece et al. 1997).
Results
The study recorded 52 bird species from the study
area, representing 47 genera, 28 families, and 13 orders (Table 1). Among the
recorded species, two were categorised as
‘Vulnerable’ (VU), one as ‘Near Threatened’ (NT), and the majority (49 species)
were classified as ‘Least Concern’ (LC) on the IUCN Red List. Additionally, six
species identified in the study are listed in Appendix II of the Convention on
International Trade of Endangered Species (CITES), and 12 belong to Appendix II
of the Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals
(CMS).
Bird density
Overall bird density in the study area was recorded as
11.74 ± 0.73 individuals per ha, with an average cluster size of 2.83 ± 2.65.
The effective strip width (EDR) for bird observations was found to be 38.01 ±
1.79 (Table 2). Notably, bird density varied across different habitats, with
the highest density observed in human habitats (16.43 ± 1.42) and the lowest in
agricultural fields (9.68 ± 0.73). This difference in bird densities among
habitats was significant (t = 7.52, p < 0.005).
Passeriformes was found to be the dominant order,
encompassing 12 families and 22 species, followed by Pelecaniformes
with one family and five species, while Strigiformes
and Bucerotiformes are the least prevalent orders,
each represented by one family and one species; the observed variation in order
percentages in the study area was found to be significant (t = 2.61, df = 12, p < 0.05) (Table 3).
Among the 28 families recorded, Ardeidae
and Sturnidae were identified as dominant, each with
four species. This observed difference in dominance between these two families
was found to be significant (t = 10.55, df = 27, p
< 0.05) (Table 3).
Species diversity and richness
The study site’s overall avian diversity and richness
were found to be 4.39 and 13.74, respectively. Among diverse habitats, the
river habitat showed the highest species richness (16.25) and diversity (4.13),
while the wetland exhibited the lowest values (Figure 2). Analyzing various
avian orders, Passeriformes demonstrated the highest species richness (27.12)
and diversity (4.95), whereas Bucerotiformes
exhibited the lowest (Figure 3). At the family level, Corvidae
showed the highest species richness (10.79) and diversity (3.84), with the
lowest values found in the family Strigidae (Figure
4).
Guild structure
Six foraging guilds were identified in the study site,
with omnivores (O) being the most represented (27 species, 51%), followed by
insectivores (I) (10 species, 19%), and nectarivores (N) being the least
represented (one species, 1%) (Figure 5). A cluster analysis categorised the species into three distinct clusters
(Figure 6).
Cluster 1 comprises species that typically forage on
the ground, including, Little Egret Egretta
garzetta, Cattle egret Bubulcus
ibis, Red-wattled Lapwing Vanellus
indicus, and White-breasted Waterhen Amaurornis
phoenicurus. Cluster 2 includes species that
share habitats characterised by open country in the
plains with trees, wires, or other perches. Birds that belong to this cluster
includes the House Crow Corvus splendens, Large-billed Crow Corvus
macrorhynchos, Jungle Babbler Argya
striata, Black Drongo Dicrurus macrocercus,
Indian Pond Heron Ardeola grayii, and White-throated Kingfisher Halcyon smyrnensis. Cluster 3 consists of species that share
the same stratum, whether found on the lower, middle, or top levels. This
cluster includes Common Myna Acridotheres tristis, Bank Myna Acridotheres
ginginianus, and Red-whiskered Bulbul Pycnonotus jocosus.
Black Kite predominantly occupies the top canopy, mostly flying, even feeding
on prey while airborne.
Discussion
The present study offers a detailed assessment of avifaunal
diversity in the Nautanwa agricultural landscape of Maharajganj District, Uttar Pradesh, and contributes
baseline data for understanding the ecological role of agroecosystem in
supporting bird communities. The documentation of 52 bird species, spanning 47
genera, 28 families, and 13 orders, with Passeriformes as the dominant order,
highlights the ecological richness and complexity of this agroecosystem. In
line with the broader trend in India, Passeriformes emerged as the most
dominant order (Praveen et al. 2016). This order was observed to be the most
dominant in the study area, represented by 11 families. The dominance of
Passeriformes is also consistent with findings from other Indian agricultural
landscapes, such as those reported by Kumar & Sahu
(2020) in Haryana and Hossain & Aditya (2016) in West Bengal, where
Passeriformes also represented the largest proportion of the avifaunal
community.
