Impact of Urbanization on Bird Community Structure in and around Aligarh City, U.P., India PDF

International Journal of Engineering Technology Science and Research IJETSR www.ijetsr.com...

International Journal of Engineering Technology Science and Research IJETSR www.ijetsr.com ISSN 2394 – 3386 Volume 2, Issue 10 October 2015 Impact of Urbanization on Bird Community Structure in and around Aligarh City, U.P. , India Farah Akram1, Orus Ilyas1* AND B. AnjanKumar Prusty2 1 Department of Wildlife Sciences Aligarh Muslim University Aligarh- 202002, UP, India 2 Environmental Impact Assessment Division, Gujarat Institute of Desert Ecology (GUIDE), PO Box - 83, Mundra Road, Opp. Changleshwar Temple, BhujBhuj- 370001, Gujarat, India *Corresponding Corresponding author author’s Email: [email protected] ABSTRACT Urbanization induced nduced changes at ecosystem or landscape levels is being increasingly realized and discussed by scientific fraternity now. The impacts could be felt at different segments of the ecosystem, the strongest being on land and its inhabitants, wherein birds are one of the worst worst-affected affected groups. Thus, we made an attempt to examine the bird community structure in Aligarh urban agglomeration focusing on different aspects along a forest to urban gradient. We choose three different sites on the basis of density of hum human an population and distribution of building structure, viz., urban, rural and forest areas. A total of 92 bird species were recorded during this survey ((January January 2013 through June 2013). 2013) The urban, rural and forested habitats ats contributed 44.6%, 82.6% and 67.3%.3% of the total species, respectively. The Shannon-Weiner Weiner diversity and Margleef richness indices were maximum in rural >forested >urbanurban areaswhereas areas density of birds varied significantly among the habitats (One Way ANOVA), ANOVA that isrural>urban >forest. forest. 95% Bonferroni confidence interval proportion reveled that rural and forested habitats were used by birds significantly. This was more than expected as per the available sampling plots. Our results conclude that bird diversity and richness were negatively affected where as bird density was positively affected through urbanization by a few dominating species. The outcomes of the present study provides insights into the habitat suitability scenario for birds in urban agglomerations, and necessitates a thorough h review of the existing plans and framework in urban areas so as to incorporate inclusive ecological management in urban areas. Bird community structure, urbanization, habitat structure, resource availability. Key words:Bird 1. INTRODUCTION Bird community structure in a given region is suggestive of the quality of the habitats and also at times provides early warning signals for habitat degradation and/or deterioration, if any. Birds are one of the best tools and indicators of environmental quality quality of any ecosystem because of their sensitivity to various kinds of perturbances. The foremost part of bird community study is to understand the bird species composition and abundance as it provides information as to how bird species are distributed over the landscapes. Not all species are uniformly distributed over a large ecological area as local variation in topography, vegetation composition & structure, and availability of food and other resources influence species occurrence. Variation in bird abundance nce is largely either due to various characteristic of population such as migration, emigration, natality and mortality or due to changes in habitat structure and distribution pattern of food resources (Sharma 2007). Human settlements and urbanization are considered as one of the major activities that contribute to habitat destruction, as it results in a series of fundamental changes in the landscape, which include vegetation removal, construction of infrastructure (roads, channels etc.), introduction of ex exotic otic flora and fauna species, increase in feral pets etc. With the global high rate of urbanization and the rapid loss of wild habitats, cities are now viewed as challenging ecosystems for sustaining biotic communities (Shochat (Shochatet al. 2010). The growth of urban u centers has profound impacts on natural ecosystems. During the 2000s research on urban bird populations and communities focused on global patterns, as well as processes and mechanisms that lead to the two globally recognized patterns: increased overalll population densities and