Journal of Threatened Taxa |
www.threatenedtaxa.org | 26 January 2024 | 16(1): 24557–24567
ISSN 0974-7907
(Online) | ISSN 0974-7893 (Print)
https://doi.org/10.11609/jott.8639.16.1.24557-24567
#8639 | Received 18
July 2023 | Final received 22 November 2023 | Finally accepted 15 December 2023
Assessment of diversity,
abundance, and seasonal variations of bird species in Bengaluru District, India
during COVID-19 lockdown
H. Hemanth 1,
Rajalakshmi K.S. Vinanthi 2 & Kuppusamy Alagesan Paari 3
1,2,3 Department of Lifesciences, CHRIST
(Deemed to be University), Dharmaram College Road,
Hosur Road, Bengaluru, Karnataka 560029, India.
1 hemanth.h@res.christuniversity.in,
2 vinanthi.rajalakshmi@res.christuniversity.in, 3 paari.ka@christuniversity.in
(corresponding author)
Editor: H. Byju,
Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu, India. Date of publication: 26 January
2024 (online & print)
Citation:
Hemanth, H., R.K.S. Vinanthi & K.A. Paari (2024). Assessment of diversity, abundance, and
seasonal variations of bird species in Bengaluru District, India during
COVID-19 lockdown. Journal
of Threatened Taxa 16(1): 24557–24567. https://doi.org/10.11609/jott.8639.16.1.24557-24567
Copyright: © Hemanth et al. 2024. 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: H. Hemanth and Rajalakshmi K.S. Vinanthi are currently pursuing their doctoral studies in zoology at the Department of Lifesciences, CHRIST (Deemed to be University), Bengaluru. Dr. Kuppusamy Alagesan Paari is working as an assistant professor at the Department of Lifesciences, CHRIST (Deemed to be University), Bengaluru.
Author contributions: HH carried out surveys, photography and identification of birds. RKSV make substantial contributions to acquisition of theoretical data, compilation of data and manuscript preparation. KAP have contributed towards the conception, designing of ideas and critical revision that has helped in the formation of the present research manuscript. All the authors reviewed and approved the final manuscript.
Acknowledgements: The authors wish to acknowledge
the support received from the Centre for Research, CHRIST (Deemed to be
University) (MRPDSC – 1936).
Abstract: The study investigates bird
population dynamics in Bengaluru, India, post-lockdown, focusing on occurrence,
seasonal abundance, species diversity, richness, dominance, and evenness. It
covers 55 bird species across 52 genera, grouped into 32 families within 13
orders, with a notable peak in winter. Various indices, including Shannon
Wiener, Margalef’s, Pielou’s,
and Simpson’s, reveal significant seasonal differences in bird population
characteristics. The Rock Pigeon Columba livia
dominates, while the Black-headed Ibis Threskiornis
melanocephalus is less prevalent. The study
identifies Near Threatened species like Black-headed Ibis and Oriental Darter Anhinga
melanogaster, along with Least Concern species per the IUCN Red List.
Common species include Rock Pigeon, Large-billed Crow Corvus
macrorhynchos, House Crow Corvus
splendens, Black Drongo
Dicrurus macrocercus,
Brown Shrike Lanius cristatus,
Common Myna Acridotheres tristis, Jungle Myna Acridotheres
fuscus, Red-whiskered Bulbul Pycnonotus
jocosus, and Streak-throated Swallow Petrochelidon fluvicola.
The study aims to inform improved management and conservation strategies for
Bengaluru’s diverse bird species.
Keywords: Avian abundance, bird diversity,
conservation, lockdown effects, pollution indices, species evenness, species
richness, threatened species, water bodies.
INTRODUCTION
Bengaluru, the fifth largest city
in India, is known as the Garden City owing to its natural vegetation, rich
parks, gardens, lakes, and streets lined with large canopied flowering trees (Rajashekara & Venkatesha
2016). Rapid urbanization and massive increase in population density have
affected the existence and diversity of wildlife (Ramachandra et al. 2017; Yang
et al. 2022). Birds are common inhabitants and are an important component of
any ecosystem as they are involved in several trophic levels in the food web
(Blair 1999). In the urban ecosystem, the development of huge green spaces
contributed to the sustainable conservation of bird species (Campbell et al.
2022; Choudaj et al. 2023). The abundance of bird
species and their variety within a specific region can have consequences for
both terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems, which are interconnected within the
broader food web (Turner 2003). The declining abundance of bird species in
specific regions, particularly urban areas, is a cause for concern, especially
when considering metrics related to urbanization and pollution (Donaldson et
al. 2007).
