Impact of urbanization on avian population and its status in Maharashtra State, India.
Birds are found over the entire Earth. One of the most intriguing aspects of bird biology is the ability to migrate exceptional distances. Birds possess highly specialized directional senses for orientation, navigation, homing and migration, including the ability to detect the Earth's magnetic field. These uncanny abilities permit birds to occupy distinctive wintering and nesting grounds, thus expanding their usable habitats. Some migrations, such as that of the Arctic tern, involve a circumatlantic migration from Alaska to the South Pole. There are some 9700 species of birds living today; some 5000 species belong to the order Passeriformes, the perching birds or songbirds. The number of avian orders is still controversial and texts show different arrangements. The avifauna of India includes around 1301 species, of which 42 are endemic and 26 are rare or accidental. 82 species are globally threatened. The Indian Peacock (Pavo cristatus) is the national bird of India, with almost 150 species having become extinct after the arrival of humans.
Maharashtra is one of the most industrialized states of the Indian union. It is located in the upper western Indian Peninsula. It was founded on 1st May 1960 as a result of the reorganization of Indian states. In population as well as size, it is the third largest state of the Indian union. The state is very rich with more than 500 species recorded from the state so far. If the subspecies are to be considered then the list goes beyond 540. Mr. Prakash Gole has classified these 540 forms as follows, Resident species 255, Local or International migrants 245, Stragglers or irregular visitors 40, species known to be probably breeding 168, species that breed in specific areas only 56, species about whom very little is known 87, species about which knowledge is 25 fairly good e.g. Sparrows, Crows etc. The commonest bird in the state is the ubiquitous Jungle Crow (Corvus macrorhynchos), which is found in remotest forest patches in Gadchiroli district to the heart of the Mumbai city. The other commoner and abundant birds are the House Crow, House Sparrow, Rock Pigeon, Common Myna, Black Kite, Red Vented and Red Whiskered Bulbuls. Yellow Footed Green Pigeon (Treron apicauda) is the State Bird of Maharashtra.
(Clergeau et al, 1998; Blair, 1999; Savard et al, 2000; Francl and Schnell, 2002) stated that birds are highly visible and sensitive to alterations in habitat structure and function; consequently they serve as excellent indicators of changes and stresses in urban ecosystems. Several studies have examined the influences of urbanization on bird communities.(Mills et al, 1989; Jokimaki and Huhta, 2000; Cam et al, 2000) concluded that bird species richness, abundance and community structure are indeed affected by urbanization. The concept of an urban gradient of highly developed urban centres to less developed surrounding areas, McDonnell et al, (1993) and Blair, (1996) has shown that low levels of development can actually promote species richness by increasing resources such as food availability and shelter, in the forms of ornamental vegetation, nest boxes and bird feeders. Areas of intense urbanization often result in communities dominated by a few species.
According to United States Environmental Protection Agency (2001) Global warming was expected to primarily affect birds in both direct and indirect ways. Directly, higher temperatures could alter their life cycles. Indirectly, food may be become less available to birds, and habitat loss could occur, which may include beaches and wetlands. With the progression of global warming, birds of the Northern Hemisphere have been able to inhabit more northerly areas. Data collected by the National Audubon Society's Christmas Bird Count show that during years with warmer temperatures, the majority of birds do not have to fly as far south for the winter. Warmer temperatures also allowed birds to spend their summers farther north.
In a recent paper, Shochat (2004) proposed the idea that, for many urban exploiter species, urban habitats are characterized by high food predictability and low mortality (e.g. due to low predation risk and mild climate). Bird populations may respond to such conditions with dramatic increases in their abundances, leading to overexploitation of resources. The characteristics of individuals building up these populations may also change. First, the average body mass and condition of adult birds is expected to decrease, because overexploitation of food may reduce the foraging success of less competitive individuals, whereas predictable food may allow superior competitors to maintain lower body reserves than they would need in a harsher environment.
Shochat, (2004) reported that urban birds are expected to produce lower-quality offspring than rural birds. One reason for this is that selection may favor parents producing large broods at the expense of fledglings' body condition, because even low-quality offspring may have high chances of survival in urban habitats. (Richner, 1989; Pierotti and Annett, 2001; Mennechez and Clergeau, 2006) found that adverse ecological effects may constrain the body size or condition of offspring. For example, several studies found that nestlings in urban habitats are fed by a reduced amount of, or lower quality food and reach lower body mass than nestlings in natural habitats. Eeva and Lehikoinen (1996) and Janssens et al. (2003) found that the contamination of food, water or soil by toxic materials (e.g. heavy metals) may have similar detrimental effects on nestling development. Many species have become extinct through human activities like excessive hunting, logging, large-scale use of insecticides and pesticides in agriculture and industrial pollution. Two birds that have become extinct in India are Mountain Quail and the Pink-Headed Duck.
Numerous species have come to depend on human activities for food and are widespread to the point of being pests. They have adapted well to the rapid urbanization and growth in human population. For example, the House Crow and Rock Pigeon thrive near human habitation in large parts of the world. While in addition to these two species, the Common Myna, Bank Myna and Black Kite are thriving in India; Vultures (Aegypinae) and the House Crow are facing an inexplicable decline in their population. Modern house construction has meant that house sparrows struggle to find adequate nesting sites in today's matchbox shaped houses. This buildings and houses have glass or Aluminium composite exterior of walls, which offer no place for nesting. The growth of cities and the increase in real estate prices have lead to destruction of old house and new modern building are constructed in their places. All these changes have resulted in lack of nesting sites for our winged friends.
