Habitat preference and resource utilization of ...

Available online at www.worldscientificnews.com

WSN 103 (2018) 32-64

EISSN 2392-2192

Habitat preference and resource utilization of avifauna in Kuldiha Wildlife Sanctuary, Odisha, India: Role of eco-ethological gradients Srinjana Ghosh1, Santu Paria2, Prakash Chandra Mardaraj3 and Susanta Kumar Chakraborty2,* 1

Post Graduate Department of Zoology, Bethune College, Govt. of West Bengal, 181, Bidhan Sarani, Kolkata, West Bengal, India 2

Department of Zoology; Vidyasagar University, Midnapore-721102, West Bengal, India 3

Wildlife Biologist, IUCN/SSC BSG, At-Palace, Nilgiri, Post- Rajnilgiri, Balasore, Odisha - 756040, India

*E-mail address: [email protected]

ABSTRACT The present study has attempted to highlight the avifaunal diversity in two contrasting seasons (pre and post monsoons) from a protected tropical mixed deciduous forest (Kuldiha Wildlife Sanctuary, KWS) in the state of Odisha, India. Through modified line transect method, a total of 107 species of birds belonging to 49 families under 15 orders have been reported. Among them, 12 are winter visitors, 3 are summer visitors, 1 is near threatened and 1 is vulnerable species. Insectivores and frugivores constitute major foraging guilds. Closed canopy forests, forest edges, woodland areas and wetlands provide suitable habitats to all those avifauna. Lower canopy level was found to act as the major microhabitat for several species for meeting major ecobiological attributes of avifauna. The premonsoon and monsoon periods have appeared to be the ideal nesting seasons for most of the avian members. Canopy foliage and tree holes were seen to offer the most suitable nesting sites. Significant differences in respect of species richness have been observed among different habitats in different seasons (F5.91 ,p ≤ 0 in premonsoon, F6.53, p ≤ 0 in post monsoon). The highest Shannon Weiner diversity index (H′) was recorded from the forest edge (3.8) during premonsoon and that of lowest in orchard or plantation areas (2.96) during post monsoon. Species Dominance value (D) was observed to

( Received 16 June 2018; Accepted 04 July 2018; Date of Publication 05 July 2018 )

World Scientific News 103 (2018) 32-64

be highest both for grassland and orchards and plantation areas (0.06). The field based study attempts to assess avian diversity (qualitative and quantitative) in the light of global conservation programme. Though this area is prone to varying levels of anthropogenic interventions particularly the tourism activities, an overall healthy bird diversity has been found to exist, the knowledge on which is expected to be utilized for the holistic eco-management of forest ecosystem in general and Kuldiha wildlife sanctuary in particular. A number of hypothesis have been proposed in respect of avifaunal habitat selection, diversity and acclimation with wildlife friendly human association for their successful coexistence. Keywords: Avifaunal diversity, Tropical deciduous forest, Conservation, Foraging guilds, Kuldiha Wildlife Sanctuary (KWS)

1. INTRODUCTION India ranks among the top ten countries in the world with reference to the highest number of avian species. Alongside contributing significant ecosystem services in respect of cross-pollination, seed dispersal, biomass recycling and control of insect pests, birds also act as potential bioindicators (Chatterjee and Basu, 2015). By monitoring the species richness and abundance, both in temporal and spatial frame, the overall community pattern of birds in a particular landscape can be assessed. Such studies tend to provide an in depth idea regarding the role of environmental limiting parameters and interacting anthropogenic factors, determining the diversity and density of avifauna (Terborgh, 1985). A compilation regading the distribution of avifauna in the present study site, the Kuldiha Wildlife Sanctuary (KWS), being a model of proper eco-managemrnt, has supported not only an array of wildfauna but also tend to offer a condusive ecological conditions for their coexistence (Murmu et al., 2013) but no documentation on the diversity, habitat selection, ecological guilds concerning their foraging and nesting criteria in the temporal and spatial scales has yet been attempted. This wildlife sanctuary has presently been facing the problems of habitat modifications and resource depletion paving the way to impose threats of simplification and homogenisation of species composition of avifauna. There exists a continuous exposure of multiple demographic pressures by way of agroeconomic expansion, overuse of agrochemicals, degradation of corridor forest by expansion of cultivation by the local inhabitants, fishing, illicit felling of trees and collection of firewood, honey, wax and resin,selective felling of matured trees for timber, livestock grazing, the poaching of wild life, collection of forest resources for medicinal preparations, forest fire, and seasonal collection of mahua by the local peoples, occasional confrontation of villagers with wild animals, rapid human colonisation and settlements in the form of setting up road networks, continuous movement of heavy vehicles, blasting in the stone quarries, mining activities, industrial development, tourism activities in and around the sanctuary leading to habitat isolation and fragmentation (Farve, 1989; Murmu et al, 2013). Excessive temperature (around 42 °C) along with forest fires during premonsoon periods impose severe damage to the green biomass and alter the natural vegetation dynamics and wildlife compositions. Although, global climate change has tended to disrupt the natural synchronisation of different structural components of forest ecosystem (2007), the present scenario of overall management of conservation practice at KWS is praiseworthy.

-33-


The objectives of the present paper are to record the diversity, seasonality and species assemblage of avifauna, their foraging guilds, community interactions, life stage based niche participation and local distributional patterns governed by vegetational heterogeneity strongly influenced by the topographic complexity and seasonal ecological changes.

2. MATERIALS AND METHODS Study area: The Kuldiha Wildlife Sanctuary (KWS) situated at Nilgiri Civil Sub division in Balasore (Wildlife) division, between 21°20′ to 21°30′ N and 86°30′ to 86°45′ E, merging with Similipal Forest, covers an area of 272.75 sq. Kms. Although no floristic survey on the diversity of plants have so far been made, this forest harbours vegetations characteristic of tropical desiduous forest dominated mostly by Sal, Shorea robusta (Champion and Seth, 1968). A total of 3.9% area has been shown by geospatial modelling to cover with very high plant richness, followed by high (21%), medium (42%) and low (32.8%) in the sanctuary (Pattanaik et al, 2010). Climatic condition: The sub-tropical extreme climatic parameters can be categorized under three distinct seasons viz. premonsoon (March-April-May-June), monsoon (July-AugustSeptember-October) and postmonsoon (November-December-January-February) mainly based on rainfall and temperature. The temperature ranges from 42 °C during summer months to 5 °C in winter. The maximum and minimum relative humidity have been recorded as to be 88% and 62% respectively. The annual average precipitation hovers around 1600 mm. Duration of Study and Sampling process: In the years 2016-2017, bimonthly visits were conducted during March- May and November to January representing post monsoon and pre monsoon seasons respectively. Prevailed with thick forest cover, few smaller grassland patches and woodland scrubs areas are present in KWS. Forest edges are represented at the fringing areas of the surrounding villages. Inside the forest boundary, few traditionally preserved sacred groves are there to act as native habitat patches maintained by socioreligious background supporting various plants and animals including few rare and endangered one (Mohanta and Adhikari, 2012). Eight representative landscape elements (LSEs) were selected based on vegetational type, green coverage area, land use properties and the extent of anthropogenic exposures. Those are cultivated patches, wetlands encompassing marsh lands, river banks, river beds (Semi-aquatic), forest streams, rivulets (aquatic), tidal mudflats (semi terrestrial), dense vegetation with a closed canopy coverage, grassland, plantation areas, woodland, forest edges and sacred groves (Figure 1). Each site was visited thrice a day (5 am to7 am, 11 am to 1 pm and 3 pm to 5 pm), consecutively for 3 days in both the seasons. The observation timing was set on the basis of probability of birds’ sighting, which occurs to be most frequent during the early morning foraging hours and during the daily nesting session nearing sunset. Avifaunal distribution and diversity were assessed by binocular aided fixed radius point transect counts (Blondel et al. 1981) covering the length and breadth of the forest selecting eight promonent landscapes on the basis of idea obtained from field observations, knowledge and perceptions of the local inhabitants and from previous literature surveys. One-way ANOVA was used to test the significance of variation in species richness and abundance, on the basis of habitat types.

