Printer Friendly

ASCERTAIN THE PRODUCTIVITY OF HETEROGENOUS WETLAND AND ADJACENT HABITATS THROUGH AVIAN FORAGING GUILDS.

Byline: M. N. Rajpar, M. Zakaria, I. Ozdemir, S. Sheryar and A. Rab

ABSTRACT

Birds are the most conspicuous component of wetland habitats, i.e., they are highly motile and sensitive to multitude habitat variables. Various avian species were surveyed using a distance sampling point count method and were assigned into different foraging guilds based on food selection, foraging techniques and habitat preferences. The results of foraging guilds indicated that the marsh swamp habitat was most productive, i.e., heavily utilized by avian species (i.e. 143.00 +- 23.86 birds ha-1) and the dryland with scattered trees was less productive, i.e., less preferred by them (i.e. 65.03 +- 9.79 birds ha-1). Overall, guild Frugivore/Insectivore birds were the most dominant (149.89 +- 20.25 birds ha-1) and Carnivore (0.40 +- 0.19 birds ha-1) were less abundant in five habitats. Likewise, resident birds were the most dominant in each habitat and vagrant birds were rarely observed.

For migrant bird, guild Insectivore was the most dominant in five habitats such as marsh swamp; 1.24 +- 0.08 birds ha-1, lotus swamp; 1.28 +- 0.32 birds ha-1, open water body; 0.74 +- 0.12 birds ha-1, dryland with scattered trees; 2.05 +- 0.20 birds ha-1 and scrubland; 1.44 +- 0.15 birds ha-1. The findings of foraging guilds indicated that birds are specialize in food selection, i.e., foraged on a wide array of animals through employing various foraging techniques to catch their prey and select the available wetland and adjacent habitats in different ways depending on availability of food resources, foraging behaviour and niche. Hence, birds are bio-indicators of wetland and adjacent habitats and can be ascertained the productivity (health) of the particular habitat.

Keywords: Foraging guild, Marsh Swamp, Bird, Migrant, Residents, Scrubland.

INTRODUCTION

Food is major crucial factor for avian species to take energy and to perform multiple activities for survival and reproduction (Guillemain and Fritz, 2002). For bird species, foraging site selection and feeding technique are important factors to exploit the food resources (Jing et al. 2007, Gatto et al. 2008). Food resources in wetland habitats distributed sparsely and densely depending on habitat structure and composition. The monitoring foraging guild is an effective method to ascertain the health of particular habitat and lead to improve the habitat in the future. Birds are perhaps the most conspicuous and highly motile, and sensitive to multitude habitat variables (Thorngate et al., 2006, Jing et al., 2007) and are bio-indicators of wetland ecosystems (Gokula and Vijayan, 2000; Hobson and Bayne, 2000; Loyn, 2002; Gray et al., 2007). They forage on a variety of animals such as insects, centipedes, crustaceans, molluscs, amphibians, fish, reptiles, small birds, rodents and plant materials.

While, birds employ various foraging techniques to hunt their prey is called feeding guild. Whereas, feeding guild is a group of bird species which may exploit the same foraging sites, same food resources, and foraging techniques in a similar way, even though they differs taxonomically (Simberloff and Dayan, 1991; Somasundaram and Vijayan, 2008). Foraging guilds provide information on bird community structure and productivity of a particular habitat (Blondel, 2003; Lopez de Casenve et al., 2008). Feeding guilds among avian species may vary, which may effectively avoid the interspecific competition of food resources and fully utilized the food resources of a particular habitat. Bird richness and diversity is attributed to various factors such as diversity of vegetation, availability and richness of food resources, and water depth, etc.

Vegetation diversity and richness create ideal foraging and nesting sites for a variety of bird assemblages, reduced the risk of predation and influence on bird distribution (Gunnarsson, 1996; Ydenberg et al., 2002; Adamik et al., 2003, Jing et al., 2007; Casas et al., 2016). In addition, the occurrence of shallow water, richness of food resources, adjacent landscape and microclimate are major drivers to attract a wide array of avian species to utilize a dwelling habitat. Globally, habitat loss and degradation have affected the populations of many bird species (Stroud et al., 2004; Goudie, 2006; Gray et al., 2007; Rendon et al., 2008) which extensively depend on wetland and adjacent habitat for food, shelter, roosting and breeding purposes. Information on foraging guilds and bird assemblage utilizing wetland and adjacent habitat is extremely important to understand the food resources and the importance of particular habitat for avian species.

A detailed information on foraging guilds and food resources in different wetland and adjacent habitat is still lacking. Only few studies have been carried out on food resources and foraging guilds of bird species utilize wetland and adjacent habitats. The primary aim of this study was to determine foraging guilds of avian assemblages inhabited in five different wetland and adjacent habitats such as marsh swamp, lotus swamp, open water body, open area with scattered trees and shurblands to understand the bird assemblages and productivity of each habitat.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Study Area: The research study was carried out into five remnant habitats (i) marsh swamp (140 hectares), (ii) lotus swamp (116 hectares), (iii) open water body (238 hectares), (iv) open area with scattered trees (55 hectares), and (v) shrublands (51 hectares) located within 101Adeg10' to 101Adeg50' longitude and 2Adeg50' and 3Adeg00' latitude (Figure 1). Each area may vary in vegetation composition and represented specific environmental features that meet the biological needs of wetland bird as well as open country bird species.

Marsh Swamp: Marsh swamp was larger lakes with shallower water dominated by lush growths of aquatic herbaceous vegetation such as sedges, reeds, rushes and grasses (Fig. 2). The plants grow with their stems partly in and partly out of the water. Marsh swamp is predominantly covered with aquatic plants, i.e., Eleocharis dulcis, Lepironia articulata, Stenochlaena palustris, Philydrum lanuginosum, and Scleria purpurascens. The water body edges were covered with different tree species such as Acacia auriculiformis, A. mangium, Macaranga tanarius, Peltophorum pterocarpum, Cinnamonum iners, Melicope glabra, and Melastoma malabathricum along the edges.