Factors such as climatic
stability and seasonality have a positive influence on avian diversity and are
important determinants of avian diversity (Graham et al. 2006). In urban areas,
compared to previous years, an increase in the daily mean number and visibility
of a new proportion of bird species were witnessed during the COVID-19 pandemic
seasons (Basile et al. 2021). The
avifaunal diversity reported in Bangladesh during lockdown revealed the
relative abundance and detectability of Red-vented Bulbul Pycnonotus
cafer which was directly related to their
breeding season during the seasons from March to August (Shome
et al. 2021). The diversity of biological resources depends on climatic,
physical conditions, topographic features, altitudinal differences between
highland and lowland areas, and the geological history of a region (Parmesan
& Yohe 2003). Anthropogenic climate change has a
widespread impact on many biological processes and migratory patterns of birds
due to the unavailability of primary requirements of food, shelter, roosting,
and nesting sites for birds which vary during different seasons (Cockrem 1995). A study by Shome
et al. (2021) during the summer and rainy times of Covid
pandemic seasons revealed the altered species composition of migratory birds
belonging to the family Cuculidae. The restricted
human activities and food limitations during the COVID-19 pandemic had an impact on the
progressive decline and in the abundance of Columbia livia
in open feeding hotspots (Soh et al. 2021).
Biotic assemblages are
significantly influenced by urbanization factors, leading to restricted
turnover rates of bird species and reduced richness of native species due to
human settlements (Godefroid 2001). The impact of
COVID-19 on bird species, including richness, abundance, and diversity, has
been substantial. Recent studies have highlighted the effects of lockdowns on
avifauna populations, with observations of nearly 24 bird species’ abundance
during the spring of 2020 in North America (Schrimpf
et al. 2021). Uncommon species like the Black-rumped Flameback Dinopium benghalense, not reported in 2019 or the pre-period of
2020, became abundant during the lockdown in Bengaluru. Similarly, the
Large-billed Crow was predominantly detected in the post-lockdown period of
2020 in New Delhi (Madhok & Gulati 2022). A study by Estela et al. (2021)
on the nocturnal birds of Cali City, Colombia, revealed a decreased species richness
of 40–58 % during lockdown restrictions.
The overnight limitations of
anthropogenic activities (anthropause) led to the lag
between the lockdown and species diversity which exhibited the gradual recovery
of species. Though databases such as citizen sciences, iNaturalist,
and eBird offer data on population statistics of bird
species, scientific evidence concerning the pandemic impact on avifaunal
diversity, and seasonal variation detectability is scarce. Therefore, the
present article aims to focus on the occurrence, seasonal abundance, species
diversity, species richness, species dominance, and species evenness of bird
population in different seasons during the pandemic lockdown season. This
generated data could be useful for designing high throughput conservation
strategies for better management of the avian population.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Study area
and data collection
The research was conducted at Hinnakki Village Lake in the Bengaluru district of
Karnataka, India (Figure 1), situated at 12.774N & 77.678E, with an
altitude of 889 m (2,918 ft) in the southern part of Karnataka. The average
annual rainfall in the region is approximately 1,958.6 mm, with maximum and
minimum annual temperatures recorded at 36.7 °C and 13.9 °C, respectively. The
dominant vegetation type in the selected study area is tropical deciduous. The
study encompassed the lake region and adjacent habitats, including
agroforestry, agricultural fields, and anthropogenic regions, as part of a
systematic examination of the seasonal abundance of birds. Four seasons—winter
(December–February), summer (March–May), monsoon (June–August), and retreating
monsoon (September–November)—were considered for the study (Girma
et al. 2017). The survey employed a point transect method (Newson et al. 2009),
with four regions covering 12 spots spaced at least 300 m apart. The study
period extended from December 2021 to November 2022, with surveys conducted in
the morning (0630–0830 h) and early evening (1630–1830 h) during each site
visit. Each spot was visited seasonally 20 times, and bird identification was
conducted using CASON 8 x 40 binoculars. Bird frequency was categorized as rare
(R), uncommon (UC), common (C), and very common (VC) following the protocol by
Kumar & Gupta (1970). Photographs of birds were captured using a Sony DSCHX
400V 20MP camera, and bird identification and checklists were meticulously
performed (Ali 2002; Manakadan et al. 2011; Grimmett et al. 2016).
