Journal of Threatened Taxa |
www.threatenedtaxa.org | 26 November 2021 | 13(13): 19964–19975
ISSN 0974-7907 (Online) | ISSN 0974-7893
(Print)
https://doi.org/10.11609/jott.6257.13.13.19964-19975
#6257| Received 03 June 2020 | Final received
10 October 2021 | Finally accepted 23 October 2021
A geographical assessment of Chariganga and Arpara Beel (wetlands) of Nadia, West Bengal as a habitat of
wetland birds
Mehedi Hasan Mandal 1,
Arindam Roy 2 & Giyasuddin
Siddique 3
1 Department of Geography,
Krishnagar Govt. College, Krishnagar, Nadia, West Bengal 741101, India.
2,3 Department of Geography, The
University of Burdwan, Burdwan, West Bengal 713104, India.
1 hasanmhm86@gmail.com
(corresponding author), 2 a.roy.sc@gmail.com, 3 gsbu2008@gmail.com
Editor: H. Byju, Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu, India. Date
of publication: 26 November 2021 (online & print)
Citation: Mandal, M.H., A. Roy & G.
Siddique (2021). A geographical assessment of Chariganga and Arpara Beel (wetlands) of Nadia, West Bengal as a habitat of
wetland birds. Journal of
Threatened Taxa 13(13): 19964–19975. https://doi.org/10.11609/jott.6257.13.13.19964-19975
Copyright: © Mandal et al. 2021. 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: None.
Competing interests: The authors
declare no competing interests.
Author details: Mehedi Hasan Mandal, Assistant
Professor, completed his M.Phil. from the University of Burdwan in 2017 on the
dynamism of the oxbow lakes of Bhagirathi River. At present, he is engaged in
assessing and enumerating the indigenous avian diversity and their ecological
importance of the floodplain wetlands of Lower Ganges Basin, which has far been
neglected by the locals due to ignorance. Arindam Roy is presently working as a
Senior Research Scholar in the Department of Geography, the University of
Burdwan. He has completed M.Sc. from the University of Calcutta in 2014 with
certain expertise in environmental geography. Professor Giyasuddin
Siddique has been working in the Department of Geography, the University of
Burdwan, since 1999. He is keenly interested in field-based research on
forests, ecology and many other contemporary environmental issues.
Author contributions: MHM, AR, and GS has collectively
designed the study and collected the data/information through field
investigation in different periods. MHM analyze the
data and wrote the paper. AR and GS have also incorporated their inputs to
improve the quality of the article. All authors read and approved the final
manuscript.
Acknowledgements: The authors
convey their heartfelt gratitude to the local villagers of the area, who
has extended their sincere co-operation and help during the survey period.
Abstract: The present study attempts to
assess the impact of human intervention on the population, distribution, and
habitat perspectives of the water birds found in and around Chariganga
and Arpara ‘Beel’ wetlands,
leftover channels of the River Bhagirathi. The point count method was adopted
during field surveys conducted from April 2019 to March 2020. These wetlands
are the natural habitats for 37 species of wetland birds belonging to 18
families and 11 orders, of which 26 species are residents, three are summer migrants,
and eight are winter immigrants. The wetlands also harbour 10 bird species
whose population is globally declining over the last few decades. Relative
Diversity index unveils that among waterfowls Ardeidae
is the dominant family. Species richness reaches its peak in winter, and is
least during the monsoon. Empirical observation documented one Vulnerable
(Greater Adjutant) and one Near Threatened (Black-Headed Ibis) species residing
on the banks and adjoining paddy fields. Indiscriminate extraction of wetland
products by local people, along with agricultural expansion towards the
waterfront of the wetlands, has deteriorated the health of those wetlands and
threatened the existence of waterbirds, especially
shorebirds. Populations of 22 species living in water edge areas has changed
conspicuously owing to cultural and economic activities of neighboring
human groups. We suggest improving the ecological balance of the wetlands and
restraining further degradation through proper management to preserve avian diversity.
Keywords: Arpara
Beel, Avian diversity, Chariganga,
relative diversity index, species richness, water birds.
INTRODUCTION
Natural wetlands benefit nearby
human communities and serve natural environments in various ways. Floodplain
wetlands are among the most productive and species-rich lacustrine ecosystems
(Kingsford et al. 2016). As an ecotone located between terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems, wetlands provide enriched
habitat for numerous unique, rare, and threatened species of birds, mammals,
fish, amphibians, insects, and plants (Stella et al. 2011; Garg 2015).
Therefore, they are often judiciously considered as ‘Ecological Hotspots’ (Ward
& Stanford 1995) or ‘Biological Supermarkets’ (Chen & Zhang 2001; Chen
& Lu 2003). Among the sheltered species, water birds possess an important
place because of their crucial ecological roles and very useful ecosystem
services to the human communities (Bibi & Ali 2013).
