Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | 26 December 2023 | 15(12): 24331–24344

 

ISSN 0974-7907 (Online) | ISSN 0974-7893 (Print) 

https://doi.org/10.11609/jott.8357.15.12.24331-24344

#8357 | Received 06 January 2023 | Final received 16 October 2023 | Finally accepted 08 December 2023

 

 

Assessing and understanding diversity and foraging guilds of bird community structure in Gautam Buddha Wildlife Sanctuary, Bihar and Jharkhand, India

 

Umar Saeed 1, Mujahid Ahamad 2, Vivek Ranjan 3, Syed Ainul Hussain 4 & Ruchi Badola 5

 

1–5 Department of Eco-Development Planning and Participatory Management, Wildlife Institute of India, Dehradun, Uttrakhand 248001, India.

 1 umar2673@gmail.com, 2 syedmujahidahmad@gmail.com (corresponding author), 3 vivek.nil@gmail.com, 4 ainul.hussain@gmail.com, 5 ruchi@wii.gov.in

 

 

Editor: H. Byju, Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu, India.                  Date of publication: 26 December 2023 (online & print)

 

Citation: Saeed, U., M. Ahamad, V. Ranjan, S.A. Hussain & R. Badola (2023). Assessing and understanding diversity and foraging guilds of bird community structure in Gautam Buddha Wildlife Sanctuary, Bihar and Jharkhand, India. Journal of Threatened Taxa 15(12): 24331–24344. https://doi.org/10.11609/jott.8357.15.12.24331-24344

  

Copyright: © Saeed et al. 2023. 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: The study is funded by the Dedicated Freight Corridor Corporation of India Limited (DFCCIL) [Permission no. CPM/DFCCIL/KKK wildlife – 186 dated 22 December 2015].

 

Competing interests: The authors declare no competing interests.

 

Author details: Umar Saeed is a senior research fellow at the Wildlife Institute of India and currently pursuing PhD from Graphic Era University and perceives a field of interest in grassland management and conservation ecology. Mujahid Ahamad is a PhD scholar and currently working as a senior project biologist at the Wildlife Institute of India, Dehradun. He specialized in animal ecology and human-wildlife interaction. Vivek Ranjan is a PhD scholar at the Wildlife Institute of India working on human-wildlife interaction in human-dominated landscapes. He has been actively supporting Uttarakhand State Forest Department in the management and mitigation of negative human-wildlife interaction and encouraging coexistence through technical advisory. Syed Ainul Hussain is the project manager (NMCG) and former scientist-G at the Wildlife Institute of India. Ruchi Badola is dean and scientist-G at the Wildlife Institute of India.

 

Author contributions: US—conceptualization, data collection, data analysis & visualization, methodology, writing the original draft. MA—conceptualization, writing original draft, data collection. VR—data collection. SAH—conceptualization, funding acquisition, investigation, supervision, writing - review & editing.
RB—conceptualization, writing - review & editing.

 

Acknowledgements:   We express our thanks for the financial support from the DFCCIL (Dedicated Freight Corridors Corporation Limited)  for this study. The study permission no. CPM/DFCCIL/KKK wildlife – 186 dated 22 December 2015. We take this opportunity to express a deep sense of gratitude for the constant support received from Mr. A.K. Dwivedi CF, Gaya forest circle, and Mr. Arvind Kumar Singh DFO Gaya forest circle (Environment and Forests Department, Government of Bihar) and D.K. Yadav Singh DFO Hazaribagh forest division Jharkhand for providing the necessary support during the fieldwork and assure the good environment around us. We also thank our colleagues Rashmi Das and Kumar Ankit for their valuable suggestions and comments for the improvement of the Manuscript.

 

 

Abstract: This study was conducted between June 2017 and December 2018 to assess the bird community structure, diversity, feeding guilds, and the residential status of birds in Gautam Buddha Wildlife Sanctuary (GBWS).  Avian diversity and guild organization in five different habitat types were classified according to the forest type present in the landscape. The results indicated a total of 99 avifauna that belongs to 48 families, distributed in 16 orders. Among the 99 species, 77 were residents, 17 were winter visitors, four were summer visitors, and only one was a passage migrant. Based on the feeding guild evaluation, the majority were insectivorous (47%), followed by omnivorous (24%), carnivorous (14%), granivorous (8%), frugivorous (4%), insectivorous (1%), and piscivorous (1%). The scrubland, among other forest types, represented the highest diversity value for the Shannon-Weiner diversity index (3.2), evenness was recorded highest in riverine habitat (0.63), whereas utmost Simpson’s dominance (0.98) and Fisher’s index value (41) were in human settlement. These findings of our study illustrate the outstanding potential of GBWS as an important protected site for mixed bird diversity and specific feeding guilds, precisely in terms of the insectivorous and omnivorous communities. Hence, the study outcomes set a notable landmark for understanding birds and their habitats.

 

Keywords: Avifauna, evenness, Fisher’s index, habitat types, protected site, residential status, Simpson’s dominance, Shannon-Weiner diversity index.

 

 

 

 

Introduction

 

Bird communities are considered to provide excellent model structures for studying biodiversity due to their occurrence in all habitat types and climatic zones (McCain & Grytnes 2010; Panda et al. 2021). Mixed habitats such as woodland, cropland, scrubland, riverine, and grasslands ensure the existence of habitat-restricted taxa and amplify community diversity (Berg 2002; Stein et al. 2014; Stein & Kreft 2015). Additionally, the diverse characteristics within natural environments and species diversity are pivotal in upholding essential traits that contribute significantly to biodiversity. (Manhães & Loures-Ribeiro 2005). Species diversity and richness in a particular area are determined by habitat heterogeneity and may also impact habitat resources (Lorenzón et al. 2016). At the same time, the absence of a natural environment leads to species homogenization with low species richness (Pickett et al. 2011; Lepczyk & Warren 2012; Aronson et al. 2014; Beninde et al. 2015) and high similarity (Blair 2001a,b). Bird diversity is always correlated with specific habitat types (Brawn et al. 2001; Seymour & Simmons 2008; Harisha & Hosetti 2009). Changes in their vegetation structure are affected by bird community structure and composition (Caziani & Derlindati 2000; Gabbe 2002; Earnst & Holmes 2012; Nsor et al. 2018), population trends, behaviour patterns, and reproductive ability (Harisha & Hosetti 2009). Vegetation structure is essential in structuring bird communities (Gabbe et al. 2002; Earnst & Holmes 2012); thus, the relative abundance of birds is often linked to vegetation community (Caziani & Derlindati 2000). For example, MacArthur & MacArthur (1961) pointed out the importance of vegetation structure for local bird species diversity. Williams (1964) highlighted that various environmental conditions and habitat types increase with an increase in the study area.