From the overall bird density, the highest density was
found in human habitats and the lowest in agricultural fields which highlights
the influence of habitat heterogeneity and human-modified environments on avian
abundance. This pattern is in line with studies by Mukhopadhyay & Mazumdar
(2017) and Chaube et al. (2018), who found that areas
with greater structural complexity, such as those near human settlements or
with a mix of trees, water bodies, and open fields, tend to support higher bird
densities. Such habitat diversity in this area is crucial in supporting
relatively high species richness (Mukhopadhyay & Mazumdar 2017). The
relatively lower density in agricultural fields may be attributed to intensive
farming practices, reduced vegetation cover, and limited availability of
nesting and foraging sites, as also observed by Power (2010) and Barral et al. (2015) in agroecosystem studies.
The diversity (4.39) and richness (13.74) values
observed in this study are comparable to those reported in other Indian
agricultural and semi-urban landscapes, such as the Banda University of
Agriculture and Technology Campus (Singh et al. 2018) and Haiderpur
Wetland (Joshi et al. 2021). The highest species richness and diversity in
river habitats, and the lowest in wetlands, further emphasize the importance of
maintaining a mosaic of habitat types within the agroecosystem. This is
attributed to the presence of water and strategically planted patch trees along
the bounds, exerting a positive influence on bird diversity. The ecosystem’s
health is underscored by factors such as local abundance of food resources,
appropriate water levels, and a well-structured habitat (Saygili
et al. 2011). Wetland factors such as water level, size, habitat changes, and
plant species also shape the diversity and richness of birds in this
environment (Woldemariam et al. 2018).
The identification of six foraging guilds, with
omnivores being the most represented (51%), followed by insectivores (19%),
reflects the adaptability of birds to the diverse food resources available in
agroecosystems. This is consistent with studies by Mukhopadhyay & Mazumdar
(2017) who also found omnivorous and insectivorous birds to dominate in
agricultural and suburban landscapes. The prevalence of omnivores suggests that
these birds can exploit a wide range of food sources, including seeds, grains,
insects, and anthropogenic waste, which may be abundant in agricultural and
human-modified habitats. Insectivorous birds, on the other hand, play a crucial
role in natural pest control, as highlighted by Asokan
et al. (2009, 2010) and Bianchi et al. (2006), who documented the ecosystem
service value of birds in regulating insect populations in crop fields. Black
Kite Milvus migrans and House Sparrow Passer
domesticus did not group into any cluster and were
identified as outliers due to their unique foraging behaviour.
The finding of two VU species, the Sarus
Crane Antigone antigone and Lesser Adjutant Leptoptilos javanicus,
as well as one NT species, highlights the conservation value of the
agroecosystem. This finding is supported by Mukherjee et al. (2002) and Sundar & Subramanya (2010), who emphasized the
importance of rice fields and agricultural habitats for the survival of
threatened waterbirds in India. The presence of
species listed in CITES and CMS appendices further highlights the international
conservation relevance of these habitats. These findings highlight the
significance of continuous monitoring efforts and further research to
comprehensively understand and address the dynamic interactions within bird
populations in the region for formulating effective conservation strategies.
Table 1. Checklist of bird
species along with their conservation
status recorded in the study area.