The advent of cell phones has resulted in the proliferation of cell phone towers in the urban landscapes; cell phone towers are now as ubiquitous as the house sparrows were. Research in Spain proved that the microwaves released from these towers are harmful to house sparrows and the increase in the concentration of microwaves results leads to decrease in house sparrow and other bird populations. In a recent scientific study to measure the microwave concentration in Mumbai revealed that the microwave pollution in Mumbai in 200 times more than that of the permissible European levels. It mentioned that leaving in such high concentration of Microwave pollution is as good a sitting in an x-ray room. The decline of house sparrow due to polluted environments is an indicator of the degrading environment in which we all live. With 3G mobile phone technologies coming in which requires three times more cell phone towers, their impact on sparrows' health is beyond imagination.
With the ever-growing human population, agricultural practices have totally changed. Today, one can find large tracts of lands under monoculture. India is the world's largest user of chemical pesticides and fertilizers. This intensification in agriculture has led to serious decline in a number of farmland birds and the house sparrow is no exception. The change in cropping patterns and introduction of exotic crops has also led to a decrease in food and large-scale habitat destruction.
Materials and Methods
Amravati is an important city of Maharashtra state in India. The city boasts of historical temples of Goddess Amba, Lord Shri Krishna and Shri Venkateshwara. Amravati is also the headquarters of "Amravati division" which is one of the six divisions of the state of Maharashtra (Vidarbha region). Population of Amravati city is 678,192 (2008).Amravati city has got two reservoirs in the city limits itself namely, the Chhatri Lake and the Wadali Lake. The city has got well-protected greenery in the following places viz., Amravati University campus, Pohara Malkhed Reserve Forest,
Amravati is located at 20[degrees]56'N and 77[degrees]45'E up to 20[degrees]93'N and 77[degrees]75'E. It has an average elevation of 343 meters (1125 feet) above mean sea level
Amravati has a tropical wet and dry climate with hot, dry summers from March to June, the monsoon season from July to October and warm winters from November to March.
Chhatri Lake Situating 1 km away from city.
Wadali Lake is situated 3 km away from the Amravati Camp.
Pohara-Malkhed Reserve forest
Pohara-Malkhed Reserve Forest in Amravati district, Maharashtra is located between 20[degrees]57'N and 77[degrees]57'E. The total area is 80[km.sup.2]. Wadatkar and Kasambe (2002) studied the avian fauna of Pohara-Malkhed Reserve Forest from 1997 to 2000 and a comprehensive checklist of birds was prepared. Totally 171 bird species from 56 families were recorded in this study.
The report is based on line count method of bird survey. Bird counts were carried out on predetermined routes in 3 km in each habitat type by using line transect method as described by Gaston (1973) for which nearly one hour was spent for every three days on each transect route. The birds were observed by using binoculars with specifications (10 X 50). Spot identification of birds was done by using field guides (Ali and Ripley, 1983; Ali, 1996 and Grimmett et. al., 1999) and only those species with confirmed identity are reported in this report.
Duration of the study
The study was conducted during the period of one month, starting from January 2010 up to February 2010.
Observations and Result
To study the status of birds in and around Amravati city, bird watching was done in different part of city during one month. The observed plant species, bird species and their status is presented in table 1(A) to 1.12 and figure 1 to 12.During the study of five different transects lines, 30 plants species were observed. Some of them were Wad (Ficus benghalensis), Pimpal (Ficus religiosa) and Neem (Azardirachta indica), which are the oldest plant found in near about all areas. Birds used these plants for food, roosting and nesting that means plants play an important role for survival of birds. Sixty one birds species were observed during study in which 57 are resident species and 4 are winter migrant, which are found in the study area throughout the study period. According to status of birds, I have select total 10 birds, which are found in and around city areas. Maximum and Minimum average of these birds species are as follows
i. Maximum average of House Sparrow (Passer domesticus) was observed in High Urbanized Area i.e. 34.33 and minimum average observed in Medium Urbanized Area i.e. 11.
ii. Maximum averages of House Crow (Corvus splendens) were observed in High Urbanized Area i.e. 141 and minimum average observed in Reserve Forest i.e. 3.5.
iii. Maximum average of Indian Peafowl (Pavo cristatus) was observed in Reserve Forest i.e. 3 while it was absent in other areas.
iv. Maximum average of Rock Pigeon (Columba livia) was observed in Low Urbanized Area i.e. 104 while it was absent in reserve forest area.
v. Maximum average of Laughing Dove (Streptopelia senegalensis) was observed in Industrial Area i.e. 19 and minimum average observed in Medium Urbanized Area i.e. 4.5.
vi. Maximum average of Rose-ringed Parakeet (Psittacula krameri) was observed in High Urbanized area i.e. 410.66 and minimum average observed in Low Urbanized Area i.e. 1
vii. Maximum average of Asian Koel (Eudynamys scolopacea) was observed in Medium Urbanized Area i.e. 9 and it was absent in Reserve Forest.
viii. Maximum average of Indian Pond-Heron (Ardeola grayii) was observed in Low Urbanized area i.e. 34.33 and minimum average observed in Medium Urbanized Area i.e. 0.
ix. Maximum average of Common Myna (Acridotheres tristis) was observed in High Urbanized area i.e. 113.33 and minimum average observed in Reserve Forest i.e. 2.5.
x. Maximum average of Dusky Crag-Martin (Hirundo concolor) was observed in High Urbanized Area i.e. 31.33 and minimum average observed in Industrial Area i.e. 1.5.
xi. Maximum number of birds was found in highly urbanized area i.e 2860 and minimum in industrial area i.e.612.
xii. Maximum number of birds species were found 46 in Reserve forest and minimum 16 in urbanized area.