Feeding guild is a fundamental concept in avian ecology and is shaped when a community of birds uses the same class of environmental resources (Balestrieri et al. 2015). Katuwal et al. (2016) stated that all guilds have different resource requirements and tolerance capacities depending on ecological conditions, which are influenced by various environmental factors such as vegetation cover, food supply, predatory availability, and various other ecological factors reflecting different temporal variations and diversity gradients (O’Connell et al. 2000; Kissling et al. 2012). Studies of avian feeding guilds help to understand complex ecosystem structures and improve knowledge about the habitats of a particular ecosystem (Rathod & Padate 2017).

The distribution and feeding guild of the birds is associated with their habitat type and structural complexity, which influence species diversity and the inter-relationship between vegetation and the avian population (MacArthur & MacArthur 1961). Many studies have been conducted to determine relationships between bird species diversity and habitat attributes such as heterogeneity and vegetation structure (Chettri et al. 2005; Corbett 2006; Yeany 2009; Beasley 2013; Stirnemann et al. 2015). Bird populations in fragmented landscapes respond resiliently to complex environmental combinations and are an indicator of habitat change, and they also show a wide range of feeding guilds (Azman et al. 2011). Protected areas with substantial anthropogenic disturbance causes habitat fragmentation and degradation (Haddad et al. 2015; Wilson et al. 2016; Pardini et al. 2017).

In the Gautam Buddha Wildlife Sanctuary (GBWS), over the past few years, the widening of the National Highway (NH-2) has split the sanctuary into two halves. Moreover, anthropogenic pressures, selective hunting, and the expansion of villages in and around the sanctuary have been significant causes of biodiversity decline (Kumar 2016). The study of bird diversity and feeding guilds is crucial for understanding the complexity of ecosystem structure and for providing up-to-date knowledge on each habitat type in the ecosystem. In addition, we have also assessed the abundance of birds in the various habitat types. Thus, the present study aimed to understand the diversity of birds and feeding guilds with different habitat types, such as woodland, scrubland, human settlement, riverine, and cultivation lands. The study will also provide baseline information on the bird community’s species richness, which will help design management plans and conservation strategies for the sanctuary.

 

Study area

The GBWS lies between  24.379°–24.425° N and 85.136°–85.213° E and is situated in the southeast part of the sacred city of Gaya district, Bihar. The sanctuary spreads over an area of 259.47 km2 in the states of Bihar and Jharkhand under three forest divisions: the Gaya Forest Division (138.33 km2) in Bihar and the Hazaribagh and Chatra Forest Division (121.24 km2) in Jharkhand (Figure 1). The Bihar government notified the sanctuary in 1976. Before becoming a sanctuary, it used to be the hunting ground of the Tikri king. The terrain of the sanctuary is undulating, with an elevation ranging 213–529 m. The sanctuary is drained by the perennial river Mohane, a sink for all the streams and rivulets flowing in the sanctuary (Kumar 2016). The south-west monsoon starts in June and lasts until September. Rainfall is highest between June and July, with an average rainfall of 159 mm. The average temperature varies 26–90C during the winter season, which commences from November to February (Nirbhay & Singh 2009). The average summer temperature ranges around 400C maximum, even touching 470C, and is usually characterized by dry and hot weather conditions from March to June.

The sanctuary falls in the lower Gangetic Plains and Chota Nagpur biogeographical regions of India and shares wildlife species from both regions. Making it a unique ecosystem that supports a wide diversity of floral and faunal species (Rodgers & Panwar 1988; Kumar 2016; Kumar et al. 2021). The sanctuary is characterized by moist and dry deciduous forests (Kumar et al. 2021). Forest communities are further divided into dry peninsular sal forest, northern dry mixed deciduous forest, dry deciduous scrub forest, ravine thorn forest, and tropical dry riverine forest (Kumar 2016; Kumar & Sahu 2020). More than 100 species of plants and 75 species of birds enrich the biodiversity of the sanctuary (Kumar et al. 2021). Various dominant flora of the sanctuary comprises Shorea robusta, Pterocarpus marsupium, Diospyros melanoxylon, Lagerstroemia parviflora, Buchanania lanzan, Butea monosperma, Madhuca indica, Acacia catechu, and Boswellia serrata. It also supports various wild animal species, such as Axis axis, Rusa unicolor, Melursus ursinus, Boselaphus tragocamelus, Vulpes bengalensis, and Felis chaus, among others (Kumar 2016).

 

 

Methods and Materials

 

Data collection

The avifaunal status, habitat characteristics, and community structure were assessed using the point count transect method during summer (June–August 2017) and winter (November–December 2018). Bird observations occurred from 0700 h to 1000 h, avoiding adverse weather conditions (Ding et al. 2019). A 1-km trail transect with five observation points at 250 m intervals was used, involving two observers. Within a 50-m radius during a 15-minute duration, bird species, distances, and individual numbers were recorded. Birds flying overhead of the observer were not recorded to avoid the double count. The birds were observed with the help of Nikon (8x10) binoculars, and photographs were taken using a Cannon 80D camera for further identification. The birds were identified with the help of Grimmett et al. (2016).