-34-


Each point transect was placed 100 m far away from midline road trails to avoid edge effect and at least 250 m far away from each other to avoid the confusion of double counts. Observations were made by standing at the middle of the point transect and moving in a circular pathway covering 10 m radius. All birds (sitting, perching, foraging, swimming and flying) were recorded and identified from their natural habitats through field documentation following standard references (Ali, 1983; Grimmett et al. 2011; Praveen et al. 2016). Nesting sites throughout the varied micro and macro habitats were marked by intimate observations and with the help of the information provided by the experienced forest personnels (Nair et al. 2012). The relative abundance, Shannon-Weiner Index (𝐻'), Pielou’s Evenness Index (𝐽'), Simpson’s Dominance Index (D), Margalef’s Species Richness (R), Berger-Parker Index (BP), Chao1 (Schao1), ß diversity by Sorensen’s Similarity Index, Dominance index (DI) of the bird species were determined by following standard indexing methods (Shannon and Weiner, 1948; Magurran 1988, 2004; Pielou 1969; Simpson1949, Berger and Parker 1970; Chao et al. 2005; Sørensen’s 1948). The data have been statistically processed and computed with Microsoft Excel 2007 and PAST version 3.02.

Figure 1. Study area -35-


… SS1 - Cultivated land

SS2a - Semi aquatic

…. SS2b - Semi aquatic

SS2c - Semi-terrestrial

..... SS2d - Aquatic

SS3 - Closed canopy -36-


.... SS4 - Grassland

SS5 - Plantation

.... SS6 - Wood land

SS7 - Forest edge

SS8 - Sacred Grove -37-


3. OBSERVATIONS AND RESULTS

Scientific Name

Postmonsoon

Common Name

Relative abundance Premonsoon

Sl no.

Residential Status

Table1. Species list of the observed avian fauna, their residential status (R = residential, WV = winter) visitor, SV = summer visitor), the seasonal profile of their relative abundance mentioning their SRA (species rank abundance) within parantheses

0.22 (31) 1.19 (14)

0.15 (61) 1.07 (26)

0.22 (31)

0.57 (45)

3.23 (6) 0.22 (31) 3.64 (3) 0.22 (31) 0.80 (21) 0.22 (31)

3.63 (6) 1.05 (27) 3.76 (5) 0.46 (48) 0.85 (36) 1.44 (21)

I. Order: Galliformes 1. Family: Phasianidae 1

Red Jungle Fowl

Gallus gallus (Linnaeus, 1758)

R

2

Indian Peafowl

Pavo cristatus Linnaeus, 1758

R

2. Family: Podicipedidae 3

Little Grebe

Tachybaptus ruficollis (Pallas, 1764)

R

II. Order: Columbiformes 3. Family: Columbidae Columba livia J. F. Gmelin, 1789 Chalcophaps indica (Linnaeus, 1758) Stigmatopelia chinensis (Scopoli, 1786)

4

Rock Pigeon

5

Emerald Dove

6

Spotted Dove

7

Orange -breasted Green Pigeon

Treron bicinctus (Jerdon, 1840)

R

8

Eurasian Collared Dove

Streptopelia decaocto (Frivaldszky, 1838)

R

9

Green Imperial Pegion

Ducula aenea (Linnaeus, 1766)

R

-38-

R R R


10

Yellow-legged Green Pigeon

Treron phoenicopterus (Latham, 1790)

R

1.86 (10)

1.75 (14)

R

0.22 (31)

0.11 (62)

2.21 (9) 0.22 (31)

1.62 (16) 1.90 (11)

0.47 (27) 0.22 (31) 0.22 (31)

0.50 (47) 0.63 (43) 0.37 (52)

0.22 (31)

0.81 (37)

0.70 (22) 0.22 (31) 0.29 (30)

0.81 (37) 0.66 (42) 0.42 (49)

0.22 (31)

1.81 (13)

III. Order: Caprimulgiformes 4. Family: Caprimulgidae

11

Indian Nightjar

Caprimulgus asiaticus Latham, 1790 5. Family: Apodidae

12

Asian Palm Swift

Cypsiurus balasiensis (J.E. Gray, 1829)

R

13

Indian House Swift

Apus affinis (J.E. Gray, 1830)

R

IV. Order: Cuculiformes 6. Family: Cuculidae 14

Greater Coucal

15

Asian Koel

16

Common Hawk Cuckoo

Centropus sinessis (Stephens, 1815) Endynamys scolopaceus (Linnaeus, 1758) Hierococcyx varius (Vahl, 1797)

R R R

V. Order: Gruiformes 7. Family: Rallidae 17

White-breasted Waterhen

18

Purple Swamphen

19

Common Moorhen

20

Common Coot

Amaurornisphoenicurus (Pennant, 1769) Porphyrio porphyrio (Linnaeus, 1758) Gallinula chloropus (Linnaeus, 1758) Fulica atra (Linnaeus, 1758)

R R R, WV R, WV

VI. Order: Paelicaniformes 8. Family: Ciconiidae 21

Asian Openbill

Anastomus oscitans (Boddaert, 1783)

-39-

R


9. Family: Ardeidae 22

Little Egret

Egretta garzetta (Linnaeus 1766)

R

1.55 (13)

1.59 (17)

23

Cattle Egret

Bulbulcus ibis (Linnaeus,1758)

R

0.22 (31)

1.66 (15)

24

Black-crowned Night Heron

Nycticorax nycticorax (Linnaeus, 1758)

R

1.10 (15)

1.49 (18)

25

Indian Pond Heron

Ardeola grayii (Sykes, 1832)