decrease in species diversity compared with wild lands (Shochatet al. 2010). Although the study of urban birds has a fairly long history, urban ecosystems have been largely ignored throughout many decades of ecological research (Collins et al. 2000, Miller and Hobbs 2002). Since the early 1990s, a different view emerged, accepting urban settings as ecosystems that are structured and function like 1 Farah Akram, OrusIlyas& B. Anjan Kumar Prusty  International Journal of Engineering Technology Science and Research IJETSR www.ijetsr.com ISSN 2394 – 3386 Volume 2, Issue 10 October 2015 other natural ecosystems (Grimm et al. 2000, McKinney 2002, Miller and Hobbs 2002). This theoretical view represents an emerging realization that by now, most of the world’s land is managed and dominated by humans. Wildlands are continuously converted to agricultural fields and urban areas. Consequently, urban environments can no longer bee viewed as lost habitat for wildlife, but rather as new habitat that, with proper management, has the potential to support diverse bird communities. In such a dynamic scenario, it is prudent to examine the community structure of bird species found in such new habitats, the urban centers. Moreover, urban agglomerations provide further scope in this regard, as there is likelihood of a gradient in urbanization and density of human population including infrastructure. Knowledge of the patterns of urban bird populations populations and communities started emerging in the 1970s (Emlen 1974). Compared with adjacent, more natural ecosystems, urban settings normally have higher bird abundancess (Beissinger and Osborne 1982, Marzluff 2001, Chace and Walsh 2006). Increase in food abundance is the most common mechanism described in the literature for the increase increase in bird densities (Emlen 1974, Bolger 2001, Marzluff 2001,Mennechez Mennechez and Cleurgeau 2001). In most cases, diversity in urban habitats decreases or remains similar ar to wildlan wildlands (Marzluff 2001, Chace and Walsh 2006). It appears that only a few species contribute to this increase. Cities consist of mixtures of built habitats and green patches and only a few species can exist and thrive in the most built parts of the city where vvegetation egetation is almost absent, such as business centers, market places and industrial zones. Thus, urbanization increases the abundance of feral pigeons, swallows, swifts, and a few other species that breed on walls (personal experience of BAK Prusty in Coimbatore atore city in India). As vegetation cover increases towards the rural parts of the city, species diversity increases (Emlen 1974, Mills et al. 1989,Sandstromet 1989, al. 2005, Chace and Walsh 2006). Birds are highly visible and sensitive to alterations in habitat habitat structure and function; consequently they serve as excellent indicators of changes and stresses in urban ecosystems (Clergeau (Clergeauet al. 1998, Blair 1999, Savard et al.2000). In view of these specifics, we realized that studies addressing the issues of bird community structure in Indian cities need to be attempted. This is for two obvious reasons: i) bird community studies in India cities are scarce, and ii) the level of urbanization in India differs from other countries, and thus superimposing the findings and experiences from other continents on Indian scenario may look irrelevant. Thus, we attempted to understand these issues in an Indian city, Aligarh urban agglomeration. agglomeration. Today urbanization expanded more day by day and we know that birds are impacted by urbanization but the magnitude and type of these impacts due to the human settlements vary among different bird species. So the aim of the present study was to know the impact of urbanization on bird community structure from a rural to urban gradient. We intended to quantify the same by considering various parameters such as the density, diversity and richness of birds in urban, rural and forest habitats. 