 

Guild classification

In this study, birds were systematically categorized into distinct feeding guilds based on their primary diet and foraging habitats, following the classification outlined by Ding et al. (2019) and Panda et al. (2021). The seven identified guild categories are as follows: insectivores (species consuming insects, earthworms, small crustaceans, and arthropods), carnivores (species preying on large animals or scavenging their carcasses), omnivores (species with a mixed diet of both animals and plants), granivores (species primarily feeding on seeds and grains), nectarivores (species relying on nectar as a primary food source), frugivores (species mainly consuming fruits), and piscivores (species specialized in a fish-based diet). This classification scheme provides a comprehensive framework for understanding the diverse dietary preferences and foraging behaviors exhibited by avian species within the studied ecosystem.

 

Data analysis

In the data analysis phase, various species diversity indices were computed using the Paleontological Statistics (Past 2001 version 3.2) program (Hammer & Harper 2001). Shannon’s diversity index (H) was employed to assess community diversity, calculated using the formula H = -∑(pi ln pi), where pi represents the proportion of individuals of a particular species with the total number of individuals (n/N), and s is the number of species. Simpson’s index (D), a dominance measure, was also utilized, given by the formula 1/(∑(pi^2)), where pi is as defined for Shannon’s index. Fisher alpha (S) was employed to mathematically describe the relationship between species and individuals, expressed as S = α × ln(1 + n/a), with S denoting the number of taxa, n representing the number of individuals, and α as Fisher’s alpha (Fisher & Yates 1953). Evenness (e), comparing actual diversity to maximum potential diversity, was determined using e = H’/H_max, with E constrained between 0 and 1. Relative abundance (RA) of each bird species was calculated as ni/N × 100, with ni being the number of individuals of the ith species and N being the total number of individuals. Abundance categories were assigned based on sightings, from rare (1–5) to very abundant (>50). The Sorensen similarity index (Cs) gauged species association between habitats using Cs = 2j/(a + b), where j is the number of common species, a is the number of species in habitat A, and b is the number of species in habitat B. Bird residential status categories (resident, summer visitor, winter visitor influx) were determined using the presence and absence method (Sorensen 1948). Statistical analyses were conducted in SPSS, with significance at p = 0.01. Pearson’s correlation (r) explored relationships between guilds, residential status, and habitat types, and post-hoc Wald tests with Bonferroni adjustments were performed for identified significant differences. Additionally, a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) examined significant differences in habitat-related species richness concerning feeding guilds and residential status.

 

 

ResultS

 

The present study recorded 99 avifaunal species belonging to 16 orders and 48 families in GBWS. Amongst the habitats, the highest species richness was recorded in woodland (53.52%), and the lowest species richness was recorded in cultivation land (20.20%) (Table 1). The highest number of species belongs to the order Passeriformes (52.52%), followed by Accipitriformes and Charadriiformes (Figure 2). The species diversity of birds in five different habitats of the study area revealed that the highest Shannon diversity was recorded in scrubland (H = 3.186), followed by woodland (H = 3.181) and human settlement (H = 3.136). In contrast, the lowest Shannon diversity was recorded in cultivation land (H = 2.527). The Simpson diversity index value was maximum in human settlement (1-D = 0.978) and minimum in woodland (1-D = 0.926). The Evenness of bird species was highest in the riverine (0.629) and lowest in the woodland forest (0.454) (Table 1). At a 95% confidence interval level, we found that scrubland possesses the highest holding capacity of diversity compared to the other habitats. The Fisher alpha diversity index was highest in human settlement (α = 41.12). The lowest Fisher alpha diversity profile was recorded in cultivation land (α = 16.47) (Figure 3).

According to the frequency of sightings, 68.68% of bird species were rare, and 1.01% were abundant in GBWS (Figure 4). The relative abundance of Red-vented Bulbul Pycnonotus cafer was highest in the study area, followed by Jungle Babbler Turdoides striata and Grey-breasted Prinia Prinia hodgsonii (Appendix 1). Results of Sorenson’s similarity index indicate that woodland and scrubland (0.31) were ecologically the most similar habitats, followed by the similarity between woodland and human settlement (0.30). However, riverine and woodland had the most negligible ecological similarity value (0.14) (Table 3).

Further, the bird species were categorized according to their feeding guild. Among the feeding guilds, the insectivorous guild recorded a maximum percentage of species (47.47%), and nectarivores and piscivorous guild recorded a minimum percentage of species (1.01%) (Figure 5). Regardless of the habitats, the dominant guild remained the insectivorous among all the guilds. The comparison of the abundance of species from all habitats within every feeding guild is shown in Table 2.

The Pearson correlation coefficient provided visions of the specific preference of the bird species under different foraging guild towards some particular habitats. The frugivorous guild was most positively correlated with human settlement (r = 0.282, t = 0.320 p < 0.01), and negatively with cultivation (r = -0.29, t = 1.988, p >0.01), riverine (r = -0.102, t = 2.267, p >0.01), and scrubland (r = -0.045, t = 2.021, p >0.01). Insectivorous bird species were only positively correlated with the riverine habitat (r = 0.127, t = 8.037 p <0.01) and negatively correlated with the remaining habitats. Omnivores were most positively correlated with scrubland habitat (r = 0.156, t = 4.459 p <0.01) and a negative correlation with riverine habitat (r = -0.150, t = 1.9885, p <0.01). On the other hand, the carnivorous guild was strongly associated with cultivation habitat (r = 0.128, t = 3.295 p <0.01). Granivores showed a positive association with only scrubland habitat (r = 0.105, t = 2.038 p <0.01).

Further, the residential status of the species revealed that 77 birds were residents, whereas the remaining 17 were winter visitors, four were summer visitors, and one species was a passage migrant (Figure 6). While analyzing the association of different habitats according to their residential status, we found that resident bird species were positively correlated with all the habitat types, but the association was highest with scrubland (r = 0.177, t = 16.226 p <0.01). It was discovered that there was no significant correlation between any of the habitat categories and summer visitors, winter visitors, or passage migrants.