Mathematical
formulation for data analysis
Data analysis was carried out
using the following equations:
Shannon
Wiener index-The type of diversity used was α- diversity which is the diversity
of species within a community or habitat. (Wiener diversity index 1949).
Diversity index: H = – ∑ Pi In Pi
where Pi = S ⁄ N
S = number of individuals of one
species
N = total number of all
individuals in the sample
ln = logarithm to base e
Margalef’s index was used as a simple
measure of species richness (Margalef 1958).
Margalef’s index = ((S – 1))/ln N
S = total number of species
N = total number of individuals
in the sample
ln = natural logarithm
Pielou’s Evenness Index (e) was used to
calculate the evenness of species (Pielou 1966).
Pielou’s Evenness Index = e = H / In S
H = Shannon – Wiener diversity
index
S = total number of species in
the sample
Simpson’s
diversity index (D) was used to calculate the species dominance (Simpson 1949).
Simpson index = D = 1 - (sum n *
(n - 1) / N * (N - 1))
n = number of individuals of each
species
N = total number of individuals
of all species
Relative
abundance
Number of checklists in which a bird is
recorded
Relative abundance =
–––––––––––––––––––––––––––– X 100
Total number of checklists
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The ecology of birds is
intricately tied to rainfall and vegetation, where fluctuations in these
environmental factors have direct and indirect effects on avian abundance.
Demographic parameters further contribute to the biodiversity shift in birds.
In the study area, the total recorded rainfall was 1958.6 mm, with the highest
monthly rainfall of 131.6 mm occurring in September. Summer temperatures ranged
from a maximum of 36.7°C to a minimum of 24.2°C in April, while winter
temperatures ranged from a maximum of 19.6°C to a minimum of 13.9°C in November.
The highest diurnal temperature variation was 17°C in February (max = 33°C, min
= 16°C), while the lowest was 1.8°C in December (max = 19.6°C, min = 17.8°C).
The harsh environment significantly impacts vital rates in the avian
population, with factors such as heat stress and hypothermia affecting survival
and population trends. Rainfall, in particular, correlates with breeding
success and factors associated with migratory bird assemblages. The study
validates a positive correlation between environmental metrics and avian
diversity and richness (Saracco et al. 2018).
A total of 55 species of birds
belonging to 52 genera belonging to 32 families of 13 orders were recorded
during the post-lockdown period in the study area (Imags
1–55; Figure 2). Among the observed bird species, 53 are classified as ‘Least
Concern,’ while two species fall under the category of ‘Near Threatened,’
namely the Black-headed Ibis and the Oriental Darter (Table 1). The
documentation included a total of 18 aquatic birds and 37 terrestrial birds.
The Rock Pigeon was identified as the most commonly found species, constituting
6.935% of the observed bird population, owing to its behavioral adaptability to
urban settings and resilience to anthropogenic disturbances (Polyavina et al. 2022). The Black-headed Ibis was found to
be the most uncommon species (0.012%), which might be due to their
preferred habitat and foraging areas such as shallow seasonal or permanent
wetlands, marshlands, and water-logged crop fields (Barik et al. 2021). The
decrease in marshy vegetation in the current study area due to the alteration
of the landscape, which involves the construction of concrete buildings, and
roads and also turning paddy fields into dry agricultural lands, affected the
avian diversity. The order Passeriformes exhibited the highest relative
abundance at 38.18%, attributed to Passerines’ predominant diet, which includes
insects, nuts, seeds, nectar, berries, and fruits (Bhatti et al. 2017). Most of
the passerines were found feeding on Indian Banyan Ficus
bengalensis, Sacred Fig Ficus
religiosa, Bur Flower-tree Neolamarckia
cadamba, Jamaican Berry Muntingia
calabura, and Bamboo Dendrocalamus
sp. The family Ardeidae, encompassing herons and
egrets, registered the highest relative abundance at 12.7%. The reason for
their abundance might be due to the number of water bodies surrounded by a huge number of
trees and bushes, which facilitate the nesting of birds. The abundance and
richness of Ardeidae species depend on the quality of
water bodies, vegetation cover, and the availability of food (Ahlam et al. 2019).