2. MATERIALS AND METHODS 2.1 STUDY AREA The survey was conducted in Aligarh arh city of Uttar Pradesh. It is located in the northern region of the Agra division bounded by the rivers Ganga and Yamuna. The extreme parallels of latitude and longitude are 27° 29’ and 28° 11’ N, and 77° 38’ and 78° 38’ E E,, respectively. For the purpose of sampling and survey, we divided the city area into three zones, i.e. Urban, Rural and Forested. The zones were selected in the study area based on the human population and urban infrastruc infrastructure and buildings. Urban areas as built-up up areas with continuous houses or multi-storey multi storey buildings, only interspersed with roads and city parks where as rural areas had open farmland, forests, moors, lakes, and other habitats with scattered houses and farms that were neverver continuous. (Moler, 2008). In present study scenario those hose areas which built up with roads, houses, shops, offices, entertainment centers, public buildings, multistoried buildings etc., were considered as urban sites/habitat. It was represented by a higher population density (more people in a smaller space), more congested and extreme overcrowding as compare to rural areas approx 13-15 15 buildings or houses/hectare and also has more vehicular traffic. Those areas which do not built up properly but are either still in its natural wild state or given over to farm farming, were considered as rural site/habitat. It haslow population density as compared with urban areas approx 5-7 5 2 Farah Akram, OrusIlyas& B. Anjan Kumar Prusty  International Journal of Engineering Technology Science and Research IJETSR www.ijetsr.com ISSN 2394 – 3386 Volume 2, Issue 10 October 2015 houses/hectare. These areas were represented by lot of farm land and open space and also more undeveloped land. Aligarh fort was a sampling sitee as a forested habitat, where no human population and building structures present, it is situated on the Grand Trunk road and consists of a regular polygon, surrounded by a very broad and deep ditch. It has steep ravines, over 30 feet high, on every side, and bastions in every angle on the walls. It is mixed woodland and scrub type habitat. In these three zones/sites, 60 points were selected on the basis of the stratified random sampling and out of these 30 were located in urban area, 15 each in rural and forested areas. 2.2 HABITAT SURVEY/ STRUCTURE AND VARIABLES The present survey was undertaken during January 2013 through June 2013 to have a preliminary understanding on issues related to urbanization and bird community structure. It is necessary to sampl sample the vegetation and building and infrastructure in order to correlate the birds with the habitat type. Vegetation sampling was conducted along with the bird sampling in the selected sampling sites which numbered at 60. The number of individuals of tree species ecies was recorded in 10 m radius circular plot for density, diversity and species richness estimation. All shrubs were recorded within the radius of 3 m. For herbs and grasses we used the quadrate method wherein quadrates of 0.5 × 0.5 m were laid. We also recorded different parameters in different habitat like congested or open area, pollution, tree cutting, tree lopping and grazing and cattle dung for the assessment of disturbance factor in our circular plots. 2.3 BIRD SURVEY Point count method (Sutherland et al. 2004) was used to document the population of different bird species in the area.During the survey period bird species were recorded in different habitat types for 20 min at each point within close width of 30 meter radius ius circular plot. The points were randomly established with a minimum interval of 200-300 300 m, so as to avoid repetition and biasness. Locations of the points for counting were being decided according to the visibility and accessibility. Repetitive counts w were ere taken periodically at each point. All the observations were then processed to estimate the diversity and density of birds. 2.4 DATA ANALYSIS The number and individuals of bird species recorded were considered and subsequently density, Shanon indices diversity and Margleef richness were estimated for different habitats. Species diversity and richness were calculated by using modified version of “SPECDIVER BAS” (Ludwig and Reynolds 1988), a module of software STASTICAL ECOLOGY written in BASIC. Oneway A Analysis nalysis of Variance (ANOVA) was performed to examine the mean differences in bird density, diversity and richness vis-a-vis vis different habitat parameters in different habitat types. When significant values from F F-tests tests were obtained separation of means was achieved using Scheffe’s test as a Post Post-hoc hoc test (to ascertain the differences of above mentioned parameters among the habitats), at α = 0.05 level. Pearson product moment correlation was performed to establish the correlation between bird density, diversity diversity and richness with habitat parameters. These tests were performed by SPSS 75 software. 