|
|
Order |
Family |
Common name |
Scientific name |
Red List |
CITES |
CMS |
Feeding guild |
|
1 |
Columbiformes |
Columbidae |
Rock Pigeon |
Columba livia |
LC |
|
|
G |
|
2 |
|
Columbidae |
Laughing Dove |
Streptopelia senegalensis |
LC |
|
|
G |
|
3 |
|
Columbidae |
Spotted Dove |
Streptopelia chinensis |
LC |
|
|
G |
|
4 |
Cuculiformes |
Cuculidae |
Greater Coucal |
Centropus sinensis |
LC |
|
|
O |
|
5 |
|
Cuculidae |
Asian Koel |
Eudynamys scolopaceus |
LC |
|
|
F |
|
6 |
Gruiformes |
Rallidae |
Common Moorhen |
Gallinula chloropus |
LC |
|
|
O |
|
7 |
|
Rallidae |
White-Breasted Waterhen |
Amaurornis phoenicurus |
LC |
|
|
O |
|
8 |
|
Rallidae |
Grey-headed Swamphen |
Porphyrio poliocephalus |
LC |
|
|
O |
|
9 |
|
Gruidae |
Sarus Crane |
Antigone antigone |
VU |
II |
II |
O |
|
10 |
Charadriiformes |
Charadriidae |
Red-wattled
Lapwing |
Vanellus indicus |
LC |
|
II |
O |
|
11 |
|
Jacanidae |
Bronze-winged Jacana |
Metopidius indicus |
LC |
|
|
O |
|
12 |
|
Scolopacidae |
Common Sandpiper |
Actitis hypoleucos |
LC |
|
II |
O |
|
13 |
Ciconiiformes |
Ciconiidae |
Asian Openbill |
Anastomus oscitans |
LC |
|
|
O |
|
14 |
|
Ciconiidae |
Lesser Adjutant |
Leptotilos javanicus |
VU |
|
|
O |
|
15 |
Suliformes |
Phalacrocoracidae |
Little Cormorant |
Microcarbo niger |
LC |
|
|
O |
|
16 |
|
Phalacrocoracidae |
Indian Cormorant |
Phalacrocorax fuscicollis |
LC |
|
|
O |
|
17 |
Pelecaniformes |
Ardeidae |
Intermediate Egret |
Ardea intermedia |
LC |
|
|
O |
|
18 |
|
Ardeidae |
Little Egret |
Egretta garzetta |
LC |
|
|
O |
|
19 |
|
Ardeidae |
Eastern Cattle-Egret |
Ardea coromanda |
LC |
|
|
O |
|
20 |
|
Ardeidae |
Indian Pond-Heron |
Ardeola grayii |
LC |
|
|
O |
|
21 |
|
Threskiornithidae |
Red-naped
Ibis |
Pseudibis papillosa |
LC |
|
|
O |
|
22 |
Accipitriformes |
Accipitridae |
Black-winged Kite |
Elanus caeruleus |
LC |
II |
II |
C |
|
23 |
|
Accipitridae |
Black Kite |
Milvus migrans |
LC |
II |
II |
C |
|
24 |
Strigiformes |
Strigidae |
Spotted Owlet |
Athene brama |
LC |
II |
|
C |
|
25 |
Bucerotiformes |
Upupidae |
Eurasian Hoopoe |
Upupa epops |
LC |
|
|
O |
|
26 |
Coraciiformes |
Alcedinidae |
White-throated Kingfisher |
Halcyon smyrnensis |
LC |
|
|
O |
|
27 |
|
Alcedinidae |
Pied Kingfisher |
Ceryle rudis |
LC |
|
|
O |
|
28 |
|
Meropidae |
Asean Green Bee-eater |
Merops orientalis |
LC |
|
|
I |
|
29 |
Psittaciformes |
Psittaculidae |
Alexandrine Parakeet |
Psittacula eupatria |
NT |
II |
|
G |
|
30 |
|
Psittaculidae |
Rose-ringed Parakeet |
Psittacula krameri |
LC |
|
|
G |
|
31 |
Passeriformes |
Dicruridae |
Black Drongo |
Dicrurus macrocercus |
LC |
|
|
I |
|
32 |
|
Corvidae |