 

 

Discussion

 

The bird diversity and their distribution concerning habitat types characterize the importance of GBWS as an essential bird habitat. The present study revealed that Passeriformes was the dominant order comprising the highest number of bird species. Two species represented the order Bucerotiformes and Piciformes; besides the order Ciconiiformes, Falconiformes, Gruiformes, Podicipediformes, and Strigiformes were represented by single species. This study agrees with the prior result that order Passeriformes is the leading avian taxon in India (Praveen et al. 2016; Kumar & Sahu 2020; Singh 2022). Data analysis on relative abundance shows that the Accipitridae family is the most dominant one. A similar pattern of dominance of Accipitridae was recorded by different authors from different protected areas in India,  for example, from the Araku Valley of Ananthagiri Hills of the Eastern Ghats in Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh (Kumar et al. 2010), a scrub forest of Sri Lankamalleswara Wildlife Sanctuary, Andhra Pradesh (Mali et al. 2017), Tamhini Wildlife Sanctuary, the northern Western Ghats, Maharashtra (Vinayak & Mali 2018), and Bhimbandh Wildlife Sanctuary, Bihar (Khan & Pant 2017).

The GBWS comprises a mosaic habitat, which supports a significant diversity of bird species. Habitat heterogeneity favors habitat specialists (through niche partitioning) for birds with broad niches (Surasinghe et al. 2010; Chakdar et al. 2016). The overall Shannon diversity index (H = 3.935) of GBWS is high. Therefore, the Shannon diversity in all habitats was good except in cultivation land (H = 2.527). The habitat heterogeneity hypothesis suggests that a landscape’s species diversity increases with the number of habitats because of an expansion in the number of partitionable niche dimensions (Cramer & Willing 2005; Chakdar et al. 2016). Numerous studies have revealed that the distribution and diversities of bird species were highly dependent on habitat heterogeneity (Hettiarachchi & Wijesundara 2017; Chandrasiri et al. 2018; Panda et al. 2021; Thilakarathne et al. 2021).

As the Simpson diversity index has swift convergence to limit diversity value for a minor sample size, it is principally suitable for rapidly estimating regions for conservation (Lande et al. 2000). Analysis of data on the Simpson dominance index revealed that human settlement (1-D = 0.978) was the most dominated habitat in the sanctuary followed by riverine habitat (1-D = 0.960). The high value of Simpson’s index of diversity is an indication of the richness of bird diversity in the GBWS. The result revealed that bird species’ Evenness varied in the sanctuary’s different habitats. The highest evenness index value was recorded in the riverine habitat. Several reasons, including food availability, breeding, migration, and change in vegetation cover, could be attributed to this pattern (Harisha & Hosetti 2009). However, the lowest evenness index value recorded in woodland habitat expresses that the species-rich site may result from the occurrence of rare species or two or three species being hyper-abundant in the area compared to the other sites (Symonds & Johnson 2008).

However, the Fisher alpha diversity index was highest in human settlement (α = 41.12), as the number of individuals was low compared to the species number. In woodland habitats, the species diversity is highest, but due to the presence of more individuals of the bird species, Fisher’s alpha was lower (α = 17.26) than in human settlement. The lowest Fisher alpha diversity profile was recorded in cultivation land (α = 16.47) (Figure 3). The diversity, which compares the similarity between habitats, is measured by Sorensen’s similarity index between the five selected habitats. The result revealed that woodland and scrubland had the highest similarity value (0.31), while the lowest species similarity (0.14) was recorded between woodland and riverine habitats. The highest value of Sorensen’s similarity indices documented between woodland and scrubland habitats might be attributed to landscape characteristics. Better habitat structural similarity tended to support more similar bird communities (Tubelis & Cavalcanti 2001; Andrade et al. 2018; Kumar & Sahu 2020).

Correlation values between different feeding guilds and habitat preferences displayed that the frugivorous bird population flourished well in the area with human settlement due to the sufficient availability of food sources. Gomes et al. (2008) have shown that resilient frugivores that increased in densities have occurred under all habitat disturbance regimes of the forest area, which markedly supports our study. In another study (Pejchar et al. 2008), frugivore abundance and richness were found to strongly account for a positive relationship with the human-dominated landscape. These results account for the fact that frugivores can tolerate moderate to intermediate levels of disturbance.

The significant positive correlation of insectivores was highest with riverine habitat. Other studies supporting the observation state that in wetlands, aquatic insects classically dominate the macroinvertebrate communities (Maher 1984; Euliss & Grodhaus 1987; Batzer & Resh 1992; Mukhopadhyay & Mazumdar 2019) and are an integral part of various aquatic ecosystems (Sivaramakrishnan et al. 2000). Omnivores and granivores were most favorable and significantly correlated with the scrubland habitat due to the mosaic structure of the habitat of GBWS. This contrasts with the findings of Mukhopadhyay & Mazumdar (2019), in a suburban landscape of the lower Gangetic plains of West Bengal, where the omnivores mostly dominated the residential and plantation forest area. Panda (2021) has also found a significant close association between human habitation with omnivores.

Additionally, granivores are positively related to the scrubland area, Poulin et al. (1993), support and validate our outcomes as they found a peak number of granivores interactions in the scrubland of the Guarapo region on the Araya Peninsula. In contrast, other studies support the preference of granivores for low-stratification crops (Henderson et al. 2000) and the positive relation with orchards due to the protection these areas offer from predation by birds of prey (Figueroa & Corales 2005). Furthermore, our study revealed that carnivorous species were primarily observed in cultivated forest areas due to the enormous presence of small size of frogs, fishes, molluscs, and small vertebrate species. Likewise, Tanalgo et al. (2015) agree with our study that carnivorous species were primarily observed in the rice fields. Stafford et al. (2010) indicated that the abundance of carnivorous bird species in rice fields is due to the availability of a large number of food resources, such as polychaetes, crustaceans, and molluscs. Besides, King et al. (2010) also noted that the rice fields in many countries support large numbers of migratory water birds and are essential for many species.