Lotus Swamp: Lotus Swamp was a shallower water pond dominated Nelumbo nucifera, N. nouchali, N. pubescens, E. dulcis, Elodea sp., Phragmites karka reeds and Typha angustifolia while dry area were covered with A. auriculiformis, A. mangium and some parts with M. malabathricum (Fig. 3)

Lake: Lake habitat was a group of larger and deep water bodies dominated by submerged and emergent vegetation such as Nymphaea odorata, Potamogeton spp., E. dulcis, Myriophyllum spicatum, Salvinia molesta, Scirpus sylvaticus, S. californicus, S. Mucronatus, S. Maritimus, E. dulcis, S. purpurascens, Sagittaria latifolia and Hydrilla sp. (Fig. 4).

Dryland with Scattered Trees: Dryland areas were dominated by scattered flowering and fruiting trees (i.e. C. iners, M. glabra, Ficus rubiginosa, F. benjamina, Syzygium grande, S. polyanthum, Caryota mitis, Delonix regia, and Fragraea fragrans) (Fig. 5). The ground were densely covered with different grass species such as Imperata cylindrica, Cynodon dactylon, and Distichlis spicata.

Scrubland: Scrubland was dominated with an aggregation of woody plants or shrubs such as Melastoma malabathricum, Dillenia suffruticosa and young tree saplings of A. auriculiformis and A. mangium having less than ten feet height and 10cm dbh (Fig. 6). The ground vegetation dominated with grasses, i.e. Cogon Grass (I. cylindrica), Climbing Fern (S. palustris), Fern Tree (Gleichenia linearis) and Giant Weed (S. molesta).

Bird Surveys: Birds were surveyed using a distance sampling point count technique (Buckland et al., 2004) for 15 consecutive months from July, 2013 to September, 2014. Distance sampling is widely used to study animal populations, including avian and mammal communities (Buckland et al., 2004) in a variety of habitats such as lakes (Aborn, 2007), forests (Lee and Marsden, 2008) and wetlands (Nadeau et al., 2008). The replication of point count stations increased the precision and provided reliable results (Smith et al., 1993; Petit et al., 1995). A total of 188 point count stations at 300 m intervals were established within five habitats (Marsh Swamp; 43 stations, Lotus Swamp; 38 stations, Lake; 40 stations, Dryland; 35 stations, and Scrubland; 32 stations). The main reason of using 300m intervals was to avoid double counting of the same birds at more than one station. The surveys were conducted between 0730 and 1100 hours. This period of time is appropriate, as most birds are active early in the morning.

The detections of birds within each point station were done for 10 minutes. Ten-minute count enabled the researcher to record sufficient numbers of individuals with minimal efforts and disturbances (Jimenez 2000; Lee and Marsden 2008; Zakaria et al. 2009). During each survey, all bird species and individuals seen or heard were recorded. The flushed birds were also recorded and their known original positions were included in the analysis. However, flying birds were not recorded due to unknown original position. The sampling methodology was based on Bibby et al. (2000), Hosteler and Main (2001), Buckland et al. (2004), Aborn (2007), Nadeau et al. (2008), and Aynalem and Bekele (2008).

Bird Density Analysis: The feeding guild densities of bird species were determined by Distance Software (Version 6.1) (Buckland et al., 2004). Bird species with fewer than five detections were not analysed due to their low sample size, as recommended and described by Marsden (1999) and Buckland (2001).

Feeding Guilds: The feeding guilds of all the sampled bird species were categorized based on major food, foraging behaviour and habitat selection as reported by Ehrlich et al. (1988) and Degraaf et al. (1985). It was difficult to analyze feeding guild of each bird species separately, so we categorized birds in nine major feeding guilds which were exploit the same foraging sites, same food resources and foraging techniques in a similar way. Thorngate et al. (2006) reported that bird species can be grouped into functional guilds that may reflect the exploitation of same food resources and foraging technique in a similar way in a particular habitat.

RESULTS

The results of this study indicated that marsh swamp habitat was heavily utilized by avian species (i.e. (143.00 +- 23.86 birds ha-1) and dryland with scattered trees was less preferred (i.e. (65.03 +- 9.79 birds ha-1). Overall, in five habitats, the highest population was recorded for guild Frugivore/Insectivore (149.89 +- 20.25 birds ha-1) and lowest population was determined for Carnivore (0.40 +- 0.19 birds ha-1) (Table 1).

Feeding Guilds Density in Five Habitats: Three guilds i.e., Frugivore/Insectivore (57.18 +- 6.90 birds ha-1), Insectivore (26.98 +- 4.94 birds ha-1) and Omnivore (18.42 +- 2.64 birds ha-1) were found most dominant in marsh swamp habitat. On the contrary, the Carnivore (0.11 +- 0.06 birds ha-1) were the rarest guild in the marsh swamp habitat (Table 1 and 2). Likewise, in lotus swamp habitat, three feeding guilds such as Frugivore/Insectivore (22.30 +- 3.25 birds ha-1), Insectivore (14.09 +- 3.16 birds ha-1) and Omnivore (12.99 +- 1.34 birds ha-1) were the most dominant guilds. However, the density of two guilds, i.e. the Carnivore and the Carnivore/Insectivore was not calculated due to the low number of detections (Table 1 and 2). In the lake, the highest guild density was observed for Insectivore (18.64 +- 3.64 birds ha-1), Omnivore (18.64 +- 2.68 birds ha-1) and Granivore (17.38 +- 2.39 birds ha-1).

On the other hand, the lowest density was recorded for Carnivore/Insectivore (0.45 +- 0.13 birds ha-1). However, the density of the Carnivore was not determined due to the less number of observations (Table 1 and 2). Like a lotus swamp habitat, Frugivore/Insectivore (23.06 +- 3.43 birds ha-1) and Insectivore (16.05 +- 2.05 birds ha-1) was the most dominant guilds, whereas the Carnivore and Omnivore (each 0.29 +- 0.13 birds ha-1) were the rarest guilds in a dryland with scattered trees (Table 1 and 2). In scrubland habitat, the highest guild densities were recorded for Frugivore/Insectivore (34.52 +- 5.14 birds ha-1) and Granivore (19.86 +- 3.12 birds ha-1) whereas, the lowest density was noted in Carnivore/Insectivore (1.12 +- 0.30 birds ha-1). However, the density of guild Carnivore was not analysed due to the less number of observations (Table 1 and 2).