Rufous Treepie |
Dendrocitta vagabunda |
LC |
|
|
F |
|
33 |
|
Corvidae |
House Crow |
Corvus splendens |
LC |
|
|
O |
|
34 |
|
Corvidae |
Large-billed Crow |
Corvus macrorhynchos |
LC |
|
|
O |
|
35 |
|
Cisticolidae |
Ashy Prinia |
Prinia socialis |
LC |
II |
|
I |
|
36 |
|
Cisticolidae |
Zitting Cisticola |
Cisticola juncidis |
LC |
|
II |
I |
|
37 |
|
Cisticolidae |
Common Tailorbird |
Orthotomus sutorius |
LC |
|
II |
I |
|
38 |
|
Pycnonotidae |
Red-vented Bulbul |
Pycnonotus cafer |
LC |
|
|
F |
|
39 |
|
Pycnonotidae |
Red-whiskered Bulbul |
Pycnonotus jocosus |
LC |
|
|
F |
|
40 |
|
Leiothrichidae |
Jungle Babbler |
Argya striata |
LC |
|
II |
I |
|
41 |
|
Sturnidae |
Indian Pied Starling |
Gracupica contra |
LC |
|
|
O |
|
42 |
|
Sturnidae |
Brahminy Starling |
Sturnia pagodarum |
LC |
|
|
O |
|
43 |
|
Sturnidae |
Common Myna |
Acridotheres tristis |
LC |
|
|
O |
|
44 |
|
Sturnidae |
Bank Myna |
Acridotheres ginginianus |
LC |
|
|
O |
|
45 |
|
Muscicapidae |
Oriental Magpie-Robin |
Copsychus saularis |
LC |
|
II |
I |
|
46 |
|
Muscicapidae |
Brown Rock Chat |
Oenanthe fusca |
LC |
|
II |
I |
|
47 |
|
Nectariniidae |
Purple Sunbird |
Cinnyris asiaticus |
LC |
|
|
N |
|
48 |
|
Estrildidae |
Red Munia |
Amandav aamandava |
LC |
|
|
G |
|
49 |
|
Estrildidae |
Scaly-breasted Munia |
Lonchura punctulata |
LC |
|
|
G |
|
50 |
|
Passeridae |
House Sparrow |
Passer domesticus |
LC |
|
|
G |
|
51 |
|
Motacillidae |
White-browed Wagtail |
Motacilla maderaspatensis |
LC |
|
II |
I |
|
52 |
|
Motacillidae |
Paddyfield Pipit |
Anthus rufulus |
LC |
|
II |
I |
LC—Least Concern | NT—Near
Threatened | VU—Vulnerable | C—Carnivorous | F—Frugivorous | G—Granivorous |
I—Insectivorous | O—Omnivorous | N—Nectarivorous |
CITES—Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and
Flora | CMS—Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild
Animals.
Table 2. Variation of bird density
(D/ha), effective strip width (EDR), and average cluster size A(S) across
different habitats.
|
Habitat |
DS ± SE |
95% CL |
EDR ± SE |
95% CL |
A(S) ± SE |
95% CL |
|
Human habitat |
16.43 ± 1.42 |
15.94–16.98 |
30.72 ± 6.27 |
27.14–34.79 |
7.09 ± 0.79 |
6.3–7.88 |
|
River |
11.09 ± 1.31 |
10.51–11.67 |
45.19 ± 3.68 |
38.48–53.08 |
1.60 ± 0.56 |
0.81–3.17 |
|
Agricultural field |
9.68 ± 0.73 |
1.52–20.88 |
36.27 ± 1.67 |
33.07–39.77 |
3.28 ± 0.40 |
2.50–4.19 |
|
Wetland |
10.03 ± 1.64 |
8.45–11.61 |
4.81 ± 1.61 |
41.72–48.12 |
2.38 ± 0.76 |
1.27–4.47 |
|
Overall |
11.74 ± 0.73 |
11.01–12.47 |
38.01 ± 1.79 |
34.65–41.70 |
2.83 ± 2.65 |
0.18–5.48 |
Table 3. Percentage of orders and
families of birds recorded from the study area.