The bird species directly or indirectly dependent upon
the permanent or semi-permanent water bodies, either sweet or saline, for
feeding, breeding and nesting may be grouped as water birds (Kumar & Gupta
2013). As a natural ally of wetland ecosystems, water birds help sustains the
ecological balance of the habitats by performing various key functions (Mistry
et al. 2008; Slabbekoorm & Ripmeester
2008). They occupy multiple trophic levels of grazing and aquatic food chain
and maintain the diversity of other organisms with commensalism (Sharma &
Saini 2014). They also help in pest control, propagule dispersal, and nutrient
cycling, retarding potential disease outbreaks in and around the wetlands
(Green & Elmberg 2014). Waterbirds
have been one of the chief sources of feathers, meat and eggs (Krcmar et al. 2010), and they also contribute to cultural
or religious values in different parts of the world (Kear 1990).
The habitat preference of birds depends upon various
factors, including depth and quality of water, availability of food, nature of
vegetation for shelter, degree of human intervention, and the presence of
predators and inter-species competitors (Stewart 2001). Owing to their high
mobility, birds react quickly to changes in habitat quality (Puri & Virani 2016), thus they are considered to be
useful bio-indicators of ecosystem integrity, quality, health and productivity
(Kumar & Gupta 2013; Mazumdar 2017). Recent worldwide loss and degradation
of wetlands have conspicuously affected water birds through gradual shrinkage
in the area and quality of their habitats.
India hosts diverse and unique waterbird
species because of its diversity in topography and climate (Prasad et al.
2002). Several studies (Khan 2010; Rajashekara & Venkatesha 2010; Kumar et al. 2016; Kar & Debata 2018) have searched out in-depth accounts of avian
species (especially winter migrants) of different wetlands of the country and
also endeavored to trace the impact of human
intervention on their abundance, density, distribution, and composition. The
floodplain wetlands aligned on both sides of river Bhagirathi over the riparian
tract of the lower Gangetic plain of West Bengal are a biologically prolific
and rich repository of biological diversity (Mukherjee 2008). Various
ornithological works have been carried out in different water bodies
interspersed over the southern portion of the Bengal delta. The ecological
diversity of two oxbow lakes (floodplain wetlands), located at the southeastern part of the Ganges delta has been
comprehensively studied by Khan (2002), while the diversity of waterfowl at SantragachiJheel has been studied by Mazumdar et al.
(2005). Further, Mazumdar et al. (2007) also assessed and enumerated the
composition and diversity of migratory waterbirds in
six different wetlands, namely, Nalban Bheri, Santragachi Jheel, Saheb Badh, Bakreshwar Barrage, Tilpara
Barrage, and wetlands inside Ballavpur Wildlife
Sanctuary of southern West Bengal. On the other hand, Mukhopadhyay &
Mazumdar (2019) nicely presented the habitat-wise distribution of birds species
in and around the lower Gangetic delta.
Despite facing immense anthropogenic pressures, these
wetlands host a wide variety of ‘wetland birds’ species, both resident and
migratory, throughout the year (Mazumdar & Saha
2016). There is a lack of complete accounts of the biological resources of
those wetlands, except for Purbashali Lake (Chupi Beel) on the right bank of
the river. As a wintering site for migratory birds, Chupi
has drawn attention from scholars, whereas other wetlands, including the Arpara Beel and Chariganga, have failed to do so. The composition,
distribution, diversity, abundance and threats of the water birds at Purbasthai Oxbow Lake have been extensively evaluated by
various studies (Ganesan & Khan 2008; Chowdhury 2015; Ghosh 2016; Mandal
2017; Debnath et al. 2018; Mandal & Siddique 2018; Mandal et al. 2018). The
ecological and economic significance of Arpara Beel and Chariganga wetlands is
thus yet to be evaluated properly. This study aims to prepare a comprehensive
checklist of the water birds found in and around these wetlands, and to assess
bird abundance and the effects of human interventions in their habitat.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
Study area
Arpara Beel and Chariganga, two hook-shaped floodplain wetlands at the left
bank of the river Bhagirathi in the moribund part of the Ganga Delta (Bagchi 1944) have been selected as the area under study.
Given the administrative location, they are situated in the western part of Nakashipara Block of Nadia District, West Bengal (Figure
1). Given that geomorphological specificity, these wetlands are palaeochannels of river Bhagirathi and have been originated
through dynamicity of lateral channel shifting with the simultaneous
erosion-accretion process. Though direct connectivity with the Bhagirathi River
keeps the Chariganga wetland perennial, its water
cover area gets receded at dry seasons. The Arpara Beel, on the other hand, is semi-permanent since most of it
dries up during summer. Delinked from the prime course of the river, this
abandoned channel normally receives no inflow. Both wetlands achieve their full
storage capacity only in the monsoon period, when they receive a massive influx
of river water. Such spatiotemporal alterations have obvious impacts upon water
birds, as well as on the availability and utility of ecosystem services offered
by the lake.
Methods of data collection and analysis
Primary data on bird species in the wetlands were
collected via frequent field visits and empirical observations once each month
from April 2019 to March 2020. The counting process was carried out in the
morning and afternoon (i.e., 0600–1000 h and 0400–0600 h) (Kumar & Sharma
2019) following the point count method (Issa 2019; Volpato
et al. 2009). A comprehensive checklist of the birds encompassing their
common (local) name, scientific name, taxonomic position (orders, families, and
species), dispersal status, habitat location, status according to the
International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN),
global trends of the population, was prepared, according to the works of
Praveen et al. (2016), and Issa (2019). The birds are also classified into four
sub-groups like Very Common (VC) (nearly 80–100 % during field visit), Common
(Co) (50–79.9%), Fairly Common (FC) (20–49.9%), and Rare (Ra) (< 19.9%)
based on the frequency of observation (Khan & Nahar 2009).