To understand the effect of urbanization on bird populations, 10 birds species were selected for comparing the data out of all the bird species encountered in the transects. These are: House Sparrow (Passer domesticus), House Crow (Corvus splendens) Indian Peafowl (Pavo cristatus), Rock Pigeon (Columba livia) Laughing Dove (Streptopelia senegalensis), Rose-ringed Parakeet (Psittacula krameri), Asian Koel (Eudynamys scolopacea), Indian Pond Heron (Ardeola grayii), Common Myna (Acridotheres tristis) and Dusky Crag-Martins. The data collected is presented below the study area and some birds species are shown in Plate No. 1. To 12
The tables and graphs indicate certain trends in the populations of the bird species listed during the study.
1. Total 61 bird species were encountered during the study period from all the habitats.
2. House Sparrows clearly show (fig 1 and table 1.1) a preference for the highly urbanized and industrial areas. The population in other habitats seems to be similar. Thus they are highly adapted to survival in urban areas or they prefer the urban and industrial habitats over the reserve forest. Urbanization has a positive impact on the populations of the House Sparrows.
3. The House Crows prefer the highly urbanized habitats (fig 2 and table 1.2) for the survival over all other habitats. As they are known to feed on carryon and scavenge on any dead tit bits, they prefer the highly urbanized area where their food is abundant. They are also found in medium and low urbanized areas, but the preference for highly urbanized areas is clearly reflected in the observations. The urbanization has a positive impact on the populations of the House Crows.
4. Indian Peafowl prefers only the reserve forest (fig 3 and table 1.3). It was not found in all other types of habitats. It clearly reflects the preference of Indian national bird to well protected forest habitat. Probably, this is due to the danger it faces for its existence in all other habitats, particularly of poaching. Though it has been a known species adapting to the urban environments, it was not found in any other habitats during the study. The urbanization has a negative impact on the populations of the Indian Peafowl.
5. On the contrary, the Rock Pigeons show a clear preference for the low urbanized and the industrial area (fig 4 and table 1.4). It was found in low numbers in other habitats, even in the reserve forest. The reason could be the low urbanized area and the industrial area provides it the required habitat. Particularly these habitats provide good nesting sites, like the high buildings, lofts and high windows which resemble high cliffs or ledges. The urbanization has a positive impact on the populations of the Rock Pigeons.3
6. The Laughing Dove was found to be the most numerous in the Reserve forest and in the industrial areas (fig 5 and table 1.5). Its abundance was lower in other habitats. Thus, urbanization has a negative impact on the populations of the Laughing Dove. But its abundance in the industrial area suggests the presence of a similar habitat in the industrial area resembling to that of the reserve forest. This might be due to the plantation in the industries have done which has resulted into considerable greenery.
7. The Rose-ringed Parakeet is one more species which was clearly favoured by the impact of urbanization (fig.6 and table 1.6). The Parakeets were found to be most numerous in the highly and medium urbanized area. The urbanization has a positive impact on the populations of the Rose-ringed Parakeet.
8. The Asian Koels were more numerous in the urbanized area compared to that of the reserve forest (fig 7 and table 1.7). That could be the abundance of fruiting trees like the Pipal (Ficus religiosa), Banyan (Ficus benghalensis), Papaya, Jamun, Curry Leaf (Murrya koenigii) etc. in these habitats. Thus, urbanization has a positive impact on the populations of the Asian Koels.
9. The Pond Herons seem to have a peculiar case as far as the impact of urbanization is concerned. It was found to be most numerous in the low urbanized areas and then in the reserve forest (fig 8 and table 1.8). It was found to be less numerous in other habitats. Thus, low level of urbanization has a positive impact on the populations of the Pond Herons. The results however could be prone to a inappropriate conclusion as the Pond Herons are always associated to water and or streams, the statistics could mis-lead the interpretation as they reflect the transects chosen randomly. That means, all transects may not be having similar length of water body or streams where the surveys have been conducted.
10. Common Mynas were the most numerous in highly urbanized areas (fig 9 and table 1.9). They are adapted to the conditions in the highly urbanized area. They feed on everything like the carrion or food tit bits and are among the most adaptable bird species. They are least numerous in the reserve forest. Thus, urbanization has a positive impact on the populations of the Common Mynas.
11. Dusky Crag Martins are the most numerous in low and highly urbanized areas (fig 10 and table 1.10). They are adapted to the conditions in the low and highly urbanized areas. They feed on everything like the carrion or food tit bits and are amongst the most adaptable bird species. They are least numerous in the reserve forest. Thus, urbanization has a positive impact on the populations of the Dusky Crag Martins.
12. During equivalents transects in different habitats, it was (fig 11 and table 1.11) found that the total number of birds (bird abundance) were more in the urbanized areas as well as in industrial areas compared to that of the reserved forest. This is contrary to the common belief that there are "more" birds in the reserved forest areas. Thus, urbanization has a positive impact on the bird abundance. But, at the same time it is important to note that the birds though, more in numbers, are belonging to fewer species.