The current observation held
during the winter season showed the richness of bird species such as
Grey-headed Swamphen Porphyrio
poliocephalus, Black-winged Stilt Himantopus himantopus,
Pied Kingfisher Ceryle rudis,
White-cheeked Barbet Psilopogon viridis, and Rosy Starling Pastor roseus. In the summer season, Indian Spot-billed Duck
Anas poecilorhyncha, Indian Golden Oriole Oriolus kundoo, and
Black-headed Ibis have been found (Figure 3). The significant variation in
avifaunal diversity and abundance in different seasons could be due to seasonal
migration patterns, habitat changes, and climatic conditions (Aynalem & Bekele 2008). Invasive exotic species such as
Common Lantana Lantana camara,
Alligator Weed Alternanthera phyloxiroides, Parthenium
Weed Parthenium hysterophorus, Water Hyacinth
Eichhornia crassipes, and Water
Lettuce Pistia stratiotes was also
observed. Biological invasion in water bodies can cause significant damage to
the abundance of aquatic communities such as fish, zooplankton, and aquatic
invertebrates (Schirmel et al. 2016). The biological
oxygen demand of water bodies may, in turn, affect the bird population (Klemetsen et al. 2013; Mallin et
al. 2016).
CONCLUSION
The present research provides
information on the status of the bird population in the Bengaluru district. The
conversion of green spaces into concrete structures due to urbanization has
influenced bird diversity. Urbanization has varying control over the avian
population. The study identified a reduction in the wetland bird population. A
biodiversity shift was observed in the avian population of species such as Columba
livia, Corvus
macrorhynchos, and Corvus
splendens, were seen in common wherein the
density of the Near Threatened Threskiornis
melanocephalus and Anhinga melanogaster populations
was lower. Factors such as the magnitude of human activity during lockdown,
pollution indices such as agricultural runoff, air and noise quality
parameters, and food availability also influenced the migration pattern of
birds. Regular monitoring of the wetland’s biodiversity is an important
prerequisite to tracking the changes in avian population and diversity. The
study also discussed the importance of confounding factors such as seasonal
variations in the avian population. The involvement and support of residents
are critical in conserving the vegetation, which can have a direct impact on
the avian population and diversity.
Table 1. Encounter rates,
occurrence, conservation status, and the diet type of avian communities
reported in the study area.
|
Scientific name |
Common name |
Conservation status \ IUCN |
Frequency of observation |
Winter season |
Summer season |
Monsoon season |
Retreating monsoon season |
Total |
Relative abundance |
|
Anas poecilorhyncha |
Indian Spot-billed Duck |
LC |
R |
0 |
4 |
0 |
0 |
4 |
0.048 |
|
Threskiornis melanocephalus |
Black-headed Ibis |
NT |
R |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
0.012 |
|
Egretta garzetta |
Little Egret |
LC |
R |
6 |
12 |
18 |
10 |
46 |
0.558 |
|
Ardea cinerea |
Grey Heron |
LC |
R |
5 |
8 |
2 |
2 |
17 |
0.206 |
|
Ardea purpurea |
Purple Heron |
LC |
R |
30 |
51 |
38 |
20 |
139 |
1.688 |
|
Mesophoyx intermedia |
Intermediate Egret |
LC |
UC |
50 |
77 |
85 |
60 |
272 |
3.303 |
|
Bubulcus ibis |
Cattle Egret |
LC |
R |
10 |
20 |
22 |
15 |
67 |
0.813 |
|
Ardeola grayii |
Indian Pond Heron |
LC |
UC |
40 |
59 |
75 |
55 |
229 |
2.781 |
|
Ardea alba |
Great Egret |
LC |
R |
5 |
10 |
15 |
9 |
39 |
0.473 |
|
Phalacrocorax fuscicollis |
Indian Cormorant |
LC |
UC |
80 |
60 |
70 |
50 |
260 |
3.158 |
|
Anhinga melanogaster |
Oriental Darter |
NT |
R |
3 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
5 |
0.061 |
|
Elanus caeruleus |
Black-winged Kite |
LC |
R |
1 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
3 |
0.036 |
|
Milvus migrans |
Black Kite |
LC |
UC |
58 |
62 |
51 |