The relative abundance of bird species was computed
with the help of the formula proposed by Torre-Cuadros
et al. (2007):
n
RDi = ––– x 100
N
Where, n=
Total number of birds in a species, and N= total number of birds across all
species
One way ANOVA has been employed to find out the level
of seasonal variation in species richness of birds after examining the
normality of data through the Shapiro-Wilk test. The entire observation period
has been divided into three prominent seasons, i.e., summer or pre-monsoon (April–May),
monsoon (June–October), and winter or post-monsoon (November–March) for this
purpose.
Subsequently, exhaustive interviews and focus group
discussions were also carried out with the nearby people who frequently use
these wetlands to assess the degree of people-wetland interdependence and to
identify the consequent threats towards the wetlands as a habitat of the
wetland birds.
RESULTS
Composition and relative abundance of water birds
Both the selected floodplain wetlands harbour diverse
species of plants (hydrophytes) and animals, especially avifauna. These sweet
water storages assure ample food and adequate shelter which attract a wide
variety of resident waterbird species to settle here
throughout the year. Besides, they provide favorable
feeding ground to the migratory bird species, especially in the winter season.
A total of 37 avian species from 18 families and 11 orders were observed and
documented during the survey period, though distinctive variations in species
composition between these two wetlands were also documented. All 37 species are
found at Chariganga, while 21 species from 14
families were sighted in Arpara Beel.
Several common water birds like Little Grebe, Grey Heron, Cotton Pygmy Goose,
Yellow Bittern, Indian Black Ibis, Purple Swamphen
(or Western Swamphen), White-breasted Waterhen,
Indian (Common) Moorhen, and Common Snipe are noticeably less in number in the
concerned wetland; moreover, the surveyors couldn’t find any member of avian
families like Podicipedidae, Rallidae,
Scolopacidae, and Hirundinidae
in Arpara Beel.
A checklist comprising the order, family, local name,
scientific name, dispersal status, habitat location, abundance, IUCN status
(2017) and the global trend of populations of the identified bird species is tabulated
in Table 1.
The relative diversity of bird families found in both
the wetlands is depicted in Figure 2. It has been found that Ardeidae is the most common and abundant family (RDi value: 21.62) which comprises eight species (three
types of heron, four types of egrets, and one type of bittern). Followed by Rallidae and Alcedinidae with
four species each, with an RDi value of 10.81). It is
noticeable that the members of the Rallidae family
were not found in and around Arpara Beel. Nearly nine avian families like Podicipedidae,
Charidriidae, Scolopacidae,
Accipitridae, Hirundinidae,
Cisticolidae, Apodidae, Pandionidae, and Meropidae having
only one species each have shown the least diversity (RDi
value: 2.70) whereas six families’ (i.e., Anatidae, Ciconidae, Jacanidae, Threskiornithidae, Phalacrocoracidae,
and Motacillidae) represent moderate abundance with RDi value of 5.41
(Figure 2).
Status of water birds
The water birds identified at the selected wetlands
have been categorized based on four criteria: A. dispersal status, B. habitat
location, C. local abundance, D. trend of the global population, and E. IUCN
conservation status.
Most of the wetlands in India provide shelters to a
large variety of resident birds (Mukhopadhyay & Mazumdar 2017). The
wetlands represent the same status as 3/4th of the avifauna found in
the area is resident. Among the 37 bird species, the number of winter migrant
species are eight (21.62%) at Chariganga and 5
(13.51%) at Arpara Beel,
whereas the three summer migrant species (8.11%) and two (5.41%) at Chariganga and Arpara Beel respectively. Common Snipe, Large Egret, White
Wagtail, Citrine Wagtail are the common winter
migrants found in the selected area. On the contrary, Lesser Whistling Duck and
Cotton Pygmy-goose generally come during the summer season. Nowadays, they have
even been reported in the winter season too. Besides, Egrets, Kingfishers, Pond
Herons, Black-headed Ibis, Little Grebe, Bronze-winged Jacana, etc are the
resident birds of the wetlands and they have frequently been seen during the
field survey. The resident avian species comprises nearly 70.28% and 37.84% of
the observed avifaunaat Chariganga
and Arpara Beel,
respectively (Figure 3).
Nearly 59.46% of bird species of Chariganga
and 32.43% of Arpara Beel
prefers to live in the banks of water bodies. Primarily, long-legged waders and
shorebirds (like Asian Openbill, Grey Heron, Black-headed Ibis) have been found
to wade in the muddy or sandy bank areas in search of food. Often, they have
been observed in the adjoining paddy fields too. On contrary, almost 13.51% and
5.41% of avian species (like Lesser Whistling Duck, Cotton Pygmy-goose, Little
Grebe, Indian Cormorant, and Little Cormorant), respectively, in Chariganga and Arpara Beel have been recorded in open water. Remaining birds
species (like Palm Swift and various Kingfishers) generally reside in the
nearby trees and shrubs, which constitute nearly 27.03% and 18.92% of
identified species of the selected wetlands respectively (Figure 4).