Table 1. Feeding guild density (birds ha-1) in five habitats

###Density (birds ha-1)

Feeding

Guilds###Marsh Swamp###Lotus Swamp###Lake###Dryland with###Scrubland###Total

###Scattered Trees

Frugivore/###57.18 +- 6.90###22.30 +- 3.25###12.83 +- 1.53###23.06 +- 3.43###34.52 +- 5.14###149.89 +- 20.25

Insectivore###(n = 1511)###(n = 279)###(n = 257)###(n = 987)###(n = 785)###(n = 3819)

###26.98 +- 4.94###14.09 +- 3.16###18.64 +- 3.64###16.05 +- 2.05###11.98 +- 1.02###87.74 +- 14.81

Insectivore

###(n = 934)###(n = 224)###(n = 345)###(n = 495)###(n = 320)###(n = 2318)

###18.42 +- 2.64###12.99 +- 1.34###18.64 +- 2.68###0.29 +- 0.13###6.58 +- 1.77###56.92 +- 8.56

Omnivore

###(n = 1548)###(n = 209)###(n = 535)###(n = 576)###(n = 233)###(n = 3101)

Granivore/###13.86 +- 2.71###8.34 +- 2.49###11.54 +- 2.75###11.47 +- 1.60###16.99 +- 2.13###62.02 +- 11.68

Insectivore###(n = 744)###(n = 117)###(n = 139)###(n = 314)###(n = 215)###(n = 1529)

Granivore###12.26 +- 2.82###6.75 +- 1.72###17.38 +- 2.39###10.22 +- 1.19###19.86 +- 3.12###66.47 +- 11.24

###(n = 744)###(n = 89)###(n = 119)###(n = 434)###(n = 231)###(n = 1617)

Carnivore###12.99 +- 3.40###9.57 +- 1.33###5.38 +- 0.34###1.92 +- 0.77###1.89 +- 0.37###31.75 +- 6.21

/Piscivore###(n = 649)###(n = 167)###(n = 131)###(n = 194)###(n = 101)###(n = 1242)

/Insectivore

Carnivore/###0.71 +- 0.20###0.45 +- 0.13###0.76 +- 0.25###1.12 +- 0.30###3.04 +- 0.88

###(n = 0)

Insectivore###(n = 48)###(n = 12)###(n = 26)###(n = 20)###(n = 106)

Nectarivore/###0.49 +- 0.19###0.47 +- 0.13###0.97 +- 0.24###2.37 +- 0.22###4.30 +- 0.78

###(n = 2)

Insectivore###(n = 29)###(n = 6)###(n = 31)###(n = 14)###(n = 82)

###0.11 +- 0.06###0.29 +- 0.13###0.40 +- 0.19

Carnivore###(n = 0)###(n = 1)###(n = 3)

###(n = 5)###(n = 15)###(n = 24)

###84.86 +-

###143.00 +- 23.86###74.51 +- 13.42###65.03 +- 9.79###95.31 +- 14.07###462.71 +- 74.60

###Total###13.46

###(n = 6212)###(n = 1091)###(n = 1541)###(n = 3072)###(n = 1922)###(n = 13838)

Table 2. Feeding guild density (birds ha-1) @ 95% confidence interval in five habitats.

###Density (birds ha-1)

Name of Guilds###Marsh Swamp###Lotus Swamp###Lake###Dryland with###Scrubland

###Scattered Trees

Frugivore/Insectivore###41.63 - 78.54###16.71 - 29.75###8.05 - 20.43###15.77 - 33.72###25.52 - 46.98

Insectivore###10.82 - 67.27###8.91 - 22.28###8.75 - 39.72###13.05 - 19.74###8.41 - 17.06

Omnivore###13.86 - 24.48###7.70 - 21.90###8.39 - 39.54###0.11 - 0.76###3.88 - 11.15

Granivore/Insectivore###9.41 - 20.41###3.92 - 17.74###6.58 - 20.23###8.00 - 16.46###11.38 - 25.35

Granivore###7.70 - 19.56###1.70 - 26.87###10.12 - 29.85###6.84 - 15.28###11.53 - 34.23

Carnivore /Piscivore/Insectivore###7.21 - 12.71###7.70 -21.90###3.03 - 9.53###0.90 - 4.13###1.27 - 2.83

Carnivore/Insectivore###0.40 - 1.26###--###0.12 - 1.73###0.39 - 1.50###0.65 - 1.94

Nectarivore/Insectivore###0.22 - 1.09###0.11 - 2.02###0.08 - 1.23###0.40 - 2.34###0.99 - 5.64

Carnivore###0.02 - 0.50###--###--###0.11 - 0.76###--

Feeding Guilds Density Based on Status in Five Habitats: The results highlighted that resident birds were the most dominant in each habitat and vagrant birds were the rarest in the study area (Table 3). Furthermore, three feeding guilds, i.e., Insectivore, Omnivore, and Carnivore/Piscivore-/Insectivore of migrant birds were recorded in five habitats. The results showed that Insectivore was the most dominant guild of migrant birds in five habitats such as marsh swamp (1.24 +- 0.08 birds ha-1), lotus swamp (1.28 +- 0.32 birds ha-1), lake (0.74 +- 0.12 birds ha-1), dryland with scattered trees (2.05 +- 0.20 birds ha-1) and scrubland (1.44 +- 0.15 birds ha-1). However, six feeding guilds of migrant birds were absent in marsh swamp, lotus swamp, seven guilds were absent in lake, dryland with scattered trees and scrubland habitats. In addition, guild Carnivore/Piscivore/Insectivore in marsh swamp, guild Omnivore in lake and scrubland habitats was not analysed due to low sample size (Table 3 and 4).

In Marsh swamp habitat guild Carnivore/Piscivore/Insectivore (2.22 +- 0.28 birds ha-1), in lotus swamp habitat guild Frugivore/Insectivore (2.56 +- 0.35 birds ha-1), in lake guild Granivore (4.53 +- 03.5 birds ha-1), in dryland with scattered trees guild Granivore/Insectivore (4.52 +- 0.71 birds ha-1) and in scrubland guild habitat Granivore/Insectivore (8.75 +- 0.79 birds ha-1) were the most dominant feeding guilds of resident birds. In contrast, guild Carnivore (Marsh Swamp), Carnivore/Insectivore and Carnivore (Lotus Swamp), Nectarivore/Insectivore and Carnivore (lake), and Carnivore (Scrubland) was not analysed due to less number of detections (Table 5 and 6). Four feeding guilds of Resident-Migrant birds were recorded in five habitats. However, feeding guild may vary from habitat to habitats.

