Composition and conservation status of avian species at HastinapurWildlife Sanctuary, Uttar Pradesh, India

Mohd. ShahnawazKhan ¹, Aftab ², Zarreen Syed ³, Asghar Nawab ⁴, Orus Ilyas ⁵ & AffifullahKhan ⁶

^1,4 Freshwater & Wetlands Programme, World Wide Fund for Nature-India, 172 B Lodi Estate, New Delhi 110003, India

^2,3,5,6 Department of Wildlife Sciences, Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh, Uttar Pradesh 202002, India

¹ shahnawaz.khan.aligarh@gmail.com (corresponding author), ² aftab.a.usmani@gmail.com, ³ zarreen.syed@gmail.com,⁴ anawab@wwfindia.net, ⁵ orus16@gmail.com, ⁶ afifkhan@rediffmail.com

doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.11609/JoTT.o3419.4714-21 | ZooBank:urn:lsid:zoobank.org:pub:E8EC33F4-8563-4807-BBCE-FD52559B1965

Editor: Rajiv Kalsi, M.L.N. College, Haryana, India. Date of publication: 26 August 2013 (online & print)

Manuscript details: Ms # o3419 | Received 28 November 2012 | Final received 02 April 2013 | Finally accepted 18 July 2013

Citation: Khan, M.S., Aftab, Z. Syed, A. Nawab, O. Ilyas & A. Khan (2013). Composition and conservation status of avian species at Hastinapur Wildlife Sanctuary, Uttar Pradesh, India. Journal of Threatened Taxa 5(12): 4714–4721; http://dx.doi.org/10.11609/JoTT.o3419.4714-21

Copyright: © Khan et al. 2013. Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 UnportedLicense. JoTT allows unrestricted use of this article in any medium, reproduction and distribution by providing adequate credit to the authors and the source of publication.

Funding: The study was funded by WWF India.

Competing Interest: Authors declare no competing interest.

Acknowledgements: We thank the Department of Wildlife Sciences, Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh for providing the logistic support and facilities necessary for the recent study. First and second author sincerely acknowledge WWF India for the opportunity to work in HastinapurWildlife Sanctuary, Uttar Pradesh, India. We are thankful to Mr. R. Singh (SG & CEO, WWF India) and Dr. P. Gautam(Director-Branches & Special Projects, WWF India) for constant encouragement and support. The help rendered by staff of WWF India’s Hastinapur field office is highly appreciated. We are grateful to Professor H.S.A. Yahya (AMU, Aligarh) for reviewing the earlier versions of this text.

For figures, tables -- click here

Being conspicuous elements of the ecosystem, birds are the most suitable biological indicators for monitoring the health of an ecosystem (Gregory et al. 2003). In contrast to chemical or radiological monitoring of environmental health, a simple bird survey (Biological monitoring) can tell, simply and directly, the condition of living systems in a landscape of interest. Such knowledge is more direct and more integrative than information merely about a site’s contamination status (U.S. EPA. 2002). To assess the distribution and conservation status, occasional and random point count sampling for birds was conducted during the summer of 2010 (March to May) at HastinapurWildlife Sanctuary, Uttar Pradesh, India. The observations were made simultaneously with Otter and Gharial surveys under the sponsorship of WWF -India. Findings suggested that the mosaic of habitats of the Hastinapur Wildlife Sanctuary holds a good variety of avifauna. In addition to the earlier checklist of 186 avian species (Riyaz2000; Tanveer 2000; Islam & Rahmani2004), anecdotal references on the occurrence of White-tailed Bushchat Saxicola leucura, Finn’s Baya Ploceus benghalensis, Tawny Eagle Aquila rapax and Crested Honey Buzzard Pernis ptilorhynchuswere reported from the area (Rai 1982, 1983). This study appended the earlier records with 15 new bird species for the area.