Figure 5 shows the abundance status of recorded
species. The proportion of birds in four abundance categories at Chariganga are: 30% Very Common, 13% Common, 30% Fairly
Common, and 27% Rare. In Arpara Beel
the distribution among these categories was 19%, 11%, 11%, and 16%,
respectively, while 43% of available birds were rarely seen during the survey.
Among recorded species 27% of birds at Chariganga and 16% at Arpara Beel have shown negative trends in global population,
whereas 11% and 5.4% of birds in the wetlands have shown a positive trend
worldwide. Ten species found in the area have shown a gradual decrease in their
global population over the past years. Therefore, the importance of the
wetlands is irrefutable as the abode of globally declining species. Further, it
is worth mentioning that the growth trends of the population are still
unspecified at the global level, which is 57% and 30% of the birds at Chariganga and Arpara Beel, respectively (Figure 6).
As stated earlier, the studied wetlands harbor various unique as well as endangered avian species.
One classic example is Greater Adjutant, found at both the wetlands, and which
has been enlisted as Vulnerable by the IUCN in 2017. The Black-headed Ibis,
fall under the Near Threatened category of IUCN (2017), which has also been
observed at both of the wetlands.
Temporal variation of bird species
The acquired result of One way ANOVA has depicted
highly significant variation (p-value <0.001 at 0.05 significance level) in
the seasonal species richness for both the wetlands. The month-wise variation of abundance of
birds species in both the wetlands has been shown in Figure 7. It reveals that
the species richness of both the wetlands is comparatively higher during the
winter season (November to February), which declines during the monsoon period.
A mild but fair inflow of winter migratory birds naturally enhances the species
affluence as well as the birds’ population (Figure 8). The species richness in Chariganga reaches its crest (N= 37) during January and
February, whereas the least richness (N= 12) has been recorded in July and
October. Similarly, the maximum and minimum abundance of birds’ species at Arpara Beel has been observed in
February (N= 20) and months of July and September (N= 8), respectively.
DISCUSSION
The availability of food, preference of habitat
location, area of food collection and wading, depth and quality of water,
presence of hydrophytes, and nature of the habitat have determined the temporal
variation of abundance as well as species richness (Saygili
et al. 2011) in and around the lakes under study. The waterfowls of the Anatidae family prefer deep, open water areas clear from
submerged/floating hydrophytes (Benoit & Askins 1999; Kumar & Sharma
2019), while the Jacanidae family requires plenty of
floating vegetation for food and shelter (Grimmet et
al. 2011). Naturally, their occurrences are less and spatially more confined
within the habitat. Thus the relative abundance of some birds’ families, i.e., Ardeidae, Rallidae, and Alcedinidae is comparatively higher than others in both of
the wetlands. Moreover, human activities adversely affect and restrict the
abundance of some families like Charidriidae, Scolopacidae, Motacillidaeetc
(Mandal & Siddique 2018). The abundance of Swamphens,
wagtails and waders is controlled by the availability of food at the nearby
agricultural fields (Ringelman 1990). As the average
depth in most parts of these wetlands decreases the availability of
invertebrates increases (Murkin & Kadlec 1986),
which attracts various birds like egrets and herons of the Ardeidae
family, for which the family has recorded its higher abundance. The abundance
of Common Moorhen and White-breasted Waterhen birds of the Rallidae
family is high at Chariganga because a large part of
the water body is covered with dense water hyacinth, water lily, and various
types of weeds that attract those birds. But, in the case of Arpara Beel, the Rallidae family is absent, as the maximum part of the
wetland either contains shallow water or has been altered into the land (Image
1).
The species richness in both of the wetlands reached
its maximum in the winter season due to the arrival of migratory birds.
Generally, the winter migrants came into the area in November and some of the
species reside here till the end of April. The following diagram (Figure 8)
illustrates how the species richness gets influenced by thewinter
migrants. But, the utilization of the wetlands for ‘boro’
(winter paddy) production significantly interrupts the arrival of migratory
birds (Image 2).
The massive influx of river water and precipitation in
the monsoon helps the full storage condition of the water bodies. Even the low
lands, agricultural fields, and shallow surface depressions in and around the
selected wetlands often get inundated under stagnant water. Thus, the habitat
area of the resident bird’s species has seasonally expanded due to the creation
of new/alternative living spaces. The bird’s species spread over the vast
areas, which has naturally reduced their density in the concerned lake areas.
Therefore least species richness has been enumerated during the monsoon months
(June to October). On the contrary, the majority of smaller wetlands become
dried up in summer, and various birds species gather at the larger wetlands.
The water areas become confined in some definite spots (portions) of the
wetlands during dry spells (summer and winter) of the year. Under such peculiar
circumstances, the gathering of birds’ species becomes restricted near the
water dots of the wetlands. During this period, summer migrants like Lesser
Whistling Duck, Cotton Pygmy Goose, and Pheasant-tailed Jacanas arrive in these
wetlands.
Nearly half of the world’s wetlands have been lost in
the 20th century, and the remaining face serious threats by anthropogenic
interventions (Fraser & Keddy 2005). Such loss
and degradation have negatively affected the population and distribution of
water birds, as they greatly depend upon the wetland habitats for survival (Ma
et al. 2010). Since their origin, the concerned wetlands have been rapidly
modified by the diverse socio-economic activities of the nearby human group.