A significant positive correlation of the resident bird species with all the habitat types shows that these species are well distributed in the GBWS, but they mostly prefer the scrubland area. A study by Daily et al. (2001) also suggests that bird species mainly were correlated with the forest fragments. The migratory bird species do not possess any significant positive correlation with the different habitats. This is because migrants distribute themselves spatially and temporally relative to available fruit resources at different intervals (Wolfe et al. 2014).

Moreover, human interference and livestock pressure significantly threatened bird species in the sanctuary (Image 1,2). The presence of livestock in bird habitats caused a significant negative impact on the abundance and species richness of bird species (r = -0.308, p = <0.01). After agriculture, local inhabitants also depend on the sanctuary for livestock grazing. Overgrazing led to the destruction of plant seedlings and restricted forest regeneration. Studies by Adhikari et al. (2019) support our finding as they have also found that livestock pressure and human disturbances were the major threats to birds in Chitwan National Park. The presence of local people in the forested land caused a non-significant negative impact on bird species richness and abundance in the sanctuary (r = -0.091, p = >0.01). Another major cause of disturbance in bird habitat is the cutting of trees for fodder and fuelwood collection (Image 3). The Pearson correlation coefficient value of tree cutting was negatively not significant to habitat (r = -0.064, p = >0.01). These pragmatic findings suggest a negative impact of livestock and human interference on the bird species richness and abundance.

 

 

Conclusion

 

The present study is the first documentation of the bird diversity, richness, and feeding guilds found in GBWS. Our study concludes with evidence that GBWS is an essential habitat for birds with high conservation status.

The diversity of bird species recorded is highest in the scrubland habitat and lowest in the cultivation habitat. However, these habitats are under constant threat of high risk for immense anthropogenic pressure. Also, if human disturbance increases at the same pace, there would be the threat of homogenization of avian species, as these generalist species have the advantage over the specialists in disturbed ecosystems. Consequently, the study suggests that maintaining heterogeneous habitats could be a better strategy for the long-term survival of resident and migratory birds in GBWS.

 

 

Table 1. Percentage, feeding guild, diversity, and dominance of birds in different habitats in GBWS Bihar and Jharkhand.

 

 

Habitat

Number of species

Percentage

Feeding guild

Shannon diversity

Simpson (1-D)

Evenness

Fisher alpha

1

Woodland

53

53.53

6

3.181

0.926

0.454

17.26

2

Scrubland

47

47.47

7

3.186

0.950

0.514

24.83

3

Riverine

32

32.32

5

3.003

0.960

0.629

19.77

4

Human settlement

37

37.37

6

3.136

0.978

0.621

41.12

5

Cultivation land

20

20.20

5

2.527

0.947

0.625

16.47

 

 

Table 2. Species presence at all habitats of each feeding guild.

Feeding guild

Habitat

Number of species

WL

RV

H

CL

SL

Carnivorous

7

5

3

4

3

15

Frugivorous

4

0

2

1

2

4

Granivorous

3

1

3

0

6

7

Insectivorous

27

20

16

9

19

47

Nectivorous

1

0

1

1

1

1

Omnivorous

11

5

12

5

15

24

Piscivorous

0

1

0

0

1

1

Number of species

53

32

37

20

47

 

WL—woodland | CL—cultivation land | RV—riverine | HS—human settlement | SL—scrubland.

 

Table 3. Sorenson’s similarity index value between different habitats.

 

Habitat

WL

CL

RV

HS

SL

1

SL

0.31

0.22

0.17

0.26

 

2

HS

0.30

0.17

0.20

 

 

3

WB

0.14

0.21

 

 

 

4

RV

0.21

 

 

 

 

5

WL

 

 

 

 

 

WL—woodland | CL—cultivation land | RV—riverine | HS—human settlement | SL—scrubland.

 

 

For figures, images & Appendix - - click here for full PDF

 

 

References

 

Adhikari, J.N., B.P. Bhattarai & T.B. Thapa (2019). Factors affecting diversity and distribution of threatened birds in Chitwan National Park, Nepal. Journal of Threatened Taxa 11(5): 13511–13522. https://doi.org/10.11609/jot.4137.11.5.13511-13522

Andrade, R., H.L. Bateman, J. Franklin & D. Allen (2018). Waterbird community composition, abundance, and diversity along an urban gradient. Landscape and Urban Planning 170: 103–111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2017.11.003

Aronson, M.F., F.A. la Sorte, C.H. Nilon, M. Katti, M.A. Goddard, C.A. Lepczyk, P.S. Warren, N.S. Williams, S. Cilliers, B. Clarkson, C. Dobbs, R. Dolan, M. Hedblom, S. Klotz, J.L. Kooijmans, I. Kühn, I. Macgregor-Fors, M. McDonnell, U. Mörtberg, P. Petr, S. Stefan, S. Jessica, W. Peter & W. Marten (2014). A global analysis of the impacts of urbanization on bird and plant diversity reveals key anthropogenic drivers. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 281(1780): 2013-3330. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2013.3330

Azman, N.M., N.S.A. Latip, S.A.M. Sah, M.A.M.M Akil, N.J. Shafie & N.L. Khairuddin (2011). Avian diversity and feeding guilds in a secondary forest, an oil palm plantation and a paddy field in Riparian areas of the Kerian River Basin, Perak, Malaysia. Tropical Life Sciences Research 22(2): 45.

Balestrieri, R., M. Basile, M. Posillico, T. Altea, B. De Cinti & G. Matteucci (2015). A guild-based approach to assessing the influence of beech forest structure on bird communities. Forest Ecology and Management 356: 216–223. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2015.07.011

Batzer, D.P. & V.H. Resh (1992). Macroinvertebrates of a California seasonal wetland and responses to experimental habitat manipulation. Wetlands 12(1): 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03160538

Beasley, C.J. (2013). Avian communities in suspended development: disentangling mechanistic effects of changing habitat structure versus human habitation (Doctoral dissertation, University of Georgia).