13. Interestingly, it was (fig 12 and table 1.12) also found that the reserve forest harbours more number of bird species (bird biodiversity) compared to the urbanized and industrial areas. Thus urbanization has an adverse impact on avian biodiversity. The reserve forest thus supports the biodiversity, though it may not support large number of birds of few species.
The present study points out following findings about the impact of urbanization on the bird population.
1. Urbanization results into higher populations of fewer bird species. But at the same time, number of species is greatly reduced in urban environments.
2. Reserve forests support the real biodiversity of birds. Though the number of birds in urbanized areas is high, the data may be sometimes, miss-interpreted as better environments for the bird communities. In fact urbanization favours only few species which increase in abundance to great extent, thus creating problems of survival for other species.
3. The increase in abundance of House Crows directly results into decreased abundance of forest species like Golden Oriole and Oriental White-eye, Indian Iora and other commoner species of birds, as House Crows are aggressive and predate on the nestlings of these birds.
4. Thus urbanization has an adverse impact on the bird biodiversity.
5. At the same time, urbanization has a positive impact on the bird abundance of few species, which are adapted to urbanization and particularly those, which are omnivorous or need nesting sites resembling to those of the cliffs or ledges.
6. Urbanization spells doom on important species like the Indian Peafowl and disappear as soon as there is spread of urban areas into the forest.
Future Scope of the Work
The results obtained from a one-month internship turned out to be a great success as we managed to actually collect a lot of data and analyze it in various ways. This report contains a base line data, which can be used further by the future interns and researchers thereby creating wonderful opportunities for researchers to explore and experiment ideas. Through such internships students will not only get an enriching experience but will contribute extensively to wildlife biodiversity project. However there is a lot of potentiality in the selection of research topics such as seed dispersal phenomenon, plant-animal interactions, mathematical modeling of ecological systems, ethological studies and the list can be endless. The idea here is to make an attempt to create a permanent database by conducting such research projects throughout the year covering all seasons as these may also lead to the management of Amravati city and forest area.
Bird Species Richness and Densities
We recorded 61 species; two species were unidentified and were not recorded only on flight.
 Ali, S. and Ripley, S. D (1969): Handbook of birds of India and Pakistan, Volume 2, Oxford University press, Bombay.
 BirdLife International: http://www.birdlife.net/
 Blair, R.B. (1996): Land use and avian species diversity along an urban gradient. Ecological Applications 6: 506-519.
 Blair, R.B. (1999): Birds and butterflies along an urban gradient: surrogate taxa for assessing biodiversity? Ecological Applications 9: 164-170.
 Burton, J.F. (1995): Birds and climate change. Christopher Helm, London.
 Cam, E.; J. Nichols; J.R. Sauer; J.E. Hines and C.H. Flather (2000): Relative species richness and community completeness: birds and urbanization in the mid-Atlantic states. Ecological Applications 10: 1196-1210.
 Chandler, R. B; A. M Strong and C. C. Kaufman (2004): Elevated lead levels in urban House Sparrows: A threat to Sharp-shinned Hawks and Merlins? Journal of Raptor Research, 38(1): 62-68.
 Clergeau, P; J.L. Savard, G. Mennechez and G. Falardeau (1998): Bird abundance and diversity along an urban-rural gradient: a comparative study between two cities on different continents. Condor 100: 413-425.
 Darwin, C.R. (1859): On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection. John
 Murray, London.
 Eaton, J. (2003): Silent towers, empty skies. EarthIsl. J. 18(4): 30-33.
 Eeva, T. and E. Lehikoinen (1996): Growth and mortality of nestling great tits (Parus major) and pied flycatchers (Ficedula hypoleuca) in a heavy metal pollution gradient. Oecologia, 108, 631-639.
 Forman, R. T.; T. B. Reineking and A. M. Hersperger (2002): Road traffic and nearby grassland bird patterns in a suburbanizing landscape. Environmental Management, 29(6): 782-800.
 Francl, K.E. and G.D. Schnell (2002): Relationships of human disturbance, bird communities, and plant communities along the land-water interface of a large reservoir. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 73: 67-93.  Gaston, K.J.; T.M. Blackburn and K.K. Goldewijk (2003): Habitat conversion and global avian biodiversity loss. P. Roy. Soc. Lond. B Bio. 270: 1293-1300.
 Gradwohl, J. and R. Greenberg (1982): The effect of a single species of avian predator on the arthropods of aerial leaf litter. Ecology 63: 581-583.
 Gribbin, J. (1990). Hothouse earth: the greenhouse effect and Gaia. Bantam Press, London.
 Heath, M.F.; C. Borggreve and N. Peet (2000): European Bird Populations Estimates and Trends. BirdLife Conservation Series 10. BirdLife International, Cambridge.
 Holmes, R.T. (1990): Ecological and evolutionary impacts of bird predation on forest insects: an overview. Pp. 6-13 in: Morrison, M.L., Ralph, C.J., Verner, J. and Jehl, J.R. eds. (1990). Avian Foraging: Theory, Methodology, and Applications. Allen Press, Lawrence, Kansas.
 Holmes, R.T.; J.C. Schultz and P. Nothnagle (1979): Bird predation on forest insects an exclosure experiment. Science 206: 462-463.
 Imam, E. (2005): Population status and conservation of Indian Peafowl Pavo cristatus in Aligarh, Northern India. (IN): Fuller, R. A. and Brown, S. J. (eds.). Galliformes 2004. Proceedings of the 3r International Galliformes Symposium. World Pheasant Association, Fordingbridge, UK.
 IUCN (2006): Red list of threatened species, IUCN Gland, Switzerland.
 Jokimaki, J. and E. Hutha (2000): Artificial nest predation and abundance of birds along an urban gradient. Condor 102:838-847.
 Kalle R. (2008): A Study on WII Campus Biodiversity, Intership Project, A.V.C College(Bhararthidasan University), Mayiladuthuri- 609350,Tamil Nadu.
 Kasambe, R. and J.S. Wadatkar (2002): Checklist of Birds from Pohara- Malkhed Reserve Forest, District Amravati, Maharastra. Zoos'Print Journal. 17(6): 807-811.
 Kasambe, R. and T. Sani (2009): Avifauna in and around Nagpur city of Maharashtra- an annotated, authentic, contemporary checklist. Newsletter for Birdwatchers. 49(3): 35-40.
 Kasambe, R. and A. Pimplapure (2007): Communal foraging of Indian Grey Hornbill Ocyceros birostris on leaves of Ailanthus excelsa tree. Zoos' Print Journal. 22(12): 2939.
 Kasambe, R. and J. S. Wadatkar (2007): Birds of Pohara Malkhed Reserve Forest, Amravati, Maharashtra-An updated annotated checklist. Zoos' Print Journal. Vol. 22(7): 2768-2770.
 Katti, M. and P. S. Warren (2004): Tits, noise and urban bioacoustics. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 19 (3): 109-110.
 Laurance, W. F.; T.E. Lovejoy; H.E. Vasconcelos; E.M. Bruna; R.K. Didham; P.C. Stouffer; C. Gascon; R.O. Bierregaard; S.G. Laurance and E. Sampaio (2002): Ecosystem decay of Amazonian forest fragments: a 22year investigation. Conserv. Biol. 16: 605-618.
 Lepczyk, C.A.; A.G. Mertig and J. Liu (2003): Landowners and cat predation across rural-to-urban landscapes. Biological Conservation, 115: 191201.
 Liker, A.; Z. Papp; V. Bokonyand and A.Z. Lendvai (2008): Lean birds in the city: body size and condition of house sparrows along the urbanization gradient, Department of Limnology, University of Pannonia, Pf. 158, H-8201 Veszprem, Hungary; Department of Ecology, Szent Istvan University, Rottenbiller u. 50, H-1078 Budapest, Hungary; and Institute of Biology, College of Nyiregyhaza, Sostoi u. 31/b, Nyiregyhaza H-4400, Hungary.
 Marzluff, J.M. (2001): Worldwide urbanization and its effects on birds. Avian Ecology and Conservation in an Urbanizing World (eds J.M. Marzluff, R. Bowman and R. Donnelly), pp. 19-47. Kluwer Academic Press, Dordrecht, the Netherlands.
 McDonnell, M.J.; S.T.A. Pickett and R.V. Pouyat (1993): The application of the ecological gradient paradigm to the study of urban effects. Pages 175-189 in M.J. McDonnell and S.T.A. Picket, editors. Humans as components of ecosystems. Springer-Verlag, New York.
 Mennechez, G. and P. Clergeau (2006): Effect of urbanization on habitat generalists: starlings not so flexible? Acta Oecologica, 30, 182-191.
 Mills, G.S.; J.B. Dunning Jr. and J.M. Bates (1989): Effects of urbanization on breeding bird community structure in southwestern desert habitats. Condor 91: 416-429.
 Mundy, P.; D. Butchart.; J. Ledger and S.E. Piper (1992): The Vultures of Africa. The Penrose Press, Johannesburg.
 Newsletter for Birdwatchers (Magazine).
 Perfecto, I.; J.H. Vandermeer; G.L. Bautista; G.I. Nunez; R. Greenberg; S.M. Philpott; R. Greenberg; P. Bichier and I. Perfecto (2004): Impacts of major predators on tropical agroforest arthropods: comparisons within and across taxa. Oecologia 140: 140-149.
 Pierotti, R. and C. Annett (2001): The ecology of western gulls in habitats varying in degree of urban influence. Avian Ecology and Conservation in an Urbanizing World (eds J.M. Marzluff, R. Bowman and R. Donnelly), pp. 307-329. Kluwer Academic Press, Dordrecht, the Netherlands.
 Reijnen, R., R. Foppen and H. Meeuwsen (1996): The effects of traffic on the density of breeding birds in Dutch agricultural grasslands. Biol. Cons. 75:255-260.
 Rheindt, F. (2003): The impact of roads on birds: does song frequency play a role in determining susceptibility to noise pollution? Journal Fur Ornithologie, 144(3): 295-306.
 Grimmett, R.; C. Inskipp and T. Inskipp (2006): Pocket guide to the birds of the Indian subcontinent. Oxford University Press.
 Richner, H. (1989): Habitat-specific growth and fitness in carrion crows (Corvus corone corone). Journal of Animal Ecology, 58, 427-440.
 Sauer, J.R.; J.E. Hines and J. Fallon (2003): The North American Breeding Bird Survey, Results and Analysis 1966-2002. URL: http://www.mbr pwrc.usgs. gov/ bbs/ bbs.html.
 Savard, J.L.; P. Clergeau and G. Mennechez (2000): Biodiversity concepts and urban ecosystems. Landscape and Urban Planning 48: 131-142.
 Shochat, E. (2004): Credit or debit? Resource input changes population dynamics of city-slicker birds. Oikos, 106: 622-626.
 United States Environmental Protection Agency (2001): http://www.epa.gov/ globalwarming/ impacts/birds/index.html. April 6, 2001.
 Van Bael, S.A.; J.D. Brawn and S.K. Robinson (2003): Birds defend trees from herbivores in a Neotropical forest canopy. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 100: 8304-8307.
 Wadatkar, J. (2001): Checklist of Birds From Amravati University Campus, Maharashtra. Zoos' Print Journal. 16(5): 497-499.
Manoj Kale (1) *, Nandkishor. Dudhe (2), Raju Kasambe (3), Sanjay Chakane (4) and Prosun Bhattacharya (1)
(1) Department of Land and Water Resources Engineering, Royal Institute of Technology (KTH), Teknikringen, 76, SE-100 44 Stockholm, Sweden.
(2) Department of Environmental Studies, Vinayak Vidya Mandir, A.C.S.College, Amravati-444601, India.
(3) Project Manager, IBA-IBCN, Bombay Natural History Society, Mumbai-400023, India.
(4) Department of Physics, ASC College, Indapur affiliated to University of Pune-413 302, India
Corresponding Author E-mail: email@example.com
Table 1(A): Check List of Plants Sr. no. Common Name Scientific Name 1 Ashok Polyalthia longifolia 2 Sonmohar Peltophorum pterocarpum 3 Gulmohar Delonix regia 4 Karanj Pongamia pinnata 5 Neem Azardirachta indica 6 Wild Badam Terminalia catappa 7 Sissoo Dalbergia sissoo 8 Kanchan Bauhinia purpurea 9 Bakul Mimusops elengi 10 Silver Oak Graviella robusta 11 Palas Butea monosperma 12 Arjun Terminalia arjuna 13 Moha Madhuca longifolius var. latifolia 14 Babul Acacia nilotica 15 Hiwar Acacia leucophloea 16 Nilgiri Eucalyaptus globosa 17 Bamboo Dendrocalamus strictus. 18 Mango Mangifera indica 19 Jamun Syzgium cumini 20 Ber Ziziphus mauritiana 21 Bel Aegle marmelos 22 Sitaphal Annona squamosa 23 Ramphul Anona reticulate 24 Guava Psidium guajava 25 Karwanda Carissa bispinosa 26 Raimunia Lantana camera 27 Wad Ficus benghalensis 28 Rui Calatropis procera 29 Pimpal Ficus religiosa 30 Umbar Ficus racemosa Table 1(B): Average and Status of bird's species in five transects line Sr. Species Statu Transect Transect no. (Common Name & s s line 1 s Line 2 Scientific Name) Reserve Low Forest Urbaniz e Area 1 Alexandrine Parakeet R 2 (Psittacula eupatria) 2 Ashy Prinia R 1.66 (Prinia socialis) 3 Asian Koel R 5.333 (Eudynamys scolopacea) 4 Asian Paradise- Flycatcher R 1.5 (Terpsiphone paradise) 5 Asian Pied Starling R 5 (Sturnus contra) 6 Bay-backed Shrike R 1 (Lanius vittatus) 7 Black Drongo R 2.33 1 (Dicrurus macrocercus) 8 Black Ibis R 4.66 (Pseudibis papillosa) 9 Black Kite R 1.5 (Milvus migrans) 10 Black Red Start WM 1 (Phoenicurus ochruros) 11 Black--rumped Flameblack R 1.33 (Dinopium benghalense) 12 Black Shoulder Kite R (Elanus caeruleus) 13 Blossom-headed Parakeet R 2.5 (Psittacula roseate) 14 Brahminy Starling R 2 (Sturnus pagodarum) 15 Brown Rock Chat R 2 (Cercomela fusca) 16 Red-vented Bulbul R 46 15.66 (Pycnonotus cafer) 17 Cattle Egret R 3 1 (Bubulcus ibis) 18 Chestnut-shouldered Petronia R 4.66 (Petronia xanthocollis) 19 Common Hoopoe R 1 (Upupa epops) 20 Common Iora R 2.5 (Aegithina tiphia) 21 Common Myna R 2.5 8 (Acridotheres tristis) 22 Common Sandpiper WM 1.33 (Tringa hypoleucos) 23 Common Tailorbird R 1.66 (Orthotomus sutorius 24 Coppersmith barbet R 2 (Megalaima haemacephala) 25 Dusky Crag-Martin R 2 30.5 (Hirundo concolor) 26 Eurasian Collared-Dove R 25.66 (Streptopelia decaocto) 27 Greater Coucal R (Centropus sinensis) 28 Grey Francolin R 4.5 (Francolinus pondicerianus) 29 House Crow R 3.5 55.33 (Corvus splendens) 30 House Sparrow R 12.33 14.66 (Passer domesticus) 31 Indian Grey-Hornbill R (Ocyceros birostris) 32 Indian Peafowl R 3 (Pavo cristatus) 33 Indian Pond-Heron R 3 11 (Ardeola grayii) 34 Indian Robin R 1.66 (Saxicoloides fulicata) 35 Indian Roller R (Coracias benghalensis) 36 Indian Silverbill R 18.66 (Lonchura malabarica) 37 Jungle Babbler R (Turdoides striatus) 6 38 Large Grey Babbler R 21.33 (Turdoides malcolmi) 39 Laughing Dove R 17 7.66 (Streptopelia senegalensis) 40 Long-tailed Shrike R 1.66 (Lanius schach) 41 Oriental Magpie Robin R (Copsychus saularis) 42 Pallid Harrier WM 1 (Circus macrourus) 43 Pied Bushchat R (Saxicola caprata) 44 Plain Prinia R 3.5 (Prinia inornata) 45 Purple Sunbird R 1.33 2 (Nectarinia asiatica) 46 Red-wattled Lapwing R 3.66 1 (Vanellus indicus) 47 Rock Pigeon R 104 (Columba livia) 48 Rose-ringed Parakeet R 11 1 (Psittacula krameri) 49 Rufous Treepie (Dendrocitta R 1.33 vagabunda) 50 Rufous-tailed Lark R 1.33 (Ammomanes phoenicurus) 51 Shikra R 1 2 (Accipiter badius) 52 Singing Bushlark R 2.33 (Mirafra cantillans) 53 Small green bee eater R 2.33 (Merops orientalis) 54 Spotted Owlet R 1 (Athene brama) 55 White-browed Fantail R 1.33 (Rhipidura aureola) 56 White-throated Kingfisher R 1 (Halcyon smyrnensis) 57 White Wagtail WM 3 (Motacilla alba) 58 White-breasted Waterhen R 1 (Amaurornis phoenicurus) 59 Yellow-eyed Babbler R 3.66 (Chrysomma sinense) 60 Yellow Footed Green Pigeon R 5.66 (Treron apicauda) 61 Yellow-wattled Lapwing R 5.66 (Vanellus malabaricus) Sr. Species Transect Transect Transect no. (Common Name & s Line 3 s Line 4 s line 5 Scientific Name) Medium Highly Industri Urbaniz Urbaniz al Area e Area e Area 1 Alexandrine Parakeet (Psittacula eupatria) 2 Ashy Prinia 1 1 (Prinia socialis) 3 Asian Koel 9 7.66 3 (Eudynamys scolopacea) 4 Asian Paradise- Flycatcher (Terpsiphone paradise) 5 Asian Pied Starling 2.5 2 (Sturnus contra) 6 Bay-backed Shrike (Lanius vittatus) 7 Black Drongo 5.66 1 3.33 (Dicrurus macrocercus) 8 Black Ibis (Pseudibis papillosa) 9 Black Kite 2 2 (Milvus migrans) 10 Black Red Start 1 1 (Phoenicurus ochruros) 11 Black--rumped Flameblack (Dinopium benghalense) 12 Black Shoulder Kite 1 (Elanus caeruleus) 13 Blossom-headed Parakeet (Psittacula roseate) 14 Brahminy Starling 14 2.33 (Sturnus pagodarum) 15 Brown Rock Chat 10 2.5 3 (Cercomela fusca) 16 Red-vented Bulbul 1.5 18.33 (Pycnonotus cafer) 17 Cattle Egret 32.66 13.33 9 (Bubulcus ibis) 18 Chestnut-shouldered Petronia (Petronia xanthocollis) 19 Common Hoopoe 1 (Upupa epops) 20 Common Iora 1 (Aegithina tiphia) 21 Common Myna 12 113.33 11 (Acridotheres tristis) 22 Common Sandpiper 1 (Tringa hypoleucos) 23 Common Tailorbird (Orthotomus sutorius 24 Coppersmith barbet 1 (Megalaima haemacephala) 25 Dusky Crag-Martin 11.66 31.33 1.5 (Hirundo concolor) 26 Eurasian Collared-Dove (Streptopelia decaocto) 27 Greater Coucal 3 2 3.5 (Centropus sinensis) 28 Grey Francolin 2 (Francolinus pondicerianus) 29 House Crow 34.66 141 7.33 (Corvus splendens) 30 House Sparrow 11 34.33 25 (Passer domesticus) 31 Indian Grey-Hornbill 2 (Ocyceros birostris) 32 Indian Peafowl (Pavo cristatus) 33 Indian Pond-Heron 2 1 (Ardeola grayii) 34 Indian Robin 2 (Saxicoloides fulicata) 35 Indian Roller 1 (Coracias benghalensis) 36 Indian Silverbill (Lonchura malabarica) 37 Jungle Babbler (Turdoides striatus) 6 38 Large Grey Babbler (Turdoides malcolmi) 39 Laughing Dove 4.5 5.33 19 (Streptopelia senegalensis) 40 Long-tailed Shrike (Lanius schach) 41 Oriental Magpie Robin 1 (Copsychus saularis) 42 Pallid Harrier (Circus macrourus) 43 Pied Bushchat 2 (Saxicola caprata) 44 Plain Prinia (Prinia inornata) 45 Purple Sunbird 3.66 3 (Nectarinia asiatica) 46 Red-wattled Lapwing 1 (Vanellus indicus) 47 Rock Pigeon 48.33 3.66 80 (Columba livia) 48 Rose-ringed Parakeet 78.66 410.66 3.33 (Psittacula krameri) 49 Rufous Treepie (Dendrocitta vagabunda) 50 Rufous-tailed Lark (Ammomanes phoenicurus) 51 Shikra 1.66 1.5 3.33 (Accipiter badius) 52 Singing Bushlark (Mirafra cantillans) 53 Small green bee eater 3 2 (Merops orientalis) 54 Spotted Owlet (Athene brama) 55 White-browed Fantail (Rhipidura aureola) 56 White-throated Kingfisher 1.5 (Halcyon smyrnensis) 57 White Wagtail 1 (Motacilla alba) 58 White-breasted Waterhen 1 (Amaurornis phoenicurus) 59 Yellow-eyed Babbler (Chrysomma sinense) 60 Yellow Footed Green Pigeon (Treron apicauda) 61 Yellow-wattled Lapwing (Vanellus malabaricus) R-Resident species, which are found in the study area throughout the year. WM-Winter Migrant, species, which are found in the study area only during winter. LM-Local Migrant, species, which