Focus group discussions and field surveys unveil that these wetlands provide an
array of ecosystem services, from provisioning material resources to intangible
cultural services, which put a significant impact on the economic and cultural
livelihood patterns of the local people. Mandal et al. (2020) have identified
33 ecosystem services (encompassing eight provisioning, 10 regulating, five
cultural, and 11 supportive services), extended by these selected wetlands. The
local people interact with the wetlands in 13 ways to collect the benefits of
the ecosystem services. They have acquired various wetland products like green
leafy vegetables, fish, freshwater, forage, fuel, medicinal herbs, humus, and
mud. The agrarian community of the area utilizes the wetlands as chief sources
of irrigation and often uses the shallow bank areas as crop fields or seedbeds.
As a result the collection and extraction of wetland ecosystem services by
local people adversely affect the wetlands as the habitat of water birds. But
the utilization pattern has shown distinctive changes during the dry and wet
spell of the year with the seasonal transformation of the lakes. Both the wetlands
have turned into the rich fishing ground during monsoon days with the
significant influx of water from the river Bhagirathi, while maximum portions
of these two lakes become dried up during dry spells of the year. In such a
situation, the local farmers have temporarily altered a considerable proportion
of these wetlands into agricultural fields by encroaching and reclaiming the
area of the wetlands. Such man-made seasonal transformation destroys the
ecological setting of the habitat and has posed serious threats to the
existence of the floral and faunal community, especially the avifauna (Image
3).
Over extraction of provisioning, resources have
intensified the human pressure, which has diminished the suitability of those
lakes as the abode of the birds. As a large part of the ArparaBeel
dries up in summer, every exposed and accessible part of the wetland is used
for cultivation and grazing purposes. Similarly, a significant part of the
submerged bank Chariganga has now been reclaimed and
is used by the locals for cropping. Even, a remarkable portion of these two
wetlands has been transformed into agricultural and pastoral land perpetually
and the water areas have gradually been shrunk. For example, the water cover
area of Chariganga has been reduced from 1.45 km2
in 2010 to 1.05 km2 in 2020, whereas the areal coverage of Arpara Beel has been reduced from
0.69 km2 to 0.52 km2 in 2020 due to anthropogenic
interventions.
Such human-induced artificial alteration of the
transitional areas has damaged the ecological niche of the water birds,
especially of the waders. It has brought profound adverse effects on the
population and species diversity of the bird community. Once, Arpara Beel served the local
people with various ecosystem services. Human intervention to grab that service
led to serious damage to the wetland. As a result Arpara
Beel now does not produce many resources for human
beings except agricultural land and pastoral ground. Moreover, it has lost its
quality as a habitat of avifauna thus the species richness of waterbirds is less in comparison to Chariganga
Beel. In a similar way jute retting, wetland
agriculture, the transformation of parts of Chariganga
as pasture land, acting as garbage disposal center, pollution from pesticides
coming from surrounded crop fields,etc are major
threats to Chariganga Wetland. Local people have
opined that the abundance of birds has gradually declined over time in the case
of Chariganga also. The numbers of diverse bird
species seen in winter are also reduced in number for enhanced human
intervention, compared to the earlier phases of evolution of the concerned
wetland. Though species richness is higher at Chariganga,
it is now under tremendous pressure of human intervention which should be
controlled otherwise Chariganga wetland will be a
lost habitat for water birds.
CONCLUSION
The present study highlights the importance of the two
selected wetlands as a habitat of residents as well as migratory birds species.
But, fragmentation of the habitat by human encroachment and pressures has
threatened the existence of the local birds. Recent agricultural extension, as
well as arbitrary extraction of wetland resources, is instrumental to the
tremendous degradation of those wetlands, which has posed a conspicuous impact
upon the size, richness, and distribution of the birds’ species. Predominantly,
the bank areas have now been altered into the zone of human-birds conflict.
Thus the ecological setup of such areas has been disrupted which has directly
been consequent upon the avian species. The importance of the resident birds in
maintaining local ecological equilibrium should not be denied rather
appreciated. Thus their habitat needs to be conserved essentially with a
sustainable management plan that would benefit both the birds and the other
stakeholders of the wetlands.
Table 1. Checklist of bird
species found in and around the studied wetlands during April 2019 to March
2020.