R

26

Great Egret

Ardea alba Linnaeus, 1758

R

27

Intermediate Egret

Ardea intermedia Wagler, 1829

R

28

Cinnamon Bittern

Ixobrychus cinnamomeus (J. F. Gmelin, 1789)

R

0.22 (31) 0.29 (30) 0.22 (31) 0.16 (33)

1.20 (24) 0.42 (49) 0.37 (52) 0.35 (53)

0.22 (31) 0.29 (30)

0.85 (36) 0.41 (50)

0.22 (31)

0.28 (55)

0.16 (33) 0.22 (31) 0.39 (28)

0.39 (51) 0.42 (49) 0.46 (48)

0.22 (31)

1.01 (29)

10. Family: Phalacrcoracidae 29

Little Cormorant

30

Great Cormorant

Microcarbo niger (Vieillot, 1817) Phalacrocorax carbo (Linnaeus, 1758)

R R

VII. Order: Charadriformes 11. Family: Burhinidae 31

Eurasian Thick-knee

Burhinus oedicnemus (Linnaeus, 1758)

R

12. Family: Charadriidae 32

Little Ringed Plover

33

Red-wattled Lapwing

34

Yellow-wattled Lapwing

Charadrius dubius Scopoli, 1786 Vanellus indicus (Boddaert, 1783) Vanellus malabaricus (Boddaert, 1783)

R,WV R R

13. Family: Rostratulidae 35

Greater Painted Snipe

Rostratula benghalensis (Linnaeus, 1758)

-40-

R


14. Family: Jacanidae 36

Phaesant tailed Jacana

Hydrophasianus chirungus (Scopoli, 1786)

R

0.63 (23)

0.90 (33)

R

0.22 (31)

0.70 (41)

0.22 (31) 0.22 (31) 0.02 (37)

0.30 (54) 0.04 (65)

0.22 (31)

0.17 (60)

0.14 (34) 0.22 (31) 0.02 (37)

0.17 (60) 0.15 (61) 0.02 (66)

0.22 (31)

0.24 (56)

15. Family: Laridae 37

River Tern

Sterna aurantia J.E Gray, 1831 VIII. Order: Accipitriformes 16. Family: Accipitridae

38

Shikra

Accipiter badius (J.F. Gmelin, 1788)

R

39

White-eyed Buzzard

Buta sturteesa (Franklin, 1831)

R

40

Indian Spotted Eagle

Clanga hastata (Lesson, 1831)

R

0

IX. Order: Strigiformes 17. Family: Tytonidae 41

Common Barn Owl

Tyto alba (Scopoli, 1769)

R

18. Family: Strigidae 42

Jungle Owlet

43

Spotted Owlet

44

Brown Fish Owl

Glaucidium radiatum (Tickell, 1833) Athene brama (Temminck, 1821) Ketupa zeylonensis (J.F. Gmelin, 1788)

R R R

X. Order: Bucerotiformes 19. Familiy: Upupidae 45

Common Hoopoe

Upupa epops Linnaeus, 1758

-41-

R, SV


XI. Order: Piciformes 20. Family: Picidae

46

Rufous Woodpecker

47

Lesser Golden-backed Woodpecker

Micropterus brachyurus (Vieillot, 1818) Dinopium benghalense Linnaeus, 1758

R R

0.16 (33) 0.22 (31)

0.18 (59) 0.61 (44)

1.10 (15) 0.22 (31) 1.00 (17)

0.72 (40) 1.03 (28) 0.55 (46)

0.22 (31) 0.59 (24)

0.79 (38) 0.30 (54)

0.22 (31)

0.87 (35)

0.55 (25) 0.22 (31) 0.22 (31) 0.22 (31)

0.66 (42) 1.33 (22) 0.30 (54) 0.66 (42)

21. Family: Ramhastidae 48

Brown-headed Barbet

49

Lineated Barbet

50

Coppersmith Barbet

Psilopogon zeylanicus (J.F. Gmelin, 1788) Psilopogon lineatus (Vieillot, 1816) Psilopogon haemocephalus (Statius Muller, 1776)

R R R

XII. Order: Coraciiformes 22. Family: Meropidae

51

Green Bee-eater

Merops orientalis Latham, 1801

R,SV

52

Blue-tailed Bee-eater

Merops philippinus Linnaeus, 1767

R, WV

23. Family: Coraciidae 53

Indian Roller

Coracius benghalensis (Linnaeus, 1758)

R

24. Family: Alcedinidae 54

Common Kingfisher

Alcedo atthis (Linnaeus, 1758)

R

55

White-throated Kingfisher

Halcyon smyrnensis (Linnaeus, 1758)

R

56

Pied Kingfisher

Ceryl erudis (Linnaeus, 1758)

R

57

Stork-billed Kingfisher

Pelargopsis capensis (Linnaeus, 1766)

R

-42-


XIII. Order: Falconiformes 25. Family: Falconidae 58

Common Kestrel

Falco tinnunculus Linnaeus, 1758

WV

0.06

0

59

Peregrine falcon

Falco peregrinus Tunstall, 1771

WV

0.04

0

3.48 (5) 0.22 (31) 3.54 (4)

3.89 (3) 4.94 (1) 3.56 (7)

0.22 (31)

1.11 (25)

1.02 (16) 0.22 (31)

0.98 (30) 0.15 (61)

R

1.19 (14)

1.46 (21)

R

0.22 (31)

1.07 (64)

R

0.37 (29)

0.24 (56)

XIV. Order: Psittaculiformes 26. Family: Psittacidae 60

Plum-headed Parakeet

61

Alexandrine Parakeet

62

Rose-ringed Parakeet

Psittacula cyanocephala (Linnaeus, 1766) Psittacula eupatria (Linnaeus, 1766) Psittacula krameria (Scopoli, 1769)

R R R

XV. Order: Passeriformes 27. Family: Campephagidae 63

Scarlet Minivet

64

Small Minivet

65

Large Cuckooshrike

Pericrocotus flammeus (J.R. Forster, 1781) Pericrocotus cinnamomeus (Linnaeus, 1766) Coracina javensis (Horsefield, 1821)

R R R

28. Family: Oriolidae 66

Black-hooded Oriole

Oriolus xanthornus (Linnaeus, 1758) 29. Family: Artamidae

67

Ashy Wood Swallow

Artamus fuscus Vielliot, 1817 30. Family: Vangidae

68

Common Woodshrike

Tephrodornis virgatus (Temminck, 1824)

-43-


31. Family: Aegithinidae 69

Common Iora

Aegithina tiphia (Linnaeus, 1758)

R

0.22 (31)

0.22 (57)

3.07 (7) 0.22 (31) 1.10 (15)

3.34 (18) 2.29 (10) 1.11 (25)

0.22 (31) 0.18 (32)

0.35 (53) 0.24 (56)

0.22 (31)

0.20 (58)

0.88 (19) 0.22 (31)

0.76 (39) 1.40 (19)