95% Bonferroni confidence interval proportion was used to understand the preference and avoidance of different habitat by birds. birds The formula for calculation is as follows ows Pi –Z a/2k √Pi (1 –Pi)/n ≤ Pi ≤ Za/2k √Pi (1 –Pi)/n Where Pi is the observed proportional species at each sampling plot in all the habitats and Za/2k is the upper standard normal table value corresponding to a probability tail area of a/2k and n is the total number of species and Pio is the expected proportion of total sampling plots of all habitats (this is equal to number of sampling plots in one habitat divided by total number of sampling sampli plots in all three habitats (Table 4). ). 3. RESULTS 3.1 HABITAT BITAT SURVEY/STRUCTURE AND VARIABLES Vegetation structure in different habitats reveals that there w were ere 39 tree species recorded from the surveyed area, of which 18 species of trees were recorded in urban areas, 24 in rural and 36 in forested areas. The tree 3 Farah Akram, OrusIlyas& B. Anjan Kumar Prusty  International Journal of Engineering Technology Science and Research IJETSR www.ijetsr.com ISSN 2394 – 3386 Volume 2, Issue 10 October 2015 species encountered most in this area are Prosopisspicegera,, Accacianilotica, Accacialeccocephala,Holopteliaintegrifolia, Holopteliaintegrifolia, Azadirichtaindica, Azadirichtaindica Dalbergiasissoo, Zizyphus species, species,Ficus species, Saracaindica. The vegetation structure was prominent in forested habitats wherein all the vegetation parameters, i.e. tree density, tree diversity, shrub density, shrub diversity, shrub richness, herb density, herb diversity, herb richness; and grass density, grass diversity and grass richness were maximum. On the contrary, urban habitats were represented by minimum value for all such parameters, except tree richness which was found maximum in urban than forested areas apparently because of the establishment the parks where different species of trees were plantedd artificially (Table 1). 3.2 BIRD SURVEY 3.2.1. BIRD COMMUNITY STRUCTURE IN DIFFERENT HABITATS Details about the number of species recorded in different habitats in Aligarh city, is presented in Table 2. The community structure of bird species varied amon among the habitats (One-Way ANOVA, P< < 0.05). A total of 92 bird species belonging to 16 orders were recorded during this survey. The number of bird species in urban, rural and forest habitats were 41, 76 and 61, respectively and 32 birds were found common in aall the three habitats. The bird density varied significantly among the habitats ((F 2 267 =5.430, P0.01), ), and the order was rural (71.59±3.9) > urban (59.13 ± 3.9) > forested habitat (54.45±3.4, Figure 1). Further, rural and forested habitats were found to be distinct and significantly different with respect to bird density (Scheffe’s test, P < 0.05). Bird diversity varied significantly among zones (F2 267 =36.343, P0.001) 0.001) with maximum in rural habitat (1.79±0.04) and minimum in urban habitat (2.13±0.07) (Figure (Figure 2). Further, all the zones urban, rural and forest were significantly different and distinct with respect to bird diversity (Scheffe’s test, P< < 0.05). The bird species richness also varied significantly among zones (F2 267=38.826, P0.001) with maximum mum in rural habitat (2.44±0.07) whereas minimum in urban habitat (1.29 ± 0.04) (Figure 2).So all the zones differed significantly and were distinct with regard to species richness (Scheffe’s test) shows that urban, rural and forest habitats were significantly different (Table3). 3.2.2. BIRD HABITAT RELATIONSHIP WITH HABITAT PARAMETERS Among, all the habitats studied, in urban habitat bird density was found significantly correlated only for tree diversity (r= -.483, P< < 0.01) and tree richness (r= ( -.468, P< 0.01). However bird species diversity and richness were not found to be significant with any of the habitat parameters. On the contrary to the results observed from urban habitats, in rural habitat, bird density was not found to be significantly correlate correlated with any habitat parameters. However, the bird species diversity were found to be significant for tree diversity (r=.666, ( P3>1 WR LC 3 Black Kite Milvus migrans 1>3>2 WR LC 5 Black Redstart Phoenicurusochruros 3 R LC 3 Black RumpedFlameback Dinopiumbenghalense 3 WR LC 3 Black Winged Stilt Himantopushimantopus 2 WR LC 3 Bluethroat Lusciniasvecica 2 SV LC 3 Brahminy Starling Sturnuspagodarum 2 WR LC 2 Brown Headed Barbet Megalaimazeylanica 3>1>2 R LC 3 Brown Rockchat Cercomelafusca 1>2>3 R LC 3 Brown Shrike Laniuscristatus 3 WV LC 3 8 Farah Akram, OrusIlyas& B. Anjan Kumar Prusty  International Journal of Engineering Technology Science and Research IJETSR www.ijetsr.com ISSN 2394 – 3386 Volume 2, Issue 10 October 2015 Cattle Egret Bubulcus ibis 2>1 WR LC 3 Citrine Wagtail Motacillacitreola 2 WV LC 3 Common Babler Turdoidescaudatus 2 WR LC 3 Common Hawk cuckoo Cuculusvarius 3 R LC 3 Common Hoopoe Upupaepops 2>3>1 SV LC 3 Common Moorhen Gallinulachloropus 2>1 WR LC 4 Common Myna Acridotherestristis 3>2>1 WR LC 4 Common Sandpiper Actitishypoleucos 2 WR LC 3 Common Starling Sturnus vulgaris 2 WV LC 2 Common Stonechat Saxicolatorquata 2 WV LC 3 Common Tailorbird Orthotomussutorius 3>1>2 WR LC 3 Common Woodshrike Tephrodornispondicerianus 3 WR LC 3 Coppersmith Barbet Megalaimahaemacephala 1>3>2 R LC 3 Dusky Crag Martin Hirundoconcolor 1 R LC 4 Egyptian Vulture Neophronpercnopterus 3=2>1 WR EN 5 Eurasian Collared Dove Streptopeliadecaocto 2>3>1 WR LC 1 Eurasian Golden Oriole Oriolusoriolus 3>2 SV LC 3 Greater Caucal Centropussinensis 3>2 WR LC 4 Greater Short Toad Lark Calandrellabrachydactyla 2 WV LC 3 Green Bee-eater Meropsorientalis 3>2>1 WR LC 3 Greenish Warbler Phylloscopustrochiloides 3>2 WV LC 3 Grey BrestedPrinia Priniahodgsonii 2 WR LC 3 Grey Francolin Francolinuspondicerianus 3 WR LC 1 Grey Headed Canary Flycatcher Culicicapaceylonensis 3 R LC 3 Grey Wagtail Motacillacinerea 2>1 WV LC 3 House Crow Corvussplendens 2>1>3 WR LC 4 House Sparrow Passer domesticus 2>1>3 WR LC 1 Hume's Warbler Phylloscopushumei 1=2=3 WV LC 3 Indian Bushlark Mirafraerythroptera 2 R LC 3 Indian Grey Hornbill Ocycerosbirostris 3>1>2 WR LC 2 Indian Peafowl Pavocristatus 3>2>1 R LC 1 Indian Pond Heron Ardeolagrayii 2>1 R LC 3 Indian Robin Saxicoloidesfulicata 3 WR LC 3 Indian Roller Coraciasbenghalensis 3 WR LC 3 Indian Silverbill Lonchuramalabarica 3>2 WR LC 1 Jungle Babler Turdoidesstriatus 3>>1>2 WR LC 3 Jungle Prinia Prinia sylvatica 3 WR LC 3 Large Billed Crow Corvusmacrorhynchos 2>3>1 WR LC 4 Large Grey Babler Turdoidesmalcolmi 3>1>2 R LC 3 Laughing Dove Streptopeliasenegalensis 1>3>2 WR LC 1 9 Farah Akram, OrusIlyas& B. Anjan Kumar Prusty  International Journal of Engineering Technology Science and Research IJETSR www.ijetsr.com ISSN 2394 – 3386 Volume 2, Issue 10 October 2015 Lesser White Throat Sylvia curruca 1 VW LC 3 Little Cormorant Phalacrocoraxniger 2 R LC 6 Little Egret Egrettagarzetta 2 WR LC 3 Long Tailed Shrike Laniusschach 2 WR LC 3 Mallard Anasplatyrhynchos 3 WV LC 4 Oriental Magpie Robin Copsychussaularis 2>3>1 WR LC 3 Oriental White Eye Zosteropspalpebrosus 2 WR LC 3 Paddyfield Pipit Anthusrufulus 3>2 WR LC 3 Painted Stork Mycterialeucocephala 2 WR NT 5 Pied Bushchat Saxicolacaprata 3>2 WR LC 3 Plain Prinia Priniasocialis 2 WR LC 3 Plum Headed Parakeet Psittaculacyanocephala 2>3 WR LC 2 Purple Sunbird Cinnyrisasiaticus WR LC 7 Red Collared Dove Streptopeliatranquebarica 1>3>2 WR LC 1 Red Throated Flycatcher Ficedulaparva 3 WV LC 3 Red Vented Bulbul Pycnonotuscafer 2>3>1 WR LC 2 Red Wettled Lapwing Vanellusindicus 2>3 WR LC 3 Rock Pigeon Columba livia 1>>2>>3 WR LC 1 Rose Ringed Parakeet Psittaculakrameri 3>1>2 WR LC 2 Rufous Treepie Dendrocittavagabunda 3>2>1 WR LC 2 Sand Lark Calandrellaraytal 2 R LC 3 Scaly BrestedMunia Lonchurapunctulata 3 WR LC 1 Shikra Accipiter badius 2>3 WR LC 5 Spotted Dove Streptopeliachinensis 3>2>1 WR LC 1 Spotted Owlet Athene brama 3>2 WR LC 5 Striated Babler Turdoidesearlei 2 R LC 3 Tickel's Leaf Warbler Phylloscopusaffinis 3 WV LC 3 White BrestedWaterhen Amaurornisphoenicurus 2>1 WR LC 3 White Browed Wagtail Motacillamaderaspatensis 2 WR LC 3 White Throated Kingfisher Halcyon smyrnensis 2>1>3 WR LC 5 White Wagtail Motacilla alba 2 WV LC 3 Yellow Crowned Woodpeckar Dendrocoposmahrattensis 3 R LC 3 Yellow Footed Green Pigeon Treronphoenicoptera 3>2>1 R LC 1 Yellow Wagtail Motacillaflava 2>1 WV LC 3 Yellow Wettled Lapwing Vanellusmalabaricus 2 R LC 3 Status: WR= Widespread Resident, R= Resident India, WV= Winter Visitor, SV=Summer Visitor; IUCN Status: LC= Least Concern, EN= Endangered; Preferred Habitat:: 1= Urban, 2= Rural, 3= Forest; Feeding guild: 1= Granivore, 2= Frugivore, 3= Insectivore, 4= Omnivore, 5= Carnivore, 6= Piscivore, 7= Nectarivore Table 3: Post hoc Scheffe test show the significance difference between the habitats 10 Farah Akram, OrusIlyas& B. Anjan Kumar Prusty  International Journal of Engineering Technology Science and Research IJETSR www.ijetsr.com ISSN 2394 – 3386 Volume 2, Issue 10 October 2015 Density Diversity Richness Urban Vs Rural P>0.05 P