|
Order |
Family |
Species/ Common name |
Scientific name |
Chariganga |
Arpara Beel |
Dispersal Status |
Habitat Location |
Abund-ance |
IUCN status |
Global Population Trend |
|
Podicipediformes |
Podicipedidae |
Little Grebe |
Tachybaptus ruficollis |
√ |
X |
R |
OW |
VC |
LC |
↓ |
|
Pelecaniformes |
Phalacrocoracidae |
Indian Shag |
Phalacrocorax fuscicollis |
√ |
√ |
WM |
OW |
C |
LC |
? |
|
Little Cormorant |
Microcabro niger |
√ |
X |
R |
OW |
VC |
LC |
? |
||
|
Ardeidae |
Grey Heron |
Ardea cinerea |
√ |
X |
R |
WE |
FC |
LC |
? |
|
|
Indian Pond Heron |
Ardeola grayii |
√ |
√ |
R |
WE |
VC |
LC |
? |
||
|
Night Heron |
Nycticorax nycticorax |
√ |
√ |
R |
WE |
FC |
LC |
↓ |
||
|
Cattle Egret |
Bubulcus ibis |
√ |
√ |
R |
WE |
VC |
LC |
↑ |
||
|
Intermediate Egret |
Ardea intermedia |
√ |
√ |
WM |
WE |
C |
LC |
↓ |
||
|
Great Egret |
Ardea alba |
√ |
X |
WM |
WE |
FC |
LC |
? |
||
|
Little Egret |
Egretta garzetta |
√ |
X |
R |
WE |
VC |
LC |
↑ |
||
|
Yellow Bittern |
Ixobrychus sinensis |
√ |
X |
R |
WE |
FC |
LC |
? |
||
|
Threskiornithidae |
Indian Black Ibis |
Pseudibis papillosa |
√ |
X |
R |
WE |
R |
LC |
↓ |
|
|
Black-headed Ibis |
Threskiornis melanocephalus |
√ |
√ |
R |
WE |
R |
NT |
↓ |
||
|
Ciconformes |
Ciconidae |
Asian Openbill Stork |
Anastomus oscitans |
√ |
√ |
WM |
WE |
VC |
LC |
? |
|
Lesser Adjutant |
Leptoptilos javanicus |
√ |
√ |
R |
WE |
R |
VU |
↓ |
||
|
Anseriformes |
Anatidae |
Cotton Pigmy-goose |
Nettapus coromandelianus |
√ |
X |
SM |
OW |
C |
LC |
? |
|
Lesser Whistling Duck |
Dendrocygna javanica |
√ |
√ |
SM |
OW |
VC |
LC |
↓ |
||
|
Gruiformes |
Rallidae |
Water Cock |
Gallicrex cinerea |
√ |
X |
R |
WE |
FC |
LC |
? |
|
Purple Swamphen |
Porphyrio porphyrio |
√ |
X |
R |
WE |
R |
LC |
? |
||
|
White-breasted Waterhen |
Amaurornis phoenicurus |
√ |
X |
R |
WE |
FC |
LC |
? |
||
|
Indian Moorhen |
Gallinula chloropus |
√ |
X |
WM |
WE |
R |
LC |
? |
||
|
Charadriifofmes |
Jacanidae |
Bronze-winged Jacana |
Metopidius indicus |
√ |
√ |
R |
WE |
VC |
LC |
? |
|
Pheasant-tailed Jacana |
Hydrophasianus chirurgus |
√ |
√ |
SM |
WE |
C |
LC |
↓ |
||
|
Charadriidae |
Red-wattled Lapwing |
Vanellus indicus |
√ |
√ |
R |
WE |
R |
LC |
? |
|
|
Scolopacidae |
Common Snipe |
Gallinago gallinago |
√ |
X |
WM |
WE |
FC |
LC |
? |
|
|
Passeriformes |
Hirundinidae |
Barn Swallow |
Hirundorustica |
√ |
X |
R |
T |
FC |
LC |
↓ |
|
Motacillidae |
White Wagtail |
Motacilla alba |
√ |
√ |
WM |
WE |
FC |
LC |
→ |
|
|
Citrine Wagtail |
Motacilla citreola |
√ |
√ |
WM |
WE |
R |
LC |
↑ |
||
|
Cisticolidae |
Plain Prinia |
Prinia inornata |
√ |
√ |
R |
T |
C |
LC |
? |
|
|
Coraciiformes |
Alcedinidae |
Pied Kingfisher |
Ceryle rudis |
√ |
√ |
R |
T |
VC |
LC |
? |
|
Common Kingfisher |
Alcedo atthis |
√ |
√ |
R |
T |
VC |
LC |
? |
||
|
Stork-billed Kingfisher |
Pelargopsis capensis |
√ |
X |
R |
T |
R |
LC |
↓ |
||
|
White-breasted kingfisher |
Halcyon smyrnensis |
√ |
X |
R |
T |
VC |
LC |
↑ |
||
|
Accipitriformes |
Accipitridae |
Indian Shikra |
Accipiter badius |
√ |
√ |
R |
T |
R |
LC |
→ |
|
Pandionidae |
Osprey |
Pandion haliaetus |
√ |
√ |
R |
T |
R |
LC |
? |
|
|
Coraciiformes |
Meropidae |
Green Bee-eater |
Merops orientalis |
√ |
√ |
R |
T |
FC |
LC |
? |
|
Apodiformes |
Apodidae |
Asian Palm Swift |
Cypsiurus balasiensis |
√ |
√ |
R |
T |
FC |
LC |
? |
Dispersal
status: R—Resident | SM—Summer Migrant |
WM—Winter Migrant | Habitat Location: OW—Open Water | WE—Water Edge | T—Trees
and Shrubs | Abundance: VC—Very Common | C—Common | FC—Fairly Common | R—Rare |
IUCN Status: LC—Least Concern | NT—Near Threatened | VU—Vulnerable | Trend:
?—Unknown | ↑—Increasing | ↓—Decreasing | →—Stable.