|
|
Order |
% |
Family |
% |
|
1 |
Columbiformes |
5.76 |
Columbidae |
5.76 |
|
2 |
Cuculiformes |
3.84 |
Cuculidae |
3.84 |
|
3 |
Gruiformes |
7.69 |
Rallidae |
5.76 |
|
4 |
Gruidae |
1.92 |
||
|
5 |
Charadriiformes |
5.76 |
Charadriidae |
1.92 |
|
6 |
Jacanidae |
1.92 |
||
|
7 |
Scolopacidae |
1.92 |
||
|
8 |
Ciconiiformes |
3.84 |
Ciconiidae |
3.84 |
|
9 |
Suliformes |
3.84 |
Phalacrocoracidae |
3.84 |
|
10 |
Pelecaniformes |
9.61 |
Ardeidae |
7.69 |
|
11 |
Threskiornithidae |
1.92 |
||
|
12 |
Accipitriformes |
3.84 |
Accipitridae |
3.84 |
|
13 |
Strigiformes |
1.92 |
Strigidae |
1.92 |
|
14 |
Bucerotiformes |
1.92 |
Upupidae |
1.92 |
|
15 |
Coraciiformes |
5.76 |
Alcedinidae |
3.84 |
|
16 |
Meropidae |
1.92 |
||
|
17 |
Psittaciformes |
3.84 |
Psittacidae |
3.84 |
|
18 |
Passeriformes |
42.3 |
Dicruridae |
1.92 |
|
19 |
Corvidae |
5.76 |
||
|
20 |
Cisticolidae |
5.76 |
||
|
21 |
Pycnonotidae |
3.84 |
||
|
22 |
Leiothrichidae |
1.92 |
||
|
23 |
Sturnidae |
7.69 |
||
|
24 |
Muscicapidae |
3.84 |
||
|
25 |
Nectariniidae |
1.92 |
||
|
26 |
Estrildidae |
3.84 |
||
|
27 |
Passeridae |
1.92 |
||
|
28 |
Motacillidae |
3.84 |
For
figures - - click here for full PDF
References
Abdar, M.R. (2014). Seasonal diversity of birds and ecosystem services in
agricultural area of Western Ghats, Maharashtra state, India. Journal of
Environmental Science, Toxicology and Food Technology 8(1): 100–105. https://doi.org/10.9790/2402-0811100105
Ahmed, K. (2010). A faunal diversity of Dabka
and Khulgarh watershed areas of Kumaon
Himalayas, Uttarakhand, India. PhD Dissertation. Department of Wildlife
Sciences, Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh, India,xix, 276p.
Ahmed, K., M. Qasim,
A.H. Malik & A.S. Shah (2023). Avifaunal diversity at Baba Ghulam Shah Badshah
University campus, pp. 208–219. In: Ilyas, O. & A. Khan (eds.). Case Studies
of Wildlife Ecology and Conservation in India, Routledge, 318 pp.
Ahmed, A., & M. Dey (2014). A
checklist of the winter bird community in different habitat types of Rosekandy Tea Estate of Assam, India. Journal of
Threatened Taxa 6(2): 5478–5484. https://doi.org/10.11609/JoTT.o3246.5478-84
Ali, S. & S.D. Ripley (1987). Compact Handbook of the Birds of India and Pakistan. Oxford University Press, New Delhi, 734 pp.
Anderson, D.R., K.P. Burnham &
G.C. White (1998). Comparison
of Akaike information criterion and consistent Akaike information criterion for
model selection and statistical inference from capture-recapture studies. Journal
of Applied Statistics 25(2): 263–282. https://doi.org/10.1080/02664769823250
Anonymous (2021a). Trading Economics, India - Agricultural Land (% Of
Land Area) – 2023 Data 2024 Forecast 1961–2021 Historical. https://tradingeconomics.com
Accessed on 9.v.2026.
Anonymous (2021b). Effective protected areas | IUCN. https://www.iucn.org.
Accessed on 20.ix.2023.
Asokan, S., A.M.S. Ali & R. Manikannan
(2009). Diet of three insectivorous birds
in Nagapattinam District, Tamil Nadu, India: a
preliminary study. Journal of Threatened Taxa 1(6): 327–330. https://doi.org/10.11609/JoTT.o2145.327-30
Asokan, S. & A.M.S. Ali (2010). Foraging behavior of selected insectivorous birds in
Cauvery Delta region of Nagapattinam District, Tamil
Nadu, India. Journal of Threatened Taxa 2(2): 690–694. https://doi.org/10.11609/JoTT.o2201.690-4
Athreya, V., M. Odden, J.D.C.