Beninde, J., M. Veith & A. Hochkirch (2015). Biodiversity in cities needs space: a meta-analysis of factors determining intra-urban biodiversity variation. Ecology Letters 18(6): 581–592. https://doi.org/10.1111/ele.12427

Berg, Å. (2002). Composition and diversity of bird communities in Swedish farmland–forest mosaic landscapes. Bird Study 49(2): 153–165. https://doi.org/10.1080/00063650209461260

Bibby, C.J. (2000). Bird census techniques. Elsevier, 40 pp.

Blair, R.B. (2001a). Birds and butterflies along urban gradients in two ecoregions of the United States: is urbanization creating a homogeneous fauna? pp. 33–56. In: Biotic Homogenization. Springer, Boston, MA.

Blair, R.B. (2001b). Creating a homogeneous avifauna. Avian Ecology and Conservation in an Urbanizing World: 459–486. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4615-1531-9_22

Brawn, J.D., S.K. Robinson & F.R. Thompson III (2001). The role of disturbance in the ecology and conservation of birds. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics: 251–276. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.32.081501.114031

Caziani, S.M. & E. Derlindati (2000). Abundance and habitat of high Andes flamingos in northwestern Argentina. Waterbirds: 121–133. https://doi.org/10.2307/1522157

Chakdar, B., P. Choudhury & H. Singha (2016). Avifaunal diversity in Assam University  Campus, Silchar, India. Journal of Threatened Taxa 8(1): 8369–8378. https://doi.org/10.11609/jott.2524.8.1.8369-8378

Chandrasiri, P.H.S.P., W.D.S.C. Dharmarathne & W.A.D. Mahaulpatha (2018). Diversity and Distribution of Avifauna at the Tropical Montane Cloud Forests of Horton Plains National Park. Journal of Tropical Forestry and Environment 8(1):  36–49. https://doi.org/10.31357/jtfe.v8i1.3481

Chettri, N., D.C. Deb, E. Sharma & R. Jackson (2005). The relationship between bird communities and habitat. Mountain Research and Development 25(3): 235–243. https://doi.org/10.1659/0276-4741(2005)025[0235:TRBBCA]2.0.CO;2

Corbett, J. (2006). Measuring wildlife habitat: What to measure and how to measure it. Wildlife-Habitat Relationships: Concepts and Applications 151. University of Wisconsin Press, 416 pp.

Cramer, M.J. & M.R. Willig (2005). Habitat heterogeneity, species diversity and null models. Oikos 108(2): 209–218; It was discovered that there was no significant correlation between any of the habitat categories and summer visits, winter visitors, or passage migrants. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0030-1299.2005.12944.x

Daily, G.C., P.R. Ehrlich & G.A. Sanchez-Azofeifa (2001). Countryside biogeography: use of human-dominated habitats by the avifauna of southern Costa Rica. Ecological Applications 11(1): 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1890/1051-0761(2001)011[0001:CBUOHD]2.0.CO;2

Ding, Z., J. Liang, Y. Hu, Z. Zhou, H. Sun, L. Liu & X. Si (2019). Different responses of avian feeding guilds to spatial and environmental factors across an elevation gradient in the central Himalaya. Ecology and Evolution 9(7): 4116–4128. https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.5040

Earnst, S.L. & A.L. Holmes (2012). Bird—habitat relationships in interior Columbia basin shrub steppe. The Condor 114(1): 15–29. https://doi.org/10.1525/cond.2012.100176

Euliss Jr, N.H. & G. Grodhaus (1987). Management of midges and other invertebrates for waterfowl wintering in California. California Fish and Game 73(4): 238–243.

Evans, K.L., S.E. Newson & K.J. Gaston (2009). Habitat influences on urban avian assemblages. Ibis 151(1): 19–39. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1474-919X.2008.00898.x

Figueroa, R.A. & E.S. Corales (2005). Seasonal diet of the Aplomado Falcon (Falco femoralis) in an agricultural area of Araucanía, southern Chile. Journal of Raptor Research 39(1): 55–60.

Fisher, R.A. & F. Yates (1953). Statistical Tables for Biological, Agricultural and Medical Research. Hafner Publishing Company.

Gabbe, A.P., S.K. Robinson & J.D. Brawn (2002). Tree-species preferences of foraging insectivorous birds: implications for floodplain forest restoration. Conservation Biology 16(2): 462–470. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1523-1739.2002.00460.x

Gomes, L.G., V. Oostra, V. Nijman, A.M. Cleef & M. Kappelle (2008). Tolerance of frugivorous birds to habitat disturbance in a tropical cloud forest. Biological Conservation 141(3): 860–871. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2008.01.007

Grimmett, R., C. Inskipp & T. Inskipp (2016). Birds of the Indian Subcontinent: India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Nepal, Bhutan, Bangladesh and the Maldives. Bloomsbury India, 448 pp.

Haddad, N.M., L.A. Brudvig, J. Clobert, K.F. Davies, A. Gonzalez, R.D. Holt & J.R. Townshend (2015). Habitat fragmentation and its lasting impact on Earth’s ecosystems. Science Advances 1(2): e1500052. https://doi.org:10.1126/sciadv.1500052

Hammer, Ø., & D.A. Harper (2001). PAST: Paleontological statistics software package for education and data analysis. Palaeontologia Electronica 4(1): 9.

Harisha, M.N. & B.B. Hosetti (2009). Diversity and distribution of avifauna of Lakkavalli range forest, Bhadra wildlife sanctuary, western ghat, India. Ecoprint: An International Journal of Ecology 16: 21–27. https://doi.org:10.3126/eco.v16i0.3469

Henderson, I.G., J. Cooper, R.J. Fuller & J. Vickery (2000). The relative abundance of birds on set-aside and neighbouring fields in summer. Journal of Applied Ecology 37(2): 335–347. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2664.2000.00497.x

Hettiarachchi, T. & C.S. Wijesundara (2017). Conservational significance of Dunumadalawa Forest Reserve in Central Sri Lanka based on the endemism of its avifauna. Ceylon Journal of Science 46(3): 21–30. https://doi.org:10.4038/cjs.v46i3.7439

Katuwal, H.B., K. Basnet, B. Khanal, S. Devkota, S.K. Rai, J.P. Gajurel & M.P. Nobis (2016). Seasonal changes in bird species and feeding guilds along elevational gradients of the Central Himalayas, Nepal. PLoS One 11(7): e0158362. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0158362

Khan, M.S. & A. Pant (2017). Conservation status, species composition, and distribution of Avian Community in Bhimbandh Wildlife Sanctuary, India. Journal of Asia-Pacific Biodiversity 10(1): 20–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.japb.2016.07.004

King, S., C.S. Elphick, D. Guadagnin, O. Taft & T. Amano (2010). Effects of landscape features on waterbird use of rice fields. Waterbirds 33(sp1): 151–159. https://doi.org/10.1675/063.033.s111

Kissling, W.D., F. Carsten, Dormann, G. Ju¨rgen, H. Thomas, I. Ku¨hn, G.J. McInerny, J.M. Montoya, C. Ro¨mermann, K. Schiffers, F.M. Schurr, A. Singer, J. Svenning, N.E. Zimmermann & R.B. O’Hara (2012). Towards novel approaches to modelling biotic interactions in multispecies assemblages at large spatial extents. Journal of Biogeography 39(12): 2163–2178. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2699.2011.02663.x

Kumar, A. (2016). Forest ecology of Gautam Buddha Wildlife Sanctuary of Bihar, India. Flora 22(1): 93–96.

Kumar, G., A. Alam, M. Maaz, M.S.D. Kumari & A. Kumar (2021). First Record of Occurrence of Indian Tree Shrew (Anathana ellioti) in Gautam Buddha Wildlife Sanctuary, Gaya, Bihar (India). Indian Journal of Ecology 48(5): 1566–1568.

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, T.S., R. Chandra & P.A. Azeez (2010). The birds of Araku, Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh, India. Journal of Threatened Taxa 2(1): 662–665. https://doi.org/10.11609/JoTT.o2108.662-5

Lande, R., P.J. DeVries & T.R. Walla (2000). When species accumulation curves intersect: implications for ranking diversity using small samples. Oikos 89(3): 601–605. https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0706.2000.890320.x

Lepczyk, C.A. & P.S. Warren (2012). Urban Bird Ecology and Conservation. Studies in Avian Biology No. 45. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA. xiv + 326 pp.

Lorenzón, R.E., A.H. Beltzer, P.F. Olguin & A.L. Ronchi-Virgolini (2016). Habitat heterogeneity drives bird species richness, nestedness and habitat selection by individual species in fluvial wetlands of the Paraná River, Argentina. Austral Ecology 41(7): 829–841. https://doi.org/10.1111/aec.12375

MacArthur, R.H. & J.W. MacArthur (1961). On bird species diversity. Ecology 42(3): 594–598.

Maher, M. (1984). Benthic studies of waterfowl breeding habitat in south-western New South Wales. I. The fauna. Marine and Freshwater Research 35(1): 85–96. https://doi.org/10.1071/MF9840085

Mali, S., C. Srinivasulu & A.R. Rahmani (2017). Avifaunal diversity in the scrub forest of Sri Lankamalleswara Wildlife Sanctuary, Andhra Pradesh, India. Journal of Threatened Taxa 9(9): 10679–10691. http://doi.org/10.11609/jott.2720.9.9.10679-10691

Manhães, M.A. & A. Loures-Ribeiro (2005). Spatial distribution and diversity of bird community in an urban area of Southeast Brazil. Brazilian Archives of Biology and Technology 48: 285–294. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1516-89132005000200016

McCain, C.M. & J.A. Grytnes (2010). Elevational gradients in species richness. Encyclopedia of Life Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470015902.a0022548

McKinney, M.L. (2006). Urbanization as a major cause of biotic homogenization. Biological Conservation 127(3): 247–260. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2005.09.005

Mukhopadhyay, S. & S. Mazumdar (2019). Habitat-wise composition and foraging guilds of avian community in a suburban landscape of lower Gangetic plains, West Bengal, India. Biologia 74(8): 1001–1010. https://doi.org/10.2478/s11756-019-00226-x

Nirbhay, A. & C.T.N. Singh (2009). Summer grasses of Gautam Buddha wild life sanctuary, Hazaribagh. Advances in Plant Sciences 22(2): 575–576.

Nsor, C.A., E. Acquah, G. Mensah, V. Kusi-Kyei & S. Boadi (2018). Avian Community Structure as a Function of Season, Habitat Type, and Disturbance, in Mole National Park, Northern Region (Ghana). International Journal of Ecology 2018: 2045629. https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/2045629

O’Connell, T.J., L.E. Jackson & R.P. Brooks (2000). Bird guilds as indicators of ecological condition in the central Appalachians. Ecological Applications 10(6): 1706–1721. https://doi.org/10.1890/1051-0761(2000)010[1706:BGAIOE]2.0.CO;2

Panda, B.P., B. Prusty, B. Panda, A. Pradhan & S.P. Parida (2021). Habitat heterogeneity influences avian feeding guild composition in urban landscapes: evidence from Bhubaneswar, India. Ecological Processes 10(1): 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13717-021-00304-6

Pardini, R., E. Nichols & T. Püttker (2017). Biodiversity response to habitat loss and fragmentation. Encyclopedia of the Anthropocene 3: 229–239. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-809665-9.09824-4

Pejchar, L., R.M. Pringle, J. Ranganathan, J.R. Zook, G. Duran, F. Oviedo & G.C. Daily (2008). Birds as agents of seed dispersal in a human-dominated landscape in southern Costa Rica. Biological Conservation 141(2): 536–544. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2007.11.008

Pickett, S.T., M.L. Cadenasso, J.M. Grove, C.G. Boone, P.M. Groffman, E. Irwin, S.S. Kaushal, V. Marshall, B.P. McGrath, C.H. Nilon, R.V. Pouyat, K. Szlavecz, A. Troy & P. Warren (2011). Urban ecological systems: Scientific foundations and a decade of progress. Journal of Environmental Management 92(3): 331–362. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2010.08.022

Poulin, B., G. Lefebvre & R.A.Y.M.O.N.D. McNeil (1993). Variations in bird abundance in tropical arid and semi-arid habitats. Ibis 135(4): 432–441. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1474-919X.1993.tb02116.x

Praveen, J., R. Jayapal & A. Pittie (2016). A Checklist of the birds of India. Indian Birds 11(5&6): 113–172.