32. Family: Dicruridae 70

Black Drongo

71

Ashy Drongo

72

White-bellied Drongo

Dicrurus macrocercus Vieillot, 1817 Dicrurus leucophaeus Vieillot, 1817 Dicrurus caesalescens (Linnaeus, 1758)

R R R

33. Family: Rhipiduridae 73

White-throated Fantail

Rhipidura albicollis (Vieillot, 1818)

R

74

White-browed Fantail

Rhipidur aaureola Lesson, 1831

R

34. Family: Laniidae 75

Bay-backed Shrike

Lanius vittatus Valenciennes, 1826

R

35. Family: Corvidae 76

Rufous Tree Pie

Dendrocitta vagabunda (Latham 1790)

R

77

Common Raven

Corvus corax Linnaeus, 1758

R

36. Family: Monarchidae 78

Indian Paradise Flycatcher

Terpsiphone paradisi (Linnaeus, 1758)

R, WV

0.49 (26)

0.09 (63)

79

Black naped monarch

Hypothymis azurea (Boddaert, 1783)

R

0.32

0.08

R

0.22 (31)

0.28 (55)

37. Family: Dicacidae 80

Thick-billed Flowerpecker

Dicaeum agile (Tickell, 1833)

-44-


81

Pale-billed Flowerpecker

Dicaeum erythrorhynchos (Latham, 1790)

R

0.63 (23)

0.35 (53)

0.22 (31) 1.62 (12) 0.22 (31)

0.85 (36) 1.25 (23) 0.41 (50)

0.06 (35) 0.22 (31)

0.17 (60) 0.15 (61)

0.90 (18)

0.94 (32)

0.22 (31) 0.22 (31)

0.28 (55) 0.35 (53)

0.22 (31)

0.55 (46)

0.04 (36) 0.22 (31)

0.07 (64) 0.11 (62)

38. Family: Nectarinidae 82

Purple-rumped Sunbird

83

Purple sunbird

84

Crimson Sunbird

Leptocoma zeylonica (Linnaeus, 1766) Cinnyris asiaticus (Latham, 1790) Aethopyga siparaja (Raffles, 1822)

R R R

39. Family: Estrilidae 85

White-rumped Munia

86

Scaly-breasted Munia

Lonchura striata (Linnaeus, 1766) Lonchura punctulata (Linnaeus, 1758)

R R

40. Family: Passeridae 87

House Sparrow

Passer domesticus (Linnaeus, 1758)

R

41. Family: Motacillidae 88

Paddyfield Pipit

Anthus rufulus Vieillot, 1818

R

89

White-browed Wagtail

Motacilla madrespatensis J.F. Gmelin, 1789

R

42. Family: Paridae 90

Indian Yellow Tit

Machlolophus xanthogenys (Vigors, 1831)

R

43. Family: Cisticolidae 91

Zitting Cisticola

Cisticola juncidis (Rafinesque, 1810)

R

92

Plain Prinia

Prinia inornata Sykes, 1832

R

-45-


44. Family: Hirundinidae

93

Barn Swallow

Hirundo rustica Linnaeus, 1758

R, SV

0.84 (20)

0.85 (36)

0.22 (31) 4.79 (1)

1.89 (34) 4.21 (2)

R

0.22 (31)

0.11 (62)

R

1.72 (11)

1.25 (23)

0.22 (31) 2.50 (8) 0.22 (31)

0.94 (32) 2.47 (9) 1.48 (19)

4.40 (2) 0.22 (31)

3.84 (4) 0.98 (30) 0.66 (42) 0.89 (34) 0.20 (58)

45. Family: Pycnonotidae 94

Red-whiskered Bulbul

95

Red-vented Bulbul

Pycnonotus jocosus (Linnaeus, 1758) Pycnonotus cafer (Linnaeus, 1766)

R R

46. Family: Timaliidae 96

Tawny-bellied Babbler

Dumetia hyperethra (Franklin, 1831) 47. Family: Leiothrichidae

97

Jungle Babbler

Turdoides striata (Dumont, 1823) 48. Family: Sturnidae

98

Jungle Myna

99

Common Myna

100

Asian Pied Starling

Acridotheres fuscus (Wagler, 1827) Acridotheres tristis (Linnaeus, 1766) Gracupica contra (Linnaeus, 1758)

R R R

49. Family: Muscicapidae 101

Oriental Magpie Robin

102

Indian Robin

103

White rumped Shama

104

Taiga Flycatcher (W)

105

Blue Rock Thrush(W)

Copsychus saularis (Linnaeus, 1758) Saxicoloides fulicatus (Linnaeus, 1766) Kittacincla malabarica (Scopoli, 1786)

R R WV

0

Ficedula albicilia (Pallas, 1811)

WV

0

Monticola solitarius (Linnaeus, 1758)

WV

0

-46-


106

Common Stonechat (W)

Saxicola torquatus (Linnaeus, 1766)

WV

0

107

Tickell's Blue Flycatcher (R)

Cyornis tickelliae Blyth, 1843

WV

0

Table 2. LSE wise avian species richness(mean ± S.E.) pattern during the study periods Habitats

Premonsoon

Postmonsoon

Cultivated land

7.17 ±1.26

8.22 ±1.43

Wetland

7.08 ±1.03

9.11 ±1.29

Canopy forest

9.51 ±1.33

9.71 ±1.44

Open grassland

4.38 ±0.94

4.22 ±0.88

Plantation

3.02 ±0. 67

3.1 ±0.70

Open woodland

5.28 ±0.85

5.67 ±0.83

Forest edge

8.89 ±1.13

8.84 ±1.06

Sacred groves

3.35 ±0.61

3.34 ±0.63

Table 3. LSE based seasonal Community analysis (C = cultivated land; W = wetland; F = canopy forest; G = grassland; P = Plantation; Wd = woodland; E = forest edge; Sg = sacred groves; PrM = Pre monsoon; PoM = Postmonsoon)

Community analysis indices

C

W

F

G

PrM

PoM PrM PoM PrM PoM PrM PoM

760

855

736

947

940

1010

430

439

35

34

40

40

49

51

25

27

Dominance_D

0.04

0.04

0.03

0.03

0.03

0.03

0.06

0.05

Simpson (1-D)

0.96

0.96

0.97

0.97

0.97

0.97

0.94

0.95

Shannon_H′

3.37

3.36

3.56

3.60

3.67

3.66

3.00

3.09

Total Abundance (N) Species Richness (s)

-47-

0.96 (31) 0.18 (59)


Evenness_e^H/S

0.83

0.85

0.90

0.92

0.80

0.76

0.80

0.82

Margalef (R)

5.13

4.89

5.77

5.69

7.01

7.23

3.96

4.27

Equitability_J

0.95

0.95

0.97

0.98

0.94

0.93

0.93

0.94

Berger-Parker (BP)

0.08

0.08

0.06

0.05

0.06

0.07

0.12

0.10

Chao-1 (SChao1)

35

34

39

40

49

51

25

27

Table 3(continue). LSE based seasonal Community analysis (C = cultivated land; W = wetland; F = canopy forest; G = grassland; P = Plantation; Wd = woodland; E = forest edge; Sg = sacred groves; PrM = Pre monsoon; PoM = Postmonsoon)

Community analysis indices

P

Wd

E

Sg

PrM PoM PrM PoM PrM PoM PrM PoM Total Abundance (N)

313

322

508

590

871

919

328

347

Species Richness (s)

24

24

41

45

54

57

34

35

Dominance_D

0.06

0.06

0.03

0.03

0.03

0.02

0.04

0.04

Simpson (1-D)

0.94

0.94

0.97

0.97

0.97

0.98

0.96

0.96

Shannon_H′

2.99

2.96

3.51

3.62

3.80

3.86

3.33

3.28

Evenness_e^H/S

0.83

0.80

0.82

0.83

0.83

0.82

0.84

0.78

Margalef (R)

4.00

3.98

6.42

6.90

7.83

8.35

5.55

5.64

Equitability_J

0.94

0.93

0.95

0.95

0.95

0.95

0.95

0.93

Berger-Parker (BP)

0.12

0.10

0.08

0.05

0.04

0.04

0.08

0.09

Chao-1 (SChao1)

24

24

41

45

54

58

33

34

-48-


Table 4. Index of similarity between LSEs in different seasons Habitat

Wetland

Canopy forest

Grassland

Pre monsoon

Post Monsoon

Pre monsoon

Post Monsoon

Pre monsoon

Post Monsoon

53

56.76

35.71

25.88

56.67

55.74

24.72

24.18

30.77

26.87

40.54

43.59

Cultivated land Wetland Canopy forest Grassland Plantation Woodland Forest edge

Table 4(continue). Index of similarity between LSEs in different seasons Habitat

Plantation

Woodland

Forest edge

Sacred groves

Pre monsoon

Post Monsoon

Pre monsoon

Post Monsoon

Pre monsoon

Post Monsoon

Pre monsoon

Post Monsoon

Cultivated land

47.46

48.28

44.74

48.10

56.18

50

49.28

47.06

Wetland

25

21.88

29.63

24.18

29.79

30.61

24.32

24.32

Canopy forest

57.53

56.76

48.89

60.42

69.90

70.37

65.06

58.82

Grassland

57.14

50.98

63.64

63.89

55.70

51.76

50.85

42.62

55.38

55.07

51.28

46.34

65.52

58.62

63.16

62.14

42.67

49.35

68.18

65.22

Plantation Woodland Forest edge

-49-


Cultivated land

2%

12%

14%

Aquatic

6%

Semiaquatic

4%

17%

Semiterrestrial Canopy forest

15%

Grassland

14%

9%

7%

Plantation Woodland Forest edge Sacred groves

Figure 2. LSE (Landscape elements) Occupation profile (percentage value) by avifauna in KWS (aquatic, semiaquatic and semiterrestrial together represent the wetland element)

2% 1% 7% 7%

[PERCENTAGE]

[PERCENTAGE]

4% 28% 10%

4% 8%

4% 4%

[PERCENTAGE]

2%

8%

[PERCENTAGE]

Omnivore crustaceovore Amphibiovores

Scavenger Molluscovore Egg eaters

Picivore Vermivore Reptiliovore

Insectivore Flesh eaters Rodentivore

Figure 3. Foraging Guilds of Avifauna in Kuldiha Wildlife Sanctuary (KWS) -50-


50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0

Figure 4. Percentage of species observed in different microhabitats

50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Solitary Pair Group Party

Figure 5. Group structure of observed species [group (4-10); party >10]

-51-


Construction wall or roof(thatched or concrete) Parasitic nesting Riverbank Riverbed Aquatic herbage submerged Aquatic herbage floating Thorny shrub Tree holes Twig surface and ends Bushy jungle Bushy stratum(Bamboo/Cane bush) Canopy foliage(H) Canopy foliage(M-H) Canopy foliage(L-M) Grassy stratum Undergrowth Rocky stratum Bare ground

0

5

10

Premonsoon

15

20

25

30

35

Post Monsoon

Figure 6. Seasonal niche occupation of avian diversity by differential nesting patterns in KWS

-52-


7a

7b

Figure 7. Cluster analysis depicting interrelationships among LSEs and avian species compoitions (Bray-Curtis analysis; single-linked): 7a. during pre monsoon; 7b. during postmonsoon [1-cultivated land; 2 - wetland; 3 - canopy forest; 4 - grassland; 5 - plantation; 6 - woodland; 7 - forest edge; 8 - sacred groves].

-53-


4. DISCUSSION This piece of work elucidating some interesting information pertaining to avian diversity in the temporal and spatial scales in a small but very much ecopotential and protected biogeographic landscape in KWS, reports a total of 107 species of birds belonging to 49 families under 15 orders. Among them, 10 are winter visitors (8%), 3 are summer visitors (3%), 1 is near threatened and 1 is vulnerable species. (Table 1). 89% of the total recorded avifauna have been found to be residents. Avian fauna under the families like Rallidae, Charadridae and Monarchidae have been found to possess some winter visiting species, a number of them like Galinula chloropus, Fulica atra, Charadrius dubius, Tersiphone paradise have been reported to stay back for the yearlong span in the KWS landscape. Some of the summer visitors belonging to the families Upupidae and Hirundinidae (Upup aepops, Hirundo rustica) have been observed to enjoy the year long stay. The family Meropidae has been observed to include both the summer (Merops orientalis) and winter (Merops philippinus) visitors (Grimmet et al. 2011). A number of avifauna viz. Kittacin clamalabarica, Ficedula albicilia, Monticola solitaries, Saxicola torquatus, Cyornis tickelliae belonging to the family Muscicapidae havebeen designated as exclusive winter visitors. Passeriformes was the most dominant avian order comprising of 23 families and 36 genera and 44 species. Only one species (Sterna aurantia)belongs to IUCN near threatened (NT) category (IUCN Version 3-1, 2001). The order Bucerotiformes is represented by single family and single genus. Altogether 21 families were represented by single species, few of which are - Caprimulgidae, Ciconiidae, Jacanidae, Laridae, Tytonidae, Coracidae, Oriolidae, Vangidae, Aegithinidae, Passeridae, and Hirundinidae. On the other hand, Columbidae and Ardeidae have included maximum number of species (7), followed by Rallidae, Alcedinidae (4species each) (Table: 1). The relative abundance profile of the observed bird species (Table1) has revealed that Pycnonotus cafer and Copsy chussaularis were the most abundant species with relative abundance of 4.79% and 4.4% respectively during premonsoon. The avian species Psitta cula eupatria (4.94%) and Copsychus saularis (3.84%) were observed to be significantly dominant during post monsoon. As documented in Figure 2, the forest edge area (Figure SS7) was found to support the highest number of species (17%) and significant numbers were seen to be supported by the closed canopy forest zone (Figure SS3) (15%) and woodland (Figure SS6) (15%). Forest edge is characterized with prominent ecotone features and heterogenous nature because of the intermingling of different types of vegetation assemblages experiencing the exposure of anthropogenic activities like consumption of forest by products by native villagers, livestock grazing and the tourism activities to a certain level. Sacred groves (Figure SS8) inside forested area or inside the villages were also noted to be with considerable importance towards provision of quality habitats (14%) for birds. These are culturally and socioethnologically maintained reserves for native bird populations (Mohanta and Adhikari, 2012). The fringing cultivated lands (Figure SS1) supported a satisfactory pool (12%) of bird species, which may vary seasonally according to the nature of cultivated crops and vegetables. They provide refuge to the graminivores, foliovores and also to the agriculturally beneficial avian insectivores and rhodentivores predating on the agricultural pests. The avifauna such as Stigmato peliachinensis, Cypsiurus balasiensis, Upup aepops, Merops spp. etc. preferred to pay frequent visits to the cultivated lands. Psittacula spp., Passer domesticus and Porphyris porphyrio turned out to be agriculturally harmful causing damage to the ripe crops,

-54-


as reported by the local cultivators. Grasslands (Figure SS4) harboured comparatively lesser number (9%) of species. The plantation (Figure SS5) stretches though contain huge vegetation shelter, but being restricted in varieties, they nurtured only limited number (8%) of birds. Being an important landscape within the forest, wetlands (SS 2a, 2b, 2c, 2d) not only contribute sustainability of forest ecosystem but also supports a galaxy of avifauna (12%). The wetland based avifaunal community are categorized as obligatory or non obligatory; aquatic (2%) (short streams, pools, wetlands), semiaquatic (6%) (watery scrubs, macrophytes, water logged marshlands) and semi-terrestrial (4%) (river bank, river beds, dam) groups based on their habitat utilization profile and foraging patterns (Figure 2). Few of the wetland inhabiting birds like Amaurornis phoenicurus, Porphyris porphyrio, Hydrophasianus chirungus,Anastomus oscitans, Ardeola grayii, Egretta garzetta, Bulbulcus ibis, Vanellus spp., Rostratula benghalensis, Anthus rufulus were frequently seen to venture to the nearby agricultural stretches.Among 40 species of wetland birds documented herein, four are winter visitors whereas only one is summer visitor. Wetlands within this forest sanctuary displaying variation in morphometry and ecology, supplement the role of typical indicator of the health of the overall forest ecosystem providing favourable place for nesting, roosting and thermoregulation for some birds (Mukherjee and Wilske 2006). A potential threat to these wetland communities includes the agricultural runoffs, urban-industrial expansions, dam constructions. In all these habitats, according to the local inhabitants, the birds are threatened with the risk of egg eaters like snakes, civets etc., and such information have also been validated by the forest personnels. Table 2 highlights that species richness has been found to maintain the lowest value for the plantation areas both during premonsoon (3.02) and postmonsoon (3.1). The highest value during pre monsoon was found to be for the canopy forest (9.51), followed by that in forest edge (8.89). During post monsoon, canopy forest has shown the highest value (9.71), followed by that in the wetland habitat (9.11). It is evident from Table 3, that maximum number of species (54 during premonsoon and 57 during postmonsoon) have been recorded from forest edge whereas maximum number of individuals (940 during premonsoon and 1010 during postmonsoon) were found from the canopy forest. Highest values of Shannon index of diversity (H´ = 3.80 in premonsoon and H´ = 3.86 in postmonsoon) were estimated from forest edge. The lowest Shannon index (H´ = 2.99 during premonsoon and 2.96 during postmonsoon) was shown at habitats with plantations. Least values of species evenness (J = 0.80 during premonsoon and J = 0.76 during post monsoon) were reported at canopy forests and grasslands. Wetlands have been shown maximum value for species evenness (J = 0.90 at premonsoon and J = 0.92 at postmonsoon). Significant level of dominance values were indicated at wetland, canopy forest, woodland and forest edge habitats (0.97 at each habitats both during pre and postmonsoon). Table 4 highlights that, maximum beta diversity values (69.9 during premonsoon and 70.37 during postmonsoon) have been indicated for canopy forest-forest edge habitats. The lowest value obtained during premonsoon was for wetland-sacred grove or village habitas (24.32) and during post monsoon for the wetland, orchard or plantation areas (21.88). Equitability have been found to be well-maintained (0.9) in all habitats throughout both of the seasons. Margalef’s species richness value was highest for forest edge (7.83 and 7.85 for pre and post monsoon respectively) and lowest for grassland (3.96 in premonsoon and 3.97 for postmonsoon). Berger-Parker index exhibited highest values for grassland and plantation (0.12 and 0.10 in both sites, during pre monsoon and post monsoon respectively.

-55-


Chao 1 value was highest for forest edge (54 in both pre and postmonsoon). Forest edge offers wider foraging options like grains, seeds, insects, reptiles. Forest specialist species generally remain restricted to canopied or woodland parts wheras the forest generalist ones often noticed to switch between forest habitat and other habitats. Such differential visiting profile is ultimately governed by structure and composition of vegetations (Mokotjomela, Musiland Esler, 2013; Niemi et al. 2016). The dietary guilds as observed are shown in Figure 3. Insectivore stopped (28%) the list, followed by frugivores (10%) and reptiliovores (8%). Variation in foraging structure is caused by several factors like predation risk, physical framework of the habitat and microclimatic constraints. On the basis of the foraging pattern, few association groups were marked comprising of foraging guilds. The fruigivorous guilds were found to be represented mainly by barbets and babblers exhibiting seasonal differentiation based on the availability of suitable fruit plants in different patches of the forest. Graminivores’ populations fluctuated with the availability of seeds. Abundance of ground and foliage insects were shown to turn up with inclination to insectivory. Different troupes of insectivorous birds were observed to avail different microhabitats. Ground or substratum level hunting groups were found to include Acridotheres fuscus, Pycnonotus cafer, Tephrodornis virgatus, Pycnonotus jocosus and Turdoides striata. The group searching out insects on tree surfaces included the bird species like Dicrurus caesalescens, Oriolus xanthornus, Pericrocotus spp., Dendrocitta vagabunda, Rhipidura albicollis. Machlolophus xanthogenys along with Prinia inornata, are prominent members of the insectivorous company hunting at foliage canopy level. Thus, the guild divisions have appeared to play a key role in shaping up the community structure (MacNally 1983). The frugivorous guild members were often get exposed to competition from non-avian members like bats, giant squirrels, the characteristic rodent member of KWS, langurs whereas insectivorous guild is often competed by bats and lizards. The nectarivores (7%) like Leptocoma zeylonica, Cinnyris asiaticus, Aethopyga siparaja were there to render significant ecosystem role as pollinators, particularly in forest, plantation and cultivated areas. Prominent flesh eaters like Falco tinnunculus, Falco peregrinus were commonly found inside deep forest zones. Herein lies the importance of conserving species-specific habitat patches. Proper conservation measures should be adopted against deforestation in these areas to prevent the risks of local extinction of bird species dependent on the potential metapopulation patches provided by the particular forest types. Microhabitat preferences by the forest avian diversity are depicted in the Figure 4, surfacing the fact that the lower canopy layer was found to support a significant number (46) of avian species, followed by that in upper bush level (43) and mid canopy layer (42). Construction walls were seen to accommodate least number (2) of species. Some avian species like Treron bicinctus, Ducula aenea, Psilopogon spp., Pericrocotus spp., Dendrocittava gabunda, Dicaeum agile, Leptocoma zeylonica, Oriolus xanthornus (P11), Cinnyris asiaticus, Aethopy gasiparaja, Dumetia hyperathra, Copsychus saularis (P14), Pycnonotus spp., Psittacula spp. etc. have exhibited differential distribution patterns and densities in different habitat types, reflecting their microhabitat preferences as well as resource utilization priorities. Figure 5 highlights about intraspecific group structure of avifauna which were found in their natural habitats as well as microhabitats, moving around in variable group sizes. Forty six solitary, forty seven pairs, thirty groups and thirty parties were observed. Such group size patterns are supposed to have been governed by their life history strategies like pre mating

-56-


display,mating behaviours,parental investment ratios, anti predatory stands, foraging techniques, resource procuring courses etc. The correlation between the occurrence of relatively social, gregarious behaviour displayed in flocks during foraging have led to the increased probability of bird citations as compared to those moving around singly or in pairs. Habitat disturbances, resource availability, predation pressure, refuge providing potentiality, exposure to anthropogenic activities were reported to act as regulating factors shaping up the association group size of birds. Often interspecific associations comprising of habitat specific ecological guilds were seen. Birds, mostly being “equilibrium” species, the generation wise stability of their physical environment and resources is essentially to be maintained and is determined by intraspecific territoriality both at adult and developmental phases (Tramer, 1969), which tend to result, the partitioning of the avian breeding space in a characteristic pattern in nature. In Figure 6,an overall idea about the seasonal profile of nesting behaviour of the birds throughout the present study area is depicted. Tree holes were found to represent the most ideal nesting site both during premonsoon (for 18 bird species) and postmonsoon (for 14 species), followed by the medium to high level canopy foliage occupied by 15 avian spp during premonsoon and 16 species during postmonsoon. The rocky substratum was found to be the most unsuitable nesting site during both the seasons. Prevalence of parasitic nesting was found to be higher during premonsoon. Nesting association groups were also found to exist, like, colonies of mixed heronries were often got shared by Micro carboniger, Phalacro coraxcarbo, Egretta garzetta, Ardea alba and Anastomus oscitans. Intraspecific arboreal nesting colonies were noted to be maintained by Merops spp. and Acido theresspp. Loose nesting colonies were characteristic to the Psittacula spp. Interspecific nesting territory upon a particular tree was found to be shared by both the mild mannered birds like Oriolus sp., Streptopelia spp., Turdoides striata and the pugnacious species like Dicrurus spp. which tended to afford protection to the neighbouring nesting associates. In order to highlight species similarities in the concerned land scapes having different ecological features,species composition based habitat clusters at different seasons are depicted in Figures: 7a and 7b. In premonsoon, cultivated land and wetland have shown overlapping avian distribution. Few of the insectivorous birds inhabiting the wetland patches often visited the nearby cropfields with winter vegetations in search of multiple array of insect pests.Similarly, avian visitors from canopy forest were seen to frequent the cultivated land for foraging, during post monsoon,on the advancement of their breeding season. The foraging area of forest inhabiting birds was noted to be extended to the forest edge region, particularly those of fruigivores and graminivores synchronising with the phenology of their host plants. Grassland and open woodland were found to represent somewhat identical avifaunal distribution. Plantation and sacred groves were reported to possess certain level of conserved and uninterrupted habitat qualities, attributing similarities in avian distribution both during pre and post monsoon.During postmonsoon, a number of forest edge inhabiting birds were thought to consider wetland patches as their potential courtship platform and nesting ground, leading to the convergence of avifaunal distribution pattern in these habitat stretches. During postmonsoon, open woodland had been found to represent to some extent, an unique avian diversity pattern. Low Dominance Index (DIpremonsoon 9.2 and DIpostmonsoon 9.1) is indicative of the homogeneity of the bird community and reflects relatively stress free and equitable environment prevailing in the KWS (McNaughton and Wolf 1970).

-57-


This comprehensive year long study covering two seasons has enabled to interprete the results in developing a number of hypothesis pertaining to diversity, habitat selection, ecological niche segregation and behavioural manifestation of avifauna at KWS which were observed to enjoy conducive coexistence among themselves. First hypothesis highlights that the variations in species diversity and evenness through different Landscape Elements are supposed to support the fact that modified habitats provide the availability of suitable but different niches and thereby increase the number of coexisting species within a given community. Second hypothes elucidates that, habitat heterogeneity promotes the sharing of fundamental resources like shelters and nutrients by way of differential synchronizations of the faunal density and diversity with the supply of basic life supporting natural requirements for their survivability, which in turn lead to the coexistence of numerous diverse avian populations representing different ecological guilds. Members of the same guild within avifaunal assemblages become susceptible to potential competition over shared resources and in order to co-exist, they would adopt some mechanisms to reduce but not necessarily eliminate negative competitive interactions. Third hypothesis deals with a comfortable and so-called stress-free wandering of some flagship species such as Coracius benghalensis, Copsychus saularis, Oriolus xanthornus, Lonchura punctulata, Psilopogon haemocephalus (P7), Cinny risasiaticus, Pericrocotus flammeus etc. within the very close vicinity of human beings (residential places of forest personnels and even residential blocks for the tourists) is supposed to be due to the development of the programmed acquired behavioural characteristics within them, so that they have been acclimatized to share with their shelter or nest patterns (P15) along with the foraging behaviours in close proximation of human beings, who are happened to be either tourists or forest management staffs. Small rivers and streams flowing through the forest tracts, act as refuge for specialized bird populations providing their drinking resource, breeding ground, fishing ground and shelter. The fourth hypothesis deals with the ecological and ethological factors which mostly influence the role of vegetation types and assemblages providing differential nutritional resources which determines the specialization of avifaunal foraging behaviour. The forest dominated by the availability and luxariant growth of a single stable species such as Sal forest mostly support avifauna having species specific foraging behaviour i.e. the specialist species in comparison to mixed forest type supporting only the generalist species endowed with differential foraging pattern. The survey in spite of being of quite short span, was rewarding from the avifaunal assets’ point of view. It is now the responsibility of administrative authorities and policy makers, to maintain such important hub for the avian species in good shape for sustainable existence. Further scope of detailed investigation is there to enrich our knowledge of ecological functioning of these avian species and also important for the implementation of conservation approaches to sustain these bio indicators of environmental health status.

5. CONCLUDING REMARKS The present study on the eco- ethological aspects of avifauna of KWS has generated some interesting and valuable baseline information which supposed to be helpful for developing the overall eco-management strategies for KWS ensuring a stable ecological condition as is being reflected by the diversity and effective co-existence of avifauna.

-58-


Acknowledgement The authors extend their thanks and gratitude to the Forest Division, Kuldiha Wildlife Sanctuary, Odisha. Thanks are due to the Vidyasagar University for Laboratory and Library facilities. Authors express their sincere thanks to Dr. Baidyanath Pal, Associate Scientist, Biological Anthropology Unit, Indian Statistical Institute for statistical analysis of the data.

References [1]

A. Chao, R.L. Chazdon, R.K. Colwell, and T.J. Shen, A new statistical approach for assessing similarity of species composition with incidence and abundance data. Ecology Letters 8 (2005) 148–159

[2]

A.E. Magurran, Diversity indices and species abundance models. Ecological diversity and its measurement. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ. (1988), pp. 7–45

[3]

A. Mukherjee and B. Wilske, Importance of wetlands for conservation of bird life in the dry lands of western India. Water birds around the world. Eds. G.C. Boere, C.A. Galbraith & D.A. Stroud. The Stationery Office, Edinburgh, UK (2006) pp. 303-304

[4]

A. Murmu, P.C. Majumdar, and S. Chaudhury, Mammal and Avi-Fauna of Kuldiha Wildlife Sanctuary Orissa. Zoological Society of India, 2013, 60 pp

[5]

C. Pattanaik, C.S. Reddy, M. S. R. Murthy, Geospatial modelling of biological richness in Kuldeiha Wildlife Sanctuary of Orissa, India. Journal of the Indian Society of Remote Sensing 38(3) (2010) 477-485

[6]

C. E. Shannon and Weiner, A mathematical theory of communication. Publ. University of Illinois Press, Urbana (1948) 117 pp.

[7]

D.S. Favre, International trade in endangered species: a guide to CITES [Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species]. Springer. Netherlands (1989) pp. 415

[8]

E. C. Pielou, An Introduction to Mathematical Ecology. Publ. John Wiley, New York, 286 (1969) 1-286 pp.

[9]

E.H. Simpson, Measurement of diversity. Nature (1949) 163: 688

[10] E.J. Tramer, Bird Species Diversity: Components of Shannon’s Formula. Ecology 50(5) (1969) 927-929 [11] G.J. Niemi, W.H. Robert, and R.S. Brian, Analysis of Long-term Forest Bird Monitoring Data from National Forests of the Western Great Lakes Region. U.S. Forest Service, Newtown Square (2016) pp. iv+322 [12] H.G. Champion, and S.K. Seth, A revised survey of forest types of India, New Delhi (1968) pp. 404 [13] IUCN (2014). The 2014 IUCN Red List of Threatened Animals. www. iucnredlist.org [14] J. Blondel, C. Ferry and B. Frochot, Point counts with unlimited distance. In: Ralph, C. J., Scott J. M. (eds.). Estimating numbers of terrestrial birds. Studies in Avian Biology, 6 (1981) 414–420

-59-


[15] J. Praveen, R. Jayapal, and A. Pittie, A checklist of the birds of India. Indian Birds, 5 & 6 (2016) 113-172. [16] J. Terborgh, Habitat Selection in Amazonian birds. Habitat Selection in birds (Eds. M. L. Cody) Academic Press New York (1985) pp. 311-338 [17] M.K. Pandit, N.S. Sodhi, L.P. Koh, A. Bhaskar and B.W. Brook, Unreported yet massive deforestation driving loss of endemic biodiversity in Indian Himalaya. Biodiversity & Conservation, 13 (2007) 256–258 [18] M. V. Nair, S. M. Pradhan, and A. K. Pradhan, Common nesting birds of Odisha – a photographic guide. Government of Odisha, Odisha: Wildlife Organisation, Forest & Environment Department (2012) pp. 1–159 [19] R. Grimmett, C. Inskipp, and T. Inskipp, Birds of the Indian Subcontinent. Oxford University Press, Delhi, (2011) 1-528 [20] R.K. Mohanta, and B. S. Adhikari, The Biological Values and Conservation Status of Sacred Groves in the Balasore Wildlife Division, Odisha: A Case Study. International Journal of Conservation Science, 3(3) (2012) 207-216 [21] S. Ali, and S.D. Ripley, Handbook of Bird of India and Pakistan. Compact edition, Oxford University Press. New Delhi (1983) pp. 56 [22] S. Chatterjee, and P. Basu, Avian frugivory and food dispersal of a large fruited tree in an Indian moist deciduous forest. Acta ocealogica (2015) 65-66, 32-40 [23] S. J. Mc Naughton, and L.L. Wolf, Dominance and Niche in Ecological Systems. Science 167 (3915) (1970) 131-136 [24] T.M. Mokotjomela, C.F. Musil and K.J. Esler, Frugivorous birds visit fruits of emerging alien shrub species more frequently than those of native shrub species in the South African Mediterranean Climate region. South African Journal of Botany, 86 (2013) 73-78 [25] T. Sørensen, A method of establishing groups of equal amplitude in plant sociology based on similarity of species and its application to analyses of the vegetation on Danish commons. Biologiske Skrifter Danske Videnskabemes Selskab 5(4) (1948) 1-34 [26] W.H. Berger, and F.L. Parker, Diversity of planktonic foraminifera in deep-sea sediments. Science 168 (1970) 1345–1347

-60-


Photographic plates of birds observed in KWS

..............

.

Dinopium benghalensis

….

Megalaima sp.

…

...

Alcedo atthis

Halcyon capensis

Acridotheres fuscus

Pycnonotus cafer

....

Coracias benghalensis

Oriolus xanthornus

-61-


…….

…

....

Sturnus contra

Athene brama

…

…

Passer domesticus

..…

…

Merops orientalis

..

Nectarinia zeylonica

Bulbulcus ibis

Turdoides striatus

..

Pavo cristatus

-62-

Cosychus saulatis


..

Gallus gallus

..

Centropus sinensis

.. Nectarinia asiatica

…

Hirundo rustica

….

.

Dicrurus macrocercus

Anastomus oscitans

Phalacrocorax niger

….

Ardeola grayi

-63-

Kittacincla malabarica


Eudynamys scolopaceus

Amaurornis phoenicurus

…

Acridotheres tristis

…. Terpsiphone paradise

Hypothymis azurea

-64-