Linnell & K.U. Karanth (2010). Translocation as a tool for mitigating conflict with
leopards in human-dominated landscapes of India. Conservation Biology
25: 133–141. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2010.01599.x
Barral, M.P., J.M.R. Benayas, P. Meli & N.O. Maceira (2015). Quantifying the impacts of ecological restoration on
biodiversity and ecosystem services in agroecosystems: a global meta-analysis. Agriculture,
Ecosystems and Environment 202: 223–231. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2015.01.009
Basavarajappa, S. (2006). Avifauna of agro-ecosystems
of maidan area of Karnataka. Zoo’s Print Journal
21(4): 2217–2219. https://doi.org/10.11609/JoTT.ZPJ.1277.2217-9
Bianchi, F.J., C.J.H. Booij & T. Tscharntke (2006). Sustainable pest regulation in agricultural
landscapes: a review on landscape composition, biodiversity and natural pest
control. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 273(1595):
1715–1727. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2006.3530
Brock, M.A. & P.J. Jarman (2000).
Wetland use and conservation in the agricultural environment: managing
processes for the components. Nature Conservation 5: 258–268.
Census of India (2011). List of Villages in Nautanwa
Tehsil. Government of India. https://villageinfo.in/uttar-pradesh/mahrajganj/nautanwa.html.
Accessed 09.v.2026
Central Ground Water Board (2013).
Ground Water Brochure – Maharajganj District, Uttar Pradesh. Ministry of Water
Resources, Government of India. https://www.cgwb.gov.in. Accessed on 09.v.2026.
Chaube, R.P., A. Kumar & A. Kanaujia
(2018). A preliminary study on the birds
of a typical suburban region of Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh, India. Journal on
New Biological Reports 7(2): 81–105.
Dhindsa, M.S. & H.K. Saini (1994). Agricultural ornithology: an Indian perspective. Journal
of Biosciences 19(4): 391–402. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02703176
FAO (2025). Land statistics 2001–2023. Global, regional and
country trends. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. https://www.fao.org/statistics/highlights-archive/highlights-detail/land-statistics-2001-2023.-global--regional-and-country-trends/en
. Accessed on 09.v.2026
Grimmett, R., C. Inskipp & T. Inskipp (2011). Birds of the Indian Subcontinent. Oxford University Press, Delhi, 505 pp.
Gogoi, H., J. Purkayastha &
S. Roychoudhury (2023). Avian diversity in the paddy field ecosystem
surrounding the Assam University campus in Silchar
during the rainy season. International Journal of Experimental Research and
Review 34: 120–137. https://doi.org/10.52756/ijerr.2023.v34spl.012
Hossain, A. & G. Aditya
(2016). Avian diversity in agricultural
landscape: Records from Burdwan, West Bengal, India. Proceedings of
Zoological Society 69(1): 38–51. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12595-014-0118-3
Ikin, K., D.L. Yong & D.B. Lindenmayer
(2016). Effectiveness of woodland birds
as taxonomic surrogates in conservation planning for biodiversity on farms. Biological
Conservation 204: 411–416. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2016.11.010
Iqubal, P., P.J.K. McGowan, J.P. Carroll & A.R. Rahmani (2003). Home range size, habitat use and nesting success of
swamp francolin Francolinus gularis on agricultural land in
northern India. Bird
Conservation International 13: 127–138. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0959270903003113
Jayasimhan, C.S. & P. Padmanabhan (2019). Diversity and temporal variation of the bird
community in paddy fields of Kadhiramangalam, Tamil
Nadu, India. Journal of Threatened Taxa 11(10): 14279–14291. https://doi.org/10.11609/jott.4241.11.10.14279-14291
Joshi, K., D. Kumar, A.K. Arya
& A. Bachheti (2021). An assessment of water bird species and associated
water bird composition in the Haiderpur Wetland of
Hastinapur Wildlife Sanctuary, Uttar Pradesh, India. Asian Journal of
Conservation Biology 10(1): 141–145. https://doi.org/10.53562/ajcb.DCKB1009
Kaur, N. & H.K. Sidhu (2022). Avifaunal diversity in wheat crop: a case study of
Bathinda district of Punjab. Indian Journal of Entomology 84(3): 528–34. https://doi.org/10.55446/IJE.2021.98
Kiran, D. Singh, A. Kour, P. Dahiya, V. Delu & R.
Kumar (2022). Community composition and status
of avian diversity at Campus and Agricultural landscapes of Chaudhary Charan Singh Haryana Agricultural University, Hisar (Haryana). Journal of
Applied and Natural Science 14(4): 1130–1140. https://doi.org/10.31018/jans.v14i4.3784
Kler, T.K. & K. Manoj
(2015). Avian fauna in agricultural
habitats of Punjab State. Agricultural Research Journal 52(3):
83–90. https://doi.org/10.5958/2395-146X.2015.00043.5
Kler, T.K., M. Kumar, S. Kumar & S.K. Sidhu (2022). Avian diversity in agricultural habitats of Punjab
State. Agricultural Research Journal 59(6): 1100–110. https://doi.org/10.5958/2395-146X.2022.00153.3
Kumar, P. & S. Sahu (2020).
Composition, diversity and foraging guilds of avifauna in agricultural
landscapes in Panipat, Haryana, India. Journal of Threatened Taxa 12(1):
15140–15153. https://doi.org/10.11609/jott.5267.12.1.15140-15153
Kumar, P., M. Dobriyal,
A. Kale & A.K. Pandey (2021).
Temporal dynamics change of land use/land cover in Jhansi district of Uttar
Pradesh over past 20 years using LANDSAT TM, ETM+ and OLI sensors. Remote
Sensing Applications: Society and Environment 23: 100579. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rsase.2021.100579
Mac Nally, R., A.F. Bennett &
G. Horrocks (2000). Forecasting the impacts of habitat fragmentation:
Evaluation of species-specific predictions of the impact of habitat
fragmentation on birds in the box–ironbark forests of central Victoria,
Australia. Biological Conservation 95(1): 7–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0006-3207(00)00017-3
Malhi, C.S. (2006). Status of avifauna in agricultural habitat and other
associated sub-habitats of Punjab. Environment and Ecology 24(1):
131–143.
McAleece, N., P.J.D. Lambshead, G.L.J. Paterson & J.D.
Gage (1997). Biodiversity
professional. Beta-Version. London, The Natural History Museum and the
Scottish Association for Marine Sciences.
Mukherjee, A.K., C.K. Board &
B.M. Parasharya (2002). Breeding performance of the Indian Sarus Crane in the agricultural landscape of western India.
Biological Conservation 105: 263–269. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0006-3207(01)00186-0
Mukhopadhyay, S. & S. Mazumdar
(2017). Composition, diversity and
foraging guilds of avifauna in a suburban area of southern West Bengal, India. Ring
39: 103–120. https://doi.org/10.1515/ring-2017-0004
Narayana, B.L., V.V. Rao &
V.V. Reddy (2019). Composition
of birds in agricultural landscapes of Peddagattu and
Sherpally Area: a proposed uranium mining sites in
Nalgonda, Telangana, India. In: Proceedings of the Zoological Society 72(4):
380–400. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12595-018-0280-0
Persulessy, Y.E. & J.D. Putuhena
(2020). Bird diversity in the production
forest management unit in North Seram, Central Maluku Regency, Indonesia. Asian
Journal of Conservation Biology 9(2): 258–268.
Power, A.G. (2010). Ecosystem services and agriculture: Trade-offs and
synergies. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological
Sciences 365(1554): 2959–2971. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2010.0143
Praveen, J. & R. Jayapal (2025). Checklist of the birds of India (v9.1). http://www.indianbirds.in/india/.
Accessed on 09.v.2026
Praveen, J., R. Jayapal & A. Pittie (2016). A checklist of the birds of India. Indian Birds
11(5–6): 113–172.
Saygili, F., N. Yigit & S. Bulut (2011). The spatio-temporal distributions of waterbirds
in Lakes Aksehir, Eber, and Lake Koyceigz
in western Anatolia, Turkey—A comparative analysis. Turkish Journal of
Zoology 35: 467–480. https://doi.org/10.3906/zoo-0911-99
Sekercioglu, C.H. (2006). Increasing awareness of avian ecological function. Trends
in Ecology & Evolution 21(8): 464–471. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2006.05.007
Sekercioglu, C.H., S.R. Loarie, F.O. Brenes, P.R. Ehrlich & G.C. Daily (2007). Persistence of forest birds in the Costa Rican
agricultural countryside. Conservation Biology 21(2): 482–494. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2007.00655.x
Sekercioglu, C.H. (2012) Bird functional diversity and ecosystem services in
tropical forests, agroforests and agricultural areas. Journal of Ornithology
153(Suppl 1): 153–161. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10336-012-0869-4
Singh, K., A. Maheshwari &
S.V. Dwivedi (2018). Studies on
avian diversity of Banda University of Agriculture and Technology Campus,
Banda, Uttar Pradesh, India. International Journal of Avian and Wildlife
Biology 3(2): 177–180. https://doi.org/10.15406/ijawb.2018.03.00082
Sundar, K.S.G. (2006). Flock size, density and habitat selection of four
large waterbirds species in an agricultural landscape
in Uttar Pradesh, India. Waterbirds 29(3):
365–374. https://doi.org/10.1675/1524-4695(2006)29[365:FSDAHS]2.0.CO;2
Sundar, K.S.G. & S. Subramanya (2010). Bird use of rice fields in the Indian subcontinent. Waterbirds 33(1): 44–70. https://www.jstor.org/stable/40891066
Sundar, K.S.G. & S. Kittur
(2012). Methodological, temporal and
spatial factors affecting modeled occupancy of resident birds in the
perennially cultivated landscape of Uttar Pradesh, India. Landscape Ecology
27: 59–71. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-011-9666-3
Thomas, L., S.T. Buckland, E.A. Rexstad, J.L. Laake, S.
Strindberg, S.L. Hedley & K.P. Burnham (2010). Distance software: design and analysis of distance
sampling surveys for estimating population size. Journal of Applied
Ecology 47(1): 5–14. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2664.2009.01737.x
Velásquez-Trujillo, V., J.F. Betancurt-Grisales,
A.M. Vargas-Daza, C.E. Lara, F.A. Rivera-Páez, F.E. Fontúrbel & G.J. Castaño-Villa (2021). Bird functional diversity in agroecosystems and
secondary forests of the tropical Andes. Diversity 13(10): 493. https://doi.org/10.3390/d13100493
Weather Spark (2024). Average Weather in Nautanwa,
Uttar Pradesh, India Year Round. https://weatherspark.com/y/110766/Average-Weather-in-Nautanwa-Uttar-Pradesh-India-Year-Round.
Accessed on 09.v.2026
Wenny, D.G., T.L. DeVault, M.D. Johnson, D. Kelly, H.C. Sekercioglu,
D.F. Tomback & J.C. Whelan (2011). The need to quantify ecosystem services provided by
birds. The Auk 128: 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1525/auk.2011.10248
Woinarski, J.C.Z., C. Brock, M. Armstrong, C. Hempel, D. Cheal & K. Brennan (2000). Bird distribution in riparian vegetation in the
extensive natural landscape of Australia’s tropical savanna: a broad-scale
survey and analysis of a distributional database. Journal of Biogeography
27(4): 843–868. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2699.2000.00439.x
Woldemariam, W., T. Mekonnen, K.
Morrison & A. Aticho (2018). Assessment of wetland flora and avifauna species
diversity in Kafa Zone, southwestern Ethiopia. Journal
of Asia-Pacific Biodiversity 11(4): 494–502. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.japb.2018.08.003
Yashmita-Ulman, A. Kumar & M. Sharma (2017). Traditional homegarden
agroforestry systems: Habitat for conservation of Baya
Weaver Ploceus philippinus
(Passeriformes: Ploceidae) in Assam, India. Journal
of Threatened Taxa 9(4): 10076–10083. https://doi.org/10.11609/jott.3090.9.4.10076-10083
Yashmita-Ulman & M. Singh (2021). Bird composition, diversity and foraging guilds in
agricultural landscapes: a case study from eastern Uttar Pradesh, India. Journal
of Threatened Taxa 13(8): 19011–19028. https://doi.org/10.11609/jott.7089.13.8.19011-19028