For example; Omnivore was major feeding in marsh swamp and lake, Insectivore in lotus swamp and dryland with scattered trees, and Frugivore/Insectivore in scrubland habitat. Five feeding guilds were absent in five habitats (Table 7 and 8). The guild density of vagrant birds was not analysed due to less number of detections.

Table 3. Feeding guild density (birds ha-1) of migrant birds in five habitats.

###Habitats

Feeding Guilds###Marsh###Lotus###Lake###Dryland with###Scrubland###Total

###Swamp###Swamp###Scattered Trees

Frugivore/ Insectivore###0###0###0###0###0###0

Omnivore###0.18 +- 0.05###0.67 +- 0.21###(n = 1)###1.26 +- 0.34###(n = 2)###2.11 +- 0.60

###(n = 13)###(n = 11)###(n = 19)###(n = 46)

Insectivore###1.24 +- 0.08###1.28 +- 0.32###0.74 +- 0.12###2.05 +- 0.20###1.44 +- 0.15###6.75 +- 0.87

###(n = 208)###(n = 23)###(n =42)###(n = 138)###(n = 76)###(n = 487)

Granivore/ Insectivore###0###0###0###0###0###0

Granivore###0###0###0###0###0###0

Carnivore/ Piscivore/###0.35 +- 0.19###0.35 +- 0.19

###(n = 1)###0###0###0

Insectivore###(n = 6)###(n = 7)

Carnivore/ Insectivore###0###0###0###0###0###0

Nectarivore/

###0###0###0###0###0###0

Insectivore

Carnivore###0###0###0###0###0###0

Total###1.42 +- 0.13###2.30 +- 0.72###0.74 +- 0.12###3.31 +- 0.54###1.44 +- 0.15###9.21 +- 1.66

###(n = 222)###(n = 40)###(n = 43)###(n = 157)###(n = 78)###(n = 540)

Table 4. Feeding guild density (birds ha-1) of migrant birds in five habitats @ 95% confidence interval.

###Habitats

Feeding Guilds###Marsh Swamp###Lotus Swamp###Lake###Dryland with###Scrubland

###Scattered Trees

###Migrants

Frugivore/Insectivore###-###-###-###-###-

Omnivore###0.09 - 0.36###0.34 - 1.32###-###0.72 - 2.22###-

Insectivore###1.08 - 1.42###0.76 - 2.16###0.54 - 1.01###1.68 - 2.50###1.16 - 1.78

Granivore/Insectivore###-###-###-###-###-

Granivore###-###-###-###-###-

Carnivore /Piscivore/Insectivore###-###0.09 - 1.35###-###-###-

Carnivore/Insectivore###-###-###-###-###-

Nectarivore/Insectivore###-###-###-###-###-

Carnivore###-###-###-###-###-

Table 5. Feeding guild density (birds ha-1) of resident birds in five habitats.

###Habitats

Feeding Guilds###Marsh###Lotus Swamp###Lake###Dryland with###Scrubland###Total

###Swamp###Scattered Trees

###2.56 +- 0.35###1.41 +- 0.03###2.82 +- 0.57###10.38 +- 1.69###5.20 +- 0.52###22.37 +- 3.16

Frugivore/ Insectivore

###(n = 268)###(n = 1451)###(n = 243)###(n = 944)###(n = 734)###(n = 3640)

###1.94 +- 0.16###0.99 +- 0.04###1.29 +- 0.14###1.23 +- 0.07###0.94 +- 0.05###6.39 +- 0.46

Insectivore

###(n = 155)###(n = 644)###(n = 161)###(n = 232)###(n = 213)###(n = 1405)

###1.77 +- 0.05###0.82 +- 0.18###2.04 +- 0.18###2.62 +- 0.39###0.72 +- 0.08###7.97 +- 0.88

Omnivore

###(n = 1331)###(n = 159)###(n = 506)###(n = 479)###(n = 191)###(n = 2666)

Granivore/###2.22 +- 0.28###1.04 +- 0.09###1.82 +- 0.19###4.52 +- 0.71###8.75 +- 0.79###18.35 +- 2.06

Insectivore###(n = 744)###(n = 117)###(n = 139)###(n = 314)###(n = 215)###(n = 1529)

###1.72 +-0.28###1.84 +- 0.86###4.53 +- 0.35###3.72 +- 0.62###4.50 +- 0.41###16.31 +- 2.52

Granivore

###(n = 744)###(n = 89)###(n = 119)###(n = 434)###(n = 231)###(n = 1617)

Carnivore/###2.67 +- 0.28###1.94 +- 0.25###0.54 +- 0.05###2.12 +- 0.74###0.62 +- 0.06###7.89 +- 1.38

Piscivore/Insectivore###(n = 221)###(n = 59)###(n = 83)###(n = 80)###(n = 73)###(n = 516)

Carnivore/###0.71 +- 0.11###0.45 +- 0. 22###0.82 +- 0.21###1.00 +- 0.20###2.98 +- 0.74

###0

Insectivore###(n = 48)###(n = 12)###(n = 26)###(n = 20)###(n = 106)

Nectarivore/###0.36 +- 0.10###0.35 +- 0.21###0.56 +- 0.16###1.50 +-0.58###2.77 +- 1.05

###(n = 2)

Insectivore###(n = 29)###(n = 6)###(n = 31)###(n =14)###(n = 82)

###0.27 +- 0.08###0.27 +- 0.08

Carnivore###(n = 4)###0###0###(n = 13)###(n =2)###(n = 19)

###Total###13.95 +- 1.61###8.39 +- 1.66###13.49 +- 1.70###26.24 +- 4.67###23.23 +- 2.69###85.30 +- 11.47

###(n = 3544)###(n = 2525)###(n = 1265)###(n = 2553)###(n = 1693)###(n = 11580)

Table 6. Feeding guild density (birds ha-1) of resident birds in five habitats @ 95% confidence interval.