For
figures & images - - click here
REFERENCES
Benoit, L.K. & R.A. Askins
(1999). Impact of the spread of
Phragmites on the Distribution of Birds in Connecticut Tidal Marshes. Wetlands
19(1): 194–208. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03161749
Bibi, F. & Z. Ali (2013). Measurement of Diversity Indices of Avian Communities
at Taunsa Barrage Wildlife Sanctuary, Pakistan. The
Journal of Animal & Plant Science 23(2): 469–474.
Chen, Y.Y. & X.G. Lu (2003). Wetland Functions and Wetland Science Research
Direction. Wetland Science 1: 7–10.
Chen, Z.X. & X.S. Zhang
(2001). Value of Chinese Ecosystem
Benefits. Chinese Science Bulletin 45: 17–18. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02886190
Debnath, S., S. Biswas & A.K. Panigrahi (2018). Present status and diversity of avian fauna in Purbasthali bird sanctuary, West Bengal, India. Agricultural
Science Digest 38(2): 95–102.
Fraser, L.H. & P.A. Keddy (2005). The World’s Largest Wetlands: Ecology and Conservation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 500pp. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511542091
Garg, J.K. (2015). Wetland Assessment, Monitoring and Management in
India using Geospatial Techniques. Journal of Environmental Management
148: 112–123. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2013.12.018
Green, A.J. & J. Elmberg (2014). Ecosystem Services Provided by Water birds. Biological
Reviews 89(1): 105–122. https://doi.org/10.1111/brv.12045
Grimmet, R., C. Inskipp & T. Inskipp (2011). Birds of the Indian Subcontinent. Oxford University Press, India, 528pp. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12595-018-0259-x
International Union for
Conservation of Nature (IUCN) (2017). The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species, Vol. 1. BirdLife International, Gland, Switzerland. http://www.iucnredlist.org
Issa, M.A.A. (2019). Diversity and Abundance of Wild Birds Species’ in Two
Different Habitats at Sharkia Governorate, Egypt. The
Journal of Basic and Applied Zoology 80(34): 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41936-019-0103-5
Kar, T. & S. Debata (2018).
Assemblage of Waterbird Species in an Anthropogenic
Zone along the Mahanadi River of Odisha, Eastern India: Implications for
Management. Proceedings of the Zoological Society 72: 355–363. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12595-018-0276-9
Kear, J. (1990). Man and Wildfowl. T & A.D. Poyser,
London
Khan, S.I. & H. Naher (2009).
Birds in Kurigram District of Bangladesh. Journal
of Threatened Taxa 1(4): 245–250. https://doi.org/10.11609/JoTT.o1698.245-50
Khan, R.A. (2002). The ecology and faunal diversity of two floodplain
oxbow lakes of south-eastern West Bengal. Records of the Zoological Survey India 195: 1–57.
Khan, T.N. (2010). Temporal Changes to the Abundance and Community
Structure of Migratory Water Birds in Santragachhi
Lake, West Bengal, and Their Relationship with Water Hyacinth Cover. Current
Science 99: 1570–1577.
Kingsford, R.T., A. Basset &
L. Jackson (2016). Wetlands:
Conservation’s Poor Cousins. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater
Ecosystems 26: 892–916. https://doi.org/10.1002/aqc.2709
Krcmar, E., G.C. Van Kooten &
A. Chan-Mcleod (2010). Waterfowl Harvest Benefits in Northern Aboriginal
Communities and Potential Climate Change Impacts, Resource Economics & Policy Analysis Research
Group, Department of Economics, University of Victoria.
Kumar, P. & S.K. Gupta (2013). Status of Wetland Birds of Chhilchhila
Wildlife Sanctuary, Haryana, India. Journal of Threatened Taxa 5(5): 3969–3976. https://doi.org/10.11609/JoTT.o3158.3969-76
Kumar, P. & A. Sharma (2019). Wetland birds assemblages in man-made sacred ponds of
Kurukshetra, India. Proceedings of
the Zoological Society 72(1): 61–73. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12595-018-0259-x
Kumar, P., D. Rai & S.K. Gupta
(2016). Wetland Bird Assemblage in Rural
Ponds of Kurukshetra, India. Waterbirds 39:
86–98. https://doi.org/10.1675/063.039.0111
Ma, Z., Y. Cai, B. Li, & J.
Chen (2010). Managing wetland habitats for
water birds: an international perspective. Wetlands 30: 15–27. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13157-009-0001-6
Mandal, M.H. (2017). Environmental Importance of Palaeochannel:
A Study on Purbasthali Oxbow Lake. Unpublished MPhil.
Dissertation, Department of Geography, the University of Burdwan.
Mandal, M.H. & G. Siddique
(2018). Water Birds at Purbasthali
Oxbow Lake: A Geographical Study. Researchers’ World IX (Special Issue):
7–19.
Mandal, M.H., G. Siddique & A.
Roy (2018). Threats and Opportunities of
Ecosystem Services: A Geographical Study of Purbasthali
Oxbow Lake. Journal of Geography, Environment and Earth Science
International 16(4): 1–24. https://doi.org/10.9734/JGEESI/2018/43229
Mandal, M.H., A.K. Dey, A. Roy & G. Siddique (2020). Ecosystem Services of Chariganga
and Arpara Beels in Nadia
District, West Bengal: A Geographical Enquiry. Space and Culture, India 8(2):
155–167. https://doi.org/10.20896/saci.v8i2.742
Mazumdar, S. (2017). Composition of Avian Communities in a Human-modified
Wetland Okhla Bird Sanctuary, India: With Notes on Conservation Initiatives. Proceedings
of the Zoological Society 72: 319–333. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12595-017-0239-6
Mazumdar, S., P. Ghosh & G.K. Saha (2005).
Diversity and behaviour of waterfowl in SantragachiJheel, West Bengal, India during winter season. Indian
Birds 1: 68–69.
Mazumdar, S., K. Mookherjee & G.K. Saha
(2007). Migratory waterbirds
of wetlands of southern West Bengal, India. Indian Birds 3: 42–45.
Mazumdar, S. & G.K. Saha (2016).
Wetlands in urban landscapes: problems and potentials, pp. 385–400. In: Saha, G.K. (Ed.) Wetland: crisis and options. Astral
International Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi.
Mistry, J., A. Berardi & M.
Simpson (2008). Birds as indicators of Wetland
Status and Change in the North Rupununi, Guyana. Biodiversity and Conservation 17(10):
2383–2409. https://doi.org/doi:10.1007/s10531-008-9388-2
Mukherjee, S. (2008). Economic Valuation of a Wetland in West Bengal, India. International Water Management Institute (IWMI)-TATA
Water Policy Research Program Seventh Annual Partners’ Meet 1, MPRA: 254–266.
Mukhopadhyay, S. & S. Mazumdar
(2017). Composition, Diversity and
Foraging Guilds of Avifauna in a Suburban Area of Southern West Bengal, India. The
Ring 39: 103–120. https://doi.org/10.1515/ring-2017-0004
Mukhopadhyay, S. & S. Mazumdar
(2019). Habitat-wise composition and
foraging guild of avian community in a suburban landscape of lower Gangetic
plains, West Bengal, India. Biologia 74:
1001–1010. https://doi.org/10.2478/s11756-019-00226-x
Murkin, H.R. & J.A. Kadlec (1986). Relationships between Waterfowl and Macro
invertebrate densities in a northern prairie marsh. Journal of Wildlife
Management 50(2): 212–217.
Prasad, S.N., T.V. Ramachandra, N.
Ahalya, T. Sengupta, A. Kumar, A.K. Tiwari, V.S.
Vijayan & L. Vijayan (2002). Conservation
of wetlands of India: A Review. Tropical Ecology 43: 173–186.
Praveen, J., R. Jayapal & A. Pittie (2016). A Checklist of the Birds of India. Indian Birds 11(5–6):
113–172.
Puri, S.D. & R.S. Virani (2016). Avifaunal Diversity from Khairbandha
Lake in Gondia District, Maharashtra State, India. Bioscience
Discovery 7(2): 140–146.
Rajashekara, S. & M.G. Venkatesha
(2010). The Diversity and Abundance of
Water Birds in Lakes of Bangalore City, Karnataka, India. Biosystematica
4(2): 63–73.
Ringelman, J.K. (1990). Managing Agricultural Foods for Waterfowl. Waterfowl
Management Handbook. Fish and Wildlife Leaflet 13.4.3. U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Washington.
Saygili, F., N. Yigit & S. Bulut (2011). The
Spatial and Temporal Distributions of Water Birds 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
Sharma, K.K. & M. Saini
(2014). Commun ity Structure and Population Dynamics of Aquatic Avifauna
of Gharana Wetland (Reserve), Jammu, India. International Research Journal
of Biological Sciences 3(2): 1–8.
Slabbekoorn H. & E.A.P. Ripmeester
(2008). Birdsong and anthropogenic noise:
implications and applications for conservation. Molecular Ecology 17(1):
72–83. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-294X.2007.03487.x
Stella, J., M. Hayden, J. Battles,
H. Piegay, S. Dufour & A.K. Fremier
(2011). The Role of Abandoned Channels as
Refugia for Sustaining Pioneer Riparian Forest Ecosystems. Ecosystems
14(5): 776–790.
Stewart, R.E.Jr.
(2001). Technical Aspects of Wetlands: Wetlands
as Bird Habitats. National Water Summery on
Wetland Resources (United States Geological Survey Water Supply Paper 2425). https://water.usgs.gov/nwsum/WSP2425/birdhabitat.html
Torre-Cuadros,
M.D.L.A.L., S. Herrando-Perez & K.R. Young
(2007). Diversity and Structure Patterns
for Tropical Montane and Premontane Forests of Central Peru, with an Assessment
of the Use of Higher-taxon Surrogacy. Biodiversity and Conservation
16(10): 2965–2988.
Volpato, G.H., E.V. Lopes, L.B. Mendonça,
R. Boçon, M.V. Bisheimer,
P.P. Serafini & L.d. Anjos (2009). The Use of the Point Count Method for Bird Survey in
the Atlantic Forest. Zoologia 26(1): 74–78.
Ward, J.V. & J.A. Stanford
(1995). Ecological connectivity in
alluvial river ecosystems and its disruption by flow regulation. Regulated
Rivers: Research & Management 11: 105–119.