55 |
226 |
2.745 |
|
Haliastur indus |
Brahminy Kite |
LC |
UC |
47 |
45 |
39 |
43 |
174 |
2.113 |
|
Accipiter badius |
Shikra |
LC |
R |
2 |
3 |
1 |
1 |
7 |
0.085 |
|
Amaurornis phoenicurus |
White-breasted Waterhen |
LC |
UC |
88 |
44 |
26 |
53 |
211 |
2.562 |
|
Porphyrio poliocephalus |
Grey-headed Swamphen |
NE |
R |
10 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
10 |
0.121 |
|
Fulica atra |
Eurasian Coot |
LC |
R |
5 |
10 |
20 |
15 |
50 |
0.607 |
|
Himantopus himantopus |
Black-winged Stilt |
LC |
R |
5 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
5 |
0.061 |
|
Vanellus indicus |
Red-wattled
Lapwing |
LC |
UC |
65 |
50 |
60 |
66 |
241 |
2.927 |
|
Columba livia |
Rock Pigeon |
LC |
VC |
148 |
150 |
135 |
138 |
571 |
6.935 |
|
Spilopelia chinensis |
Spotted Dove |
LC |
UC |
50 |
62 |
45 |
40 |
197 |
2.393 |
|
Psittacula krameri |
Rose-ringed Parakeet |
LC |
UC |
50 |
60 |
84 |
78 |
272 |
3.303 |
|
Centropus sinensis |
Greater Coucal |
LC |
UC |
38 |
48 |
58 |
35 |
179 |
2.174 |
|
Eudynamys scolopacea |
Asian Koel |
LC |
UC |
59 |
45 |
40 |
33 |
177 |
2.149 |
|
Coracias benghalensis |
Indian Roller |
LC |
R |
20 |
5 |
8 |
15 |
48 |
0.583 |
|
Halcyon smyrnensis |
White-throated Kingfisher |
LC |
UC |
78 |
39 |
45 |
65 |
227 |
2.757 |
|
Ceryle rudis |
Pied Kingfisher |
LC |
R |
4 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
4 |
0.048 |
|
Merops philippinus |
Blue-tailed Bee-eater |
LC |
R |
35 |
39 |
31 |
34 |
139 |
1.688 |
|
Ocyceros birostris |
Indian Grey Hornbill |
LC |
R |
2 |
8 |
0 |
0 |
10 |
0.121 |
|
Upupa epops |
Hoopoe |
LC |
R |
4 |
3 |
0 |
0 |
7 |
0.085 |
|
Dinopium benghalense |
Black-rumped
Flameback |
LC |
R |
2 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
2 |
0.024 |
|
Psilopogon viridis |
White-cheeked Barbet |
LC |
R |
5 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
5 |
0.061 |
|
Psilopogon haemacephalus |
Coppersmith Barbet |
LC |
R |
8 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
10 |
0.121 |
|
Lanius cristatus |
Brown Shrike |
LC |
C |
90 |
100 |
60 |
85 |
335 |
4.068 |
|
Oriolus kundoo |
Indian Golden Oriole |
LC |
R |
0 |
6 |
0 |
0 |
6 |
0.072 |
|
Dicrurus macrocercus |
Black Drongo |
LC |
VC |
180 |
210 |
75 |
50 |
515 |
6.255 |
|
Corvus splendens |
House Crow |
LC |
C |
110 |
113 |
60 |
70 |
353 |
4.287 |
|
Corvus macrorhynchos |
Large-billed Crow |
LC |
VC |
180 |
200 |
90 |
100 |
570 |
6.923 |
|
Pycnonotus jocosus |
Red-whiskered Bulbul |
LC |
C |
85 |
78 |
60 |
77 |
300 |
3.643 |
|
Pycnonotus cafer |
Red-vented Bulbul |
LC |
UC |
70 |
50 |
30 |
50 |
200 |
2.429 |
|
Petrochelidon luvicola |
Streak-throated Swallow |
LC |
C |
100 |
135 |
50 |
80 |
365 |
4.433 |
|
Argya striata |
Jungle Babbler |
LC |
R |
6 |
3 |
2 |
3 |
14 |
0.171 |
|
Sturnia pagodarum |
Brahminy Starling |
LC |
R |
4 |
8 |
0 |
0 |
12 |
0.145 |
|
Acridotheres tristis |
Common Myna |
LC |
VC |
180 |
153 |
86 |
93 |
512 |
6.218 |
|
Acridotheres fuscus |
Jungle Myna |
LC |
C |
120 |
105 |
50 |
60 |
335 |
4.068 |
|
Pastor roseus |
Rosy Starling |
LC |
R |
150 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
150 |
1.821 |
|
Copsychus saularis |
Oriental Magpie Robin |
LC |
R |
30 |
21 |
22 |
20 |
93 |
1.129 |
|
Saxicoloides fulicatus |
Indian Robin |
LC |
R |
28 |
24 |
20 |
23 |
95 |
1.153 |
|
Terpsiphone paradisi |
Indian Paradise Flycatcher |
LC |
R |
1 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
3 |
0.036 |
|
Cinnyris asiaticus |
Purple Sunbird |
LC |
R |
20 |
12 |
5 |
8 |
45 |
0.546 |
|
Nectarinia zeylonica |
Purple-rumped
Sunbird |
LC |
R |
15 |
10 |
5 |
5 |
35 |
0.426 |
|
Passer domesticus |
House Sparrow |
LC |
UC |
55 |
42 |
30 |
35 |
162 |
1.967 |
|
Motacilla maderaspatensis |
White-browed Wagtail |
LC |
UC |
79 |
74 |
63 |
67 |
283 |
3.437 |
|
Anthus rufulus |
Paddy Field Pipit |
LC |
R |
20 |
33 |
15 |
18 |
86 |
1.044 |
Table 2. Avian diversity in
different seasons.