###Habitats

Feeding Guilds###Marsh Swamp###Lotus Swamp###Lake###Dryland with###Scrubland

###Scattered Trees

Frugivore/Insectivore###1.96 - 3.36###1.34 - 1.49###1.89 - 4.20###7.55 - 14.28###4.28 - 6.33

Insectivore###1.64 - 2.28###0.91 - 1.08###1.04 - 1.61###1.09 - 1.39###0.83 - 1.06

Omnivore###1.67 - 1.89###0.54 - 1.28###1.72 - 2.42###1.95 - 3.51###0.58 - 0.91

Granivore/Insectivore###1.74 - 2.83###0.86 - 1.26###1.52 - 2.19###3.32 - 6.17###7.32 - 10.46

Granivore###1.25 - 2.37###0.76 - 4.45###3.90 - 5.28###2.67 - 5.17###3.76 - 5.38

Carnivore/Piscivore/Insectivore###2.17 - 3.28###1.50 - 2.51###0.44 - 0.67###1.07 - 4.19###0.43 - 0.97

Carnivore/Insectivore###0.53 - 0.96###-###0.16 - 1.26###0.49 - 1.38###0.66 - 1.50

Nectarivore/Insectivore###0.20 - 0.66###0.08 - 1.49###-###0.32 - 1.00###0.66 - 3.42

Carnivore###-###-###-###0.13 - 0.52###-

Table 7. Feeding guild density (birds ha-1) of resident-migrants in five habitats.

###Habitats

Feeding Guilds###Marsh###Lotus###Lake###Dryland with###Scrubland###Total

###Swamp###Swamp###Scattered Trees

Frugivore/Insectivore###2.25 +- 0.49###1.82 +- 0.75###0.29 +- 0.12###0.97 +- 0.15###0.73 +- 0.12###6.06 +- 1.63

###(n = 59)###(n = 11)###(n = 14)###(n = 43)###(n = 51)###(n = 178)

Omnivore###4.18 +- 0.47###2.14 +- 0.23###1.74 +- 0.66###1.78 +- 0.20###0.44+- 0.08###10.28 +- 1.64

###(n = 204)###(n = 39)###(n = 28)###(n = 78)###(n = 40)###(n = 389)

Insectivore###0.84 +- 0.34###2.37 +- 0.33###0.50 +- 0.15###2.22 +- 0.21###0.64 +- 0.16###6.57 +- 1.19

###(n = 82)###(n = 46)###(n = 142)###(n = 125)###(n = 31)###(n = 426)

Granivore/Insectivore###0###0###0###0###0###0

Granivore###0###0###0###0###0###0

Carnivore/ Piscivore/###1.19 +- 0.13###1.59 +- 0.36###0.80 +- 0.13###1.00 +- 0.09###0.65 +- 0.13###5.23 +- 0.84

Insectivore###(n = 428)###(n = 102)###(n = 48)###(n = 114)###(n = 28)###(n = 720)

Carnivore/Insectivore###0###0###0###0###0###0

Nectarivore/###0###0###0###0###0###0

Insectivore

Carnivore###0###0###0###0###0###0

Total###8.46 +- 1.43###7.92 +- 1.67###3.33 +- 1.06###5.97 +- 0.65###2.46 +- 0.49###28.14 +- 5.30

###(n = 773)###(n = 198)###(n = 232)###(n = 360)###(n = 150)###(n = 1713)

Table 8. Feeding guild density (birds ha-1) of Resident-Migrants in five habitats @ 95% confidence interval.

###Habitats

Feeding Guilds###Marsh Swamp###Lotus Swamp###Lake###Dryland with###Scrubland

###Scattered Trees

Frugivore/Insectivore###1.47 - 3.43###0.74 - 4.46###0.13 - 0.69###0.69 - 1.34###0.53 - 1.00

Omnivore###3.34 - 5.23###1.59 - 2.90###0.82 - 3.70###1.43 - 2.21###0.31 - 0.64

Insectivore###0.39 - 1.83###1.78 - 3.14###0.08 - 2.97###1.84 - 2.68###0.39 - 1.05

Granivore/Insectivore###-###-###-###-###-

Granivore###-###-###-###-###-

Carnivore/Piscivore/Insectivore###0.96 - 1.48###1.02 - 2.47###0.57 - 1.12###0.83 - 1.21###0.49 - 0.77

Carnivore/Insectivore###-###-###-###-###-

Nectarivore/Insectivore###-###-###-###-###-

Carnivore###-###-###-###-###-

DISCUSSION

Monitoring available food resources and foraging guilds of wetland dependent birds is an important step to examine the productivity of a particular habitat. The presence of food resources is a key factor that affects the habitat suitability and influences the reproductive success of wetland birds. The recording of the nine feeding guilds indicated that these habitats are rich in food resources and offer suitable foraging sites which have attracted a higher number of avian assemblages to utilize these wetland and adjacent habitats. Bird species foraged on diverse food resources such as fishes, amphibians, reptiles, invertebrates (insects, worms, centipedes, millipedes, gastropods, and crustaceans), vegetable matter, etc. However, the feeding guild population of avian species may vary from habitat to habitat and depending on suitable foraging sites, productivity (food resources), and shelter from harsh weather and predators.

This might be due to difference in morphology, i.e., bill shape and size, foraging behaviour and habitat preference. Bird species may forage on a variety of prey and select habitat based on prey richness, diversity and distribution (Ashley et al., 2000; Davis and Smith, 2001; Jing et al., 2007). They detect their prey through visual and tactile sensory mechanism (Ntimao-Baidu et al., 1998) and employ a variety of techniques such as probing, gleaning, nipping, stabbing, hawking, sallying, and grubbing to catch their prey (Danchin et al., 2008). The morphological differences among the avian species may reduce the inter-specific competition and increase the species persistence. In addition, vegetation structure and composition, availability of shallow water and diversity of prey items also influence on foraging behaviour of avian species.

Jing et al. (2007) reported that birds can change their feeding technique depending on richness, size, and distribution of prey items and also a substrate structure. In addition, surrounded landscape such as peat swamp forest, oil palm plantation, private lakes and agricultural fields also influence the distribution of avian species. Habitat structure and adjacent landscape influence the distribution and diversity of avian species (Pearman, 2002; Hubbard and Dugan, 2003; King et al., 2010). In addition, the status of avian species also influences on avian population, such as arrival and departure of migrant bird species. The results also revealed that habitat selection among avian species often may vary from species to species such as the higher avian population was recorded in marsh swamp.