Study Area: Hastinapur Wildlife Sanctuary forms 2073km² area of the upper Gangetic plain, the flat alluvial region formed by the deposition of silt by Ganga River between 28⁰46’–29⁰35’N and 77⁰30’–78⁰30’E (Fig. 1). According to Rodgers & Panwar’s (1988) biogeographic classification, Hastinapur Wildlife Sanctuary falls in the upper Gangetic plain (7A) and represents the Gangeticgrassland biome. The alluvial region comprises the Khola (elevated alluvial deposition, parallel to the western bank of river Ganga), Khadar(low lying sandy bed of the ever shifting river Ganga on either bank) and Boodhi Ganga (belt of swamps and marshes between Khola and Khadar, which are fed by river Ganga), a more or less permanent feature of ravines. But now marshy swamps have been drained or are in the process like Boodhi Ganga (Aftab 2010; Khan 2010). The vegetation occupied only 17% of the Sanctuary area which comprised tall wet grasslands (35.3%), short wet grasslands (23.5%), dry scrub grasslands (29.4%) and plantations (11.8%) (Khan et al. 2003). The remaining 83% of the Sanctuary area was under cultivation and a township which resulted in considerable human disturbance (Khan et al. 2003; Agarwal2009; Khan 2010).

Materials and Methods: The study was conducted from March to May 2010 at Hastinapur Wildlife Sanctuary. Equal numbers of vantage points were randomly chosen with at least 250m separation in different habitats of the Sanctuary. At each point on the terrestrial habitat, bird species were recorded within a close circle of 30m radius for a time duration of 20 minutes using binoculars (7x35) as an optical support while for river and wetlands open radius circular plots were laid. Authentic field guides on Indian birds were used for the purpose of identification (Ali & Ripley 1987; Grimmett et al. 1999; Kazmierczak 2000). Relative abundance was assessed in terms of the following four categories (i) Abundant (species observed on 75–100 % of visits), Common (species observed on 50–74 % of visits), Uncommon (species observed on 25–49 % of visits) and Rare (species observed at < 24% of visits). The Sanctuary was divided into four different habitat types namely Khola, Khadar, river Ganga and Boodhi Ganga. On the basis of usage of available habitats, species distribution was categorized into four types. Species using only one habitat type were categorized into clumped with only 25% of available habitat usage, species found in two habitat types were labeled as clumped distribution with 50% of available habitat usage, similarly species with a usage of three habitat types were categorized into random distribution with 75% of available habitat use while the species using all the four available habitats were categorized into random distribution with 100% usage of available habitats. The nomenclature of birds follows Manakadan & Pittie (2004).

Results and Discussion: A total of 117 avian species belonging to 44 families were recorded during the course of the study. Among the recorded avian species, 111 species were Least Concern, three and two species were Near Threatened and Vulnerable categories, respectively, while one species was from Endangered category as per the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species (Table 1). Fifteen species namely Bluethroat Luscinia svecica, Indian Chat Cercomela fusca, Comb Duck Sarkidiornis melanotos, Common Pochard Aythya ferina, Cotton Teal Nettapus coromandelianus, Curlew Sandpiper Calidris ferruginea, Demoiselle Crane Grus virgo, Gadwall Anas strepera, Gull Billed Tern Gelochelidon nilotica, Indian Shag Phalacrocorax fuscicollis, Mallard Anas platyrhynchos, Pallas’s Gull Larus ichthyaetus, Pied Avocet Recurvirostra avosetta, Small Pratincole Glareola lacteal and White-breasted Waterhen Amaurornis phoenicurus were reported for the first time from the area. Out of 117 recorded species, 25 were abundant and 57 species were common while 26 species of birds were assessed uncommon and the remaining nine species were rare (Table 1). The maximum bird species were recorded from river Ganga (Fig. 2, 29.79%) followed by Boodhi Ganga (28.51%) while 26.81% of bird species were recorded from Khadar and the least percentage of bird species was recorded from Khola(14.89%). A highly clumped distribution was recorded for 43 species, i.e., with only 25% usage of the available habitats, 38 bird species showed aggregated distribution with 50% available habitat usage, and 75% usage of available habitats was recorded in the case of 28 bird species which was considered as random distribution, while 8 species were found widely dispersed with 100% usage of available habitats (Fig. 3). Although Khola provides refuge to the wild fauna of the Sanctuary, the results indicated that due to high pressure from agriculture and other human disturbances, it is avoided by birds. Until the 1950s, Kholawas a continuous belt of land 36.4km (Murti & Singh 1961) in length but due to disturbances the area has become fragmented, being converted into a series of small hillocks of sandy loam, with heights ranging from 20–40 m (Khan 2010). Despite being a protected area, locals in the vicinity of the Sanctuary are heavily dependent on the forest produce (Khan et. al. 2003). The Sanctuary harbors the unique riparian habitat along River Ganga, the national river of India and it also has historical values. There is an urgent need to prevent encroachment of the wildlife assets of the Sanctuary, and awareness and education programmes are also recommended.

References

Aftab (2010). Some Ecological Studies of Gharial in HastinapurWildlife Sanctuary, Uttar Pradesh, India. MSc Dissertation. Department of Wildlife Sciences, Aligarh Muslim University. Aligarh, India, 40pp.

Agarwal, S. (2009). Angiosperm species diversity and ecological assessment of HastinapurWildlife Sanctuary, India. PhD Thesis. Department of Botany, Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh, India, 357pp.

Ali, S. & S.D. Ripley (1987). Compact Handbook of the Birds of India and Pakistan. Oxford University Press, New Delhi, 734pp.

Gregory, R.D., D. Noble, R. Field, J. Marchant, M. Raven & D.W. Gibbons (2003). Using birds as indicators of biodiversity. Ornis Hungarica (12/13): 11–24.

Grimmett, R., C. Inskipp, & T. Inskipp (1999). Pocket Guide to the Birds of the Indian Subcontinent. Oxford University Press, New Delhi, 384pp.

Islam. M.Z. & A.R. Rahmani (2004). Important Bird Areas in India: Priority Sites for Conservation. Indian Bird Conservation Network, BNHS and Birdlife International (UK), xviii+1133pp.

IUCN (2011). IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2011.2. <http://www.iucnredlist.org>. Downloaded on 8 February 2012.

Kazmierczak, K. (2000). A Field Guide to the Birds of India, Sri Lanka, Pakistan, Nepal, Bhutan, Bangladesh and Maldives. Om Book Service, New Delhi, 352pp.

Khan, J.A., A. Khan & A.A. Khan (2003). Report on structure and composition of barasingha habitat in HastinapurWildlife Sanctuary. Wildlife Society of India, Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh, 14: 5–7pp.

Khan, M.S. (2010). Conservation status and habitat use pattern of Otters in Hastinapur Wildlife Sanctuary, Uttar Pradesh, India. MSc Dissertation. Department of Wildlife Sciences, Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh, India, 47pp.

Manakadan, R. & A. Pittie (2003). Standardised common and scientific names of the birds of the Indian Subcontinent. Newsletter for Birdwatchers 42(3): i-viii+1–36.

Murti, Y.S & V. Singh (1961). Flora of Hastinapur. Agra University Journal of Research (Sciences) 10(2): 193–242.

Rai, Y.M. (1982). On the occurrence of the Yellow-bellied Wren-Warbler (Prinia flaviventris flaviventris), Striated Marsh Warbler (Megalurus palustris) and White-tailed Bush Chat (Saxicola leucura) at Hastinapur, near Meerut. Journal of Bombay Natural History Society 79: 416.

Rai, Y.M. (1983). Hastinapurbirds: Finn’s Baya; Tawny Eagle; Crested Honey-Buzzard. Newsletter for Birdwatchers 23(7–8): 14–15.

Riyaz, A. (2000). Studies on bird community structure in Hastinapur Wildlife Sanctuary, UP., India - Using line transect method. MSc Dissertation. Department of Wildlife Sciences, Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh, India, 30pp.

Rodgers, W.A. & H.S. Panwar. (1988). Planning wildlife protected area network in India. vol. (2) Project FO: IND/82/003. FAO, Dehra Dun, 267pp.

Tanveer, A. (2000). Studies on bird community structure in Hastinapur Wildlife Sanctuary, Uttar Pradesh, India - Using point count method. MSc Dissertation. Department of Wildlife Sciences, Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh, India, 43pp.

U.S. EPA. (2002). Methods for Evaluating Wetland Condition: Biological Assessment Methods for Birds. Office of Water, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. EPA-822-R-02-023pp.