is found in the study area irregularly, but is Resident of India. BM-Breeding Migrant, species, which visit the study area only for or during its breeding season. PM-Passage migrant, species, which are sighted on the passage from their wintering grounds to the breeding grounds or vice versa. V-Vagrant, species, which is not regularly sighted, nor winter migrant nor breeding migrant and hence supposed to be a stray bird sightings. Note: Transect line 1: Reserve Forest Area = Chhatri Lake Road. (Hanuman Mandir to Bandarzira) Transects Line 2: Low Urbanize Area = Dastur Nagar to Rajapeth. Transects Line 3: Medium Urbanize Area = Panchwati Square to Kathora Naka. Transects Line 4: High Urbanize Area = Rajkamal to Kholapuri gate. Transects Line 5: Industrial Area. Table 2.1: Population Variation of House Sparrows in Different Habitat Sr. no. Habitat Type Mean of bird sighted per day 1 Reserve Forest 12.33 2 Low Urbanized Area 14.666 3 Medium Urbanized Area 11 4 High Urbanized Area 34.33 5 Industrial Area 25 Table 2.2: Population Variation of House Crow in Different Habitat. Sr. no. Habitat Type Mean of bird sited per day 1 Reserve Forest 3.5 2 Low Urbanized Area 55.33 3 Medium Urbanized Area 34.66 4 High Urbanized Area 141 5 Industrial Area 7.33 Table 2.3: Population Variation of Indian Peafowl in Different Habitat Sr. no. Habitat Type Mean of bird sited per day 1 Reserve Forest 3 2 Low Urbanized Area 0 3 Medium Urbanized Area 0 4 High Urbanized Area 0 5 Industrial Area 0 Table 2.4: Population Variation of Rock Pigeon in Different Habitat. Sr. no. Habitat Type Mean of bird sited per day 1 Reserve Forest 0 2 Low Urbanized Area 104 3 Medium Urbanized Area 48.33 4 High Urbanized Area 3.66 5 Industrial Area 80 Table 2.5: Population Variation of Laughing Dove in Different Habitat. Sr. no. Habitat Type Mean of bird sited per day 1 Reserve Forest 17 2 Low Urbanized Area 7.666 3 Medium Urbanized Area 4.5 4 High Urbanized Area 5.33 5 Industrial Area 19 Table 2.6: Population Variation of Rose-ringed Parakeet in Different Habitat Sr. no. Habitat Type Mean of bird sited per day 1 Reserve Forest 11 2 Low Urbanized Area 1 3 Medium Urbanized Area 78.66 4 High Urbanized Area 410.66 5 Industrial Area 3.33 Table 2.7: Population Variation of Asian Koels in Different Habitat. Sr. no. Habitat Type Mean of bird sited per day 1 Reserve Forest 0 2 Low Urbanized Area 5.33 3 Medium Urbanized Area 9 4 High Urbanized Area 7.66 5 Industrial Area 3 Table 2.8: Population Variation of Indian Pond Heron in Different Habitat. Sr. no. Habitat Type Mean of bird sited per day 1 Reserve Forest 3 2 Low Urbanized Area 11 3 Medium Urbanized Area 0 4 High Urbanized Area 2 5 Industrial Area 1 Table 2.9: Population Variation of Common Mynas in Different Habitat Sr. no. Habitat Type Mean of bird sited per day 1 Reserve Forest 2.5 2 Low Urbanized Area 8 3 Medium Urbanized Area 12 4 High Urbanized Area 113.33 5 Industrial Area 11 Table 2.10: Population Variation of Dusky Crag Martins in Different Habitat Sr. no. Habitat Type Mean of bird sited per day 1 Reserve Forest 2 2 Low Urbanized Area 30.5 3 Medium Urbanized Area 11.66 4 High Urbanized Area 31.33 5 Industrial Area 1.5 Table 2.11: Total number of Birds sited in Different Habitat Sr. no. Habitat Type Number of Birds 1 Reserve Forest 686 2 Low Urbanized Area 760 3 Medium Urbanized Area 764 4 Highly Urbanize Area 2360 5 Industrial Area 612 Table 2.12: Total number of species sited in Different Habitat Sr. no. Habitat Type Number of birds Species 1 Reserve Forest 46 2 Low Urbanize Area 19 3 Medium Urbanize Area 16 4 Highly Urbanize Area 23 5 Industrial Area 34
|Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback|
|Author:||Kale, Manoj; Dudhe, Nandkishor; Kasambe, Raju; Chakane, Sanjay; Bhattacharya, Prosun|
|Publication:||International Journal of Applied Environmental Sciences|
|Date:||Feb 1, 2012|
|Previous Article:||Assessment of noise emitted by vibrator-block factories and the impact on human health and urban environment in Nigeria.|
|Next Article:||Assessment of electronic waste inventory and management model.|