The marsh swamp habitat was rich and diverse in herbaceous aquatic vegetation, such as emergent vegetation (sedges, rushes and reeds), ferns, grasses and submerged had create suitable microhabitats such as ideal foraging and breeding sites, and hiding covers from predators and harsh weather conditions (Fairbrain and Dinsmore, 2001; Ojija, 2015). The occurrence of higher population might be due to the availability of abundant food sources, such as invertebrates (i.e., insects and gastropods), fish (i.e., carps and catfish), amphibians (i.e., frogs and salamanders), reptiles (i.e., lizards, dragons and snakes), mammals (i.e., mice and rats), safe roosting and breeding sites, occurrence of the shallow water level and diversity of emergent and submerged vegetation (Colwell and Taft, 2000; Rajpar and Zakaria, 2009).

The emergent vegetation supported the complex trophic structure in marsh swamp i.e. provided ideal habitat for invertebrates (such as insects, isopods, decapods, crustaceans, molluscs), as well as fish and birds (Lodge et al., 1998). The higher abundance and richness of macro-invertebrates and fish occur in the emergent vegetation (Grenouillet et al., 2002; Toft et al., 2003; Meerhoff et al., 2003) that had attracted the highest number of bird species such as swamphens, moorhens, crakes, waterhens, water cocks, warblers, bitterns, herons and prinias to utilize it. Hattori and Mae (2001) stated that the highest species richness and density of waterbirds occurs in the reed beds of aquatic vegetation. The other reason could be that marsh swamp habitat had shallow water depth. The shallow water and moist soil had been considered as important foraging sites for wetland birds (van Gils et al., 2003, Granaderio et al., 2007).

This is due to easy access, occurrence of plenty of prey items and higher success of prey catching. The other reason could be that, the highest diversity of fish occurs in shallow water and higher biomass of macroinvertebrate in soft mud (Li et al., 2013) which is a major diet of avian species. Stafford et al. (2010) reported that waterbird foraged on benthic, surface-dwelling invertebrates and aquatic vertebrates that mostly occur in shallow waters. In addition, a substantial avian population was determined in scrubland habitat. The scrubland occupied by the vegetation below five meters' height under trees and along the banks of lakes, while the ground layer consists of herbaceous plants, such as grasses, reed beds of sedges, and emergent vegetation. The occurrence of substantial population could be due to the diversity of fruiting and flowering trees, shrubs and grasses.

For example; Little Leaves or Rusty Figs (Ficus rubiginosa), Weeping Figs (F. benjamina), Ficus Condensa Kings or Curraniis (F. fistulosa), Malay Apples (Syzygium jambos), Sea Apples (S. grande), Indonesian Bay Leaves (S. polyanthum), Bullate Eugenis (S. microcalyx), Jambo Candolles (S. lineatum), Fish-tailed Palms (C. mitis), Sweet Fragraeas (F. fragrans), Flame Trees (D. regia), Giant Crape-myrtles (Lagerstroemia speciosa), Papayas (Carica papaya), Glabras (M. glabra), Ceylon Cinnamons (C. iners), Rhododendrons (M. malabathricum) and Shrubby Dillenias (Dillenia suffruticosa). The vegetation diversity and richness directly affect the species diversity and richness of birds (Canterbury et al., 1999; Soderstrom and Part, 1999; Martin, 2001). The trees and shrubs provide a diversity of flowers and fruits that attracted a wide array of insects such as wasps, bees, butterflies, moths, termites and caterpillars. The berries and insects were the main food resources for Frugivore and Insectivore birds.

Chettri et al. (2005) stated that insect species may prefer vegetation having dense foliage rich in fruits and flowers and moist condition. In addition, the shrubs and trees provided hiding cover and offer suitable nesting sites for avian species. In addition, nearby the surrounding areas, i.e. oil palm plantations and forest reserve might influence the bird's relative abundance, distribution, and diversity (Koopowitz et al., 1994; Vos and Stumpe, 1995). On the contrary, the lower feeding guild population was recorded in dryland areas having scattered trees. The occurrence of lower population could be that, these areas are open with scattered trees and their productivity is lower, such as, few fruiting and flowering trees had been planted to increase the aesthetic beauty of the study area. The planted trees are still in younger age, only a few tree species bear fruits and flowers.

The other reason could be that the ground grasses are maintained manually and didn't provide hiding cover for avian species. Third reason could be that, these areas lack water ponds and avoided by waterbirds to utilize. These areas are utilized only by open country birds such as doves, mynas, munias, etc. for foraging only. Furthermore, the higher number and population of feeding guild were recorded for resident birds and the lowest one was recorded for vagrant species. This might be due to that resident bird occurs throughout the year in the study area and forage in these habitats whole of the year. In contrast, the lowest bird population was recorded in the vagrant birds. This could be explained by the rare presence of the vagrant birds, which only visit the study area at a certain period of time and they keep on changing their habitat selection.

Conclusions: The findings of foraging guilds indicated that bird are specialized in food selection, i.e., they foraged on a wide array of animals through employing various foraging techniques to catch their prey and select the available wetland and adjacent habitats in different ways depending on availability of food resources, foraging behaviour and niches. The distribution of avian assemblages influenced by the richness and diversity of food resources, availability of foraging sites, shallow water depth and vegetation composition. Hence, birds are bio-indicators of wetland and adjacent habitats and can be ascertained the productivity (health) of a particular habitat.

REFERENCES

Aborn, D. A. (2007). Abundance, Density and Diversity of Neotropical Migrants at the Lula Lake Land Trust, GA. South.. Natur., 6(2): 293-304.

Adamik, P., M. Kornan and J. Vojtek (2003). The effect of habitat structure on guild patterns and the foraging strategies of insectivorous birds in forests. Biol. Brat., 58 (2): 275-285.

Ashley, M. C., J. A. Robinson, L. W. Oring and G. A. Vinyard (2000). Dipteran standing stock biomass and effects of aquatic bird predation at a constructed wetland. Wetlands, 20: 84-90.

Aynalem, S. and 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. Tropi. Ecol., 49(2): 199-209.

