Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org
| 26 March 2018 | 10(3): 11450–11453
A BabblerŐs tale: assessing the
distribution of Turdoides striata (Dumont, 1823) (Aves: Passeriformes: Leiothrichidae) in India
Nishikant Gupta 1 & Gautam Talukdar 2
1 International
Centre for Integrated Mountain Development (ICIMOD), Khumaltar,
Lalitpur, G.P.O. Box 3226, Kathmandu, Nepal
2 Wildlife Institute of India, Chandrabani,
Dehradun, Uttarakhand 248001, India
1 nishikantgupta@live.in
(corresponding author), 2 gautam@wii.gov.in
Abstract:
The Jungle Babbler Turdoides striata is an agriculturally important, non-endemic bird
found throughout India, however, very little information is available regarding
this less known/less studied speciesŐ current distribution and population
size. The IUCN Red List of
Threatened Species has evaluated the species as ÔLeast ConcernŐ, however,
increasing anthropogenic stressors adversely impact the speciesŐ natural
habitat; and the changing climatic variables could affect its geographical
range, population and ecology. An
online survey was conducted during 2014–2015 (targeting 232
ornithological forums comprising of over 4,00,000 members) to obtain
information on the speciesŐ location, and number of individuals in each social
group in India. The reported sites
were verified during 2016–2017 by visiting the individual locations. A total of 3,030 individual birds
forming 400 social groups were recorded from 24 states and union territories of
India. This novel study utilized
public participation as an important data collection tool for the species,
which has a reportedly large distribution range. Importantly, the findings of this study
contribute to the existing baseline information on the non-endemic bird species
of India.
Keywords: Birds,
endemic species, Jungle Babbler, public participation, seven sisters.
doi: http://doi.org/10.11609/jott.3773.10.3.11450-11453
Editor: P.O. Nameer,
Kerala Agricultural University, Thrissur,
India. Date of publication: 26 March 2018 (online & print)
Manuscript details: Ms # 3773 | Received 04 September 2017
| Final received 30 January 2018 | Finally accepted 15 March 2018
Citation: Gupta, N. & G. Talukdar (2018). A BabblerŐs tale: assessing the distribution of Turdoides striata (Dumont,
1823) (Aves: Passeriformes: Leiothrichidae) in India. Journal of Threatened Taxa 10(3): 11450–11453; http://doi.org/10.11609/jott.3773.10.3.11450-11453
Copyright: © Gupta & Talukdar
2018. Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. 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: None.
Competing interests: The authors
declare no competing interests.
Acknowledgements: The authors
would like to thank respondents from all over India who voluntarily
participated in this survey, and Mrs. Arya Uday Gore and Ms. Bela Arora
for their assistance. The authors are also grateful to Dr.
Sutirth Dey, Indian Institute
of Science Education and Research (IISER), Pune, India for his generous
guidance and valuable comments to the manuscript.
Species loss to population growth, increasing urbanization (Laurance 2010), and climate
change is a global phenomenon, and lesser known/lesser
studied species for whom field data is minimal are under the gravest
threat (Lepczyk
2005). This is because a majority of conservation strategies tend to focus on
larger, charismatic species (Gupta et
al. 2014), and convincing policy makers to implement approaches for such species
often requires data collected over longer periods over large geographical areas
(Mccaffrey
2005; Tulloch et al. 2013). Obtaining such data is further hindered due to
conservation initiatives being over-stretched, and shortage of funds from
concerned organizations. Public
participation can be utilized as a supplementary tool in such cases to document
species-relevant information (Mccaffrey 2005; Bonney et al.
2009; Jiguet et al. 2012).
Public participation in data collection has the potential to assist in
obtaining scientific knowledge (Bonney et al. 2009) by broadening the geographical
limit of the research (Cohn 2008), and
collecting previously difficult to obtain data (Dickinson et al. 2012). It can also provide a platform for the
public to participate in an educational initiative (Brossard et al. 2005), and develop a scientific and
social connection with the species (Mccaffrey 2005; Dickinson et al. 2012); examples
include the Breeding Bird Survey (BBS), the Christmas Bird Count (CBC), the
Project Feeder Watch (PFW) (Mccaffrey 2005; Silvertown 2009), the Common
Bird Monitoring of India (CBMI), and MigrantWatch
started by NCBS in 2007 to collect data on seasonal birds visiting India. The collected data, however, has the
potential for sampling bias, observer variability, and detection probability (Lepczyk 2005; Mccaffrey 2005; Dickinson et al. 2012), and could
require ground validation (Bonter & Cooper 2012; Jiguet
et al. 2012).
The Jungle Babbler Turdoides striata (Dumont, 1823) (Order: Passeriformes; Family: Leiothrichidae) is a non-migratory, insectivorous bird
found in India (BirdLife International 2016) (Image
1). They are co-operative breeders
with a breeding female, a dominant male breeder, and
non-breeding helpers (Gaston 1977; Bharucha & Padate 2010; Bhavna & Geeta 2010). There are five subspecies of Turdoides striata in
India—striata, sindiana, somervillei, malabarica, and orientalis (Collar & Robson 2018). The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species
has categorized the Jungle Babbler as Least Concern with a stable population
trend (BirdLife International 2016). Jungle Babblers have been reported as
being valuable for local livelihood in the semi-arid tropical and subtropical
regions of India, as they feed on pests which damage
important protein crops (Bharucha & Padate 2010).
The aim of this study was to obtain information on the current
distribution of Jungle Babblers in India through public participation, and
contribute to the baseline information.
A web-based survey was conducted between 2014 and 2015 to obtain data on
the distribution of Jungle Babblers in India (Oppermann 1995; Lazar & Preece 1999; Andrews et al. 2003). The survey consisted of questions
relating to—the speciesŐ location, group size, (i.e., total number of
birds present in each sighted group), and existing conservation concerns. Over 4,00,000 professional/amateur
ornithologists were approached through 232 online forums to reduce
identification bias (see Lepczyk 2005). The
survey was updated every week to maintain interest, and no changes were made to
the questions during the survey period (see
Zhang 2000). Prior to data collection,
a pilot test was conducted among randomly selected respondents (n=50) to
highlight issues with the surveyŐs completion (see Andrews et al. 2003).
Of the documented bird sightings, 85% of the locations were visited to
validate the presence of the Jungle Babbler (during 2016–2017). The remaining 15% of the sightings were
reported ł5 times from similar locations by different observers, hence, not
validated.
A total of 3,030 birds forming 400 social groups were documented from 24
states/union territories of India (Table 1). There were no observations recorded from
12 states/union territories, (i.e., Arunachal Pradesh, Jharkhand, Manipur,
Meghalaya, Mizoram, Nagaland, Sikkim, Tripura, Andaman & Nicobar Islands,
Dadra & Nagar Haveli, Daman & Diu, and Lakshadweep). The modal value for group size (i.e.,
number of individual birds in a group) was calculated from the documented
social groups (n=400): 16% (n=64) of the social groups consisted of six
individuals; followed by 14% (n=55) with seven individuals (Fig. 1).
Importantly, respondents (n=54) additionally reported concerns along
with their speciesŐ sightings: the survival of an individual bird was dependent
on a large and healthy social group as it provided protection for individuals
and nests from predators and from competitors during foraging; and
anthropogenic activities had greatly reduced the natural habitats of the
species, (i.e., destruction of tall trees used for perching and building nests,
and removal of shrubs and hedges which provide feeding grounds).
The public participation survey provided a cost-effective strategy for
this study, and assisted in documenting valuable information regarding the
current distribution of Jungle Babblers in India.
Informal discussions with local community members during the site
verification in 2016 and 2017 (N=232; males=210, females=22; age group=18–76
years) revealed that the initiative had helped to increase awareness about the
species.
There was no Jungle Babbler sightings reported from 12 states/union
territories (Table 1). Although the
survey was promoted widely to reduce sampling bias (Gupta et al. 2016), it is possible that either these
areas were not sufficiently reached for responses, or there is potentially a
scarce distribution of the species here.
The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species mentions that the Jungle Babbler
has an extremely large range (BirdLife International 2016), and our findings make similar
observations. The speciesŐ
population size has not been quantified till date (BirdLife International 2016) therefore,
our data attempts to add to the baseline information regarding the number of
individuals at observed locations in India; however, we acknowledge that there
is a need to consider factors such as mortality due to predation/illness, and
intra- and inter-social complexities before arriving at such a conclusion.
Jungle Babblers have been reported as being important for agro-ecosystem
practices in India as they feed predominantly on the insects which infest
important agricultural crops (Bharucha & Padate 2010) hence,
assist in supporting the livelihood of local communities. The existing and increasing
anthropogenic stressors could complement the projected change in climate and
have a detrimental synergistic impact on the natural habitat of the
species—thick canopy cover and sparse or thick ground vegetation in dry
deciduous woodlands and moist evergreen forests. It is vital that ongoing
and future studies identify the speciesŐ Ôabundance hotspotsŐ, and promote the
implementation of targeted strategies to protect such areas through local
community involvement. Here, species distribution modelling can convey vital
information about the speciesŐ
real-world distribution between the realized and fundamental ecological niche
(Morin & Thuiller 2009).
Table
1. Total number of individual Jungle Babblers (n=3,030) and social groups
(n=400) observed in the various States and Union Territories (n=24) of India (*
= no observations; currently under investigation)
State
and union territory |
Total
no. of social groups observed |
Total
no. of individuals recorded |
State
and Union Territory |
Total
no. of social groups observed |
Total
no. of individuals recorded |
Andhra
Pradesh |
4 |
25 |
Nagaland |
* |
* |
Arunachal
Pradesh |
* |
* |
Odisha |
29 |
339 |
Assam |
15 |
75 |
Punjab |
23 |
198 |
Bihar |
3 |
33 |
Rajasthan |
24 |
130 |
Chhattisgarh |
2 |
14 |
Sikkim |
* |
* |
Goa |
15 |
145 |
Tamil Nadu |
19 |
93 |
Gujarat |
1 |
5 |
Telangana |
1 |
7 |
Haryana |
4 |
39 |
Tripura |
* |
* |
Himachal
Pradesh |
4 |
31 |
Uttar
Pradesh |
25 |
199 |
Jammu &
Kashmir |
2 |
9 |
Uttarakhand |
22 |
207 |
Jharkhand |
* |
* |
West Bengal |
26 |
224 |
Karnataka |
27 |
177 |
Andaman and
Nicobar Islands |
* |
* |
Kerala |
32 |
179 |
Chandigarh |
3 |
37 |
Madhya
Pradesh |
5 |
52 |
Dadra and
Nagar Haveli |
* |
* |
Maharashtra |
95 |
653 |
Daman and
Diu |
* |
* |
Manipur |
* |
* |
Lakshadweep |
* |
* |
Meghalaya |
* |
* |
New Delhi |
18 |
144 |
Mizoram |
* |
* |
Puducherry |
1 |
15 |
References
Andrews, D., B. Nonnecke & J. Preece (2003).
Electronic survey methodology: A case study in reaching hard to involve
Internet Users. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction 16: 185–210.
Bharucha, B. & G.S. Padate (2010). Assessment of beneficial role of an
insectivorous bird, Jungle Babbler (Turdoides striatus) predation, on Helicoverpa
armigera infesting Pigeon Pea (Cajanus cajan)
crop. Acta Agronomica 59: 228–235.
Bhavna, B. & P. Geeta (2010).
Histological and histomorphometric
study of gametogenesis in breeders and helpers of sub-tropical, co-operative
breeder Jungle Babbler, Turdoides striatus. Journal of Cell and Animal
Biology 4: 81–90.
BirdLife International (2016). Turdoides striata. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2016: e.T103871402A94493697. Downloaded on 24 March 2017; http://doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2016-3.RLTS.T103871402A94493697.en
Bonney, R., C.B. Cooper, J. Dickinson, S. Kelling,
T. Phillips, K.V. Rosenberg & J. Shirk (2009). Citizen Science: a developing tool for expanding science
knowledge and scientific literacy. BioScience 59: 977–984.
Bonter, D.N. & C.B. Cooper (2012). Data
validation in citizen science: a case study from Project FeederWatch.
Frontiers
in Ecology and the Environment
10: 305–307.
Brossard, D., B. Lewenstein & R. Bonney (2005).
Scientific knowledge and attitude change: the impact of a citizen science
project. International
Journal of Science Education
27: 1099–1121.
Cohn, J.P. (2008). Citizen
Science: Can Volunteers Do Real Research? BioScience 58: 192.
Collar, N. & C. Robson (2018). Jungle Babbler (Turdoides striata).
In: del Hoyo, J., A. Elliott, J. Sargatal,
D.A. Christie & E. de Juana (eds.). Handbook of the Birds of the World Alive. Lynx Edicions, Barcelona. (retrieved from https://www.hbw.com/node/59556 on 30 January
2018).
Dickinson J.L., J. Shirk, D. Bonter, R. Bonney, R.L. Crain, J. Martin, T. Phillips & K. Purcell
(2012). The current
state of citizen science as a tool for ecological research and public
engagement. Frontiers in Ecology and the
Environment 10:
291–297.
Gaston, A.J. (1977). Social behaviour within groups
of Jungle Babblers (Turdoides Striatus). Animal Behaviour 25:828–848.
Gupta, N., R. Raghavan, K. Sivakumar & V.B. Mathur
(2014). Freshwater Fish Safe Zones
(FFSZs): a prospective conservation strategy for river ecosystems in India. Current Science 107: 949–950.
Gupta, N., S.D. Bower, S.J. Cooke, A.J. Danylchuk
& R. Raghavan (2016). Practices and attitudes of Indian catch-and-release
anglers: identifying opportunities for advancing the management of recreational
fisheries. Journal of Threatened
Taxa 8(4): 8659–8665; http://doi.org/10.11609/jott.2410.8.4.8659-8665
Jiguet, F., V. Devictor, R. Julliard & D. Couvet (2012). French
citizens monitoring ordinary birds provide tools for conservation and
ecological sciences. Acta Oecologica 44: 58–66.
Laurance, W.F. (2010). Habitat
destruction: death by a thousand cuts, pp. 73–87. In: Sodhi,
N.S. & P.R. Ehrlich (eds.). Conservation Biology for All. Oxford University Press, 360pp.
Lazar, J. & J. Preece
(1999). Designing and implementing web-based surveys. Journal of Computer
Information Systems 39: 63–67.
Lepczyk, C.A. (2005). Integrating
published data and citizen science to describe bird diversity across a
landscape. Journal of Applied Ecology
42: 672–677.
Mccaffrey, R.E. (2005). Using
Citizen Science in Urban Bird Studies. Urban Habitats 3: 70–86.
Morin, X. & W. Thuiller
(2009). Comparing niche-
and process-based models to reduce prediction uncertainty in species range
shifts under climate change. Ecology
90: 1301–1313.
Oppermann, M. (1995). E-mail
surveys: potentials and pitfalls. Marketing research
7: 28.
Silvertown, J. (2009). A new dawn for citizen science. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 24: 467–471.
Tulloch, A.I.T., H.P. Possingham, L.N.
Joseph, J. Szabo & T.G. Martin (2013). Realising the full potential of citizen science monitoring
programs. Biological
Conservation 165:
128–138.
Zhang, Y. (2000). Using
the internet for survey research: A case study. Journal of the American
Society for Information Science
51: 57–68.