Rathod, J. & G. Padate (2017). Feeding guilds of urban birds of Vadodara city. International Journal of Fauna Biological Studies 4: 78–85.

Rodgers, W.A. & H.S. Panwar (1988). Planning a Wildlife Protected area Network in India. 2 Volumes. Project FO: IND/82/003, FAO, Dehradun, 339 pp, 267 pp.

Seymour, C.L. & R.E. Simmons (2008). Can severely fragmented patches of riparian vegetation still be important for arid-land bird diversity? Journal of Arid Environments 72(12): 2275–2281. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaridenv.2008.07.014

Shannon, C.E. (1948). A mathematical theory of communication. The Bell system technical journal 27(3): 379–423. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1538-7305.1948.tb01338.x

Simpson, E.H. (1949). Measurement of diversity. Nature 163(4148): 688–688. https://doi.org/10.1038/163688a0

Singh, M. (2022). Avifaunal diversity in unprotected wetlands of Ayodhya District, Uttar Pradesh, India. Journal of Threatened Taxa 14(8): 21561–21578. https://doi.org/10.11609/jott.7067.14.8.21561-21578

Sivaramakrishnan, K. (2000). Crafting the public sphere in the forests of West Bengal: Democracy, development, and political action. American Ethnologist 27(2): 431–461. https://doi.org/10.1525/ae.2000.27.2.431

Sorensen, T.A. (1948). A method of establishing groups of equal amplitude in plant sociology based on similarity of species content and its application to analyses of the vegetation on Danish commons. Biological Sarkar 5: 1–34.

Stafford, J.D., R.M. Kaminski & K.J. Reinecke (2010).  Avian foods, foraging and habitat conservation in world rice fields. Waterbirds 33(sp1): 133–150. https://doi.org/10.1675/063.033.s110

Statsoft (2001). Statistica (data analysis software system), ver.6. - StatSoft, <www.statsoft.com>.

Stein, A. & H. Kreft (2015). Terminology and quantification of environmental heterogeneity in species-richness research. Biological Reviews 90(3): 815–836. https://doi.org/10.1111/brv.12135

Stein, A., K. Gerstner & H. Kreft (2014). Environmental heterogeneity as a universal driver of species richness across taxa, biomes and spatial scales. Ecology letters 17(7): 866–880. https://doi.org/10.1111/ele.12277

Stirnemann, I.A., K. Ikin, P. Gibbons, W. Blanchard & D.B. Lindenmayer (2015). Measuring habitat heterogeneity reveals new insights into bird community composition. Oecologia 177(3): 733–746. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00442-014-3134-0

Surasinghe, T.D. & C. De Alwis (2010). Birds of Sabaragamuwa University campus, Buttala, Sri Lanka. Journal of Threatened Taxa 2(5): 876–888. https://doi.org/10.11609/JoTT.o2113.876-88

Symonds, M.R. & C.N. Johnson (2008). Species richness and evenness in Australian birds. The American Naturalist 171(4): 480–490. https://doi.org/10.1086/528960

Tanalgo, K.C., J.A.F. Pineda, M.E. Agravante & Z.M. Amerol (2015). Bird diversity and structure in different land-use types in lowland south-central Mindanao, Philippines. Tropical Life Sciences Research 26(2): 85.

Tanveer, A., H.S. Bargali & K. Afifullah (2019). Status and distribution of avifauna in Ramnagar Forest Division, Western Terai-Arc Landscape, Uttarakhand. Indian Forester 145(10): 935–945.

Thakur, M.L. & V.K. Mattu (2011). Avifauna of Kaza area of Spiti (Himachal Pradesh), India. International Journal of Science and Nature 2(3): 483–487.

Thilakarathne, D., T. Lakkana, G. Hirimuthugoda, C. Wijesundara & S. Kumburegama (2021). Diversity and distribution of avifauna at Warathenna-Hakkinda Environmental Protection Area in Kandy, Sri Lanka. Journal of Threatened Taxa 13(12): 19689–19701. https://doi.org/10.11609/jott.7447.13.12.19689-19701

Tubelis, D.P. & R.B. Cavalcanti (2001). Community similarity and abundance of bird species in open habitats of a central Brazilian Cerrado. Ornitologia Neotropical 12(1): 57–73.

Vinayak, D.C. & S.V. Mali (2018). A checklist of bird communities In Tamhini Wildlife Sanctuary, the northern Western Ghats, Maharashtra, India. Journal of Threatened Taxa 10(3): 11399–11409. https://doi.org/10.11609/jot.3377.10.3.11399-11409

Williams, C.B. (1964). Patterns in the balance of nature and related problems of quantitative ecology. Journal of Ecology 54(2): 549–550.  https://doi.org/10.2307/2257968

Wilson, M.C., X.Y. Chen, R.T. Corlett, R.K. Didham, P. Ding, R.D. Holt & M. Yu (2016). Habitat fragmentation and biodiversity conservation: key findings and future challenges. Landscape Ecology 31(2): 219–227. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-015-0312-3

Wolfe, J.D., M.D. Johnson & C.J. Ralph (2014). Do birds select habitat or food resources? Nearctic-Neotropic migrants in northeastern Costa Rica. PloS One 9(1): e86221. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0086221

Yeany II, D. (2009). Avian Community Analysis and Habitat Relationships at Finzel Swamp, Maryland. Master Thesis, xi + 153 pp.  https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.1.4669.9283