Bibby, C. J., N. D. Burgess, D. A. Hill and S. Mustoe (2000). Bird Census Techniques. U.K. London, Academic Press. 2ndEdition. Pp. 91-112.

Blondel, J. (2003). Guilds or functional groups: Does it matter? Oikos, 100: 223-231.

Buckland, S. T. (2001). Introduction to Distance Sampling: Estimating Abundance of Biological Populations. (Oxford University Press, UK). ISBN: 0198509278.

Buckland, S. T., D. R. Anderson, K. P. Burnhan, J. L. Lake, D. L. Borchers and L. Thomas (2004). Advance Distance Sampling; Estimating Abundance of Biological Populations. London; Campman and Hall. Pp.141-172.

Canterbury, G. E., T. E. Martin, D. R. Petit, L. J. Petot and D. F. Branford (1999). Bird communities and habitat as ecological indicators of forest condition in regional monitoring. Cons. Biol., 14: 544-558.

Casas, G., B. Darski, P. M. A. Ferreira, A. Kindel and S. C. Muller (2016). Habitat structure influences the diversity, richness and composition of bird assemblages in successional Atlantic rain forest. Tropi. Cons. Sci., 9(1): 503-524

Chettri, N., D. C. Deb, E. Sharma and R. Jackson (2005). The relationship between bird communities and habitat. Mount. Res. and Devel., 25(3): 235-243.

Colwell, M. A. and O. W. Taft (2000). Waterbird communities in managed wetlands of varying water depth. Waterbirds, 23: 45-55.

Danchin, E., L. Giraldeau and F. Cezilly (2008). Behavioural Ecology. Oxford University Press, New York, USA. ISBN: 978-0-19-920629-2.

Davis, C. A. and L. M. Smith (2001). Foraging strategies and niche dynamics of coexisting shorebirds at stopover sites in southern Great Plains. Auk, 118: 484-495.

De Graaf, R. M., N. G. Tilghman and S. T. Anderson (1985). Foraging guilds of North American birds. Ecol. Manag., 9: 493-536.

Ehrlich, P. R., D. S. Dobkin and D. Wheye (1988). The Birder's Handbook. Simon and Schuster/Fireside Books. New York, New York.

Fairbairn, S. E. and J. J. Dinsmore (2001). Factors associated with occurrence and density of wetland birds in the Prairie Pothole region of Iowa. J. Iowa Acad. Sci., 108 (1): 8-14.

Gatto, A., F. Quintana and P. Yorio (2008). Feeding behavior and habitat use in a waterbird assemblage at a marine wetland in coastal Patagonia, Argentina. Waterbirds, 31: 463-471.

Gokula, V. and L. Vijayan (2000). Foraging pattern of birds during the breeding season in thorn forest of Mudumalai wildlife sanctuary, Tamil Nadu, South India. Trop. Ecol., 41: 195-208.

Goudie, A. S. (2006). The human impact on the natural environment: past, present, and future. Malden, USA: Wiley-Blackwell.

Granaderio J. P., C. D. Santos, M. P. Dias and J. M. Palmeirim (2007). Environmental factors drive habitat partitioning in birds feeding in intertidal flats: implications for conservation. Hydrobiologia, 587: 291-302.

Gray, M. A., S. L. Baldauf, P. J. Mayhew and J. K. Hill (2007). The response of avian feeding guilds to tropical forest disturbance. Cons. Biol., 21(1): 133-141.

Grenouillet, G., D. Pont and K. L. Seip (2002). Abundance and species richness as a function of food resources and vegetation structure: juvenile fish assemblages in rivers. Ecography, 25: 641-650.

Guillemain, M. and H. Fritz (2002). Temporal variation in feeding tactics: exploring the role of competition and predators in wintering dabbling ducks. Wildl. Biol., 8: 81-90.

Gunnarsson, B. (1996). Bird predation and vegetation structure affecting spruce-living arthropods in a temperate forest. J. Ani. Ecol., 65: 389-397.

Hattori, A. and S. Mae (2001). Habitat use and diversity of waterbirds in a coastal lagoon around Lake Biwa, Japan. Ecol. Res., 16: 543-553.

Hobson K. A. and E. Bayne (2000). The effects of stand age on avian communities in aspen-dominated forests of central Saskatchewan, Canada. Forest Ecol. and Manag., 136(1-3): 121-134.

Hosteler, M. E. and M. B. Main (2001). Florida Monitoring Program: Transect and Point Count Method for Surveying Birds. (Manual). University of Florida, Florida.

Hubbard, D. M. and J. E. Dugan (2003). Shorebird use of an exposed sandy beach in southern California. Est. Coas. and Shelf Sci., 58: 41-54.

Jimenez, J. E. (2000). Effect of sample size, plot size and counting time on estimates of avian diversity and abundance in a Chilean rainforest. J. Fiel. Ornith., 71(1): 66-88.

Jing, K., Z. Ma, B. Li, J. Li and J. Chen (2007). Foraging strategies involved in habitat use of shorebirds at the intertidal area of Chogming Dongtan, China. Ecol. Res., 22: 559-570.

King, S., C. S. Elphick, D. Guadagnin, O. Taft and T. Amano (2010) Effects of Landscape features on waterbird use of rice fields. Waterbirds, 33: 151-159.

Koopowitz, H., A. D. Thornhill and M. Andersen (1994). A general stochastic model for the prediction of biodiversity losses based on habitat conversion. Conse. Biol., 8: 425-438.

Lee, D. C. and S. J. Marsden (2008). Adjusting count period strategies to improve the accuracy of forest bird abundance estimates from point transect distance sampling surveys. Ibis, 150: 315-325.

Li, D., S. Chen, H. Lloyd, S. Zhu, K. Shan and Z. Zhang (2013). The importance of artificial habitats to migratory waterbirds within a natural /artificial wetland mosaic, Yellow River Delta, China. Bird Cons. Intern., Pp. 1-15.

Lodge, D. M., R. A. Stein, K. M. Brown, A. P. Covich, C. Bronmark, J. E. Gravey and S. P. Klosiewski (1998). Predicting impact of freshwater exotic species on native biodiversity: Challenges in spatial scaling. Aust. J. Ecol., 23(1): 53-67.