|
Biodiversity indices |
Winter season |
Summer season |
Monsoon season |
Retreating monsoon Season |
|
Shannon Wiener index (Species
diversity) |
3.434 |
3.379 |
3.408 |
3.4 |
|
Margalef’s index (Species
richness) |
6.506 |
6.052 |
5.112 |
5.228 |
|
Pielou evenness index
(Species evenness) |
0.869 |
0.873 |
0.93 |
0.922 |
|
Simpson’s index (Species
dominance) |
0.04 |
0.043 |
0.038 |
0.038 |
|
Number of encounters |
2446 |
2359 |
1691 |
1737 |
|
Number of species |
52 |
48 |
39 |
40 |
Table 3. Representation of the
number of species belonging to each family observed in the study area.
|
Orders |
Family |
No. of genera |
No. of species |
Abun-dance |
|
Anseriformes |
Anatidae |
1 |
1 |
1.81 |
|
Pelecaniformes |
Threskiornithidae |
1 |
1 |
1.81 |
|
|
Ardeidae |
5 |
7 |
12.7 |
|
Suliformes |
Phalacrocoracidae |
1 |
1 |
1.81 |
|
|
Anhingidae |
1 |
1 |
1.81 |
|
Accipitriformes |
Accipitridae |
4 |
4 |
7.27 |
|
Gruiformes |
Rallidae |
3 |
3 |
5.45 |
|
|
Recurvirostridae |
1 |
1 |
1.81 |
|
Charadriiformes |
Charadriidae |
1 |
1 |
1.81 |
|
Columbiformes |
Columbidae |
2 |
2 |
3.63 |
|
Psittaciformes |
Psittacidae |
1 |
1 |
1.81 |
|
Cuculiformes |
Cuculidae |
2 |
2 |
3.63 |
|
Coraciiformes |
Coraciidae |
1 |
1 |
1.81 |
|
|
Alcedinidae |
2 |
2 |
3.63 |
|
|
Meropidae |
1 |
1 |
1.81 |
|
Bucerotiformes |
Bucerotidae |
1 |
1 |
1.81 |
|
|
Upupidae |
1 |
1 |
1.81 |
|
Piciformes |
Picidae |
1 |
1 |
1.81 |
|
|
Megalaimidae |
1 |
2 |
3.63 |
|
Passeriformes |
Laniidae |
1 |
1 |
1.81 |
|
|
Oriolidae |
1 |
1 |
1.81 |
|
|
Dicruridae |
1 |
1 |
1.81 |
|
|
Corvidae |
1 |
2 |
3.63 |
|
|
Pycnonotidae |
1 |
2 |
3.63 |
|
|
Hirundinidae |
1 |
1 |
1.81 |
|
|
Sturnidae |
3 |
4 |
7.27 |
|
|
Muscicapidae |
3 |
3 |
5.45 |
|
|
Nectariniidae |
2 |
2 |
3.63 |
|
|
Leiothrichidae |
1 |
1 |
1.81 |
|
|
Passeridae |
2 |
2 |
3.63 |
|
|
Motacillidae |
1 |
1 |
1.81 |
|
13 |
32 |
49 |
55 |
|
For
figures & images - - click here for full PDF
REFERENCES
Ahlam, C., B. Ettayib,
M. Fateh & D. Soumia (2019). Effects of vegetation and water
seasonal variation on habitat use of herons (Aves, Ardeidae)
in Tonga Lake (North-East Algeria). Bolyai Biologia (2): 25–40. https://doi.org/10.24193/subbbiol.2019.2.03
Ali, S.
(2002). The book of
Indian birds. Oxford University Press. New
Delhi, 326 pp.
Aynalem, S. & A. Bekele (2008). Species composition, relative
abundance and distribution of bird fauna of riverine and wetland habitats of Infranz and Yiganda at southern
tip of Lake Tana, Ethiopia. Tropical Ecology 49(2): 199.
Barik, S.,
G.K. Saha & S. Mazumdar (2021). How the habitat features
influence Black-headed Ibis (Threskiornis melanocephalus) in a suburban area? A study from
mid-West Bengal, India. Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London
75(1): 39–47.
Basile, M.,
L.F. Russo, V.G. Russo, A. Senese & N. Bernardo
(2021). Birds seen
and not seen during the COVID-19 pandemic: The impact of lockdown measures on
citizen science bird observations. Biological Conservation 256: 109079.
Bhatti, Z.
(2017). A study on
status and distribution of Passeriformes in Bagh district of Azad Kashmir. Journal
of Bioresource Management 4(1): 3.
Blair, R.B.
(1999). Birds and
butterflies along an urban gradient: Surrogate taxa for assessing biodiversity?
Ecological Applications 9(1): 164–170. https://doi.org/10.1890/1051-0761(1999)009[0164:babaau]2.0.co;2
Campbell,
C.E., D.N. Jones, M. Awasthy & A.L. Chauvenet (2022). How do we study birds in urban
settings? A systematic review. Biodiversity and Conservation 31(1):
1–20.
Cockrem, J.F. (1995). Timing of seasonal breeding in
birds, with particular reference to New Zealand birds. Reproduction,
Fertility, and Development 7(1): 1–19.
https://doi.org/10.1071/rd9950001
Choudaj, K. & C. Shaha
(2023). Natural
remnants are refuges for rare birds in an urban area: a study from Pune city,
India. Ornis Hungarica 31(1): 62–71.
Donaldson,
M.R., K.M. Henein & M.W. Runtz (2007). Assessing the effect of
developed habitat on waterbird behaviour
in an urban riparian system in Ottawa, Canada. Urban Ecosystems 10(2):
139–151. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11252-006-0015-2
Estela, F.A.,
C.E. Sanchez-Sarria, E. Arbelaez-Cortes,
D. Ocampo, M. Garcia-Arroyo, A. Perlaza-Gamboa &
I. MacGregor-Fors (2021). Changes in the nocturnal
activity of birds during the COVID-19 pandemic lockdown in a neotropical city. Animal
Biodiversity and Conservation 44(2): 213–217. https://doi.org/10.32800/abc.2021.44.0213
Gaston, K.J.
& R.A. Fuller (2007). Biodiversity and extinction. Progress in Physical Geography
31(2): 213–225. https://doi.org/10.1177/0309133307076488
Godefroid, S. (2001). Temporal analysis of the
Brussels flora as an indicator for changing environmental quality. Landscape
and Urban Planning 52(4): 203–224. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0169-2046(00)00117-1
Girma, Z., Y. Mamo, G. Mengesha, A. Verma & T. Asfaw
(2017). Seasonal
abundance and habitat use of bird species in and around Wondo
Genet Forest, south-central Ethiopia. Ecology and Evolution 7(10):
3397–3405.
Graham, C.H.,
C. Moritz & S.E. Williams (2006). Habitat history improves
prediction of biodiversity in rainforest fauna. Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 103(3): 632–636. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0505754103
Grimmett, R., C. Inskipp
& T. Inskipp (2016). Birds of the Indian
Subcontinent: India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Nepal, Bhutan, Bangladesh and the
Maldives. Bloomsbury Publishing, London, 528 pp.
Jetz, W., C.H. Sekercioglu
& K. Böhning-Gaese (2008). The worldwide variation in avian
clutch size across species and space. PLoS
Biology 6(12): 2650–2657. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.0060303
Julliard, R.,
F. Jiguet
& D. Couvet (2004). Common birds facing global
changes: what makes a species at risk? Global Change Biology 10(1):
148–154. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2003.00723.x
Klemetsen, A. & R. Knudsen (2013). Diversity and abundance of water
birds in a subarctic lake during three decades. Fauna Norvegica
33: 21–27. https://doi.org/10.5324/FN.V33I0.1584
Kumar, P.
& S.K. Gupta (1970). Diversity and Abundance of Wetland Birds around Kurukshetra, India. Our
Nature 7(1): 212–17.
Madhok, R.
& S. Gulati (2022). Ruling the roost: Avian species reclaim urban habitat during India’s
COVID-19 lockdown. Biological Conservation 271: 109597.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2022.109597
Mallin, M., M. McIver, E. Wambach &
A. Robuck (2016). Algal blooms, circulators,
waterfowl, and eutrophic Greenfield Lake, North Carolina. Lake and Reservoir
Management 32: 168–181. https://doi.org/10.1080/10402381.2016.1146374
Manakadan, R., J.C. Daniel & N. Bhopale (2011). Birds of the Indian Subcontinent: A Field Guide.
Oxford University Press. India, 400 pp.
Mönkkönen, M., J.T. Forsman
& F. Bokma (2006). Energy availability, abundance, energy-use and species richness in forest bird communities:
a test of the species-energy theory. Global Ecology and Biogeography: A Journal of Macroecology 15(3): 290–302. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1466-8238.2006.00224.x
Newson, S.E., N. Ockendon,
A. Joys, D.G. Noble & S.R. Baillie (2009). Comparison
of habitat-specific trends in the abundance
of breeding birds in the UK. Bird Study
56(2): 233─243. https://doi.org/10.1080/00063650902792098
Parmesan, C.
& G. Yohe (2003). A globally
coherent fingerprint of climate change
impacts across natural systems. Nature
421(6918): 37–42. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature01286
Pimm, S.L., C.N. Jenkins, R. Abell,
T.M. Brooks, J.L. Gittleman, L.N. Joppa,
P.H. Raven, C.M. Roberts & J.O. Sexton (2014). The biodiversity
of species and their rates
of extinction, distribution, and protection. Science 344(6187): 1246752. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1246752
Polyavina, O.V. & M.A. Lebedeva (2022). The diversity of plumage coloration
and behavioral features of synanthropic
blue rock pigeon of urbanized
territories. Samara Journal of
Science 11(3): 106–111.
Rajashekara, S. & M.G. Venkatesha
(2016). Seasonal Incidence and Diversity Pattern of Avian Communities in the Bangalore University Campus, India.
Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London
70(2): 178–193. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12595-016-0175-x
Ramachandra, T.V., H.A. Bharath,
G. Kulkarni & S. Vinay
(2017). Green spaces in Bengaluru: quantification through geospatial techniques. Indian
Forester 143(4): 307–320.
Root, T.L., J.T.
Price, K.R. Hall, S.H. Schneider, C. Rosenzweig & J.A. Pounds (2003). Fingerprints of
global warming on wild animals
and plants. Nature
421(6918): 57–60. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature01333
Saracco, J., S. Fettig, G. Miguel, D. Mehlman, B. Thompson & S. Albert (2018). Avian demographic responses to drought and
fire: a community-level perspective. Ecological
Applications 28(7): 1773–1781.
Schirmel, J., M. Bundschuh, M.H. Entling, I. Kowarik & S.
Buchholz (2016). Impacts of invasive plants on resident animals across ecosystems, taxa, and feeding types:
a global assessment. Global Change Biology 22(2): 594–603.
Schrimpf, M.B., P.G. Des Brisay,
A. Johnston, A.C. Smith, J. Sánchez-Jasso, B.G.
Robinson & N. Koper (2021). Reduced
human activity during
COVID-19 alters avian land use across North America. Science Advances
7(39): eabf5073.
Shome, A.R., M.F. Jaman, M.F. Rabbe & M.M. Alam (2021). Bird diversity,
composition and response during COVID-19 in an
urban landscape, Jamalpur, Bangladesh. Dhaka University Journal of
Biological Sciences 30(2): 261–274.
Soh, M.C., R.Y. Pang, B.X. Ng, B.P.H. Lee, A.H. Loo &
B.H. Kenneth (2021). Restricted human activities
shift the foraging strategies of feral pigeons
(Columba livia) and three other commensal
bird species. Biological
Conservation 253(78): 108927.
Turner, W.R.
(2003). Citywide biological monitoring as a tool for ecology
and conservation in urban landscapes: the case of the
Tucson Bird Count. Landscape and Urban Planning 65(3):
149–166. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0169-2046(03)00012-4
Walther, G.R.,
S. Berger & M.T. Sykes (2005). An ecological “footprint” of climate
change. Proceedings.
Biological Sciences / The Royal Society
272(1571): 1427–1432. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2005.3119
Yang, X., H. Cui & C. Chen (2022). Bird flight
resistance analysis and planning strategies
in urban regeneration areas:
a case study of a certain area
in Shenzhen, China. Sustainability
14(19): 12123. https://doi.org/10.3390/su141912123