Lopez de Casenave, J., V. R. Cueto and L. Marone (2008). Seasonal dynamics of guild structure in a bird assemblage of the central Monte desert. Basic Appl. Ecol., 9: 78-90.

Loyn R. H. (2002). Patterns of ecological segregation among forest and woodland birds in south- eastren Australia. Ornithol. Sci., 1: 7-27.

Marsden, S. J. (1999). Estimation of parrot and hornbill densities using a point count distance sampling method. Ibis, 141: 377-390.

Martin, T. E. (2001). Abiotic vs biotic influences on habitat selection of coexisting species: climate change impact? Ecology, 82(1): 175-188.

Meerhoff, M., N. Mazzeo, B. Moss and L. Rodriguez-Gallego (2003). The structuring role of free-floating versus submerged plants in a subtropical shallow lake. Aqua. Ecol., 37: 377-391.

Nadeau, C. P., C. J., Conway, B. S. Smith and T. E. Lewis (2008). Maximizing detection probability of wetland dependent bird during point count surveys in North-western Florida. The Wil. J. Ornith., 120(3): 513-518.

Ntimoa-Baidu Y., T. Piersma, P. Wiersma, M. Poot, P. Battle and C. Gordon (1998). Water depth selection, daily feeding routine and diets of waterbirds in coastal lagoon in Ghana. Ibis, 140: 89-103.

Ojija, F. (2015). Ecology and influence of age and habitats on the diurnal activity patterns of Cattle Egret (Bubulcus ibis). I. J. Sci. and Tech. Resea., 4(12): 2277-8616.

Pearman, P. B. (2002). The scale of community structure: Habitat variation and avian guilds in tropical forest understory. Ecol. Monog., 72(1): 19-39.

Petit, D. R., L. J. Petit, V. A. Saab and T. E. Martin (1995). Fixed Radius Point Counts in Forests: Factors Influencing Effectiveness and Efficiency. In Ralph, C.J., J.R. Sauer and S. Droege (Eds.). Monitoring Bird Populations by Point Counts. USDA For. Ser. Res. Paper SO-274, Southern For. Exp. Stn., New Orleans, Louisiana. Diane Publishing Co. Pp. 49-56.

Rajpar, M. N. and M. Zakaria (2009). Assessment of waterbirds at Paya Indah Wetland Reserve, Peninsular Malaysia. In Proceedings of the UTM 8th Annual Symposium on Sustainability Science and Management. 3rd to 4th March, 2009 Kuala Terengganu, Peninsular Malaysia. Pp. 606-612.

Rendon, M. A., A. J. Green, E. Aguilera and P. Almaraz (2008). Status, distribution and long-term changes in the waterbird community wintering in Donana, south-west Spain. Biol. Cons., 141: 1371-1388.

Simberloff, D. and T. Dayan (1991). The guild concept and the structure of ecological communities. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst., 22: 115-143.

Smith, W. P., D. J. Twedt, D. A. Wiedenfeld, P. B. Hamel, R. P. Ford and R. J. Cooper (1993). Point Counts of Birds in Bottomland Hardwood Forests of the Mississippi Alluvial Valley: Duration, Minimum Sample Size, and Points versus Visits. USDA For. Ser. Res. Paper SO-274, Southern For. Exp. Stn., New Orleans, Louisiana. Diane Publishing Co.

Soderstrom, B. and T. Part (1999). Influence of landscape scale on farmland birds breeding in semi-natural pastures. Cons. Biol., 14: 522-533.

Somasundaram, S. and L. Vijayan (2008). Foraging behaviour and guild structure of birds in the Montane wet temperate forest of the Palni Hills, South India. Podoces, 3: 79-91.

Stafford, J. D., R. M. Kaminski and K. J. Reinecke (2010). Avian foods, foraging and habitat conservation in world rice fields. Waterbirds, 33(1): 133-150.

Stroud, D. A., N. C. Davidson, R., West, D. A. Scott, L. Haanstra, O. Thorup, B. Ganter and S. Delany (compilers) on behalf of the International Wader Study Group (2004). Status of migratory wader populations in Africa and Western Eurasia in the 1990s. Intern. Wader Stud., 15: 1-259. ISSN: 1354-9944

Thorngate, N., J. Scullen and J. Oslon (2006). Avian community dynamics in the lower Carmel river watershed 1992-2006. Annual Avian Monitoring Report 2006 prepared for Monetery Peninsula Watershed District. Ventana Wildlife Society, Salinas, CA. Pp. 5. http://www.ventanaws.org-/pdf/about_research/CRWAvianGuild2006final. pdf.

Toft, J. D., C. A. Simenstad, J. R. Cordell and L. F. Grimaldo (2003). The effects of introduced water hyacinth on habitat structure, invertebrate assemblages, and fish diets. Estuaries, 26: 746-758.

van Gils, J. A., I. W. Schenk, O. Bos and T. Piersma (2003). Incompletely informed shorebirds that face a digestive constraint maximize net energy gain when exploiting patches. Am. Nat. 161: 777-793.

Vos, C. C. and A. H. P. Stumpel (1995). Comparison of habitat isolation parameters in relation to fragmented distribution patterns in the tree frog (Hyla arborea). Lands. Ecol., 11: 203-214.

Ydenberg R. C., R. W. Butler, D. B. Lank, C. G. Guglielmo, M. Lemon and N. Wolf (2002). Trade-offs, condition dependence and stopover site selection by migrating sandpipers. J. Avi. Biol., 33: 47-55.

Zakaria, M., M. N. Rajpar and S. A. Sajap (2009). Species diversity and feeding guilds of birds in Paya Indah Wetland Reserve, Peninsular Malaysia. Int. J. Zool. Resea., 5(3): 86-100.
COPYRIGHT 2018 Asianet-Pakistan
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2018 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Publication:Journal of Animal and Plant Sciences
Date:Oct 31, 2018
Words:7805
Previous Article:GENETIC DIVERSITY OF OCTOPUS MINOR (SASAKI, 1920) INFERRED BY MITOCHONDRIAL NADH DEHYDROGENASE SUBUNIT 2 GENE.
Next Article:INFLUENCE OF GAMMA IRRADIATION ON SHELF LIFE AND PROXIMATE ANALYSIS OF FRESH TOMATOES (SOLANUM LYCOPERSICUM).
Topics:

Terms of use | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2021 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters |