BIRD COMMUNITIES AND FEEDING GUILDS FROM THREE LAND USE

TYPES IN KERIAN RIVER BASIN,

by

NUR MUNIRA AZMAN

Thesis submitted in fulfillment of the requirements

for the degree of

Master of Science

February 2012 842283 "\J) ~ QLb~\ ~~~~66 ~0\~ ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Alhamdulillah, all praises to Allah s.w.t, for giving me the opportunities and strength to complete my field work and thesis writing. I would like to express my deep gratitude to my dedicated supervisor, Dr. Nurul Salmi Abdul Latip and supportive co-supervisor Associate Prof. Dr. Shahrul Anuar Mohd Sah who have given me guidance and ideas from early on until end of this work. Special thanks to Dr. Wan Muhiyuddin Wan Ibrahim from School of Humanities, also my co­ supervisor, in guiding me in completing the GIS part.

I would like to thank Universiti Sains Research Grant (815019) which funded this project and the transportation provided by the School of Biological Sciences, USM. The author wishes to acknowledge the Institute for Post-graduate Studies (IPS, USM) for its award of Graduate Fellowship Scheme.

I am also indebted to my field assistants, Mr. Yusof Omar, Mr. Nordin Ahmad, Mr. Suhaimi Ibrahim, Mr. Hafizul, Mr. Abdullah, Mr. Rosnezam, Mr. Mazlan, Mr. Hamzah, Mr. Soma and Mr. Muthu who made all field data collection possible. Special thanks to my passionate teacher Mr. Abdul Muin Md. Akil who successfully trained me in identification. Deep thanks also to my fellow friend, Nur Juliani Shafie, Nurul Liyana K.hairuddin, Bidarulmunir Ahmad Anas, Nur Adibah Mohd Ishadi, Siti Nuraishah Azman, Norafifah Supardy and Mohammad Saiful Mansor, Najwa Kassim and Mohd Syafiq Masduqi Mohd Zainudin for their ideas, time and advice.

Deep thanks to my family; Mak, Abah, Uci, Nenek, Acu Win, Umi, Busu Nora, Mak Ngah Jah, Wa and Na who have given me a lot of motivation and inspiration for me to complete my study. Thank you also for their supported and prayers. I love you all.

And last but not least, I would like to thank everyone who has helped me either directly or indirectly during my field work and thesis writing, whom I cannot mention one by one.

ii TABLE OF CONTENT

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT II TABLE OF CONTENTS III LIST OF TABLES VI LIST OF FIGURES VIII LIST OF PLATES IX ABBREVIATION X ABSTRAK XII ABSTRACT XIV

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 1

1.1 Background of study 1 1.2 Rationale 7 1.3 Objectives 9

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW 10

2.1 Bird diversity and community in different habitats 10 2.2 Environmental changes and its effect on 14 2.3 Bird feeding guilds: characteristics and variations 17 2.3.1 Effect ofhabitat changes on feeding guilds 20 2.4 Bird studies in Malaysia 25 2.5 Mapping of suitability area for threatened species 30 2.6 Bird conservation in Malaysia 33

CHAPTER 3: MATERIALS AND METHODOLOGY 37

3.1 Study areas 37 3 .1.1 Kerian River Basin 37 3.1.2 Secondary forest (SF) 41 3.1.3 Oil palm plantation (OP) 43 3 .1.4 Paddy field (PF) 45 3.2 Sample collection 47 3.2.1 Point count method 47 3.2.2 Classification of feeding guilds and families 48 3.2.3 Mist-netting 49 3.2.4 Bird measurement and handling 52 3.2.5 Sampling duration 52 3.3 Data analysis 54 3.3.1 Species accumulative curve 54 3.3 .2 Species diversity 54 3.3.3 Species richness 55

iii 3.3.4 Heterogeneity 57 3.3.5 Evenness 58 3.3.6 Statistical analysis 59 3.3.7 Cluster analysis 60 3.4 Mapping habitat suitability using Geographical Information System (GIS) analysis 60 3.4.1 Selection of near-threatened Scaly-breasted 61 Bulbul (Pycnonotus squamatus) and Grey-bellied Bulbul (Pycnonotus cyaniventris) 3.4.2 Factor selection 62 3.4.3 Distance analysis and Digital Elevation Model (DEM) 63 3.4.4 Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) with Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) 65 3.4.5 Map validation 70

CHAPTER 4: RESULTS 72

4.1 Species accumulative curve 72 4.2 Bird occurrence and identification 73 4.2.1 Secondary forest 74 4.2.2 Oil palm plantation 82 4.2.3 Paddy field 87 4.3 Temporal distribution bird abundance and richness across all sites 94 4.4 Near-threatened birds 97 4.4.1 Protection status ofbirds in Peninsular Malaysia 98 4.5 Mist-netting in secondary forest and oil palm plantation 102 4.6 Diversity index for secondary forest, oil palm plantation and paddy field 106 4.7 Richness index for secondary forest, oil palm plantation and paddy field 107 4.7.1 Rarefaction Method analysis 109 4.8 Heterogeneity 110 4.9 Evenness 111 4.10 Bird feeding guilds in secondary forest, oil palm plantation and paddy field 111 4.11 Cluster analysis for secondary forest, oil palm plantation and paddy field 115 4.11.1 Species distribution 115 4.11.2 Feeding guilds 117 4.12 Suitability area of near-threatened Scaly-breasted Bulbul 119 (Pycnonotus squamatus) and Grey-bellied Bulbul (Pycnonotus cyaniventris) 4.12.1 Development of database maps 119 4.12.2 Map of distance and Digital Elevation Model (DEM) 121

iv 4.12.3 The weight values for factors 123 4.12.4 The map of suitability area for near-threatened Scaly-breasted Bulbul (Pycnonotus squamatus) and Grey-bellied Bulbul (Pycnonotus cyaniventris) in Kerian River Basin and validation 124

CHAPTER 5: DISCUSSION 129

5.1 Species diversity: variation across habitat types 129 5.1.1 Secondary forest 129 5.1.2 Oil palm plantation 133 5.1.3 Paddy field 137 5.2 Bird observation analysis across habitat 140 5.3 Mist-netting in secondary forest and oil palm plantation 142 5.4 Bird status in Kerian River Basin 142 5.4.1 Near-threatened bird species 144 5.4.2 Suitability area of near-threatened Scaly-breasted Bulbul (Pycnonotus squamatus) and Grey-bellied Bulbul (Pycnonotus cyaniventris) 145 5.5 Migratory bird species 147 5.6 Variation ofbird feeding guilds across habitat types 149 5.6.1 Secondary forest 149 5.6.2 Oil palm plantation 152 5.6.3 Paddy field 155 5. 7 Secondary forest and paddy fields as important habitat for different bird species 159 5.8 Conservation concern 162

CHAPTER 6: CONCLUSIONS 169

6.1 General conclusion 169 6.2 Future research 172

REFERENCES 173

APPENDICES APPENDIX A: Questionnaires APPENDIX B: List of bird species recorded and their conservation status in three habitat types along Kerian River Basin APPENDIX C: List of bird species recorded in secondary forest, Ulu Selama, Perak (March 2009-February 2010) APPENDIX D: List of bird species recorded in oil palm plantation, Selama, Perak (March 2009- February 2010)

v APPENDIX E: List of bird species recorded in paddy field, Bandar Baharu, (March 2009-February 2010) APPENDIX F: Photographs ofbird captured APPENDIX G: Results of raster image for factors that influence suitability area of near-threatened Scaly-breasted Bulbul (Pycnonotus squamatus) and Grey-bellied Bulbul (Pycnonotus cyaniventris) APPENDIX H: Results of map distance for factors that influence suitability area of near-threatened Scaly-breasted Bulbul (Pycnonotus squamatus) and Grey-bellied Bulbul (Pycnonotus cyaniventris) APPENDIX I: Coordinate of validation points

LIST OF PUBLICATION AND PROCEEDINGS

vi LIST OF TABLE

Table 2.1 Feeding guilds with different habitat preferences 19 Table 2.2 Studies that assess the impact of human disturbance on birds together with information on the method used 22 Table 3.1 Major commodity crop yield by districts in Perak (tonnes metric), 2007 40 Table 3.2 Definitions ofbird feeding guilds 49 Table 3.3 Dates of sampling session (March 2009 - February 201 0) 53 Table 3.4 List of near-threatened birds in Kerian River Basin 61 Table 3.5 List of data selection for GIS analysis 62 Table 3.6 Scale for the level of importance for each pair of variable 65 Table 3.7 Example of matrix pair-wise comparison 66 Table 3.8 Steps in calculation of pair-wise comparison method 67 Table 3.9 Example of calculation for consistency vector 68 Table 3.10 Scores for Random Index (Rl) 69 Table 3.11 Classification zone of suitability area for Scaly-breasted Bulbul (Pycnonotus squamatus) and Grey-bellied Bulbul (Pycnonotus cyaniventris) 70 Table 4.1 List ofbulbul species observed in secondary forest 75 Table 4.2 List of bird species recorded once during sampling sessions 76 Table 4.3 List of bird species recorded exclusively in secondary forest 77 Table 4.4 Migratory bird species recorded in secondary forest 81 Table 4.5 Migratory bird species recorded in oil palm plantation 84 Table 4.6 List of bird species recorded only in oil palm plantation 85 Table 4.7 Forest bird species recorded at the edge of oil palm plantation 86 Table 4.8 List of bird species recorded only in paddy field 88 Table 4.9 Migratory bird species recorded in paddy field 91 Table 4.10 Common birds recorded in paddy field 94 Table 4.11 List of near-threatened bird species recorded and their conservation status in Kerian River Basin 98 Table 4.12 Bird status and definition 100 Table 4.13 Bird species captured in secondary forest and oil palm plantation 103 Table 4.14 Shannon-Wiener diversity index of birds according month 107 Table 4.15 Margalef (MR) and Menhinick (MN) Index of birds according to month 108 Table 4.16 Expected number of species richness by using Rarefaction method analysis 109 Table 4.17 Kruskal-Wallis analyses on feeding guilds in three different habitat types 114 Table 4.18 Mann-Whitney U-test score for bird feeding guilds with comparison of all pairs of habitat types 114

vii Table 4.19 Euclidean distance analysis ofbird community in three different habitat types 115 Table 4.20 Euclidean distance analysis of bird feeding guilds in three different habitat types 117 Table 4.21 Weight values for multi-criteria in pair-wise matrix Comparison 124 Table 4.22 Validation of near-threatened Scaly-breasted Bulbul (Pycnonotus squamatus) and Grey-bellied Bulbul (Pycnonotus cyaniventris) in Kerian River Basin 127 Table 5.1 Summary of birds observed in a large flock during different stages of paddy growing season in paddy field, Bandar Baharu, Kedah from March 2009-February 2010 138

viii LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 3.1 Location of the study area within Kerian River Basin (KRB) 38 Figure 3.2 Methodology of bird census in three different habitat types within Kerian River Basin 51 Figure 3.3 Steps for distance analysis and DEM for physical and land use variables 64 Figure 3.4 Process to produce the habitat suitability map by using GIS analysis with the MCDA procedure 71 Figure 4.1 Species accumulation curves 73 Figure 4.2 Monthly bird abundance and richness in three habitat types 96 Figure 4.3 Number of bird observations according to protection status 99 Figure 4.4 Number of bird observations according to status 101 Figure 4.5 Percentage of bird captured in secondary forest and oil palm plantation 105 Figure 4.6 Rarefaction curve of bird species in secondary forest, oil palm plantation and paddy field 110 Figure 4.7 Abundance of avian feeding guilds in three different habitat types 113 Figure 4.8 Tree diagram resulted from average linkage clustering using the unweighted pair-group method (UPMGA) on bird communities at all study sites 116 Figure 4.9 Tree diagram resulted from average linkage clustering using the unweighted pair-group method (UPMGA) on eight feeding guilds of bird at all study sites 118 Figure 4.10 Base map for forested areas in Kerian River Basin 120 Figure 4.11 Base map of development areas in Kerian River Basin 120 Figure 4.12 Base map of contours in Kerian River Basin Basin 121 Figure 4.13 Map of distance from forest 122 Figure 4.14 Map of distance from development areas 122 Figure 4.15 Map ofDEM for contour 123 Figure 4.16 Map of potential habitat for threatened SBB and GBB in KRB 124 Figure 4.17 Suitability area map after reclassification into three zones 125 Figure 4.18 Validation points map 126 Figure 5.1 Cross section of secondary forest 130

ix LIST OF PLATES

Plate 3.1 (a) and (b) Secondary forest, Ulu Selama, Perak 42 Plate 3.2 (a) and (b) Oil palm plantation, Selama, Perak 44 Plate 3.3 (a) and (b) Paddy field, Bandar Baharu, Kedah 46 Plate 3 .4 Setting up mist net at the study site 50

X ABBREVIATION STUDY SITE KRB Kerian River Basin SF Secondary forest OP Oil palm plantation PF Paddy field

FEEDING GUILDS Car Carnivore Ins Insectivore Fru Frugivore Nee Nectarivore Gra Grainivore Omn Omnivore

HABITAT TYPE GP Gardens and parks (including wooded suburban areas) OC Open country (open grassy areas, scrub and tin mines) IS Inland freshwater swamps (mining pools, lakes and paddy fields) MG Mangroves LF Lowland rainforest (including secondary forest and forest edge) LMF Lower montane rainforest (including secondary forest and forest edge)

STATUS R Resident M Passage migrant/winter visitor v Vagrant I Introduced

INCIDENCE OF OCCURRENCE C Common U Uncommon RA Rare

PROTECTION BYLAW IN PENINSULAR MALAYSIA TP Totally protected (may not be hunted or reared in captivity) GB Game birds (may be hunted under license) OPB Other protected birds (may be reared in captivity under license) NP Not protected NT Near-threatened

xi MATERIALS AND METHODS GIS Geographical Information System DEM Digital Elevation Model MCDA Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis AHP Analytical Hierarchy Process UPMGA Unweighted pair-group method F Forest R River E Elevation CI Consistency Index CR Consistency Ratio RI Random Index

OTHER MNS Malaysia Nature Society IBAs Important Bird Areas BBC Bird Conservation Council MPOC Malaysian Palm Oil Council MOA Ministry of Agriculture MADA Muda Agricultural Development Authority DOAP Department of Agriculture Perak IUCN International Union for the Conservation ofNature NRE Ministry ofNatural Resources and Environment SPSS Statistical Package for Social Science

xii KOMUNITI BURUNG DAN KUMPULAN PEMAKANAN DARI TIGA JENIS

GUNA TANAH DI LEMBANGAN SUNGAI KERIAN, PERAK

ABSTRAK

Aktiviti pembukaan tanah telah menyebabkan kehilangan sejumlah besar spesies burung. Status burung di hutan sekunder (SF), ladang kelapa sawit (OP) dan sawah padi (PF) didokumentasikan dari Mac 2009-Februari 2010. Objektifkajian ini adalah untuk menentukan spesies burung yang terdapat di kawasan-kawasan kajian, menganalisa variasi kumpulan pemakanan di habitat yang berbeza dan mengenalpasti kawasan kesesuaian untuk spesies burung terancam yang terpilih. Kaedah point­ count dan pemasangan jaring kabut (mist-netting) digunakan untuk bancian burung di SF dan OP, manakala hanya kaedah point-count digunakan di PF. Kumpulan pemakanan dikenalpasti untuk setiap burung yang direkodkan. Peta kawasan kesesuaian untuk Pycnonotidae yang terancam dikenalpasti untuk kegunaan pemuliharaan dengan menggunakan Sistem Maklumat Geografi (GIS) dan Multi­ Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA). Hasil menunjukkan sejumlah 183 spesies mewakili 49 famili direkodkan di kesemua tapak kajian. Rutan sekunder mencatatkan 106 spesies, diikuti oleh PF dengan 70 spesies dan OP dengan 58 spesies. Kelimpahan tertinggi famili burung yang diperhatikan di SF adalah Pycnonotidae (26.65%), Hemiprocnidae (19.77%) dan Muscicapidae (7.10%); di OP, Pycnonotidae (21.59%), Muscicapidae (19.12%) and Sturnidae (17.95%); di PF, Ardeidae (29.09%), Sturnidae (10.15%) dan Hirundinidae (7.86%). Hipotesis alternatif menyatakan kelimpahan spesies adalah berbeza dikesemua jenis habitat, F(2,105) = 99.83, p < 0.05. Lapan kumpulan pemakanan burung dikenalpasti di sawah padi diikuti tujuh kumpulan pemakanan di hutan sekunder dan kelapa sawit. Jika hutan ditukar kepada OP, kumpulan pemakanan yang berkemungkinan berubah adalah penurunan spesies insektivor, insektivor-frugivor, insektivor-nektarivor dan frugivor; dan peningkatan pada spesies karnivor, grainivor dan omnivor. Jika hutan ditukar kepada PF, kumpulan pemakanan yang berkemungkinan berubah adalah penurunan spesies insektivor, insektivor-frugivor dan frugivor; dan peningkatan spesies karnivor, insektivor-nektarivor, insektivor-grainivor, grainivor dan omnivore. Bandingan antara SF dan OP melalui Mann-Whitney U-test menunjukkan perbezaan signifikan hanya pada enam kumpulan pemakanan, termasuk insektivor, insektivor­ frugivor, insektivor-nektarivor, frugivor, grainivor dan omnivor. Perbandingan antara OP dan PF menunjukkan kesemua kumpulan pemakanan adalah berbeza secara signifikan. Peta kawasan kesesuaian untuk Pycnonotidae yang hampir terancam menunjukkan bahagian hulu KRB yang didominasi kawasan hutan merupakan habitat yang paling sesuai untuk tujuan pemuliharaan. Analisis mendapati SF didiami oleh spesies burung hutan yang sensitif terhadap gangguan habitat dan tidak ditemui di OP. Vegetasi yang kompleks di hutan menyediakan lebih banyak nic, dan mempunyai diversiti tumbuhan dan serangga yang tinggi untuk menampung lebih banyak spesies burung. Berbeza dengan PF yang merupakan tanah lembab sementara, menampung pelbagai burung air dan spesies burung hijrah seperti Bubulcus coromandus, Circus melanoleucos dan Vanellus cinereus.

xiii BIRD COMMUNITIES AND FEEDING GUILDS FROM THREE LAND USE

TYPES IN KERIAN RIVER BASIN, PERAK

ABSTRACT

Land conversion activity has caused losses in a vast number of bird species. Bird status in secondary forest (SF), oil palm plantation (OP) and paddy fields (PF) were documented from March 2009-February 2010 at study sites in Kerian River Basin (KRB). The objectives of this study were to determine the current bird species present in the study areas, to analyze variation of feeding guilds in different habitat types and to identify suitability area for selected threatened bird species. Point count and mist-netting methods were used for bird census in SF and OP, while only point count method was used in PF. Feeding guilds were determined for each species recorded. Map of suitability areas for threatened Pycnonotidae were identified for conservation purposes using Geographical Information System (GIS) and Multi­ Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA). A total of 183 species representing 49 families were recorded at all study sites. Secondary forest scored 106 species, followed by PF with 70 species and OP with 58 species. The highest abundance of bird families observed in SF was Pycnonotidae (26.65%), Hemiprocnidae (19.77%) and Muscicapidae (7.10%); in OP, Pycnonotidae (21.59%), Muscicapidae (19.12%) and Sturnidae (17.95%); in PF, Ardeidae (29.09%), Sturnidae (10.15%) and Hirundinidae (7.86%). Alternative hypothesis established that the abundance of species is different across habitat types, F(2,105) = 99.83, p < 0.05. Eight feeding guilds were identified in paddy field and seven in both secondary forest and oil palm plantation. If forests were converted to OP feeding guild could possibly change with a decreased in insectivore, insectivore-frugivore, insectivore-nectarivore and frugivore species; and increased in carnivore, grainivore and omnivore species. If forests were converted to PF feeding guild could possibly change with a decreased in insectivore, insectivore-frugivore and frugivore species; and increased in carnivore, insectivore­ nectarivore, insectivore-grainivore, grainivore and omnivore species. Comparison between SF and OP with Mann-Whitney U-test showed significant differences in six feeding guilds, including insectivore, insectivore-frugivore, insectivore-nectarivore, frugivore, grainivore and omnivore. Comparison between SF and PF showed significant differences in five feeding guilds, comprising of carnivore, insectivore­ grainivore, frugivore, grainivore and omnivore. Comparison between OP and PF showed all feeding guilds to be significantly different. Suitability area map generated for near-threatened Pycnonotidae indicates upper part of KRB, characterized by forest, as the most suitable habitat for conservation. This analysis demonstrated SF was inhabited by forest dependent species sensitive to habitat disturbance, most absent in OP. Complex vegetation in forest offers more niches, with higher plant and insect diversity to support more bird species. In contrast, PF, a temporary wetland, support predominantly various waterbirds and migratory species such as Bubulcus coromandus, Circus melanoleucos and Vanellus cinereus.

xiv CHAPTER!

INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background of study

Forest conversion is defined as a dramatic process where natural forest landscape is replaced by other land uses and affects their habitat and biodiversity

(Shearman et al., 2009). Forest conversion activity is the major driving force that has caused a tremendous rate of species extinction (Singh & Kushwaha, 2008). A review by Sodhi et al. (2004) stated that the current rate of habitat destruction in

South-east Asia will result in the loss of 13-42% of mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, fish, butterflies and plants by 2100. Thus large numbers of flora and fauna in tropical rainforest including birds have been listed as threatened species due to the destruction of their habitat (Dybas, 2006).

Malaysia is a developing country that is actively converting natural forest areas to agricultural land and build-up areas (Sodhi et al., 2004). Malaysia's land is very suitable for many agriculture crops such as oil palm plantation (Elaeis guineensis), rubber (Hevea brasiliensis) and rice (Oryza sativa). According to Sodhi et al. (2010a) oil palm plantation is the single largest agriculture crop in Malaysia because of the growing demands for food and biofuel. This leads to the establishment of giant companies such as Sime Darby Plantation Sdn. Bhd. and governing authority such as Malaysian Palm Oil Council with high profit margin annually.

1 Agriculture industry is one of the maJor income sources for Malaysia.

However, without sustainable practices in parts of the industry, it could pressure species and their habitats. Habitat destruction would cause several negative implications such as direct mortality of resident species, physiological stress and decreased reproduction, disruption of normal behaviour and activities, segmentation of interbreeding populations, changes in species interaction and alien species invasion (Feeley & Terborgh, 2008; Bernard et al., 2009). For instance, forest bird species are absent in cultivated areas, however their abundance increased along the successional gradient from cultivation to old growth forest (Mallari et al., 2011 ).

This indicates bird community prefer to inhabit an area that has large tree density which provide good breeding areas and shelter (Minor & Urban, 201 0).

Habitat changes also caused variation in bird species abundance. According to Maas et al. (2009) six years of habitat changes in Lore Lindu National Park,

Central Sulawesi had given negative impacts on bird community structure. These include the widespread of common species and decreasing of sensitive birds. These differences might be caused by the high tolerance of common species within unfavourable environments such as limited food availability and exposure towards human activities. Besides, uncontrolled logging activities and plantation expansion that have caused habitat fragmentation also give negative effect on bird species

(Brooks et al., 2002). For example, measures on genetic differentiation of endangered Golden-cheeked warbler (Dendroica chrysoparia) were negatively associated with habitat connectivity (Lindsay et al., 2008). The variation occurred due to limited dispersal capability that is caused by fragmentation.

2 Therefore, the importance of this study is to determine the current bird status and to predict the possibilities that might occur if forest is converted into agriculture areas. The study sites are located within the Kerian River Basin (KRB) boundary, north Peninsular Malaysia. Most forested areas comprised of secondary forest and several areas of primary forest. The main agricultures within KRB boundary include oil palm plantation and paddy fields. Old growth secondary forest (more than 20 years) in this study is represents forested areas, while oil palm plantation and paddy fields represent agriculture areas. Selections of these three habitats are explained in the following paragraphs.

According to Guariguata & Ostertag (200 1) the occurrence of tropical secondary forest is believed to have increased in these recent years due to agriculture development process. Similar situation is found to occur in Peninsular Malaysia, where secondary forest and tropical plantations have been identified as the major land use types (Styring & Ickes, 2001; Peh et al., 2006). Secondary forest is usually formed subsequently after massive logging activities that have occurred for more than 20-30 years (Brown & Lugo, 1990). Secondary forest is characterized by the low composition of timber trees, fast growth rates of vegetation and the production of various seeds that are widely dispersed (Brown & Lugo, 1990).

Secondary forest or second-growth vegetation serves as an important habitat for many bird species (Blake & Loiselle, 1991). According Borges & Stouffer

(1999) secondary forest with greater vegetation complexity commonly has more similar microclimate to the primary forest and this allow forest birds to inhabit the habitat. Observation by Kwok & Corlett (2000) had shown that forest dependent

3 bird species was frequently recorded in secondary forest because of the vegetation complexity and the richness in flowering trees. Forest dependent bird species is very sensitive toward habitat changes and identified as totally protected bird. Since there were a lot of secondary forest areas that have been identified in the upper stream of

Kerian River Basin, it is vital to conduct a study to determine the bird status of the area for future conservation and monitoring purposes.

According to Ministry of Agriculture (MOA) (2010), the most popular plantation area in Malaysia is Elaeis guineensis or oil palm with 4.88 million hectares. This African oil palm had been chosen for their unique tolerance in extreme site conditions. Currently, Malaysia and Indonesia are the two South-east

Asian countries that have become primary producers of world's oil palm with

17,400,000 and 19,700,000 metric tons, respectively (Koh & Wilcove, 2008). Bird families that dominate this area are generalist that feed on wide range of food sources and very adaptable to unfavourable environment, such as Pycnonotidae, Corvidae and Cuculidae (Aratrakom eta!., 2006). Further investigation on bird community in oil palm plantation is needed to confirm if oil palm plantation in Kerian River Basin is a threat or has conservation value for birds.

Malaysian traditional crop, Oryza sativa or rice has become secondary and it covers approximately 510,474 ha of the land in Peninsular Malaysia (MOA, 2010).

The interest on paddy fields as unique wetland landscapes for many waterbirds and land bird species have increased recently among ornithologists and conservationist in countries such as Korea, Japan, , Indonesia and Americas (Acosta eta!., 2010;

Amano eta!., 2010; Fujioka eta!., 2010; Sundar & Subramanya, 2010). Waterbirds

4 such as egrets, storks, snipes, sandpipers, lapwing and herons were found to dominate in all areas of the paddy fields worldwide (Sundar, 2006; Takahashi &

Ohkawara, 2007; Kelly et al., 2008). Several of these bird groups normally exist in large flocks. Landbirds such as raptors (Katoh et al., 2009), sparrows, cisticolas, doves, munias and weavers (Shah et al., 2008) have also been reported to occur in paddy fields. Thus, with the presence of such dynamic bird groups, paddy field has become an important habitat to study.

In this study, bird has been chosen as indicator to predict the possibilities that occur if forested area is converted into agriculture area. It is the best indicator for habitat loss and food availability (Lim & Sodhi, 2004; Lehmkuhl et al., 2007). Bird is an group that is always documented by many studies of habitat destruction

(Schmiegelow et al., 1997; Brooks et al., 1999a; Naidoo, 2004; Waltert et al., 2005;

Ko et al., 2009). As explained by Lawton et al. (1998) and Louette et al. (1995) birds frequently served as the indicator or 'flagship taxa' in biodiversity inventories because birds are widespread and present in most habitat types. Birds are easy to observe or detect compared to the other fauna due to their loud vocalization, most of them have bright colour patterns and they are abundant in many habitat types.

In Malaysia, excellent information on birds is well-known including ecology and food preference (Strange & Jeyarajasingam, 1999; Wells, 1999; Wells 2007;

Robson, 2008). This study focused on the changes of bird communities and their feeding guilds distribution across three habitat types namely secondary forest (SF), oil palm plantation (OP) and paddy field (PF). All these habitats have different characteristics and landscape which sustain ·different food sources and thus attract

5 different bird feeding guilds. Feeding guild is a useful tool for examining changes in bird communities because variations in feeding guilds are largely determined by the habitat structure and food availability (Arriaga-Weiss et al., 2008).

It is important to avoid any activity that can cause negative effects such as ecosystem degradation and biodiversity loss. Hence, the concept of sustainable development must be followed by all the developers. Sustainable development is defined as an approach to meet human needs, while at the same time preserving the environment (Bezak & Halada, 2010). The examples of sustainable management that can be implemented such as protecting the young timber trees during logging, promoting the regeneration of endangered plant species and maintainance of buffering zones surrounding the protected areas, that later will reduce the harvesting pressures (Burton et al., 2006). The importance of sustainable concept has become increasingly recognized in recent years. By identifying the most ecological valuable areas, planning and management practices can be applied in order to maintain the area's value (Smith & Theberge, 1987).

The identification of threatened bird in all habitats is very useful for conservation purposes. Sustainable practices and conservation works are important steps to protect threatened species (Brooks et a!., 2002; Bezak & Hal ada, 201 0).

These steps begin with the identification of the most suitable area for threatened birds. Geographical Information System (GIS) was used to map the distribution of threatened , to identify habitat suitability of animals and the least-damaging areas for infrastructure (Joerin et al., 2001; Store & Kangas, 2001; Clevenger et al.,

2002). In this study, the integration of field data, GIS tool and Multi-Criteria

6 Decision Analysis (MCDA) are used to analyse spatial data and to generate map of

suitability area for selected threatened bird species. The identification of suitability

areas for threatened bird is reliable for the agriculture management and bird's

conservation effort in order to achieve a sustainable development in Kerian River

Basin.

1.2 Rationale

Recent studies on birds in Malaysia revealed that, inadequate information exist on bird diversity and feeding guilds in different habitat types that has been conducted (especially in northern Peninsular Malaysia). Most of bird studies focus on forested areas in southern Peninsular Malaysia (Peh et al., 2005; Zakaria et al.,

2005; Peh et al., 2006; Sodhi et al., 2007). Thus, it is a necessity and relevant to conduct a bird study in northern Peninsular Malaysia. Past study by Najera &

Simonetti (20 10) investigated the bird community structure in oil palm plantation, and they suggested that for future research it is important to examine the bird habitat use within the agriculture area, as it can aid in formulating the management actions that will provide the greatest benefits for bird communities. Before any management actions can be employed, it is necessary to discover the areas of bird distribution within the agriculture areas.

7 Bird feeding guild is another important aspect to discover in this study. As explained by Poulin et al. (1994) any actions that affect the environmental resources will similarly affect the members of the guilds using those resources. These include logging activities and exploitation of valuable trees and land conversion. This means, through feeding guild information, quality of particular habitat, in terms of food and carrying capacity could be evaluated (Foster, 1977). Besides, availability of food sources such as arthropods, small vertebrates, fruits and nectar is varied between habitat types and thus support different groups of birds to exist (Szaro,

1986). In this study, bird feeding guilds is able to give additional knowledge for better understanding ofbirds in different habitat types ofKerian River Basin.

These days integration of GIS application and ecological study is still lacking in Malaysia. In developed country such as Australia, GIS play an important role in coastal and marine conservation, research and management (Zharikov et al., 2005).

In more advanced countries GIS has become a powerful tool used by natural resource managers and decision makers in managing wildlife (Lauver et al., 2002). By using

GIS, field data including large varieties of spatial data and aspatial (attribute) data can be analyzed (Salem, 2003). Several advantages of GIS application in ecological studies are development of biodiversity databases, biodiversity monitoring and aiding in identifying the areas that are in need of conservation (Salem, 2003). In this study, GIS and field data are used to map the suitability area for selected threatened bird species in Kerian River Basin. This is also an important contribution of this study, i.e., to identify valuable areas for conservation purpose.

8 1.3 Objectives

The objectives of the study can be summarised as follows:

1. To determine the current species present in the study areas. Species are

recorded through point count method and mist-netting.

2. To analyse variation of bird feeding guilds in different habitat types. Bird

feeding guilds information is based on literatures and field observation.

3. To identify suitability area for selected threatened bird species by using

GIS application in order to identify valuable areas for conservation.

Suitability area is shown in a map through the integration of Geographic

Information System (GIS) tools and Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis

(MCDA).

9 CHAPTER2

LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Bird diversity and community in different habitats

From muddy mangroves to mountain ranges, Malaysia encompasses of

various tropical habitats teeming with hundreds of resident bird species. The

country's location on the East Asian Australasian flyway also makes it as a host to

more than 120 migratory birds (Wells 1999 & 2007). Half of Malaysia's land mass

is covered by natural and man-made habitats. Natural tropical habitats such as montane forest, lowland rainforest and wetlands are easily accessible by more than

600 bird species (Robson, 2008). Meanwhile man-made habitat, mainly agriculture

areas, also supports bird species. The areas include rubber plantations, oil palm plantations and paddy fields. This multi-habitat selection which includes both natural and man-made habitats has become one of the major factors in making

Malaysia as an excellent home and stop over areas for resident and migratory birds.

Each habitat type has distinct characteristics which make them differ from each other. Examples of characteristics that distinguish the habitats are vegetation structure, abiotic factors and wildlife community that habitat bears. Different habitat also receives different frequency of human activities. These characteristics eventually describe the pattern and temporal changes of bird species that occurred

(Greenberg & Center, 2008). Food availability in a habitat is also an important determinant for birds to exist (Clearly et a!., 2007). A habitat that serves variety of foods such as insects, fruits, nectar, invertebrate and large prey such as rodent and

10 snake, will continually sustain various types of bird species ranging from the small sized to larger sized.

Natural habitat is different from man-made habitat in many aspects and thus supports different bird communities. For example, montane forest which is low in temperature and receives high precipitation makes this habitat to be continuously moist (Brunjinzeel & Veneklaas, 1998). In addition, higher altitude makes the montane forest to be shrouded in mist for at least part of each day. Vegetation structure becomes less complex as the plant growth is restricted by the cool upland ambient and reduction in sunlight intensity. Common vegetation includes tree ferns and epiphytic plants such as moss, lichen, and orchids (Freiberg & Freiberg, 2000).

Thus, because of this unique environment, it harbours unique bird community which does not exist at lower altitudes.

Lowland rainforest is another type of natural habitat. A study of floristic structure in Pasoh Forest Reserved by Kochummen et al. (1990) stated that plant diversity was very high with 530 trees per hectare representing about 210 species.

Thus, with complex vegetation structure, more niches are available for many bird species. According to Lee et al. (2007) the rarefaction analyses and species estimator had confirmed eight protected areas of forests (in Sulawesi, Indonesia) that consistently showed high number of endemic forest bird species. The key families in lowland rainforest are woodpeckers, barbets, hombills, bulbuls, flowerpeckers, trogons, babblers, cuckoos and spiderhunters (Strange & Jeyarajasingam, 1999).

11 Malaysia is a tropical country that is lined with long coastal areas, that offers

a variety of wetland habitat types (both natural and man-made). Near to the

coastline, wetlands such as mudflats and mangrove forest are dominated by birds that

have high adaptability toward muddy environment and hot temperatures. Long­

legged waterbirds such as herons, egrets and bitterns utilize mudflats and deeper

waters to search for foods (Bennett & Reynolds, 1993). Study on the ecology of

Selangor mangrove forest birds by Noske (1995) stated that shallow waters and

exposed mudflats become an ideal habitat for shoreline birds such as plovers and

sandpipers. Wetlands have become one of the important migratory stops for birds

that fly all the way from Siberia and China by providing them with food and shelter

(Lomoljo et al., 2010).

Further inland, habitats such as marsh swamp, freshwater lake and paddy

fields can be found. These habitats also become ideal habitats for specialist wetland birds. A study by Zakaria et al. (2009) in Paya Indah Wetland Reserve, , has found a total of 13,872 birds from 100 species and 38 families; where Ardeidae was the dominant family with nine species recorded. According to them, Paya Indah

Wetland Reserve is important in providing food resources, shelter, nesting and roosting areas for various birds. Paddy field is also another important wetland area for many bird species. As reported by MOA (2010), four states in northern part of

Peninsular Malaysia; Kedah, Perak, Pedis, and Pulau Pinang have appeared as the top producers of rice in this country. Kedah, also called the 'negeri jelapang padi', which means 'Rice bowl', encompasses the largest area of paddy fields (210, 644 ha), while Pulau Pinang comprises the smallest areas (25, 630 ha) (MOA, 2010).

12 Paddy is cultivated in flooded fields. The uniqueness of this wetland is that it consists of stagnant water, high plant productivity, and other habitat qualities which can support diverse group of animal populations (Zedler & Kercher, 2005). Paddy field is characterized by the presence of temporary and seasonal standing water body

(Bambaradeniya et al., 2004), and subjected to several agriculture practices such as harvesting, ploughing and transplanting of seedlings (Maeda, 2001). These situations will completely influence the temporal distribution of land birds and waterbirds (Maeda, 2001 ). Paddy field plantations provide high chances for the bird species especially waterbirds to dominate the areas.

Malaysia's land mass, covered with oil palm plantation, is also inhabited by birds. As reported by Malaysian Palm Oil Council (MPOC), oil palm is extensively planted in Malaysia since this country is the second largest oil palm producer in the world (MPOC, 2010). Rubber plantation is also commonly found in Malaysian landscape. However, Aratrakom et al. (2006) suggested in his finding, birds existed in oil palm and rubber plantations in southern Thailand, were species that have wide ranges of habitats and foods, adaptable to human environment and low conservation status. According to Koh and Wilcove (2008), oil palm plantation managed to sustain common bird species because these species have the capability to adapt to this monoculture that is characterized by its less complex vegetation structure, low food availability and frequently received human activities. Since there are differences in bird diversity and distribution in natural habitats and man-made habitats, further investigation is needed in order to gain information on the bird status and to identify their threats due to the uncontrollable obsession of human activities.

13 2.2 Environmental changes and its effect on birds

Nowadays, there are many factors that have been identified to cause global environmental changes. A study by Tilman et al. (2001) stated that the predominant factor to this phenomenon would be agriculture expansion activities. It was predicted that within the next 50 years, a total of 109 hectares of natural ecosystem will be converted into agriculture (Tilman et al., 2001). As reported by Rao and

Puttanna (2000) and Sharpley et al. (2003), the amount of pesticide used is positively correlated with the number of agriculture activity, as pesticide brings benefits to crop yields. However, the drawbacks from the excessive usage would cause intensification in nitrogen and phosphorus eutrophication of terrestrial, freshwater and near-shore marine ecosystem. This eutrophication and habitat loss lead to the emergence of tremendous problems, for instance, ecosystem degradation, loss of ecosystem services and species extinction (Tilman eta!., 2001).

Study on bird community changes affected from habitat loss in many developing countries is increasing over time (Yorke, 1984; Waltert et al., 2005;

Zakaria & Francis 2001). According to Sigel et a!. (2010), habitat loss and fragmentation have reduced the density of tropical bird communities at an immense rate. Many implications seem to appear when forested areas are converted into monoculture plantation. The main problem is the lost of tree diversity which can lead to several disastrous side-effects, such as scarcity of food sources, global warming due to the absence of trees and canopy layer that decreased the uptake of

C02 and shading area, respectively, decrease in microhabitat for different bird

14 species to occupy and loss of insects and arthropods which frequently live on trees.

All these problems are able to suppress bird population.

Past studies has shown that habitat modification might cause either positive or negative effect on wildlife population. In bird population study, research conducted by Greenberg & Center (1998) suggests that bird diversity had gradually improved in coffee plantations. In contrast, there are studies that reported on the negative correlation of habitat loss with the pattern of species richness (Shochat et al., 2010; Sigel et al., 2010). For instance, a study on the effects of human access and landscape structure on forest bird richness found that habitat modification did affect the bird community structure. Modification affects toward endemic forest species negatively although beneficial for the survival of open-land birds (Aubad et al., 2010).

In Malaysia, the emergence of agriculture industries is rapidly increased annually to fulfil human demands. Forests, dominantly located in lowland areas, are highly subjected for conversion to agriculture areas and the remaining forest left are mountainous regions with low agriculture value or in isolated protected areas

(Kawanishi & Sunquist, 2004). With good support under the government agricultural scheme, agricultural activities have become one of the most important industries that contribute to Malaysia's economy. As reported by Malaysian Palm

Oil Council (MPOC), Malaysia is one of the world's largest palm oil exporters and currently accounts for 39% of world palm oil production and 44 % of world exports

(MPOC, 201 0). The expanding of oil palm plantation areas will result in attenuation

15 of forest cover which in turn becomes a threat causing habitat loss for wildlife

communities (Sodhi et al., 2010b).

Few studies on bird population of the oil palm plantation have been done that

focused on the effect of oil palm expansion (Fitzherbert et al., 2008) and

conservation efforts to reduce extinctions on bird species (Peh et al., 2005). As

reported by Peh et al. (2005), Koh & Wilcove (2008) and Fitzherbert et al. (2008),

oil palm plantation sustains a small number of bird species as compared to forest and

other tree crops. They concluded that the only way to avoid the critical loss of

biodiversity was to stop the conversion of forest areas and strictly use existing

cropland and degraded habitats for oil palm plantation. Related study by Aratrakorn

et al. (2006) had tried to evaluate the changes in bird communities following

conversion of lowland forest to oil palm plantation in southern Thailand. They have

confirmed that the forest birds including woodpeckers, barbets, broadbills, leafbirds

and babblers were poorly represented in the plantations.

Other than oil palm, Malaysia is also dominated by paddy field cultivation.

Rice is the staple food for Malaysians and many other developing countries

(Bambaradeniya et al., 2004). Malaysia's traditional landscape is covered by paddy fields with a total area of 673,745 ha (MOA, 2010). Between 2005 and 2010, there were only a small number of researches related to the biodiversity of paddy field being conducted. This was also stated by Guadagnin et al. (2005), mentioning the lack of ecological study on waterbird assemblages in fragmented wetlands and its documentation. Example of studies that have been carried out within this interval period were breeding behavior and reproductive success of Grey-headed lapwing in

16 paddy field in central Japan (Takahashi & Ohkawara, 2007), the effects of landscape

on waterbird densities in California paddy fields (Elphick, 2008) and the study of

paddy field as breeding habitat for threatened bird species (Sundar, 2009).

These studies have highlighted the importance of paddy field cultivation

areas that served as breeding habitat for waterbirds. Paddy fields can also uphold the

most diverse and abundant amount of breeding waterbirds in the world as shown in

Southwestern Louisiana (Pierluissi et al., 2010). This has proved that paddy field

ecosystem exhibits a good habitat potential to support diverse bird groups. Based on

this information, more studies should be carried out in order to know the current

situation ofbird diversity in Malaysia's paddy fields.

2.3 Bird feeding guilds: characteristics and variations

The use of bird guilds as an indicator of habitat changes is commonly

practised worldwide. Guild is defined as "a group of species that exploit the same class of environmental resources in the same way" (Simberloff & Dayan, 1991).

Guilds represent a functional group between a group of species and ecosystem

(Iongh & Weerd, 2006). In this study, feeding guild has been chosen as the

functional group in the observation of the bird communities' changes with habitat

change. Bird feeding guilds are differentiated based on the differences in their diet pattern; carnivores (raptors), frugivores (fruit-eaters), insectivores (insect eaters), nectarivores (nectar feeders), granivores (seed eaters) and omnivores (general feeders). These feeding guilds will respond differently towards human disturbances

and habitat changes.

17 Bird feeding guilds are different between habitats across tropical regions

(Karr, 1980). A study by Poulin et al. (1994) in north-eastern Venezuela revealed

that five parameters have been identified to influence the variation in feeding guilds, which include (1) the number of species that exists in the habitat, (2) proportion of transient individuals (migratory species), (3) seasonal variation (e.g. fruiting season),

(4) bird' s body size and ( 5) total biomass of the habitat. Their study also confirmed

these five factors were also related to diet characteristics in terms of the food type

consumed and diet variations, at the species level. Besides, Johnson & Sherry (2001)

and Renton (200 1) suggested that differences in food availability among habitats lead to distinct differences in the diet of bird species and also variation in temporal and

spatial bird distribution.

As added by Pearman (2002), (6) forest cover and (7) vegetation structures

are the components that determined the variation in feeding guilds composition. For instance, in Amazonian forest, nectarivores, shrub-layer frugivores, and ant­

following birds are captured in areas with relatively low primary forest cover, meanwhile shrub-layer insectivores, shrub-layer omnivores, and birds probing dead foliage for large insects tend to be captured in areas of relatively high primary forest cover (Pearman, 2002). In addition, Chettri et al. (2005) have proven that different feeding guilds have showed preferences for diverse habitats. This suggests that the

diversity of feeding guilds is directly related to the habitat conditions. Table 2.1

showed example of feeding guilds with different habitat preferences.

18 Table 2.1 Feeding guilds with different habitat preferences (Chettri et al. 2005)

Feeding guilds Habitat preferences Insectivore High closed canopy and dense vegetation, these provide high tree density and basal area. Frugivore Abundant under open canopy conditions due to high visibility of fruits Carnivore Prefered to habitat with vertical complexities which this situation promote suitable area for nesting birds and small mammals as prey for them Nectarivore Prefered to habitat that receive moderate disturbance with more flowering plants under open conditions Granivore Prefer more disturbed and open habitats due to large seed banks Omnivore Prefer open canopy habitat and also habitat with distinct stratification which sustain high food sources

Changes in feeding guilds are also influenced by habitat destruction that is mostly induced by human activities. More studies on this issue are further reviewed in the following subtopic.

19 2.3.1 Effect of habitat changes on feeding guilds

Many past literatures have tried to relate bird feeding guilds with habitat

changes to demonstrate the impact on bird community. According to Sodhi et al.

(2008), forest structure and food abundance could change the breeding cycle of some

bird groups. In addition, Zakaria et al. (2009) reported the information on bird

feeding guilds could help in determining the population trends. There are several

reviews on bird feeding guilds from 1990's to 2010 that have discussed in detail

about the effects of disturbance or loss of tropical rainforest on birds (Canaday,

1996; Aratrakorn, et al., 2006; Gray et al., 2006; Sodhi et al., 2008), respond of

frugivores bird to fruit harvesting activity (Moegenburg & Levey, 2003), food habits

of raptor (Louren<;o & Sergio, 2006), investigation on frugivores bird in facilitating

germination of invasive plants (LaFleur et al., 2009), and feeding guilds composition

in wetland reserve (Zakaria et al., 2009). From these reviews, they have come out

with one concrete conclusion stating that the bird feeding guilds respond differently

according to the different habitats where they lived.

A study by Miller et al. (2003) found that the riparian areas in western North

America should be conserved because urbanization of the area could affect the birds that forage for insects or seeds. This study was conducted due to concerns on the

increase of human settlement in lowland riparian areas of Colorado (USA). In contrast, according to Levey (1988) and Gonzalez Varo (2010), habitat

fragmentation did not have any influence on the abundance and composition of frugivore assemblage. This situation occurred because frugivore species (1) can move easily across habitat fragmentation, (2) tolerate at least temporally in disturb

20 habitat and (3) feed on several fruits species (generalist frugivore) (Harris & Pimm,

2004). Besides, bird communities in riparian areas were reported to be an important indicator for stream health. Parameters such as birds' physical measurements, longevity, feeding and breeding strategies have been used to classify stream condition (Larsen et a!., 2010). A combination of information between a simple count data of bird communities and riparian areas could also be used as indicator for stream condition that is surrounded by agriculture plantations. More changes in bird feeding guilds due to the alteration of ecosystems are shown in Table 2.2.

21 Table 2.2 Studies that assess the impact of human disturbance on bird feeding guilds together with information on the method used.

Source Country Census type Treatment Impact on Vegetation and effort birds ~arameters Lambert Malaysia M,TC L/U Negative on d,h 1992 species richness. Danielsen Indonesia TC: 2000 m FILlA Negative on & (Sumatra) specialized Heegaard insectivores. 1995 Johns Malaysian M:100 hours L/U Negative on sd, dbh, 1996 (Borneo) TC: 500 m terrestrial insectivore and insectivore- frugivore. Insectivore- frugivores generalist and large frugivore survived in logged forest. Canaday Ecuador M: 10 LIA Negative on 1996 SR insectivores. Parody et USA History of 50 years Ground- al. 2001 (Michigan) ornithological of omnivores surveys landscape species change increased in sizes over time. Number of aerial and hovering insectivores species declined. Pearman Ecuador M:5060 FILlA Nectarivores dbh, d, bta 2002 hours relatively low in primary forest. Insectivores & omnivores relatively high in primary forest cover

22 Table 2.2 Continued

Source Country Census type Treatment Impact on Vegetation and effort birds J!arameters Luck& Costa SR A Frugivores fr Daily Rica differed 2003 significantly among agriculture. Large frugivores were common visitors to trees in high intensity agriculture sites. Small frugivores declined with distance from large rain forest. Laurance Brazil M: mark- F!GIE Total bird ch, cf, It, 2004 recapture, capture and dps 1000 hours captured_ insectivores increased with distance from edge while capture of frugivores and nectarivores did not vary significantly. Lim& Singapore TC: 29 A/HL Negative on Sodhi insectivores and 2004 carnivores. Frugivores were favored by low- density housing. Omnivores did not prefer more urbanized sites. Positive. on. gran1vores m high public housing Peh eta!. Malaysia PC: 40,200 F/L!Mx Arboreal fr, fl, cf, 2005 () m apart frugivores & dbh, It, bta, omnivores, and d insectivores showed persistence in Mx.

23 Table 2.2 Continued

Source Country Census type Treatment Impact on birds Vegetation and effort ~arameters Harvey Nicaragua PC: 100m FlU High abundance dbh, cf, h et al. apart and species 2006 richness of birds associated with high tree cover was largely explained by the presence of many frugivores and insectivores s ec1es Felton Bolivia PC: 360 L/U Negative on dbh,d,cf et al. species richness, 2008 insectivore and frugivore Sigel et Costa History of L Negative on a!. Rica ornithological insectivores and 2010 surveys ground/understorey nesters Sodhi Southeast L/U Negative on et al. Asia species richness 2010a (review and paper) abundance/density of forest-dependent

Explanation of the abbreviations: Census types; M: Mist netting, PC: point counts, SR: spot recordings (auditive or visual), TC: transect counts. Treatments and effort; F: forest, G: gaps, L: logged forest, U: unlogged forest, Mx: Mix rural habitat, A: agriculture, E: forest edge, HL: Human landscapes, T: Total effort of all plots. Vegetation parameters; bta: basal tree area, ch: canopy height, cf: cover of foliage in one or more strata, d: density of vegetation, dbh: diameter at breast height, dps: distance from sampling point, fl: flower production, fr: fruit production, ft: forest type, h: height, sd: stem density, lt: leaflitter depth

24 Past studies had shown that bird feeding guilds could be a strong indicator on the effect of human disturbance on birds since this functional group had been used worldwide. Bird feeding guilds are frequently assessed because of the considerable information existing in past literatures that makes these functional groups easier to study. Many studies had compared and analyzed their observation between logged and unlogged forest, forested areas and agricultural areas, or forested areas and human landscapes and overall had shown important results for future reference and conservation. None of these studies had tried to identify the changes in bird feeding guilds if forested areas are converted into agriculture plantation and man-made wetland areas. Here we see the gap and attempt to assess the impact of human disturbance in these types of areas. In addition, past studies in Malaysia had only covered east Malaysia and southern Peninsular Malaysia, while the northern area still lacks examination.

2.4 Bird studies in Malaysia

Malaysia is a small tropical country located on the equatorial line. This country is rich with the existence of various birds' species. More than 746 bird species exist in Peninsular Malaysia and also and in Borneo

(MacKinnon, 1993; Wells, 1999 & 2007). Most of the recent bird studies that have been conducted in Malaysia mainly focused on affected forest habitats caused by activities such as logging and habitat conversion. Very few studies have been found to focus on other habitat types such as agricultural plantation and wetland areas in

Malaysia as scope of the present study. However, the study ofbirds in this country is constantly growing.

25 The quantibility of resources to sustain healthy bird groups and feeding guilds characteristics of a particular habitat is very important. A study on the keystone characteristics of bird-dispersed Ficus in Malaysian lowland rain forest has been conducted by Lambert & Marshall (1991). In this study, a total of 307 fruiting Ficus in 74 ha of lowland forest at Kuala Lompat was monitored monthly for three years.

They found that Ficus was a keystone plant that plays a critical function in the forest ecosystem because of its ability to sustain frugivorous animal species and communities, especially during the non-fruiting season. Ficus was identified to be fruiting abundantly and ripening relatively within short intervals between fruiting times. These characteristics have made Ficus as the most important keystone plant resource in Malaysia. Near-threatened Pycnonotidae species such as Scaly-breasted

Bulbul (Pycnonotus squamatus) and Grey-bellied Bulbul (Pycnonotus cyaniventris) rely heavily on Ficus trees; mainly Ficus glabella and Ficus sumatrana (Wells,

2007). These species are likely to be affected by logging activity as it could damage fig supplies, a very important food source for them.

In early 21st century, bird studies in Malaysia mainly concentrated on species and feeding guild changes that are affected by forest disturbances. For example, a comparison study of woodpecker abundance in logged and unlogged dipterocarp forest was conducted in a selectively logged forest (40 years ago) and in adjacent primary forest at Pasoh Forest Reserve (Styring & Ickes, 2001). The results showed a significant difference in the woodpecker communities between the two forest types where Meiglyptes tristis, Reinwardtipicus validus and Dryocopus javensis were significantly more common in primary forest and only one species, Picus mentalis, was significantly abundant in the logged forest. Criteria like low density of standing

26 dead and dying trees in the logged forest might have influenced the low persistence

of the woodpeckers (Styring & Ickes, 2001). Another similar study done by Styring

& Zakaria (2004) which took place in Pasoh Forest Reserve and

Forest Reserve, showed diverse guilds of woodpeckers identified in areas with wide

range of resources. The diversity of Malaysian woodpecker was high in forest areas,

but low in disturbed habitat (Styring & Zakaria, 2004).

Another study on the selective logging forest of Ulu Muda Forest Reserve,

Kedah (Zamri & Zakaria, 2002) has documented that the number of babbler groups

and high foliage gleaner insectivore were reduced immediately after logging

activities took place. This is in accordance with the findings by Zakaria et al. (2005)

in three different forest types at Sungai Lalang Forest Reserve; primary forest, five

and 10 year-old logged forest. They found that insectivorous species had decreased

in the logged forest while frugivore-insectivore and nectarivore-insectivore guilds

had increased in number. This is again in line with the recent study which attempts to examine the effect of habitat fragmentation on bird feeding guilds in forested areas

of Lake Kenyir, (Yong et al., 2011). The study showed that

insectivorous birds were the most sensitive feeding guild towards fragmentation,

followed by frugivorous and omnivorous species.

In southern Peninsular Malaysia, investigation on the persistence of forest

birds were studied in two primary forests, two logged forests and two mixed-rural habitats in Sungei Bantang and Gunung Belumut, Johor. The results have revealed that only 73-75% of primary forest bird inhabited the selective logged forest with an

increased proportion of dominant species, and only 28-32% of the forest bird utilized

27 the mixed-rural habitat (Peh et al., 2005). In addition, most small, arboreal frugivore

and omnivore, and insectivore species that feed on tree trunks showed greater

persistence in the mixed-rural habitat than the ground-dwelling bird species. This is

because ground-dwelling bird species has restricted habitat range as compared to

other bird groups. Another study highlighted bird families that were sensitive to

habitat disturbance, namely Picidae, Muscicapidae and Timalidae (Lee et al., 2005).

These bird families are exclusively dependent on the primary forest and understorey microhabitats, and have narrow and restricted altitudinal ranges. Hence, they are very

susceptible to habitat loss and fragmentation.

Phenology or life cycle study of tropical birds has also been conducted in

Peninsular Malaysia. As an example, an assessment of breeding and molting occurrence, and diets of understorey birds in unlogged and logged forest (30 year­ old) revealed the breeding cycle of sensitive indicator group (understorey residents birds), highly reliant on food abundance and forest structure (Ichinose et al., 2007).

This indicates understorey resident birds could be highly threatened by logging activities as compared to other bird groups. This is because their breeding cycle needs highly developed understorey areas to protect their nest from predators. In another study that focused on the assessment of bird distribution and diversity in forest gap and closed canopy areas in Botanic Garden has shown that the birds in gap areas were significantly higher as compared to closed canopy (Nik

Fadzly et al., 2007). Treefall gaps that create distinct microhabitat are able to attract many birds due to the abundance of food resources and most likely the nesting materials such as woody debris and litters (Nik Fadzly et al., 2007).

28 Apart from the study of birds in forested areas, two bird surveys have been conducted in the largest rice granary area that is known as Muda rice ecosystem

(Maimon & Ho, 1998; Nik Fadzly & Shahrul, 2009). This paddy field is located in the Muda Agricultural Development Authority (MADA) areas which covers both

Kedah and states. According to Maimon and Ho (1998), mist-netting records of some pest and non-pest paddy field birds and total record showed that Muda rice ecosystem sustains fairly abundant bird populations. Study by Nik Fadzly & Shahrul

(2009) has found that the Muda rice ecosystem was dominated by Passer montanus due to the ample supply of rice grains. Besides paddy field, Peh et al. (2005) which examine feeding guilds in mix-rural habitats (oil palm plantation, rubber tree estates and fruit tree stands) in Johor. The result showed small, arboreal frugivores and omnivores species that feed from tree trunks have greater persistence in mix-rural habitats than the ground dwelling bird species. Most of the studies have confirmed the birds with high tolerance of habitat disturbance and have wide range of dietary guilds were able to survive in changed environment.

Bird communities in Malaysia are now facing a critical problem of habitat loss that may lead to extinction. Since forested areas in Malaysia are actively being converted into agricultural land, resident and migrant bird communities are affected at the same time. Therefore, more studies of birds in different habitats are necessary.

Information from these studies can be used in sustainable plan and management in order to meet human needs while at the same time preserving habitat for birds and other wildlife community.

29 2.5 Mapping of suitability area for threatened species

Many birds have been identified as threatened species regionally and also

globally (Wells, 1999 & 2007). Most of them are threatened by habitat destruction

and degradation, over-exploitation, invasive exotic species, disease, pollution and

contaminant, climate change and other threats (Baillie et al., 2004). Malaysia is

identified as one of the biodiversity hotspots in the world in which it is dominated by

species with high levels of endemism but experiencing rapid rates of depletion

(Myers, 1988). Therefore conservation programs and strict regulations need to be implemented before the threatened species become extinct. There are two types of conservation strategies; in-situ and ex-situ. In-situ conservation is defined as the

protection of natural habitats and the recovery of biological components in the

surrounding areas where they have developed their distinctive properties (Engelmann

& Engels, 2002). Ex-situ conservation means the protection of biological components outside their natural habitat (Yang & Yeh, 1992).

In this study, suitability area of threatened bird species will be obtained in order to conserve and protect primary forest left and secondary forest habitat of

Kerian River Basin which that has resulted from deforestation and agriculture activities. The map produced will be viable for in situ conservation strategy. It is important to know the factors affecting bird occurrence and also to choose the suitable methods to determine the suitability areas of concerned species (Store &

Kangas, 2001). Suitability mapping is often used to show potential zones of concerned species and to find out landscape properties of the preferred habitats

(Hirzel et al., 2002). This mapping is typically made based on adequate empirical

30 study which is usually expensive and time-consuming, especially in the case of rare species and large study areas. However, for this study the empirical data for all the threatened species is obtained from primary and secondary data.

One possibility is to use expert's knowledge whenever empirical data is unavailable. In this approach, suitability area mapping is estimated on the basis of expert judgments instead of empirical measurement data (Joerin et al., 2001). This method is known as Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA). In other part,

Geographical Information System (GIS) applications are frequently being used in producing information from different sources of spatial data (Malczewski, 2006).

These two distinctive areas of research, GIS and MCDA, can benefit each other (Carver, 1991; Chakhar & Martel, 2003). The purpose of using MCDA methods is to enable decision makers to evaluate a number of alternative choice possibilities on the basis of multiple criteria (Munda, 2005). These multiple criteria can be described as habitat factors that can influence the occurrence of a threatened species. The integration of GIS-MCDA can be viewed as a process that transforms and combines spatial data and value judgments (the decision-maker's evaluation) in order to gain information for habitat suitability mapping (Malczewski, 2006).

Past ecological and environmental studies have used GIS and MCDA approach for conservation programs. As an example, forest conservation plan at a landscape scale in the Kinabalu Park, Sabah, Malaysia (Phua & Minowa, 2005).

Integration of both approaches was able to identify a new protected area (4361 ha) up to the west of the park where movement and animal interaction can be facilitated. It

31 can be implemented by constructing a corridor to the western boundary of the park,

enlargement of the park with inclusion of 359 ha of forested areas and strengthening

legislation to conserve the riparian forest at the state and national levels.

Study by Geneletti (2004) also used both GIS and MCDA techniques to

identify nature conservation priorities among the remnant ecosystem within an alpine

valley. The primary objective of the paper was to exemplify and discuss the

effectiveness of MCDA for nature conservation. Multi-criteria decision analysis

(MCDA) was used in guiding the identification of conservation priorities starting

from a limited set of ecological data. Four steps were involved in the process of

identifying the nature conservation priorities; (1) determination of criteria to evaluate

the forest remnants, (2) evaluation of criteria and setting-up of a GIS database, (3)

multi -criteria analysis and priority ranking of the forest remnants and (4) generation

and analysis of conservation scenarios and decision making. In conclusion, the GIS

and MCDA techniques presented in this study focused on conservation effort.

However the identification of nature-conservation sites also involves the sociO­

economic aspects. Similarly, in this study the suitability area map for several near­ threatened Pycnonotidae will be processed through the integration of GIS and

MCDA approach as implemented by Genelleti (2004) but customized to the study

sites.

32 2.6 Bird conservation in Malaysia

Reduction of bird population is now at an alarming rate worldwide (Zagt et al., 201 0). The major cause of the reduction is a direct result from human activities

(Sodhi et al., 201 Oa). Yong et al. (20 11) assessment on the impact of habitat fragmentation on tropical bird communities in forest sites in Lake Kenyir,

Terengganu, showed the assemblages of insectivorous bird to be depauperate on the habitat that received anthropogenic activities. In their conclusion, conservation of insectivorous species in intact forest was important in order to maintain ecosystem balance in lowland tropical forest (Y ong et al., 2011 ).

Conservation is an initiative that includes public education, sustaining livelihoods and ways to enhance the sustainability of agriculture and increase the capacity of conservation institutions (Sodhi et al., 201 Ob ). In Malaysia, there are a few conservation organisations that have made their mission to conserve Malaysian birds. The Malaysian Nature Society (MNS)-Bird Conservation Council (BCC) is a well known organisation that actively promoting and organizing conservation projects. Apart from conservation projects, MNS-BCC also produced a bulletin, twice a month which is called "Suara Enggang" in Malay or voice of the hombills

(Kudus, 2011 b). This bulletin is a medium to share with the public on the latest news about bird observation, new birding areas and the conservation issues facing

Malaysian birds.

33 In the latest Suara Enggang (Vol. 1911 ), several activities on conservation effort has been reported which include the project of Raptor Identification

Workshops and Surveys, Kapar Power Station Waterbird, Waterbirds and Wetland

Habitats Survey of the Sarawak Coast, Monitoring of Raptor Migration at Tanjung

Tuan (Spring 2011 ), Monitoring of Raptor Migration at Taiping (Autumn 2011) and

Fraser's Hill International Bird Race (Kudus, 2011a). All these projects are important to encourage conservation and education and also to promote wider interest and appreciation of wild birds.

Besides, in 2006, MNS has launched a campaign to save 266,000 ha of

Belum Temenggor Forest Complex which is located at northern region of Perak.

According to Chye (2010), in 2007, upper area of Belum received legal protection from state authority with the establishment of the 11 7,500 ha Royal Belum State

Park. This area remains as one of the sanctuaries for 10 species of Malaysian hornbills with six of them near-threatened species which include Rhinoceros

Hornbill (Buceros rhinoceros), Great Hornbill (B. bicornis), Helmeted Hornbill

(Rhinoplax vigil), White-crowned Hornbill (Aceros comatus), Wrinkled Hornbill (A. corrugatus) and Black Hornbill (Anthracoceros malayanus) (Chye, 2010). As stated by Kaur et al. (2011) in a survey of mass movement of the Vulnerable Plain-pouched

Hornbill in the Belum Temenggor Forest Complex, the highest number of A. subruficollis counted was 3,261 individuals while the lowest number was 595 individuals in a single count.

34 MNS has also identified Important Bird Areas (IBAs) for conservation action in Malaysia. According to Yeap et al. (2007), selection of IBAs must have one (or more) of the three things; (1) hold significant numbers of one or more globally threatened species, (2) are suited for restricted-range species or biome-restricted species and (3) have exceptionally large numbers of congregatory species (large concentrations of birds during one or more seasons, either breeding, wintering/migratory season). Currently, Malaysia possesses 55 IBAs, 18 of which are in Peninsular Malaysia, 14 in Sabah and 22 in Sarawak (Yeap eta/., 2007).

For instance, Tanjung Tuan, Port Dickson, is one of the established IBAs in

Malaysia. Decandido eta/. (2004) reported, counts of migrating Merops philippinus and M viridis as well as raptors species at Tanjung Tuan, showed a total of 2,226

1 1 bee-eaters (12.9 bee-eaters h- ) and 11,441 raptors (66.5 raptors h- ) were counted during spring migratory season in March 2000 and March 2001. This indicates that the establishment of IBAs would help to conserve areas that are critically important for migratory as well as resident species. The other conservation strategies exist in

Malaysia includes in-situ conservation, i.e. National and State Park, and Wildlife

Santuaries; and ex-situ conservation, i.e. zoos, rehabilitation and captive breeding centres. Both conservation strategies are beneficial to protect birds and other wildlife.

As suggested by Ahmad (2009), endangered species of wildlife and plants have aesthetic, ecological, educational, historical, recreational and scientific values to the country and local people. Thus conservation efforts such as the recognition of biodiversity hot spots, establishment of endemic bird areas, rehabilitation center, and

35 eco-parks are beneficial to endangered species and humans. The recreational area in

Larut Matang Mangrove Forest, Perak, is a productive ecosystem that harbours various marine species and well known location for bird-watching activity (Ahmad,

2009). This area provides many benefits to local residents such as returns from fish and shrimp catching, cockle rearing, timber harvesting and non-timber products

(Ahmad, 2009). According to Primavera & Esteban (2008) the New Buswang

Mangrove Eco-Park in Philippine has attracted 3,000 local and foreign guests and earning Philippine peso (PhP) 300,000 through entrance fees in 2005. Therefore, both studies proved conservation efforts are beneficial not only for threatened wildlife but also for human.

Since Malaysia poses different habitat types which are inhabited by different bird groups, located on the Australasian cross-migratory paths and an establishment of parks and reserves, it is no wonder Malaysia has emerged as bird watching haven

(Strange & Jeyarajasingam, 1999). Realizing the economic potential of bird watching, this activity has become one of the tourism attractions for Malaysia. For example, Taman Negara is one of Malaysia's premier national parks that is well known for eco-tourism which provide outdoor activities such as bird watching, cave exploration, wildlife viewing, jungle trekking and fishing (Abdul Rahman & Daud,

2011). The other bird watching sites in Malaysia include and

Fraser's Hill, ; Gunung Mulu National Park and Lambir Hills National Park,

Sarawak; and Kuala Gula Bird Sanctuary, Perak. Continuous conservation effort on these sites is important to protect wildlife community and also able to give good economic returns to the country.

36 CHAPTER3

MATERIALS AND METHODS

3.1 Study areas

The study was conducted at several sites in Kerian River Basin. Three different habitat types were selected: secondary forest, oil palm plantation and paddy field. These sites are located along the main channel of Kerian River.

3.1.1 Kerian River Basin

Kerian River Basin (5.1580°N, 100.4554°E) is located in the northern states of Peninsular Malaysia (Figure 3.1) and flows through three states; Pulau Pinang,

Perak and Kedah. The major land uses are agricultural area which defined as crop cultivation area for human use i.e. oil palm plantation and rubber plantation; development area with new industries; forest reserves are protected areas; industrial area and settlement area which dominated by human houses.

37 MAP ()til' STUOV SfftS fN KERrAN Rf\IE'R BASIN, PERAK. NOfltnt t-e:Nit.ISULAIII MALAYSIA Legend ~F_.

~ 01 P_..m Pt..t-.on BPtlddyFtekf -A9<>c--Ken

-~"-lnduMna!IA,.. -·-So

N A

0 1 2 "'"

Figure 3.1 Location ofthe study area within Kerian River Basin (K.RB): (a) Map of Malaysia; the study site ofK.RB is shown in red box; (b) Map of Kerian River Basin with locations of three different habitat types.

38 The upper stream starts from Bintang Hijau Range in Ulu Selama, Perak and flows downstream to Straits ofMalacca with 115.46km in total length. There are six forest reserves located in the KRB area; Bintang Hijau Forest Reserve (Selama

District, Perak), Ijok Forest Reserve (Selama District, Perak), Gunung Inas Forest

Reserve (, Kedah), Gunong Bongsu Forest Reserve (Padang Terap

District, Kedah), Bukit Forest Reserve (Bandar Baham District, Kedah) and

Bukit Panchor Forest Reserve (Seberang Prai Selatan, Pulau Pinang).

According to Department of Agriculture Perak (DOAP) 2007, along the riparian areas of KRB, where the study sites are found, human activities such as agriculture (oil palm plantations and paddy fields), aquacultures, human settlements, and dairy farms have been identified as the most common causes of deforestation.

As stated in Table 3.1, in 2007 recorded a value of 314,428.45 metric tonnes of commodity crop produced where oil palm ranks the highest with

200,306.28 metric tonnes, followed by paddy, 109,724.92 metric tonnes, coconut,

4,345.85 metric tonnes and cocoa, 51.40 metric tonnes. Activities are usually found along the middle to the downstream area, while the upper stream of KRB is dominated by forested areas. In this study, secondary forest, oil palm plantation, and paddy field were the three habitat types selected. Each habitat represents dominant land that covers the upstream, middle stream and lower stream of Kerian River, respectively.

39 Table 3.1 Major commodity crop yield by districts in Perak (tonnes metric), 2007

CROP I

District Oil palm Paddy Coconut Rubber Cocoa I

Cluster O.Ciuster Cluster O.Ciuster Cluster O.Ciuster Cluster O.Ciuster Cluster O.Ciuster I Hulu Perak - - 59.42 ------Batang ------Padang Kuala 29,985.00 537,962.70 162.00 862.44 39.54 258.00 - 9580.42 - - Kangsar Larut, 996.01 83,115.31 459.42 1,225.00 - 340.71 - 6,172.37 - - Matang & Selama Kinta 128.00 5,722.85 - - 3.70 123.83 - 1,862.05 - 1.40 Hilir Perak 32,608.40 145,992.01 80,396.32 - 9,312.72 77,664.42 - - - -

Manjung 20,019.69 ..140,879.64 - - 1,233.47 453.89 - 23,265.82 43,61 1.60 ... · .. .KERIAN •t09;724.9Z ···.• ········.•· I ·.·.. ·~... .. - 5,128.80 195,177.48 - A,34S.85 ·•· . -· 51.40 Total 88,865.90 1,108,849.99 217,375.81 2,087.44 360,385.28 79,037.40 - 40,880.66 95.01 3.00 Overall Total 1,197,715.89 219,463.25 439,422.68 40,880.66 98.01

Source: Perak Database Book 2007 (DOAP, 2007) Note: 0-0utside

40 3.1.2 Secondary forest (SF)

This study site was located near the riparian part of the upper stream of KRB

(5.2631 oN 100.8217° E) at 180m above sea level (Plate 3.1). The nearest tributaries are Rambong River, Selama River and Si Puteh River. The study site covers 19.62 ha within 600 ha of secondary forest area. This forest was logged over 20 years ago

(Ismail, pers. comm. 2010). Most plants comprised of trees from the family

Dipterocarpaceae and stemless palm, Bertam (Eugeissona tristis). There is also an intact primary forest located adjacent to the secondary forest area. Several other habitat types such as rubber plantation and orchards are located 20 km from the study site. The villages' orchards are also located near the study site.

Wild animals inhabiting the primary forest frequently visit the secondary forest, especially during fruiting season. These include tiger (Panthera tigris), wild boar (Sus scrofa), sun bear (Helarctos malayanus), spectacled leaf monkey

(Trachypithecus obscurus) and elephant (Elephas maximus) (Ismail, pers. comm.

201 0). We identified the presence of these animals from either observation or pugmarks. The most common bird species found were Whiskered Treeswift

(Hemiprocne comata), Blue-eared Barbet (Megalaima australis) and Oriental Magpie

Robin (Copsychus saularis).

41 (a)

(b)

Plate 3.1 (a) and (b): Secondary forest, Ulu Selama, Perak

42 3.1.3 Oil palm plantation (OP)

The oil palm plantation was located near the middle stream ofKRB (5.23° N,

100.6885° E and 20 m above sea level) and covers 18 ha within 550 ha of oil palm plantation. The plantation was established 10 years ago and surrounded by roads, human settlements and many other oil palm plantations that are owned by private companies and individuals (Plate 3.2). Oil palm plantation and mixed vegetation occur on either side of the river banks, while secondary forest patches are found within 20 km radius of the area. Workers were frequently seen harvesting the oil palm fruit and applying fertilizers to the plants. The oil palm fruits were harvested every two weeks. Wild boars (Sus scrofa) and buffaloes (Bubalus bubalis) were commonly seen in this study site. Shrub and weeds make up most of the ground vegetation. The water level of KRB rise rapidly during rainy season and floods the riparian strip and able to reach a height of 1 meter from the ground.

43 (a)

(b)

Plate 3.2 (a) and (b): Oil palm plantation, Selama, Perak

44 3.1.4 Paddy field (PF)

The paddy field was situated at the downstream section of KRB (5.0949° N,

100.5307° E) at Bandar Baham district, Kedah. This study site was located 50 metres from the river bank and covered 19 ha with more than 10 paddy plots (Plate 3.3). The nearest village is Kampung Parit Teropong and most of the paddy fields are owned by the villagers. This paddy field were located close to mangrove and small forest patches with mixed vegetation. Bukit Panchor Forest Reserve was the nearest forested area in

Bandar Baham district.

The paddy in this area is planted and harvested twice a year. Usually, the harvesting seasons take place in June and December of every year. During the harvesting seasons, a large number of Eastern Cattle Egret (Bubulcus coromandus) were seen in the paddy plots. Pesticides and herbicides were used to prevent unwanted insects and weeds that can harm the crops' growth. Problems also arise when the plots of growing paddy plant are flooded by heavy rain which then requires the replanting of paddy. At each paddy plot, there was a bam owl box provided by the Department of

Agriculture for biological pest control. Paddy areas dominate most of the downstream ofKRB.

45 (a)

(b)

Plate 3.3 (a) and (b): Paddy field, Bandar Baharu, Kedah

46 3.2 Sample collection

Birds were surveyed at the secondary forest, oil palm plantation and paddy field by using standardized methods. The diversity and abundance count of birds were conducted through point count and mist netting methods (Johns, 1996; Blake & Loiselle,

2001; Wang & Finch, 2002; Waltert et al., 2004).

3.2.1 Point count method

The point count sampling method is one of the most popular bird survey techniques (Merola-Zwartjes & Delong, 2005; Johnson et al., 2009; Zakaria et al.,

2009). It has been used in various bird studies, for example, to study the effect of land use on bird species that required collecting data on bird species richness and relative abundance (Aratrakom et al., 2006). Observations were carried out and species of birds were identified through their vocalization and direct observation from 0700 hr to 1100 hr and 1630 hr to 1830 hr. The wind condition during bird survey must be weak to avoid tree branch movement that might affect the accuracy of bird spotting (Chettri et al.,

2005). The observation was made using Omicron Estavia binocular 8x40. Every individual or groups of bird species seen or heard would be identified immediately using the identification book, "A field guide to the birds of South-east Asia" (Robson, 2008).

Playbacks of recorded bird songs were used to assist in bird surveys. Point count survey stations were done twice a day to assess all birds occupying each habitat types. A total of 15 sampling points were established in secondary forest, oil palm plantation and paddy field.

47 Birds heard or seen were recorded at the 15 points sampling with 150m interval in secondary forest and oil palm, and 200 m interval in paddy field (Gregory et al.,

2004). The observation intervals were different at paddy field because the birds can be directly observed from extensive distance. At each point, the observation lasted for only

10 minutes and in waiting for two to three minutes at each point before the start of each counting. Care was taken to avoid recounting the same individual at a point.

Every bird species observed was recorded at unlimited distance (Selmi &

Boulinier, 2003). In order to avoid or minimize biases caused by different situation of observation, all censuses were made during fine and dry weather (Danielsen &

Heegaard, 1995) and conducted by the same observer. Observer underwent two months training period to sharpen identification skills before the first month of sampling period started. Birds in flight were not recorded accept for family Accipitridae, Apodidae,

Hemiprocnidae and Hirundinae since they were rarely found perching on trees (Amano et al., 2008).

3.2.2 Classification of feeding guilds and families

Data on these attributes are collected from various sources. Taxonomic data is compiled from Wells ( 1999 & 2007) and Robson (2008). Guild information mainly followed Wells (1999 & 2007); if unavailable, the species is assigned into dietary guilds based on field observations of foraging and dietary information from the literature.

Definitions of bird feeding guilds are explained in Table 3.2.

48 Table 3.2 Definitions of bird feeding guilds (Lim & Sodhi, 2004; Sigel et al. 2010)

Feeding guilds Definitions Carnivore Birds that feed mainly non-insect animals (e.g. fish, lizard) Insectivore Birds that feed predominantly on insects and small arthropods Frugivore Birds that feed predominantly on fruits Nectarivore Birds that feed floral nectar Granivore Birds that feed on grains/seeds from the ground or off plants Omnivore Birds that ate various combination of food sources, e.g. House Crow (Corvus splendens), primarily human refuse and fruits Insectiviore-frugivore Birds that ate a combination of two food sources, such as insects and fruits Insectivore-nectarivore Birds that ate combination of two food sources, such as insects and floral nectar Insectivore-granivore Birds that ate a combination of two food sources, such as insects and grains

3.2.3 Mist-netting

Mist-netting is important to confirm the bird species recorded during the point count observation and help to capture bird species that is difficult to be seen or rarely vocalize (Zakaria et al., 2009). In secondary forest and oil palm plantation, 10 standard mist nets (9 m x 4 m with three pockets) were placed at different locations in every sampling visit. Nets were usually placed in potential flight corridors such as near to streams and logging roads (Meyers, 1993; Ralph et al., 2004) (Plate 3.4). Mist-netting was not done in paddy fields because in the first month of sampling session most nets were vandalised by local children and torn by macaques. Although netting effort could not be done, most birds in paddy field were successfully recorded through other approaches explained.

49 The operation of mist nets was largely depended on the weather (Derlindati &

Caziani, 2005). On windy days, mist nets were useless, as birds could either see the nets blowing or the wind kept the net sturdy enough so that the birds easily bounced off.

Nets were not operated if it was abnormally hot and heavy precipitations which cause water to be trapped on the nets. The nets were operated from 0700 h to 1800 h for three consecutive days. Throughout the sampling period, total hours of nets opened were 396 hours in secondary forest and oil palm plantation. Nets were frequently checked every two hours to ensure the birds captured were free from unnecessary wounds or death.

Captured birds were placed in cloth bags and measurements were taken. Bird census methodology is summarized in Figure 3.2.

Plate 3.4 Setting up mist net at the study site

50 I BIRD CENSUS I

Point count Mist-netting method

15 sampling points in I 0 mist nets were each habitat type with opened in secondary interval 150m (in forest and oil palm secondary forest & oil plantation near to point palm plantation) and count observation 200 m (in paddy field)

Two sessions ofbird Mist-net were checked observation once in every two hours (0700-11 00 h and 1630- (0700-1800 h) 1800 h)

Taxonomy identification and feeding guilds classification

Figure 3.2 Methodology of bird census in three different habitat types within Kerian River Basin

51 3.2.4 Bird measurement and handling

Birds captured were placed in cloth bags and handled with care. Measurements were taken as soon as possible to avoid any injuries to the bird. Measurements include body weight, length of tarsus, wing, mandible and bird's total length following the approach used by Robson (2008). Body weight was taken using a weight scale. All measurements were recorded for further identification and comparison.

3.2.5 Sampling duration

All habitats were surveyed within a period of twelve months, starting from

March 2009 to February 2010. Four consecutive days were spent in the field for every month's sampling period during the following dates (Table 3.3). Oil palm plantations and paddy fields were visited within the same dates due to their close distance.

52 Table 3.3 Dates of sampling session (March 2009- February 2010)

Sampling session Habitat type Month Date 1 Secondary forest 6-9 Oil palm plantation March 09 13-16 Paddy field 13-16 2 Secondary forest 3-6 Oil palm plantation April 09 20-23 Paddy field 20-23 3 Secondary forest 2-5 Oil palm plantation Mei09 14-17 Paddy field 14-17 4 Secondary forest 20-23 Oil palm plantation June 09 1-4 Paddy field 1-4 5 Secondary forest 9-12 Oil palm plantation July 09 27-30 Paddy field 27-30 6 Secondary forest 5-8 Oil palm plantation August 09 15-18 Paddy field 15-18 7 Secondary forest 28-30 Oil palm plantation September 09 2-5 Paddy field 2-5 8 Secondary forest 12-15 Oil palm plantation October 09 23-26 Paddy field 23-26 9 Secondary forest 20-23 Oil palm plantation November 09 15-18 Paddy field 15-18 10 Secondary forest 11-14 Oil palm plantation December 09 24-27 Paddy field 24-27 11 Secondary forest 15-18 Oil palm plantation January 10 8-11 Paddy field 1-11 12 Secondary forest 4-7 Oil palm plantation February 10 23-26 Paddy field 23-26

53 3.3 Data analysis

3.3.1 Species accumulative curve

Species accumulative curve indicates the number of new recorded species obtained at each time the sampling was conducted. The main purpose of species accumulative curve analysis is for determining the sampling effort sufficiency (K.reb,

1999). At the early stage of the sampling session, the curve raised sharply due to high number of new recorded species being found. In the middle stage of the sampling session, new recorded species was not found as frequent as in the early stage. At the last stage of the sampling session, the curve started to become a linear line which indicates there is no new recorded species and the site was sufficiently sampled. The species accumulative curve was obtained using Ecological Methodology software (Krebs, 1999).

3.3.2 Species diversity

Species diversity is an important measurement in various biological diversity works and ecological monitoring (Loreau et al., 2001; Herzog et al., 2002; Nik Fadzly et al., 2007; Tews et al., 2004). Several indices of species diversity are used in different biological research approach. Peet (1974) stated most diversity indices require an estimate of species importance either through numbers, biomass, cover or productivity.

The choice depends on the question being asked and the hypothesis tested. Krebs (1999) suggests using numbers as a measure of species importance. The increase of species number in a habitat increases with species diversity. The species diversity index used in this study is Shannon-Wiener Function or H' and the formula is stated as follows:

54 s H' = L(p.)(logzp.) i=l

where H' = Information content of sample (bits/individual) = Index of species diversity s = Number of species P• = Proportion of total sample belonging to ith species

Shannon-Wiener index indicates the diversity of sample based on the number of species and individuals. Thus, calculation of species diversity index in this study was useful to indicate the pattern of species composition in secondary forest, oil palm plantation and paddy field. The increase in index value indicates that, there are more species and that individuals are distributed more evenly among the species present

(Pearlstine et al., 2006). Species diversity involves three concepts; species richness, heterogeneity and evenness. All indexes were analyzed using Multi-Variate Statistical

Package (MVSP) and Ecological Methodology Software (Krebs, 1999).

3.3.3 Species richness

The concept of species richness is defined as the number of species in the community (Tramer, 1969; Krebs, 1999). The larger the sample, the greater the expected number of species (Peet, 1974). Based on the concept, species richness can simply be determined by the complete count of the number of species present. Complete count can only be done when for example bird communities are in small habitat areas and mammal communities. It is impossible to count every species of insects or bird

55 communities in large habitat areas. Thus, how can we measure species richness when we only have a sample ofthe community's total richness? The most frequent approach used to solve this problem is the rarefaction method. According to Krebs (1999), rarefaction is a statistical method for estimating the number of species expected in a random sample of individuals taken from a collection. In this study, numbers of individuals were reffered to numbers of observations. The rarefaction formula is stated as follows:

i=l

where E ( Sn) = Expected number of species in a random sample of n individuals S =Total number of species in the entire collection N. = Number of individuals in species i N =Total number of individuals in collection = .2: N. n =Value of sample size (number of individuals) chosen for standardization (n 5 N)

( NnJ = Number of combinations of n individuals that can be chosen

from a set of N individuals N! =----- n!(N-n)!

56 In this study, results for all habitat types were presented in the same rarefaction graph. Patterns of species richness between habitats were compared using sample-based rarefaction curves. Comparisons between habitats were standardized by the number of individuals. Peet (1974) suggested two well known indices to be used as richness measures which are Margalef and Menhinick. These indices were also documented for every habitat type. The Margalef and Menhinick formulas are stated as follow:

s Margalef richness: R== --­ LogN

Menhinick richness: R == _§_ JN

where S = Total number of species in the entire collection N =Total number of individuals in collection

3.3.4 Heterogeneity

A community that consists of 20 equally abundant species does not have the same diversity of other community with 20 species, one of which comprises 99% of the total individual (Krebs, 1999). This situation can be explained by the heterogeneity concept. Heterogeneity is synonymous with diversity because it consists of two separate ideas: species richness (as stated in 3.3.2) and evenness. According to Krebs (1999),

Simpson's reciprocal approach is the appropriate estimator to describe heterogeneity.

The formula is given as follow:

57 D=l-f[ n(n~l)] i=I N(N 1)

where n = Number of individuals of species i in the sample N =Total number of individuals in the sample= ,L n s = Number of species in the sample

This concept was used to evaluate the pattern of heterogeneity when secondary forest, oil palm plantation and paddy field are compared.

3.3.5 Evenness

Evenness is at maximal when all species have equal quantity in the community.

Mason et al. (2005) stated a low value of evenness in a community indicates that one or a few species are highly dominant, while others are present in very small amounts. The evenness value is ranged between zero to one. The commonly used evenness measure in the literature is calculated as follows:

D Evenness = -­ DMAX

where D = Observed index of species diversity DMAX = Maximum possible index of diversity, given S species and N individuals

58 In this study, evenness value was also used to evaluate the pattern of species quantity in different habitat types: secondary forest, oil palm plantation and paddy field.

3.3.6 Statistical analysis

Statistical analysis is used to account for the differences in sampling (i.e. number of individuals) among habitat types (Lee et a!., 2005). First, normality test for each sample was tested to determine the distribution curve. If p >0.05, normal distribution curve was assumed and proceeded to parametric test. If p <0.05, transformation was done to get a normal distribution curve. However, non-parametric test was used if transformation fails to get a normal distribution curve. In this study, statistical significant differences of the mean number of individual among the habitats are tested using One-way ANOVA (parametric test), Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney U-test

(non-parametric test). All data sets were analyzed using Statistical Package for Social

Science (SPSS version 11.5).

59 3.3. 7 Cluster analysis

Cluster analysis is a technique for grouping similar samples. Suggested by

Krebs (1999), cluster analysis is referred to in case of many samples to analyze and to group them with similar samples. In this study, cluster analysis was used to group habitats which exhibit similarity in species and feeding guilds. Euclidean distance coefficient was used for this clustering and a tree diagram was produced according to the unweighted pair-group mean arithmetic method (UPGMA) using MVSP software.

3.4 Mapping suitability area using Geographical Information System (GIS)

analysis

GIS analysis was used to map suitability area for two near-threatened species of

Pycnonotidae, namely Scaly-breasted Bulbul (Pycnonotus squamatus) and Grey-bellied

Bulbul (Pycnonotus cyaniventris). Overall, there were five steps involved in producing this map; (1) selection of near-threatened bird species, (2) factors selection, (3) distance analysis and Digital Elevation Model (DEM), (4) Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis

(MCDA) with Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) and (5) map validation. All analyses of GIS in this study were used IDRISI and Arc Map version 9.3.

60 3.4.1 Selection of near-threatened Scaly-breasted Bulbul (Pycnonotus squamatus)

and Grey-bellied Bulbul (Pycnonotus cyaniventris)

Pycnonotidae was selected for the mapping due to their high number found in

KRB and listed as near-threatened species by IUCN. Near-threatened is used for species that come close to meeting the thresholds for a threatened category (IUCN, 2011). Two near-threatened species of Pycnonotidae stated above were selected through information from the IUCN Red List Threatened Species (IUCN, 2011). They were categorized as near-threatened globally. This is summarized in Table 3.4 as follows:

Table 3.4 List of near-threatened birds in Kerian River Basin (Danielsen & Heegaard, 1995; Bishop, 2002; Wells, 2007; Sreekar et al., 2010; IUCN, 2011)

Species Conservation status (Regionally) and food sources Scaly-breasted Bulbul; Pycnonotus squamatus Near-threatened. Viability likely to be affected by logging damage to canopy fig supplies. Food sources include Ficus benjamina, F. glabella and F. sumatrana. Grey-bellied Bulbul; Pycnonotus cyaniventris Vulnerable. Likely to be affected by logging damage to canopy fig supplies. Food sources include small fruited riverside banyans, Ficus glabella, Ficus sumatrana and fruits of introduced shrub Climedia hirta.

61 3.4.2 Factors selection

In order to produce the map of suitability area, eight data were used to construct the database for GIS analysis. These factors are referred to as the variables that influence the threats on Pycnonotidae's occurrence in KRB. Factors were selected based on land uses and physical factors that were available in KRB. Information on factors used in this study is stated in Table 3.5 as follows:

Table 3.5 List of data selection for GIS analysis

Factors Group Type Scale Topography Physical Line 1:25,000 -river -contour Land use Land use Polygon 1:25,000 -forest -development areas -oil palm areas -houses -rubber plantation -paddy fields

Source: Ministry ofNatural Resources and Environment, Malaysia (NRE, 2008)

62 3.4.3 Distance analysis and Digital Elevation Model (DEM)

Land use factors of an area are factors that influence the occurrence of

Pycnonotidae. For example, most of near-threatened Scaly-breasted Bulbul (Pycnonotus squamatus) (SBB), and Grey-bellied Bulbul (Pycnonotus cyaniventris) (GBB) are likely to occur in forest area and frequently absent in development areas (Robson, 2008). In other words, number of near-threatened SBB and GBB decreases with forest distance and increases with development areas. Distance analysis tool in GIS was used in producing map of distance from every land use factor and river. Meanwhile, for contour line, Digital Elevation Model (DEM) was developed to obtain continuous elevation values within hilly areas of Kerian River Basin. The step for distance analysis and DEM for physical and land use factors is shown in Figure 3.3 below.

63 Physical and Land use factors shapefile (.shp)

Clip with study area

River Contour Forest Development areas Oil palm plantation Houses Rubber plantation Paddy fields t Distance analysis for Digital Elevation land used factors Model (DEM) t Map of distance Represented as a from land used triangular irregular factors network (TIN)

Figure 3.3 Steps for distance analysis and DEM for physical and land use factors (Joerin et al., 200 I)

64 3.4.4 Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) with Analytical Hierarchy Process

(AHP)

Suitability area for SBB and GBB was determined by eight factors as mentioned above. Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) is used to determine which factor will have the highest influence for the habitat preference of near-threatened SBB and GBB.

Subsequently, in MCDA analysis, analytical hierarchy process (AHP) is used to compare which factors are the most important than others. In this process, pair-wise comparison method was used to determine the factor weights that specify the relative importance of each factor. This was achieved by conducting questionnaires that were distributed to experts in this field (Appendix A). They were bird expert from Malaysian

Nature Society (MNS), Universiti Sains Malaysia (USM), and Forest Research Institute

(FRIM). In the questionnaire, there is a scale from 1 to 9 that indicates the level of importance for each pair of factor. Table 3.6 explains the detail of the scale that was used in this survey.

Table 3.6 Scale for the level of importance for each pair of factor (Malczewski, 2006)

Intensity of importance Definition 119 Extremely not important 1/7 Very strongly not important 115 Strongly not important 1/3 Moderately not important I Equally important 3 Moderately important 5 Strongly important 7 Very strongly important 9 Extremely important

65 In the first step of pair-wise comparison method, a matrix of pmr-wtse comparison was obtained. This matrix was filled by the level of importance of the pair factor that has been determined by experts' views from the questionnaires. Each factor has a value that indicates how important they are for the habitat selection of the species involved. As an example, there are three factors, forest (F), distance from river (R) and elevation (E) in the prediction of bird suitability area. The matrix of pair-wise comparison is shown in Table 3.7 below.

Table 3.7 Example of matrix pair-wise comparison

Factor F R E F 1 3 5 R 113 1 2 E 115 112 1

In the second step, there were three stages involved in order to obtain each factor weight [Table 3.8 (a)-( c)]. (a) Firstly, calculate the sum of each column in the pair-wise matrix. (b) Secondly, each value in the matrix was divided with the total achieved in the beginning to obtain the normalized pair-wise comparison matrix. (c) Thirdly, the average of each value was calculated in normalized pair-wise comparison matrix by dividing each value with three (the number of multi-criteria for this case) (Malczewski,

1999). The factor weights that were obtained in the third phase indicate the relative

importance between those factor.

66 Table 3.8 Steps in calculation of pair-wise comparison method

First stage Second stage Third stage

Factor F R E F R E Weights

F 1 3 5 0.652 0.667 0.625 (0.652+0.667+0.625)/3 0.648

R 1/3 1 2 0.217 0.222 0.250 (0.217+0.222+0.250)/3 0.230

E 1/5 1/2 1 0.130 0.111 0.125 (0.130+0.111 +0.125)/3 0.122

Total 1.53 4.50 8.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Total 1.000

---- - (a) (b) (c)

67 In this example, forest has the highest score (0.648) which designates that the forest

is the most important factor, followed by river (0.230) and elevation (0.122) (Table

3.8c).

The calculation was continued to obtain the weighted sum (Table 3.8).

Values of weighted sum vector were started with the first weight value (c) multiplies

with the values in the first column (a), and repeat the same step for the second weight

value until the last weight value in the last column (c). Next, the weighted sum

vector was divided by the weights value and resulted in the consistency vector. The

calculation of consistency vector is shown in Table 3.9.

Table 3.9 Example of calculation for consistency vector

Factor Weighted sum vector Consistency vector F 0.648(1) + 0.230(3) + 0.122(5) = 1.948 1.948 I 0.648 = 3.007145 R 0.648(113) + 0.230(1) + 0.122(2) = 0.690 0.690 I 0.230 = 3.002627 E 0.648(115) + 0.230(112) + 0.122(1) = 0.367 I 0.122 = 3.001318 0.367

The value of Lambda (A.) and Consistency Index (CI) should also be calculated before obtaining the consistency ration. Lambda (A.) is equal to the average of the consistency vector [(3.007145 + 3.002627 + 3.001318) I 3 =

3.003697], while the CI value is computed using the equation 3.1 below.

CI = (A. - n) I n - 1 ...... 3.1

Where;

n = total number of factor

A.?:.n

68 Therefore, CI = (3.003697-3) I (3-1) = 0.001849. Finally the Consistency Ratio

(CR) is computed by using equation 3.2 below:

CR=CII RI ···················································· 3.2

Random Index (RJ) is the score that determines the number of factor accordingly.

This is shown in Table 3.10 that provides the RI score for n = 1, 2 ... 15. Therefore,

CR = 0.001849 I 0.58 = 0.0032. As explained by Malczewski (1999), CR describes the reasonable consistency of pair-wise comparison, if CR :5 0.1 means that the comparison matrix is consistent and if CR > 0.1 is vice versa. Thus in this example,

CR is 0.0032 and this conclude the pair-wise comparison from expertise view is consistent and acceptable.

Table 3.10 Scores for Random Index (RJ)

N RI N RI N RI 1 0.00 6 1.24 11 1.51 2 0.00 7 1.32 12 1.48 3 0.58 8 1.41 13 1.56 4 0.90 9 1.45 14 1.57 5 1.12 10 1.49 15 1.59

69 3.4.5 Map validation

The final map produced was categorized into three zones; low, medium and

high to indicate suitability areas for near-threatened Scaly-breasted

Bulbul (Pycnonotus squamatus) and Grey-bellied Bulbul (Pycnonotus cyaniventris)

(Table 3.11). This zone classification has been used by Traweger & Slotta-

Bachmayr (2005) in the habitat suitability mapping for Rattus norvegicus. The

validity of these zones was confirmed through primary and secondary data. Thirty

points of validation were distributed randomly in KRB areas. Primary and secondary

data represents 15 points each from the total of 30 points. The primary data was

collected during one month sampling period, while the secondary data was obtained

from a global bird database, i.e, Bird-i-witness (20 10). Percentage of near-threatened

SBB and GBB in each zone that was obtained from primary and secondary data was

calculated. Figure 3.4 summarize all the steps involved in GIS analysis to develop

suitable habitat for near-threatened SBB and GBB.

Table 3.11 Classification zone of suitability area for Scaly-breasted Bulbul (Pycnonotus squamatus) and Grey-bellied Bulbul (Pycnonotus cyaniventris)

Zone Definition Low quality Bird is nearly absent in these areas due to the absence of forested areas. Moderate quality This area was found to be a suitable habitat for near-threatened SBB and GBB. However, the area become moderate quality because it receives human disturbance and near to development areas High quality The most suitable area because this area meet all habitat requirement for near-threatened SBB and GBB to survive, such as abundance offruting fruits, complex vegetation for shelter and breeding areas

70 Multi-criteria layers: 1. River Distribution of Questionnaire 2. Forest 3. Contour (DEM) 4. Development areas 5. Oil palm plantation Expert's view 6. Houses 7. Rubber plantation 8. Paddy fields AHP analysis (to obtain weights score for factor)

Consistency Ratio (CR) < 0.1

Overlay the multi-criteria layers (map from distance analysis and DEM) with weight values by using the MCDA wizard step in IDRISI

Map of potential habitat for near­ threatened SBB and GBB

Figure 3.4 Process to produce the suitability area map by using GIS analysis with the MCDA procedure (Joerin et al., 2001; Chakhar & Martel, 2003)

71 CHAPTER4

RESULTS

In this chapter, bird data is divided into bird observation and bird netting.

Results are presented in the order of species accumulative curve (Topic 4.1) and bird

observation in three habitat types (Topic 4.2). The three following subtopics covered

detail explanation of birds observed in secondary forest (4.2.1), oil palm plantation

(4.2.2) and paddy field (4.2.3). These are followed by two other topics: temporal

bird abundance and richness across all sites (4.3), and details of near-threatened birds that were found in Kerian River Basin (4.4). Bird netting is further presented in topic

4.5. Topics 4.6-4.11 covered ecological indices and data analysis. The last topic presents suitability area of near-threatened Scaly-breasted Bulbul (Pycnonotus squamatus) and Grey-bellied Bulbul (Pycnonotus cyaniventris) (4.12).

4.1 Species accumulative curve

From all habitat types evaluated in every month of the sampling session, bird species has recorded an increment from March 2009 to February 2010 (Figure 4.1).

Secondary forest was noted as the habitat that showed the highest species accumulation, followed by paddy field and oil palm plantation. The highest increment of the bird accumulation in secondary forest was recorded in May 2009, with 19 species. As for the oil palm plantation and paddy field, the highest number of species recorded in April 2009 was 11 and nine species, respectively. At the end of one year sampling period (from January 2010 and December 2010), there was zero accumulation in oil palm plantation and paddy field. This revealed that while

72 secondary forest requires further sampling, most of the bird species in oil palm plantation and paddy field have been censused.

120

~ I 100 I 80 60 ~ - - I ?" • • 'I 40 • • • I 20 ~:: 0 Mac I Apr I May I Jun I July I Aug I Sept I Oct I Nov I Dec Jan I Feb 2009 2010 -+-SF 30 46 65 74 78 81 84 90 98 101 104 106 --OP 17 28 33 33 34 38 40 43 45 54 58 58 ...,_PF 41 52 55 59 61 64 66 67 68 70 70 70

Figure 4.1 Species accumulative curves; secondary forest (SF), oil palm plantation (OP) and paddy field (PF).

4.2 Bird occurrence and identification

The total ofbird species recorded in secondary forest, oil palm plantation and paddy field during observations (from March 2009 to February 2010) was 182 species from 48 families. All bird species were categorized according to the classification of family, scientific name, habitat and protection and conservation status following Strange & Jeyarajasingam (1999) (Appendix B). Bird species were divided into resident, migrant, resident and migrant, introduced and vagrant with the scores of 74.34%, 14.75%, 9.29%, 1.09% and 0.55%, respectively. Null hypothesis states that abundance of species is not different across habitat types while alternative hypothesis is vice versa. Statistical analysis showed the null hypothesis is rejected

73 while the alternative hypothesis is accepted with the abundance of species is different

across habitat types, F (2, 105) = 99.83, p < 0.05.

4.2.1 Secondary forest

In secondary forest (SF), a total of 106 bird species belonging to 33 families

were recorded (Appendix C). The highest abundance of bird species observed in SF

was Pycnonotidae (26.65%), followed by Hemiprocnidae (19.77%), Muscicapidae

(7.10%) and Aegithinidae (6.01%). Pycnonotidae was exemplified by 13 species of

bulbuls (Table 4.1) that fed on small berries, insects, small invertebrates and small

lizards. The Hemiprocnidae; Whiskered Treeswift (Hemiprocne comata) and Grey­

romped Treeswift (Hemiprocne longipennis) were usually seen either individually or

in a large flock perched on branches of tall trees. Whiskered Treeswift (Hemiprocne

comata) was often seen perched at the tip of a branch and return to the same branch

every time. Muscicapidae and Aegithinidae were usually spotted flying in the

middle of forest storey. The largest bird family recorded from the study was

Pycnonotidae (13 species) followed by Picidae (eight species), Cuculidae (eight

species), Nectariniidae (seven species), Timalidae (six species), Muscacipidae (six

species) and Dicaedae (six species).

74 Table 4.1 List of bulbul species observed in secondary forest

No. Common names Scientific names 1 Black-headed Bulbul Pycnonotus atriceps 2 Black-creasted Bulbul Pycnonotus flaviventris 3 Scaly-breasted Bulbul Pycnonotus squamatus 4 Grey-bellied Bulbul Pycnonotus cyaniventris 5 Striped-throated Bulbul Pycnonotus finlaysoni 6 Yell ow-vented Bulbul Pycnonotus goiavier 7 Olive-winged Bulbul Pycnonotus plumosus 8 Streak-eared Bulbul Pycnonotus blanfordi 9 Cream-vented Bulbul Pycnonotus simplex 10 Red-eyed Bulbul Pycnonotus brunneus 11 Spectacled Bulbul P~nonotus erythropthalmos 12 Ochraceous Bulbul Crini~er ochraceus 13 Hairy-backed Bulbul Hypsipetes criniger

Canopy layer was dominated by bird species such as Asian Fairy Blue-bird

(Irena puella), Blue-winged Leafbird (Chloropsis cochinchinensis), Gold-whiskered

Barbet (Megalaima chrysopogon), Red-throated Barbet (Megalaima mystacophanos) and Rhinoceros Hombill (Buceros rhinoceros). They are found in the upper storey to perch, forage and nest. Two species of Bucerotidae; Rhinoceros Hombill

(Buceros rhinoceros) and Wreathed Hombill (Aceros undulatus) were identified in secondary forest. In April 2009, a flock of Rhinoceros Hombill (Buceros rhinoceros) consisting of seven individuals was detected to perch from tree to tree of hilly sites heading to the south of the study areas. They were observed feeding on small fruits during perching. Within the sampling period, there was less than three pairs of Rhinoceros Hombill (Buceros rhinoceros) found to be a resident of this secondary forest. Rhinoceros Hombill (Buceros rhinoceros) was easily identified by the sound of their wing flapping either in the morning or late evening. Wreathed

Hombill (Aceros undulatus) was seen only three times within the sampling period.

During the first observation, both male and female Wreathed Hombill (Aceros

75 undulatus) were identified while flying across this site. They were spotted between

0700 and 0800 heading to the montane forest adjacent to the study areas and returned between 1800 and 1900 daily.

Low records ofTimaliidae were made within the 12 months of survey. Most

Timaliidae can only be detected through the audio recognition since they were hardly seen. Pin-strip-tit Babbler (Macronus gularis) was the commonest heard followed by Abbot's Babbler (Malacocincla abbotti), Horsfield Babbler (Trichastoma sepiarium), Puff-throated Babbler (Pellorneum ruficeps) and Chesnut-winged

Babbler (Stachyris erythroptera), while White-bellied Epomis (Erpornis zantholeuca) was only spotted twice. Several bird species detected only once are stated in Table 4.2. These are dominantly forest species.

Table 4.2 List of bird species recorded once during sampling sessions

No. Common names Scientific names 1 Changeable Hawk-eagle Spizaetus cirrhatus 2 Blyth's Hawk-eagle Spizaetus alboniger 3 Thick-billed Green Pigeon Treron curvirostra 4 Little Cuckoo-dove Macropygia ruficeps 5 Indian Cuckoo Cuculus micropterus 6 Banded Bay Cuckoo Cacomantis sonneratti 7 Drongo Cuckoo Surniculus lugubris 8 Greater Coucal Centropus sinensis 9 Sunda Pygmy Woodpecker Picoides moluccensis 10 Orange-backed Woodpecker Rheinwardtipicus validus 11 Lesser Cuckoo-shrike Coracina fimbriata 12 Pied Triller Lalage nigra 13 Crow-billed Drongo Dicrurus annectans 14 Bronzed Drongo Dicrurus aeneus 15 Southern Jun_gle Crow Corvus macrorhynchos 16 Mugimaki Flycatcher Ficedula mugimaki 17 Tickell's Blue Flycatcher Cyornis tickelliae 18 Asian Paradise-Flycatcher Terpsiphone paradisi 19 Long-billed Spiderhunter Arachnothera robusta 20 Yell ow-eared Spiderhunter Arachnothera chrysogenys 21 Streaked Spiderhunter Arachnothera magna 22 Rufescent Prinia Prinia rufescens

76 Throughout the sampling session in three different habitat types, 66 out of

106 (62.26%) bird species can only be found in the secondary forest (Table 4.3).

These birds were categorized as forests dependent which exclusively inhabit forested areas.

Table 4.3 List of bird species recorded exclusively in secondary forest

No. Family Common name Scientific name 1 Accipitridae Changeable Hawk-eagle Spizaetus cirrhatus 2 Blyth's Hawk-eagle Spizaetus albonif.{er 3 Falconidae Black-thighed Falconet Microhierax fringillarius 4 Columbidae Thick-billed Green Pigeon Treron curvirostra 5 Little Cuckoo-dove Macropygia ruficeps 6 Psittacidae Blue-crowned Hanging Parrot Loriculus f.{alf!:Ulus 7 Cuculidae Chestnut-breasted Malkoha Zanclostomus curvirostris 8 Indian Cuckoo Cuculus micropterus 9 Banded Bay Cuckoo Cacomantis sonneratti 10 Drongo Cuckoo Surniculus lugubris 11 Prionopidae Large wood Shrike Tephrodornis f.{ularis 12 Bucerotidae Rhinoceros Hombill Buceros rhinoceros 13 Wreathed Hombill Aceros undulatus 14 Megalaimidae Red-crowned Barbet Megalaima mystacophanos 15 Red-throated Barbet Megalaima mystacophanos 16 Brown Barbet Calorhamphus fulif.{inosus 17 Picidae Crimson-winged Woodpecker Picus puniceus 18 Banded Woodpecker Picus miniaceus 19 Buff-rumped Woodpecker Meif.{lyptes tristis 20 Grey-capped Woodpecker Picoides canicapillus 21 SundapygmyWoodpecker Picoides moluccensis 22 Grey and buff Woodpecker Hemicircus concretus 23 Orange-backed Woodpecker Rheinwardtipicus validus 24 Eurylaimidae Black-and-Yellow Broadbill Eurylaimus achroma/us 25 Campephagidae Bar-winged Flycatcher-shrike Hemipuspicatus 26 Black-winged Flycatcher-shrike Hemipus hirundinaceus 27 Aegithinidae Lesser Cuckoo-shrike Coracinafimbriata 28 Scarlet Minivet Pericrocotus speciosus 29 Ch1oropseidae Lesser Green Leafbird Chloropsis cynopof.{on 30 Greater Green Leafbird Chloropsis sonnerati 31 Blue-winged Leafbird Chloropsis cochinchinensis

77 Table 4.3 Continued

No. Family Common name Scientific name 32 Pycnonotidae Black-crested Bulbul Pycnonotus flaviventris 33 Scaly-breasted Bulbul Pycnonotus squamatus 34 Grey-bellied Bulbul Pycnonotus cyaniventris 35 Striped-throated Bulbul Pycnonotus .finlaysoni 36 Streak-eared Bulbul Pycnonotus blanjordi 37 Cream-vented Bulbul Pycnonotus simplex 38 Spectacled Bulbul Pycnonotus erythropthalmos 39 Ochraceous Bulbul Criniger ochraceus 40 Hairy-backed Bulbul Hypsipetes criniger 41 Dicruridae Crow-billed Drongo Dicrurus annectans 42 Bronze Drongo Dicrurus aeneus 43 Irenidae Asian Fairy-Bluebird Irena puella 44 Timaliidae Puff-throated Babbler Pellorneum ru.ficeps 45 Short-tailed Babbler** Malacocincla malaccensis 46 Horsfield's Babbler Trichastoma sepiarium 47 Abbott's Babbler Malacocincla abbotti 48 Grey-headed Babbler ** Stachyris poliocephala 49 Chesnut-winged Babbler Stachyris erythroptera 50 White-bellied Erpornis Erpornis zantholeuca 51 Acrocephalidae Arctic Warbler Phylloscopus borealis 52 Cisticoladiae Rufescent Prinia Prinia rufescens 53 Muscicapidae Mugimaki Flycatcher Ficedula mugimaki 54 Siberian Blue Robin** Luscinia cyane 55 Monarchidae Asian Paradise-Flycatcher Terpsiphone paradisi

56 Laniidae Tiger Shrike Lanius tigrinus 57 N ectariniidae Plain Sunbird Anthreptes simplex 58 Long-billed Spiderhunter Arachnothera robusta 59 Spectacled Spiderhunter Arachnothera .flavigaster 60 Yellow-eared Spiderhunter Arachnothera chrysogenys 61 Grey-breasted Spiderhunter Arachnothera qffinis 62 Streaked Spiderhunter Arachnothera magna 63 Dicaeidae Yellow-breasted Flowerpecker Dicaeum maculatus 64 Crimson-breasted Flowerpecker Dicaeum percussus 65 Yellow-vented Flowerpecker Dicaeum chrysorrheum 66 Plain Flowerpecker Dicaeum concolor

**Captured

78 Some bird species had appeared at certain time interval within a year. Some

species were found in a large flock roosting on branches of tall trees. Range between

0-11 observations of Grey-rumped Treeswift (Hemiprocne longipennis) were

recorded between March and September 2009 and the number increased to 115

observations in October 2009. However, the numbers decreased to 2-40 observations

between November 2009 and February 2010. Blue-crowned Hanging Parrots

(Loriculus galgulus) were recorded with 17 observations in November 2009 and

second time with seven observations in December 2009.

Among Accipitridae, Crested Serpent-eagle (Spilornis cheela) was highly

recorded and was frequently found soaring above the canopy level during mid-day.

The only Accipitridae perched on a tree during the sampling period was Blyth's

Hawk-eagle (Spizaetus alboniger) seen grooming after the rain. White-bellied Sea

Eagle (Haliaeetus leucogaster) was seen in air space of secondary forest during

preliminary study but is believed not a resident to this area. Most of the time, all

Accipitridae were observed thermalling and only a few times were they recorded to

perch individually on tall trees. Pycnonotidae was observed often in pairs and

sometimes up to five individuals were present in a flock. These birds usually

occupied the middle storey of forest. They feed mainly on berries and other fruits

and insects, also nectar and buds.

Two spec1es of Megalaimidae; Gold-whiskered Barbet (Megalaima

chrysopogon) and Blue-eared Barbet (Megalaima australis) dominated the upper

storey of the forest and were easily detected through their monotones song. Other

Megalaimidae including the Red-crowned Barbet (Megalaima mystacophanos) and

Brown Barbet (Calorhamphus fuliginosus) were spotted visiting the fruiting trees

79 near the riverside. Grey Wagtail, Motacilla cinerea (Motacillidae) and House

Swallow, Hirundo tahitica (Hirundinae) were often seen near the flowing stream and

on rocks during most of the observation period. Picidae family occupied the upper

storey of forest and moved either individually or in pair. For example, Banded

Woodpecker (Picus miniaceus) and Grey and Buff Woodpecker (Hemicircus

concretus) were seen pecking rapidly against the tree-trunks, creating sound akin to

'drumming'. Their main diets were ants, termites, pupae, beetle larvae and grubs and

sometimes fruit. Aegithinidae present five bird species and the most detected species

were Scarlet Minivet (Pericrocotus speciosus) and Ashy Minivet (Pericrocotus

divaricatus). Both species were recorded flying in small groups (up to seven

individuals) and frequently made rapid movement from one tree to another. Scarlet

Minivet (Pericrocotus speciosus) was commonly found during observations in the

evenmg.

Secondary forest was also visited by migratory birds. Normally, migratory

birds travelled from northern Asia to Malaysia from September to March, during the

northern autumn and winter season (Well, 1999; Robson, 2008; Wells, 2007). A

total of 11 migrant bird species were observed (Table 4.4). Oriental Dwarf

Kingfisher (Cexy erithacus), Crow-billed Drongo (Dicrurus annectans), Mugimaki

Flycatcher (Ficedula mugimaki), Tickell's Blue Flycatcher (Cyornis tickelliae) and

Asian Paradise-flycatcher (Terpsiphone paradisi) were spotted once during the

sampling duration. Brown Shrike (Lanius cristatus), Asian Brown Flycatcher

(Muscicapa dauurica) and Ashy Minivet (Pericrocotus divaricatus) were absent

between Jun-September 2009. Grey Wagtail (Motacilla cinerea) was seen between

September 2009-February 2010 while Tiger Shrike (Lanius tigrinus) was spotted in hilly areas twice in December 2009 and February 2010.

80 Table 4.4 Migratory bird species recorded in secondary forest

No. Common name Scientific name 1 Oriental Dwarf Kingfisher Cexy erithacus 2 Ashy Minivet Pericrocotus divaricatus 3 Crow-billed Drongo Dicrurus annectans 4 Arctic Warbler Phylloscopus borealis 5 Asian Brown Flycatcher Muscicapa dauurica 6 Mugimaki Flycatcher Ficedula mugimaki 7 Tickell's Blue Flycatcher Cyornis tickelliae 8 Asian Paradise-Flycatcher Terpsiphone paradisi 9 Grey Wagtail Motacilla cinerea 10 Brown Shrike Lanius cristatus 11 Tiger Shrike Lanius tigljnus

All Dicaeidae moved in pairs especially during food hunting. This

nectarivorous species was very small in size, typically seven em in total length, with

shortish bills and tails. The most detected was Scarlet-backed Flowerpecker

(Dicaeum cruentatum). The male bird of Dicaeidae is more striking in colour when

compared to the paler female. Nectariinidae comprised of sunbirds and

spiderhunters. Both bird species occupied the middle storey of secondary forest.

Plain Sunbird (Anthreptes simplex) was the only sunbird species recorded in the

secondary forest. Spectacled Spiderhunter (Arachnothera jlavigaster) showed the highest numbers among the six spiderhunter species that were observed.

81 4.2.2 Oil palm plantation

In oil palm plantation, a total of 58 species from 30 families were recorded

within 12 months of sampling period (Appendix D). It was recorded that 85.71% of total bird species present in the oil palm plantation overlap with the bird species

found in either secondary forest or paddy field. The four highest abundant bird

families observed was Pycnonotidae (21.59%), followed by Muscicapidae (19.12%),

Sturnidae (17.95%) and Halcyonidae (9.49%). Pycnonotidae was highly represented

by Yellow-vented Bulbul (Pycnonotus goiavier) with 32 observations, and was

usually seen within shrub areas hunting for insects. Meanwhile Oriental Magpie

Robin (Copsychus saularis) from Muscicapidae family had 27 observations and was the second commonest bird species found. They were frequently observed near

shrub areas, puddles and mixed vegetation. This bird species was easily detected through their repeated song between individuals and locally known as 'Murai

Kampung'.

Sturnidae was represented by Asian Glossy (Aplonis panayensis),

Common ( tristis) and Jungle Myna (Acridotheres fuscus). Asian

Glossy Starling (Aplonis panayensis) was usually associated with fruiting trees close to the riverside. In January 2010, 43 observations of Asian Glossy Starling (Aplonis panayensis) were recorded and this was the highest number during the whole sampling period. Besides that, (Acridotheres tristis) and Jungle

Myna (Acridotheres fuscus) were seen near the areas between road, riverside and oil palm plantation. The only Halcyonidae found was White-throated Kingfisher

(Halcyon smyrnensis) which was usually associated with the riverside predating on small fishes, grasshopper and dragonflies. White-throated Kingfisher (Halcyon

82 smyrnensis) has a loud call which could be heard as they flew from one place to

another.

Cuculidae was represented by five bird species including Asian Koel

(Eudynamys scolopaceus), Black-bellied Malkoha (Rhopodytes diardi), Green-billed

Malkoha (Rhopodytes tristis), Raffle's Malkoha (Rhinortha chlorophaeus) and

Greater Coucal (Centropus sinensis). These bird species were seen perching and

moving silently from tree to tree. Green-billed Malkoha (Rhopodytes tristis) was

found to roost and nest between fronds of oil palm tree. Even though their

movements were silent, they could be easily detected through their bright colouration

and large size. Crested Serpent-eagle (Spilornis cheela) and Buffy Fish Owl (Ketupa

ketupu) were other predators found perched on the frond of oil palm.

Oil palm plantation was visited by six migratory species (Table 4.5). Javan

Pond-heron (Ardeola speciosa) was spotted in breeding plumage during the

observations. The only distinguishable character between Javan Pond-heron and

Chinese Pond-heron (Ardeola baccus) is their colour during breeding plumage. Both were look alike during the non-breeding stage. Black Baza (Aviceda leuphotes) was the only migratory Accipitridae seen in oil palm plantation. It can be detected through their black band on the neck. Ashy minivet (Pericrocotus divaricatus) was detected visiting the riverside trees in a small flock that consists of seven individuals while, Asian Brown Flycatcher (Muscicapa dauurica) was also found twice among the trees in riverside areas and adjacent to oil palm plantation.

83 Table 4.5 Migratory bird species recorded in oil palm plantation

No. Common name Scientific name Month(s) detected 1 Javan Pond-heron Ardeola speciosa Dec 2009 & Feb 2010 2 Eastern Cattle Egret Bubulcus Dec 2009 coromandus 3 Black Baza Aviceda leuphotes March 2009 4 Ashy Minivet Pericrocotus Dec 2009 divaricatus 5 Asian Brown Flycatcher Muscicapa dauurica Dec 2009 & Jan 2010 6 Brown Shrike Lanius cristatus Nov 2009

Number of bird occurrences reduced intensely during fruit harvesting. Oil

palm fruits were harvested twice a month by foreign workers. The third day of the

sampling session in April 2009 fell on the first day of fruit harvesting and the data

had shown a steep reduction in numbers of bird observed. On October 2009, once

again the oil palm fruits were harvested and in turn recorded the lowest number of

birds observed throughout the 12 months of sampling. The other disturbance that

occurred was the clearing of adjacent areas for the new oil palm plantation. It was

carried out in August 2009 after several days of fruit harvesting session. However,

the total number of birds recorded did not show any significant changes.

Throughout sampling session in three different habitat types, 12 bird species were found only in oil palm plantation (Table 4.6), which equals to 20.69% of total

bird species.

84 Table 4.6 List of bird species recorded only in oil palm plantation

No. Family Common name Scientific name 1 Accipitridae Black Baza* Aviceda leuphotes 2 Columbidae Pink-necked Green Pigeon** Treron vernans 3 Cuculidae Green-billed Malkoha Rhopodytes tristis 4 Tytonidae Oriental Bay-owl Phodilus badius 5 Strigidae Buffy Fish-owl Ketupa ketupu 6 Alcedinidae Common Kingfisher Alcedo atthis

7 Picidae Rufous Woodpecker** Micropternus brachyurus 8 Buff-necked Woodpecker** Meiglyptes tukki 9 Eurylaimidae Black-and- Red Broadbill** Cymbirhynchus macrorhynchos 10 Pittidae Blue-winged Pitta** Pitta moluccensis 11 N ectariniidae Ruby-cheeked Sunbird Anthreptes singalensis 12 Estrildidae White-bellied Munia Lonchura leucogastra

*soaring above oil palm plantation; **occur at the edge of oil palm plantation

Meanwhile, there were 16 forest birds recorded visiting the edge of oil palm

plantation areas (Table 4.7). Thirteen species out of 16 were observed only once.

Black-bellied Malkoha (Rhopodytes diardi), Blue-winged Pitta (Pitta moluccensis),

Olive-winged Bulbul (Pycnonotus plumosus) and Greater-racket Tailed Drongo

(Dicrurus paradiseus) were the bird species that had been observed between two to

six times. Gold-whiskered Barbet (Megalaima chrysopogon) was seen perched on a tall tree nearby river banks. A pair of Black-and-red Broadbill (Cymbirhynchus macrorhynchos) was also spotted perched on a small tree within riverside of oil palm plantation. Blue-winged Pitta (Pitta moluccensis) was frequently found near the edge of the oil palm areas and it was easily detected by their dazzling voice.

Common Flameback (Dinopiumjavanense) was also found near the edge of oil palm areas.

85 Table 4.7 Forest bird species recorded at the edge of oil palm plantation

No. Common name Scientific name 1 Gold-whiskered Barbet Megalaima chrysop_ggpn 2 Emerald Dove ChalcophaJ!! indica 3 Black-bellied Malkoha Rhopodytes diardi 4 Green-billed Malkoha Rhop__odytes tristis 5 Raffle's Malkoha Rhinortha chlorophaeus 6 Oriental Bay-owl Phodilus badius 7 Rufous Woodpecker Microp_!ernus brachyurus 8 Black-and-Red Broadbill Cymbirhynchus macrorhynchos 9 Blue-winged Pitta Pitta moluccensis 10 Olive-winged Bulbul Pycnonotus plumosus 11 Red-eyed Bulbul Pycnonotus brunneus 12 Greater Racquet-tailed Drongo Dicrurus paradiseus 13 White-bellied Erpomis Erp_ornis zantholeuca 14 White-rumped Shama COJ!!ychus malabaricus 15 Orange-bellied Flowerpecker Dicaeum trig_onostig_ma 16 White-bellied Munia Lonchura leucogastra

86 4.2.3 Paddy field

A total of 70 bird species from 31 families (Appendix E) was recorded in paddy field during the survey period. The highest abundance of bird group observed was Ardeidae (29.09%), followed by Sturnidae (10.15%), Hirundinidae (7.86%) and

Passeridae (7.53%). Ardeidae such as Purple Heron (Ardea purpurea), Little Heron

(Butorides striata), Eastern Cattle Egret (Bulbulcus coromandus) and Intermediate

Egret (Mesophoyx intermedia) mainly feed on various aquatic animals, such as small fishes, invertebrates, amphibians, small mammals and crustaceans. Sturnidae; starling, and sparrow were closely associated with fruiting trees, houses and open areas respectively. These species were commonly seen in a large flock up to 20 to 25 individuals.

Thirty seven (53%) bird species comprised of 20 families were solely found in paddy field (Table 4.8). Out of the 37 bird species, the three highest were

Ardeidae (eight species), Scolapacidae (four species) and Estrildidae (three species).

The Ardeidae includes heron, egret and bittern, while Scolopacidae consists of sandpiper and snipe. Both families were agricultural wetland species where most of the time they forage in the paddy field areas. Eastern Cattle Egret (Bubulcus coromandus), Great Egret (Ardea alba) and Little Egret (Egretta garzetta) were seen in large colonies estimated up to 100 individuals foraging in paddy field. Large colonies of Great Egret (Ardea alba) and Little Egret (Egretta garzetta) were only present in April 2009, while Eastern Cattle Egret (Bubulcus coromandus) in

September 2009. Great Egret (Ardea alba) was not observed between July to

October 2009 and February 2010. Intermediate Egret (Mesophoyx intermedia) was also absent between April to October 2009 and February 2010.

87 Table 4.8 List of bird species recorded only in paddy field

No. Family Common name Scientific name 1 Ardeidae Purple Heron Ardea purpurea 2 Chinese Pond-heron Ardeola baccus 3 Great Egret Ardea alba 4 Intermediate Egret Mesophoyx intermedia 5 Little Egret Egretta garzetta 6 Black-crowned Night-heron Nycticorax nycticorax 7 Yell ow Bittern Ixobrychus sinensis 8 Cinnamon Bittern Ixobrychus cinnamomeus 9 Accipitridae Black-shouldered Kite Elanus caeruleus 10 Brahminy Kite* Haliastur indus 11 Pied Harrier* Circus melanoleucos 12 Rallidae Watercock Gallicrex cinerea 13 Vanellidae Grey-headed Lapwing Vanellus cinereus 14 Pacific Golden Plover Pluvialis fulva 15 Scolopacidae Marsh Sandpiper Tringa stagnatilis 16 Wood Sandpiper Trin_ga _glareola 17 Common Sandpiper Actitis hypoleucos 18 Common Snipe Gallinago gallinago 19 Columbidae Rock Pigeon Columba !iva 20 Cuculidae Lesser Coucal Centropus bengalensis 21 Tytonidae Common Bam-owl Tyto alba 22 Halcyonidae Stork-billed Kingfisher Pelargopsis capensis 23 Coraciidae Dollarbird Eurystomus orienta/is 24 Bucerotidae Oriental Pied Hornbill* Anthracoceros albirostris 25 Megalaimidae Coppersmith Barbet Megalaima haemacephala 26 Hirundinidae Bam Swallow Hirundo rustica 27 Corvidae House Crow Corvus splendens 28 Rhipiduridae Paddyfield Pipit Anthus rufulus 29 Stumidae Acridotheres cristatellus 30 Passeridae Eurasian Tree-sparrow Passer montanus 31 Ploceidae Baya Weaver Ploceus philippinus 32 Estrildidae Scaly-breasted Munia Lonchura punctulata 33 Chesnut Munia Lonchura atricapilla 34 White-headed Munia Lonchura maja 35 Phylloscopidae Zitting Cisticola Cisticola juncidis

*Originate from adjacent habitats such as forest patches and mangrove areas

88 Egret species could be identified through their medium-sized to fairly large bodied, long-legged and s-shaped neck, generally long slender bills and plumages mostly white in colour. During breeding season, some egret species such as Eastern

Cattle Egret (Bubulcus coromandus) became different from non-breeders, whereby the plumage colour at the back and on the head extended to the cheek and the throat and became more golden, bill was reddish with yellower tip and leg was dusky reddish. Meanwhile Little Egret (Egretta garzetta) had a distinct blackish bill during its courtship with feet often more reddish.

The other Ardeidae such as heron were often observed perching on small trees near ditches and bitterns were commonly observed foraging solitary in the paddy fields. Groups were characterized by small to medium-sized bodies, shorter necks and sensitive to human movement which makes them fly rapidly whenever they feel threatened. Javan Pond-heron (Ardeola speciosa) and Chinese Pond-heron

(Ardeola bacchus) might be difficult to identify when they are in the non-breeding stage because both look alike. Only one characteristic can distinguish these Pond­ herons, where the Chinese Pond-heron (Ardeola bacchus) showed obvious dusky tips at its outermost primary wing. During the breeding stage, both were easy to identify.

Chinese Pond-heron (Ardeola bacchus) appeared with the chestnut-maroon head to neck and breast, while Javan Pond-heron (Ardeola speciosa) appeared pale brownish-buff to creamy-whitish (Robson, 2008). It was also quite challenging to identify the bitterns group as they spent most of the time foraging silently and hiding in the paddy.

89 Family Scolopacidae comprised sandpipers and snipes. Sandpipers recorded were Marsh Sandpiper (Tringa stagnatilis), Wood Sandpiper (Tringa glareola) and

Common Sandpiper (Actitis hypoleucos). All of these sandpipers were observed to be foraging within the uncultivated areas of paddy field, in groups of five to 25 individuals. However, as for the snipe, only Common Snipe (Gallinago gallinago) was recorded. However, in August 2009, a juvenile Greater-painted Snipe

(Rostratula benghalensis) was found near to the growing paddy field but was not quantified in the analysis. Snipes usually tend to sit still, fly or quickly enter the paddy field to escape. Sandpipers and snipes were characterized by their smaller size than heron, with long legs, and slender long bills.

Estrildidae which consists of munias are grassland species that utilizes dry/wet grassland and ripened paddy areas. Four species of munia was found in the paddy fields and were characterized by the small (estimated total length was 10 em) and round-bodied with the conical bills. They usually move within a group of five to

30 individuals but sometimes they also can be seen in pairs. They were easy to identify even in flight which was fast and direct. Juveniles also move with groups of adults. It was hard to distinguish munias species during the juvenile stage mostly because they are not well patterned until they become adult.

As listed in Table 4.9, result showed 13 migratory bird species were recorded visiting the paddy field areas during migratory season between September and

March. The only migratory Accipitridae, Pied Harrier (Circus melanoleucos) observed was a male, where it was seen hunting in the growing paddy areas. It was observed only once throughout sampling period. These artificial wetlands host many migratory waterbirds such as Chinese Pond-heron (Ardeola baccus), Javan Pond-

90 heron (Ardeola speciosa), Eastern Cattle Egret (Bubulcus coromandus) and

Intermediate Egret (Mesophoyx intermedia). They dominated inundated paddy plots with growing paddy. Migratory birds spend the winter months here, using this area as their feeding ground. Other migratory birds such as Barn Swallow (Hirundo rustica) and Brown Shrike (Lanius cristatus) were commonly seen perching on poles and wires near houses.

Table 4.9 Migratory bird species recorded in paddy field

No. Common name Scientific name Month(s) detected 1 Chinese Pond-heron Ardeola baccus March-May, Oct, Dec 09-Feb 2010 2 Javan Pond-heron Ardeola speciosa March, May, Oct09-Feb 201 0 3 Eastern Cattle Egret Bubulcus coromandus March, May-Oct, Dec 09-Feb 2010 4 Intermediate Egret Mesophoyx intermedia March, Nov 09-Jan 2010 5 Little Egret Egretta garzetta March 09-Feb 2010 6 Pied Harrier Circus melanoleucos March 09 7 Grey-headed Lapwing Vanellus cinereus March, May, Dec 2009-Jan 2010 8 Marsh Sandpiper Tringa stagnatilis March, July-Aug 2009 9 Wood Sandpiper Tringa glareola Sept, Dec 09-Jan 2010 10 Common Sandpiper Actitis hypoleucos March & May 09 11 Common Snipe Gallinago gallinago Sept, Nov 2010- Jan 2010 12 Barn Swallow Hirundo rustica March, Aug 09-Jan 2010 13 Brown Shrike Lanius cristatus March-May, Oct 09-Feb 2010

91 Other than Pied Harrier, there were four species of Accipitridae found.

Black-shouldered Kite (Elanus caeruleus), Brahminy Kite (Haliastur indus) and

Crested Serpent-eagle (Spilornis cheela) were the resident species that are commonly found here. These species frequently seen to soar as early as 1000 h and flew at low level whenever they have the chance to hunt for preys mainly rodent species. Black­ shouldered Kite (Elanus caeruleus) was observed perching on a medium sized tree several times between the soaring activity. However, after successful hunt this small sized raptor was suddenly attacked by a flock of House Crows (Corvus splendens) that tried to snatch the dead prey, with approximately 15 minutes of struggling episode recorded. The other raptor found was from family Tytonidae, as an example,

Common Barn-owl, (Tyto alba) with their small boxes available at each of paddy plot. A pair of juvenile and adult was seen in the small box during day time.

Throughout the one year observation, paddy field and surrounding areas (eg. mixed vegetation at river banks, coconut trees, bamboo trees and other fruting trees) were identified as breeding locations for several bird species including Asian Glossy

Starling (Aplonis panayensis), Eurasian Tree-sparrow (Passer montanus), Baya

Weaver (Ploceus philippinus), Greater Coucal (Centropus sinensis), Blue-throated

Bee-eater (Merops viridis) and most species of Ardeidae and Estrildidae. Asian

Glossy Starling (Aplonis panayensis) and Eurasian Tree-sparrow (Passer montanus) are commonly associated with human residential areas and can be found in a large flock up to 40 individuals. Juveniles of both species were also discovered to fly in the same flock as the adult. Breeding male Baya Weaver (Ploceus philippinus) was clearly recognized through its striking yellow crown and unstreaked buffy brown breast. Baya Weaver (Ploceus philippinus) was seen actively collecting nest materials from tree leaves or branches to make a long down-hanging nest.

92 Observation has showed that the nests were located mainly at bamboos that grew near the paddy field and houses. Two individuals of juvenile Greater Coucal

(Centropus sinensis) were found sitting silently in the tall grass vegetation near to the ditch and growing paddy areas. Juvenile of Blue-throated Bee-eater (Merops viridis) had a pale bluish chin and like to perch on a wire near houses. In addition, juvenile ofBrahminy Kite (Haliastur indus) was also found soaring above the paddy fields.

Common species frequently recorded during the sampling session is listed in

Table 4.1 0. Most of them occurred everywhere in paddy fields and surrounding areas. White-breasted waterhen (Amaurornis phoenicurus) was often found near human houses and ditches covered by tall grasses. This game bird species was sensitive to human movement and quickly hide whenever they feel threatened.

Spotted Dove (Streptopelia chinensis) and Peaceful Dove (Geopelia striata) were associated with coconut trees and foraging in a group of two to five individuals at footpath. White-throated Kingfisher (Halcyon smyrnensis) was easily identified through its turquoise-blue wings, dark chestnut head and white throat at the centre of the breast. This species frequently made a loud territorial call during flight from one site to another. White-rumped Munia (Lonchura striata) and Zitting Cisticola

(Cisticola juncidis) were grassland species that are associated with growing paddy fields and were found in a group and pairs, respectively.

93 Table 4.10 Common birds recorded in paddy field

No. Common name Scientific name 1 Purple Heron Ardea purpurea 2 Little Egret Egretta garzetta 3 Brahminy Kite Haliastur indus 4 Spotted Dove StrepJopelia chinensis 5 Peaceful Dove Geopelia striata 6 White-throated Kingfisher Halcyon smyrnensis 7 House Swallow Hirundo tahitica 8 Yellow-vented Bulbul Pycnonotus goiavier 9 Black-naped Oriole Oriolus chinensis 10 House Crow Corvus splendens 11 Oriental Magpie Robin Copsychus saularis 12 Asian Glossy Starling Aplonis panayensis 13 Common Myna Acridotheres tristis 14 Eurasian Tree-sparrow Passer montanus 15 White-rumped Munia Lonchura striata 16 Zitting Cisticola Cisticola juncidis

4.3 Temporal distribution of bird abundance and richness across all sites

Figure 4.2 (a)-(c) showed the temporal variation of bird's abundance and richness in secondary forest, oil palm plantation and paddy field in March 2009-

February 2010. Paddy field was identified to sustain high abundance of bird, which was in contrast to secondary forest and oil palm plantation. Throughout a year of sampling a total of 5120 birds observations were recorded in paddy field. In

September 2009, about 810 observations were recorded, for three consecutive days, in paddy field alone. Paddy field is an artificial wetland area that sustains many waterbirds including sandpipers, herons and egrets. Secondary forest and oil palm plantation scored the highest abundance in October 2009 with 292 observations and

April 2009 with 106 observations, respectively. When compared from March 2009-

February 2010, secondary forest was the habitat that recorded the highest richness bird species, followed by paddy field and oil palm plantation. In December 2009, all

94 habitat types showed high species richness; secondary forest with 51 species, paddy

field and oil palm plantation with 48 and 24 species, respectively. Most of the

species in secondary forest were categorized as forest dependent species where they

do not exist in habitat other than forest.

In contrast, the oil palm plantation has recorded the least number of species

richness which comprised of bird species adaptable to homogenous environment.

Distinct variation in abundance and richness can be seen in secondary forest and

paddy field. Birds' occurrence in both habitats is highly affected by migratory

seasons and paddy growing season in paddy field areas. However, no distinct

variations of abundance and richness have been detected in oil palm plantation, since this habitat is dominated by resident birds which occur throughout the year.

95 (a) 900 -Abundance 60 800 -Richness 50 700 600 40 500 30 400 300 20 200 i J 10 100 0 0

2009 2010

(b) 900 60 -Abundance 800 50 700 -Richness 600 40 500 30 WI 400 WI ! 300 20 .t:. J.! 200 .: I..: 10 100 0 0

2009 2010

(c) 900 -Abundance 60 800 50 700 -Richness 600 40 500 II 30 ~ 400 WI 300 20 .t:.i I 200 j:! c 10 .: 100 0 0 u :1• 2009 2010

Figure 4.2 Monthly bird abundance and richness in three habitat types: (a) secondary forest; (b) oil palm plantation; (c) paddy field. 96 4.4 Near-threatened birds

From the IUCN Red List Threatened Species (IUCN, 2011), six out of 183 species recorded were classified as near-threatened (NT) species (Table 4.11 ). They were grouped into four families; Bucerotidae, Megalaimidae, Picidae and

Pycnonotidae. A large number of NT birds were recorded in the secondary forest, with five species (25 observations). The lowest number ofNT bird was recorded at the edge of oil palm plantation with one species (one observation). No NT species was found in paddy field. The most frequently detected family was Bucerotidae, which also recorded the highest number of observations. This family was detected in the secondary forest. Most Bucerotidae occupied the upper layer of forest storey.

The second highest abundant family was Pycnonotidae which was also recorded in secondary forest (eight observations). NT Pycnonotidae was observed throughout sampling sessions only six times. Megalaimidae was the third highest number of observations for NT species (five observations). This fruit-eating family were detected from its monotonous calls from the upper canopy layers. Picidae was the fewest detected in oil palm plantation with only one sighting.

97 Table 4.11 List of near-threatened bird species recorded and their conservation status in Kerian River Basin (IUCN, 2011)

Family Common name Scientific name Habitat, protection and conservation status Bucerotidae Rhinoceros Hombill Buceros SF, R, NT, TP rhinoceros Megalaimidae Red-crowned Barbet Megalaima SF,R,NT, TP mystacophanos Red-throated Barbet Megalaima SF, R, NT, TP mystacophanos Picidae Buff-necked Meiglyptes tukki EOP, R, NT, TP Woodpecker* Pycnonotidae Scaly-breasted Bulbul Pycnonotus SF, R, NT, TP squamatus Grey-bellied Bulbul Pycnonotus SF, R, NT, TP cyaniventris

Abbreviation: (HABITAT) SF- Secondary forest, EOP- at the edge of oil palm plantation. (STATUS) R- Resident, M- Passage migrant/winter visitor, V- Vagrant, I- Introduced, (CONSERVATION STATUS) NT- Near-threatened, (PROTECTION BY LAW IN PENINSULAR MALAYSIA) TP- Totally protected (may not be hunted or reared in captivity). *Captured.

4.4.1 Protection status of birds in Peninsular Malaysia

Bird species that were observed and captured were categorized based on their protection status recorded in Wildlife Conservation Act 2010 (Laws of Malaysia,

2010). Out of 183 species recorded, only 149 of them were recognized as totally protected species, followed by 19 not protected, 12 game birds, and three other protected birds (may be reared in captivity under licence). Figure 4.3 showed the number of birds species labelled according to the protection status in all the three habitat types.

98 100 90 80 70 I 60 'I 50 40 I 30 20 10 0 TP NP GB OPB •SF 96 5 2 3 •OP 42 11 3 2 •PF 43 18 8 1

Figure 4.3 Number of bird observations according to protection status; secondary forest (SF), oil palm plantation (OP), paddy field (PF), totally protected (TP), not protected (NP), game bird (GB) and other protected bird (OPB).

Secondary forest has recorded the highest number of totally protected species with 96 bird species followed by the paddy field and oil palm plantation with 43 and

42 species, respectively. Not protected bird species were identified mostly in paddy field with 18 species, followed by oil palm plantation and secondary forest with 11 and five species, respectively. Most of the game birds occurred in paddy field with a total of eight bird species. Nevertheless, the total number of other protected bird in three different habitat types was six bird species with three species in secondary forest, two in oil palm plantation and one species in paddy field.

99 The bird status was sub-divided into five groups; resident, passage migrant/winter visitor, resident and migrant, introduced and vagrant (Table 4.12).

The result is shown in Figure 4.4. In secondary forest, out of 106 species, only 90 species were identified as resident of Peninsular Malaysia. Both oil palm plantation and paddy field scored 44 bird species that were identified as resident bird of

Peninsular Malaysia. Passage migrant or winter visitor species occurred predominantly in paddy field with 13 bird species followed by the secondary forest and oil palm plantation with 10 and six bird species, respectively. The status of resident and migrant bird was given to the bird species that were present in

Peninsular Malaysia as either resident or migrant from other countries. Paddy field recorded the highest number of residents and migrants with 10 bird species followed by oil palm plantation and paddy field with eight and six bird species, respectively.

Only paddy field has showed two introduced bird species and one species of vagrant.

Table 4.12 Bird status and definition (Strange & Jeyarajasingam, 1999)

Bird status Definition Resident Birds that remain in Malaysia Passage migrant/winter visitor Migratory birds, normally from northern Asia, visit from September to March during autumn and winter seasons Resident and migrant Some of birds species remam m Malaysia and others are migrant Introduced Bird that originate outside of Malaysia which has arrived by human activity Vagrant Bird appear outside their normal range due to genetic factors and weather conditions

100 100 90 80 70 60 I 50 .. 40 30 I 20 10 0 R M R&M I v •SF 90 10 6 0 0 •OP 44 6 8 0 0 • PF 44 13 10 2 1

Figure 4.4 Number of bird observations according to status; secondary forest (SF}, oil palm plantation (OP), paddy fields (PF), resident (R), passage migrant/winter visitor (M}, resident and migrant (R&M}, introduced (I) and vagrant (V).

101 4.5 Mist-netting in secondary forest and oil palm plantation

A total of 114 individuals comprising 39 species were caught in secondary forest while 81 individuals comprising of 22 species were caught in oil palm plantation (Table 4.13). Some birds captured are shown in Appendix F. The capture rate success was the highest in July 2009 (27.83%) and Jun 2009 (34.15%) for secondary forest and oil palm plantation, respectively (Figure 4.5). Unfortunately, during Jun and September 2009, bird netting could not be carried out in secondary forest due to heavy precipitation.

In secondary forest, bird species from the families Pycnonotidae (eight species; 45 individuals; 39.47%), Timaliidae (eight species; 16 individuals; 13.16%) and Nectariniidae (three species; 12 individuals; 10.53%) were recorded as the three highest individuals captured using this method. The Strigidae, Alcedinidae,

Meropidae, Megalaimidae, Aegithinidae, Chloropseidae, Dicruridae and Laniidae were the least families to be found with only one individual being captured for each species (0.88%).

Meanwhile in oil palm plantation, Pycnonotidae (two species; 25 individuals,

30.86%) was identified as dominant, followed by Muscicapidae (three species; 16 individuals, 19.75%) and Halcyonidae (one species; nine individuals, 11.11 %). Six families namely Tytonidae, Picidae, Cisticoladiae, Motacillidae, Laniidae and

Stumidae were the least families with only one bird been captured for each species

(1.23%).

102 Table 4.13 Bird species captured in secondary forest and oil palm plantation

Families Species Secondary Oil palm forest plantation No. of % No. of % individuals Individuals Columbidae Emerald Dove 6 5.26 1 2.42 Peaceful Dove - 1 Tytonidae Oriental Bay-owl - 0.00 1 1.22 Strigidae Collared-scops Owl 1 0.88 4 4.88 Alcedinidae Blue-eared Kingfisher 1 0.88 7 8.54 Halcyonidae White-throated 2 1.75 9 10.98 Kingfisher Meropidae Blue-tailed Bee-eater 1 0.88 - 0.00 Megalaimidae Red-crowned Barbet 1 0.88 - 0.00 Picidae Buff-necked - 0.00 1 1.22 Woodpecker Pittidae Blue-winged Pitta - 0.00 6 7.32 Aegithinidae Common lora 1 0.88 - 0.00 Chloropseidae Lesser Green Leafbird 1 0.88 - 0.00 Pycnonotidae Cream-vented Bulbul 2 39.47 - 30.49 Black-headed Bulbul 13 - Olive-winged Bulbul 4 14 Red-eyed Bulbul 16 - Stripe-throated Bulbul 6 - Spectacled Bulbul 2 - Yellow-vented Bulbul 1 11 Grey-cheeked Bulbul 1 - Dicruridae Greater racquet-Tailed - 0.88 1 2.44 Drongo Crow-billed Drongo 1 1 Timaliidae Grey-headed Babbler 1 13.16 - 0.00 Short-tailed Babbler 2 - Puff-throated Babbler 5 - Chesnut-winged 2 - Babbler Pin-striped Tit Babbler 1 - Abbott's Babbler 3 - White-bellied Epomis 1 - Cisticoladiae Dark-necked 3 2.63 - 1.22 Tailorbird Common Tailorbird - 1 Muscicapidae Y ellow-rumped 2 9.65 - 19.51 Flycatcher Tickell's Blue 2 1 Flycatcher Siberian Blue Robin 2 - Oriental Magpie 4 14 Robin White-romped Shama 1 I

103 Table 4.12 Continued

Families Species Secondary Oil palm forest plantation No. of % No. of % individuals Individual Rhipiduridae Pied Fantail - 0.00 2 2.44 Motacillidae Grey Wagtail - 0.00 1 1.22 Laniidae Tiger Shrike 1 0.88 - 1.22 Brown Shrike - I Stumidae Common Myna - 0.00 1 2.44 Jungle Myna - I N ectariniidae Grey-breasted 1 10.53 - 2.44 Spiderhunter Little Spiderhunter 10 1 Plain Sunbird 1 - Brown-throated - I Sunbird Dicacidae Orange-bellied 3 7.89 - 0.00 Flowerpecker Yellow-breasted 1 - Flowerpecker Scarlet-backed 4 - Flowerpecker Yellow-vented 1 - Flowerpecker Estrildidae White-rumped Munia 3 2.63 - 0.00 Total of 114 100 82 100 Individual

* All scientific names can be referred to Appendix B.

104 40.00

35.00

30.00 l 125.00 20.00 115.00 10.00

5.00

0.00

• SF 3.48 14.78 0.00 27.83 20.87 0.00 3.48 6.09 3.48 0.87 19.13 • OP 8.54 12.20 34.15 14.63 17.07 6.10 1.22 1.22 1.22 2.44 1.22

Figure 4.5 Percentage of bird captured in secondary forest and oil palm plantation

Five species of birds including Collared-scops Owl (Otus lettia); Grey- cheeked Bulbul (Alophoixus bres); Grey-headed Babbler (Stachyris poliocephala);

Short-tailed Babbler (Malacocincla malaccensis) and Siberian Blue Robin (Luscinia cyane) failed to be recorded during the point count observation in the secondary forest and they were only recorded through mist-netting. The result reveals that is important in complex vegetation habitat as compared to the monoculture plantation.

Unlike oil palm plantation, most of the mist-netted birds were seen through observation except for one species, Tickell's Blue Flycatcher (Cyornis tickelliae) which was not detected through the mist-netting. Thus, this present study has confirmed that mist-netting in paddy field was unnecessary because in open areas there was no obstacle faced in observing the birds.

105 Overall capture has shown that nine species - Collared-scops Owl ( Otus lettia), Blue-eared Kingfisher (Alcedo meninting), White-throated Kingfisher

(Halcyon smyrnensis), Crow-billed drongo (Dicrurus annectans), Olive-winged

Bulbul (Pycnonotus plumosus), Tickell's Blue Flycatcher (Cyornis tickelliae),

Oriental Magpie Robin (Copsychus saularis), White-rumped Shama (Copsychus malabaricus) and Little Spiderhunter (Arachnothera longirostra) were trapped in both secondary forest and oil palm plantation. The remaining species were either captured in the secondary forest or oil palm plantation. Mann-Whitney U-test has showed that through mist-netting, there was no significant difference in bird abundances that exists between the secondary forest and oil palm plantation (z = -

0.335, p > 0.05).

4.6 Diversity index for secondary forest, oil palm plantation and paddy field

The Shannon-Wiener diversity index for all sites is shown in Table 4.14.

Through out sampling period, each habitat type shows a few changes in Shannon­

Wiener diversity index between months. However, these changes do not show a distinct variation of the index. Oil palm plantation shows minimal changes of the index between months. Meanwhile, secondary forest and paddy field show changes in index value between months.

106 In the three habitat types, the highest index was recorded in December 2009

(3.479), May 2009 (2.649) and January 2010 (3.321), respectively. In contrast, the

lowest index was recorded in October 2009 (2.704), Jun 2009 (1.863) and February

2010 (2.154), respectively. The Kruskal-Wallis test has showed that the Shannon-

Wiener diversity index was significantly different across the three different habitat

types, x2 (2, 0 = 36) = 20.425, p < 0.05.

Table 4.14 Shannon-Wiener diversity index ofbirds according month

Year Months OP PF

August 3 .406 2.336 2.772

';,; :i~:t;~~·Q~:!!:': October 2.704 2.339 2.935 ~:i;;;,::~§lfji1f'i-~1t~Si@J}9';,0>:,, ,,, ~~t'~~i~1ir!i6&1¥\'f~t;t%!}%\')WAP!:\,Z:5).3~:>~i December 3.4 79 2.388 3.220 ;''Z~~~-t~i', '#tit~t\t~-- ,,,,;r;,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, .,i:V;4~t;:,: February 3.247 2.571 2.154

*Secondary forest (SF), oil palm plantation (OP) and paddy field (PF)

4. 7 Richness index for secondary forest, oil palm plantation and paddy field

Two commonly used richness indices, Margalef and Menhinick, in three

different habitat types are shown in Table 4.15. Through out sampling period, each

habitat type shows changes in Margalef and Menhinick indices between months.

However, both indices in oil palm plantation are recorded relatively consistent

through out sampling period. Distinct variation in both indices can only be seen in

secondary forest and paddy field.

107 The values of Margalef index illustrated that all habitat types showed the

highest index in December 2009 with the score of9.510 for secondary forest, 5.086

for oil palm plantation and 7.327 for paddy field. This result differed from the

Menhinick index that showed the highest index in secondary forest, oil palm

plantation and paddy field that occurred in September 2009 with 3.830, October

2009 with 2.600 and November with 2.280, respectively. Since the number of

species recorded was high in December 2009 for all habitat types, only Margalef

index was used in further analyses and discussion. The Kruskal-Wallis test showed

that the Margalef index was significantly different across the three different habitat

types; x2 (2, D = 36) = 27.074, p < 0.05.

Table 4.15 Margalef(MR) and Menhinick (MN) Index ofbirds according to month

Year Months SF OP PF ·'i'ikri:·''i ':¥·. • f,~~~~ .... ····1MR. .··;,i,;&t:.. MN:''':''" ···'M:RI,;i .. :;~,:,::~;~;,~;tibj51::Mlt·· c:·tzr~IN·.:JI~~~ 2009 March 6.398 3.111 3.574 1.812 6.450 2.050 (;f¢tw:.;;0ec:;<:. ':l!.:,lpfil; ,:s,·~~!!l5A:~~ 7.892 3.381 4.011 2.313 6.353 1.960 ·:i~9£f11~~,~·~·.33~ ./•·••.·•~~~-~rii2;.r:sl11 ·''.· :x:r+ .. O::>'~·•>x: .~jJ~;(~Dl~Ji!We,r: ~litii§;Jij~' ·.:·1'j~i·i~~~~M~~~j~j}§;~ft~6k 2010 January 7.346 3.062 3.708 1.818 7.058 2.194 ;{:·~~·::,,r·:Jlr •'f!J'e\i~l·.::,~t,:.~i7~i'lo• ·:~:111Jll~~iiil~i~:~~a~,(;· ..;·~:;~~:!e~~,.1·~~,~~-(i~t!

* Secondary forest (SF), oil palm plantation (OP) and paddy field (PF)

108 4.7.1 Rarefaction Method analyses

The rarefaction curves for all habitat types (Figure 4.6) illustrate the general principle of a positive correlation between two factors; whereby the larger the sample size (number of observations) the greater number of expected species predicted. The purpose of this method in this study is to estimate the number of species that occurred in each habitat types by using the same number of observations. The expected number of species for each habitat type with the same number of observations is shown in Table 4.16.

In secondary forest, there were 1836 observations that comprised 106 species in total, whilst oil palm plantation has recorded 769 observations with 58 species and paddy field has recorded 4717 observations with 70 species. If a sample of 750 observations were taken from the secondary forest, oil palm plantation and paddy field, the expected number of species would be 85, 58 and 53, respectively.

Rarefaction curve indicated that there was an intersection between the oil palm plantation and paddy field with 49 expected numbers of species in the 450 observations sample size.

Table 4.16 Expected number of species richness by using Rarefaction method analysis

SF OP PF tttiseey~tiflll:: ,;t~xp~'~(l .·.·.; :.:~s •. · .E,X;p~~!~9 · ;··il•:f!liii~t~<&l&lirl+>: .. ;i•~~f· ~i·· 150 47 3.45 31 2.87 36 2.65 .. ·. 3;:S:1:'' 450 73 3.51 49 2.40 49 2.39

750 85 3.26 58 0.60 53 2.25 *Secondary forest (SF), oil palm plantation (OP) and paddy field (PF) * Sd = Standard deviation

109 70~~l=~~E3=L~~~~~~~~ + Expected No. of 160 +-+-+-----7--'--l---l~--r--+-----f--'---+--t--+--t---j---j--;;:;t-----1 species in SF

• Expected i:~~~~ No. of species 130 ~~~---1--+-----'---+--'----1 inOP .A Expected 20 +-~-~---~~~~~~-+~ No. of species 10 in PF

0 200 400 600 800 Number of observations

Figure 4.6 Rarefaction curve of bird species in secondary forest, oil palm plantation and paddy field

4.8 Heterogeneity

The Simpson's index of the secondary forest, oil palm plantation and paddy field were 0.957, 0.906 and 0.943, respectively. All habitat types showed high value of index, which were approximately one. Nevertheless, by heterogeneity measure, the secondary forest was more diverse followed by paddy field and oil palm plantation. This indicates secondary forest sustain more species compared to paddy field and oil palm plantation.

110 4.9 Evenness

In terms of evenness index, secondary forest, oil palm plantation and paddy field have recorded 0.966, 0.921 and 0.958, respectively. The maximal value of evenness is one. Result showed that secondary forest has the maximal evenness followed by paddy field and oil palm plantation. This indicates that most species in each habitat types (secondary forest, oil palm plantation and paddy fields) have nearly equal abundances (since it is near to one) and thus evenness is at maximal.

4.10 Bird feeding guilds in secondary forest, oil palm plantation and paddy field

There were eight types of feeding guilds identified from all habitats along

Kerian River Basin: a) carnivore, b) insectivore, c) insectivore-frugivore, d) insectivore-nectivore, e) insectivore-granivore, f) frugivore, g) granivore and h) omnivore (Figure 4.7). Secondary forest was dominated by insectivorous species

(33.73%), followed by insectivore-frugivore (24.21 %) and frugivorous species

(19. 70% ). These three highest feeding guilds were mostly represented by Apodidae,

Picidae, Pycnonotidae, Timaliidae, and Muscicapidae. Granivorous species (0.54%) was the rarest feeding guilds recorded in secondary forest. Insectivore-granivore was absent in the secondary forest.

111 In the oil palm plantation, the highest feeding guild was carnivore (35.89%) followed by omnivore (33.42%) and frugivore (11.83%). Carnivorous species was represented mostly by Crested Serpent-eagle (Spilornis cheela), Collared Scops Owl

(Otus lettia) and Buffy Fish Owl (Ketupa ketupu) while omnivore and frugivore were represented by Pycnonotidae and Sturnidae, respectively. Insectivore-nectarivore

(0.91 %) was the rarest feeding guilds in oil palm plantation. Insectivore-granivore was absent in oil palm plantation.

In paddy fields, carnivorous species (42.27%) was dominant, followed by omnivore (18.44%) and granivore (12.13%). Most ofthe carnivorous species were represented by Ardeidae and Acciptrinae, while omnivore and granivore comprised of species such as mynas and munias, respectively. Insectivore-nectarivore (0.59%) which was represented by Brown-throated Sunbird (Anthreptes malaccensis) and

Olive-backed Sunbird (Cinnyris jugularis) were identified as the rarest feeding guild in paddy fields.

112 2000 - 1800 - - ~::: - 1200 - I'I 1000 - 800 - 600 I 400 '-- -- 1--- I- 200 -.111- 0 ---_,__ ~ : tl---.-'~---...--- '-r ta Car lns lns-Fru Ins-Nee lns-Gra Fru --Gra Omn • SF 235 620 445 20 0 362 10 146 • OP 276 64 32 7 0 91 42 257 • PF 1994 435 280 28 386 152 572 870

Figure 4. 7 Abundance of avian feeding guilds in three different habitat types; secondary forest (SF), oil palm plantation (OP), paddy field (PF), carnivore (Car), insectivore (Ins), frugivore (Fru), nectarivore (Nee), granivore (Gra) and omnivore (Omn)

Kruskal-Wallis test showed that the feeding guilds were significantly different across the three different habitat types (Table 4.17). Further analyses based on the Mann-Whitney U-test were done in order to identify which feeding guild was significant between two pair of habitat types (Table 4.18). Comparisons between secondary forest and oil palm plantation showed only six feeding guilds were identified to be significantly different, including insectivore, insectivore-frugivore, insectivore-nectarivore, frugivore, granivore and omnivore. Comparisons between secondary forest and paddy field showed that there were five feeding guilds identified as significantly different, comprising the carnivore, insectivore-granivore, frugivore, granivore and omnivore. The last comparisons between oil palm plantation and paddy field also showed that all feeding guilds were significantly different. This is further discussed in Chapter 5 subtopic 5.6 (pg. 149).

113 Table 4.17 Kruskal-Wallis analyses on feeding guilds in three different habitat types

Car Ins Ins- Ins- Ins- Fru Gra Omn Fru Nee Gra :.~J£~52 .. ::11{~6§Jt;i;~~~fl6iZxZfifl\tl~<'63 t<33.l7l?t••j\JJ~~A1t~; .• i ;~:Z~(}6l• ·. ·"~&~392 ' Df 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

Table 4.18 Mann-Whitney U-test score for bird feeding guilds with comparison of all pairs of habitat types

Omn z = 2.776 z = -4.160 z = -4.044 p < 0.05 p < 0.05 p < 0.05

Secondary forest (SF), oil palm plantation (OP), paddy field (PF), carnivore (Car), insectivore (Ins), frugivore (Fru), nectarivore (Nee), granivore (Gra) and omnivore (Omn).

114 4.11 Cluster analysis for secondary forest, oil palm plantation and paddy field

4.11.1 Species distribution

The dissimilarity in the distance of species distribution between these three habitat types is clearly seen from the tree diagram of Figure 4.8. Euclidean distance showed that the smaller the distance, the more similar the two habitat types in species distribution. As shown in Table 4.19, species distribution in paddy field has the most dissimilar when compared to the secondary forest and oil palm plantation. Both secondary forest and oil palm plantation scored less than 50% dissimilarity in species distribution. This shows majority of species that occurred in oil palm plantation, such as Oriental Magpie Robin (Copsychus saularis), Brown Shrike (Lanius cristatus), and Collared Scops Owl (Otus lettiai) existed in secondary forest.

Table 4.19 Euclidean distance analysis of bird community in three different habitat types

Node Group 1 Group2 Dissimilarity Habitats in group 1 Secondary Forest Oil Palm Plantation 384.563 2 2 Node 1 Paddy Field 1103.414 3

115 UPGMA

50% of dissimilarity

...... Paddy field ...... : ..-~------Oil palm plantation . . Secondary Forest . o - l r------T • 1200 1000 600 :. .400 . .: 200 0 Euclidean \ ... . / Figure 4.8 Tree diagram resulted from average linkage clustering using the unweighted pair-group method (UPMGA) on bird communities at all study sites

116 4.11.2 Feeding guilds

The dissimilarity distance of bird feeding guilds between these three habitat types is clearly depicted in the tree diagram of Figure 4.9. As shown in the table

4.20, the feeding guilds in secondary forest demonstrated the most dissimilarity as compared to the oil palm plantation and paddy field. It shows that secondary forest supports very specialized feeding guilds namely insectivorous and frugivorous species which were not dominant in oil palm plantation and paddy field. Both oil palm plantation and paddy field scored less than 50% dissimilarity of bird feeding guilds. This indicates, bird feeding guilds in oil palm plantation and paddy field were highly similar and only different at 12.79%.

Table 4.20 Euclidean distance analysis ofbird feeding guilds in three different habitat types

Node Group 1 Group 2 Dissimilarity Habitats in group 1 Oil palm plantation Paddy field 21.324 2 2 Secondary forest Node 1 48.494 3

117 UPGMA

50% of dissimilarity

...... j[ .. Paddy field

. ~~·------Oil palm plantation

. . Secondary Forest .. .. --~ . ; .------~ 60 50 40 30 ••. .... 20: . 10 0 Euclidean

Figure 4.9 Tree diagram resulted from average linkage clustering using the unweighted pair-group method (UPMGA) on eight feeding guilds of bird at all study sites

118 4.12 Suitability area of near-threatened Scaly-breasted Bulbul (Pycnonotus squamatus) and Grey-bellied Bulbul (Pycnonotus cyaniventris)

This last objective of this study is to produce a map of suitability area for near-threatened SBB and GBB. The final map shows the low, moderate and high suitable conservation areas for near-threatened SBB and GBB. These two species were the natives to the secondary forest but recently they are threatened due to habitat loss and degradation (Wells, 2007). The following subtopics used the occurrence data of near-threatened SBB and GBB to generate database maps, map of distance analysis and Digital Elevation Model (DEM), and weights values for factors that affect the suitability area for these species. The last subtopic is the final map that indicates areas of suitability for near-threatened SBB and GBB, and validation map.

4.12.1 Development of database maps

Arc Map 9.3 was used to manage the vector data in shape file (.shp) format and constructing the attribute of each layer (rivers, forested areas, contour, development areas, oil palm plantation, houses, rubber plantation and paddy fields).

For the raster data processing, the IDRISI Kilimanjaro was used in the rastering process and to convert the files with extension .shp, .jep, and .tijffrom Arc Map 9.3 to the format of Idrisi files, namely . vet (vector) and .rst (raster). Below are some examples of the results of raster image for three factors that influence suitability area of near-threatened SBB and GBB (Figure 4.10-4.12). See Appendix G for results of raster image of five other factors.

119 Figure 4.10 Base map for forested areas in Kerian River Basin

Figure 4.11 Base map of development areas in Kerian River Basin

120 0 116 233 349 465 581 698 614 930 1046 1163 1279 1385 1511 1628 1744 1860

Figure 4.12 Base map of contours in Kerian River Basin

4.12.2 Map of distance and Digital Elevation Model (DEM)

The map of distance from river, forest, development areas, oil palm plantation, houses, rubber plantation and paddy fields were constructed by using

THE Distance Operators tool in the IDRISI Kilimanjaro. The images were shown in the scale of 0-255 since the process in IDRISI Kilimajaro used the FUZZY approach which was the standardization of the quantitative of factor images. Meanwhile, the

DEM for contour was produced by using Surface analysis - interpolation - TIN interpolation - TIN tool in the IDIRSI Kilimanjaro. Below are some example of the results of map distance for two factors (Figure 4.13- 4.14) and DEM (Figure 4.15).

See Appendix H for results of map distance of five other factors.

121 0 16 32 48 64 80 96 112 128 143 159 175 191 207 223 239 255

Figure 4.13 Map of distance from forest

0 16 32 48 64 80 96 112 128 143 159 175 191 207 223 239 255

Figure 4.14 Map of distance from development areas

122 -121.58 2.39 126.36 250.33 374.29 498.26 622.23 746.20 870.17 994.13 1118.10 1242.07 1366.04 1490.01 1613.98 1737.94 1861.91

Figure 4.15 Map ofDEM for contour

4.12.3 The weight values for factors

The calculation of weights value for factors was assisted by using the

Dicision wizard tool in the IDIRSI software. The input value was obtained from the questionnaires that have been distributed to 10 ornithologists. The Decision wizard tool in the IDRISI software was used to compute the score of consistency ratio (CR).

Only one questionnaire that shows the smallest value ofCR was chosen (CR S 0.01).

This means the pair-wise matrix comparison that was achieved through expert views was the most consistent among others. Table 4.21 shows the result of weights. The highest score for the weight value is 0.2577 for forest. This explains that the forest criterion was the most suitable area of near-threatened Scaly-breasted

Bulbul (Pycnonotus squamatus) and Grey-bellied Bulbul (Pycnonotus cyaniventris), followed by river and elevation, with weights values, 0.1951 and 0.1701, respectively.

123 Table 4.21 Weight values for multi-criteria in pair-wise matrix comparison

Factor Weight Factor Weight River 0.1951 Oil palm plantation 0.0923 Forest 0.2577 Houses 0.0529 Contour (elevation) 0.1701 Rubber plantation 0.1219 Development areas 0.0401 Paddy 0.0699

4.12.4 The map of suitability area for near-threatened Scaly-breasted

Bulbul (Pycnonotus squamatus) and Grey-bellied Bulbul (Pycnonotus

cyaniventris) in Kerian River Basin and validation

After constructing all the distance maps, DEMand weight values, these data were overlaid and analyzed by GIS analysis in IDRISI Kilimanjaro in order to produce map of suitability area for near-threatened SBB and GBB in Kerian River

Basin. The following map is the result obtained from the analysis (Figure 4.16).

0 16 32 48 64 80 96 112 128 143 159 175 191 207 223 239 2SS

Figure 4.16 Map of suitability area for near-threatened SBB and GBB in KRB

124 This map was further reclassified into three zones using interval reclass namely low, moderate and high. This classification was conducted based on past studies and literatures (Traweger & Slotta-Bachmayr, 2005). In this study, the areas were classified into three zones; low quality, moderate quality and high quality (see pg. 70 for description) in order to indicate the suitability area of near-threatened SBB and GBB. Figure 4.17 below shows map after reclassification process.

-Low

-Medium-Higll

-CD-

-110-

Figure 4.17 Suitability area map after reclassification into three zones

Validation is the final step of this habitat mapping, where each zone needs to be proved by the number of near-threatened SBB and GBB that is present. In this validation, thirty sampling points that were collected from the primary and secondary data were used (Appendix 1). All points were assumed to be randomly distributed within the boundary of Kerian River Basin. Below is the map of validation point

(Figure 4.18). The sampling points were extracted with the suitable area map to

125 determine the number of sampling points in each zone. This extraction process was done by using the EXTRACT tool in IDRISI Kilimanjaro. ..._ . -lledium ,...,....-+ -·e V8lidlliln

-CD- -

Figure 4.18 Validation points map

Table 4.22 shows the percentages of near-threatened SBB and GBB recorded in each zone. Through validation, the near-threatened SBB and GBB shows a concentrated distribution which this result matches with the primary data. The distribution is restricted to areas with a maximal forested area and food sources (e.g. fruting trees, invertebrates) large enough to maintain a population. The low quality habitat was found to be the development area and agriculture area. Forest is almost completely absent and represents the limiting factor in this area. Habitat of moderate quality which is surrounded by development and agriculture area could only be identified located at Bukit Panchor, Gunung Bongsu, Lata Tebing Tinggi, Ulu

Selama, Redang Panjang and Bukit Relau Forest Reserve. In the upper part of

Kerian River Basin, the primary and secondary forests were found to be suitable

126 habitat for near-threatened SBB and GBB population. These areas have plenty of vegetation and away from human activities.

Table 4.22 Validation of near-threatened Scaly-breasted Bulbul (Pycnonotus squamatus) and Grey-bellied Bulbul (Pycnonotus cyaniventris) in Kerian River Basin

Zone Validation Location Land used Species Total SBB GBB (%) Low Development area 0 0 0.00 Kg. Sg. Kechil, Bukit Houses and 0 0 Panchor orchards Beriah (Kanan) Oil palm plantation 0 0 Beriah (Kanan) Oil palm plantation 0 0 Bandar Baharu Oil palm plantation 0 0 Kuala Dingin, Oil palm plantation 0 0 Mahang Selama Oil palm plantation 0 0 BaganBaru Oil palm plantation 0 0 Bagan Baru Oil palm plantation 0 0 Serdang Oil palm plantation 0 0 Permatang Kerat Oil palm plantation 0 0 Telunjuk and orchards Bagan Samak Development areas 0 0 Alor Pongsu Paddy fields 0 0 Kg Sira Badak, Oil palm plantation 0 0 Beriah Paddy fields 0 0 Selama Houses 0 0 Sg. Tengas, Terap Oil palm plantation 0 0 Medium Bukit Panchor Forest 0 0 23.81 Bukit Panchor Forest 0 0 Gunung Bongsu Forest 0 0 Lata Tebing Tinggi, Forest 3 2 Ulu Selama Redang Panjang Forest 0 0 Hutan Rizab Bukit Forest 0 0 Relau

127 Table 4.22 Continued

Zone Validation Land used Species Total Location SBB GBB (%) High Gunung Inas Forest 2 0 76.19 Gunung Inas Forest 0 1 Gunung Bongsu Forest 0 0 Ulu Ijok Forest 2 0 Gunung Bintang Forest 2 0 Selama Water Forest 0 0 Intake, Ulu Selama Sg. Siputeh, Selama Forest 2 0 Hutan Rizab Ijok Forest 4 0 Hutan Rizab Ulu Forest 4 1 Ijok

SBB: Scaly-breasted Bulbul (Pycnonotus squamatus) and GBB: Grey-bellied Bulbul (Pycnonotus cyaniventris), **see Appendix Q for coordinate of validation points.

128 CHAPTERS

DISCUSSION

5.1 Species diversity: variation across habitat types

5.1.1 Secondary forest

Secondary forest recorded the highest number of bird diversity. Most of the bird species are exclusively found in secondary forest. They were categorized as forest dependent bird species (Wells, 1999) and identified as totally protected birds as stated in the Wildlife Conservation Act 2010 (Laws of Malaysia, 2010). They are considered as totally protected birds because of threats from habitat loss, parching and wildlife trade activities. Secondary forest which has several storeys comprised a variety of numbers, sizes and composition of tree species. Observation showed different bird species occupied in different forest storey. Secondary forest storey is divided into three main storey; upper-storey (canopy layer), middle-storey

(understorey layer) and lower-storey (shrub layer and forest floor) (Figure 5.1 ).

In the upper-storey of forest, canopy layer consist of tall trees reaching height of more than 20 metres. These kinds of trees are very tolerant to hot temperature and strong wind. Most raptors such as Crested Serpent-eagle (Spilornis cheela),

Changeable Hawk Eagle (Spizaetus cirrhatus) and Blyth's Hawk Eagle (Spizaetus alboniger) inhabited the canopy layer. These raptors are able to hunt from a canopy- level perch both inside the forest and in more open edges, dropping to prey on the ground or snatching from vegetation. Existence of tall trees in secondary forest gives 129 them adavantage to build nest that is safe and away from predators and human disturbance.

Canopy layer is characterized by oval shape leaves crown that act like a roof over shrub layer and forest floor. In this part, food resources are abundant with various types of fleshy fruits. Canopy layer of secondary forest is dense and more continuous, while the understorey highly developed. This means high opportunities for concealment, which is particularly important for breeding birds, forest dependent species and timid bird species.

Upper-storey

Middle-storey

Lower-storey

Figure 5.1 Cross section of seceondary forest (an illustration from Okuda et al.,

2003)

130 In middle-storey of forest, trees tend to have broad leaves in order to get sufficient sunlight. Light penetration is reduced gradually from upper-storey to forest floor. Therefore, low intensity of light in this layer promotes insect abundance

(Orians, 1969). Dead trees that are frequently found in secondary forest also played important role as habitat for termites and other insects (Donoso eta!., 2010). It is able to attract insectivorous species to find food sources and other birds to perch.

Lower-storey of forest was dominated by shrubs and herbs. Meanwhile, forest floor is covered by debris. Most of babblers and prinias species frequently inhabited lower-storey. Both of these bird species were hard to observe and can only be identified through their calls. As mentioned above, these timid species inhabited dense shrub to cover themselves from being exposed.

Secondary forest is very significant in accommodating high diversity of bird species because this area is located near Bintang Hijau Range (intact primary forest) and riparian areas which create suitable habitats for forest birds. Being in the vicinity of riparian corridor, the area composed of mixed patches of different vegetation types, nutrients, moisture, light, soil and rocks. These provide different types of habitat that are inhabited by both land bird and waterbirds. Thus riparian corridors served as transportation highways for bird communities. As an example,

Grey Wagtail (Motacilla cinerea) was commonly observed on river rocks and forage near to stream areas, House Swallow (Hirundo tahitica) frequently flew over water body, and babblers such as Pin-striped Tit Babbler (Macronus gularis), Abbott's

Babbler (Malacocincla abbotti) and Puff-throated Babbler (Pellorneum ruficeps) occupied shrubby areas of riparian corridors. In contrast to areas that are away from riparian, birds recorded were mainly land bird species. 131 Another factor contributing to high bird diversity along the riparian area is abundance of food sources (Iwata et al, 2003). Food sources include thousands of species of insects including stoneflies, mayflies, water striders, water boatmen and water beetles (Suhaila & Salmah, 2011 ). A study on riparian plant communities by

Stohlgren et al. (1998) classified riparian areas as havens for native and exotic plant species. Herbaceous and aquatic plants grow in and adjacent to the water, while shrub grow next to the water along river banks and wood trees dominated in area some distance back from water bodies (Cummins et al., 1989). Variation in plant types promotes habitats for many wildlife species to survive, especially for their young generation (Machtans et al., 1996). As an example, herbaceous and aquatic plants served as fish nursery and habitat for larva. Thus it is continuously maintaining food resources for bird community that nesting in shrubs and woody trees.

In this study site, most of villagers that live nearby rely on forest resources.

Harvesting forest fruits and farming are the main activities among the villagers.

Farming activities are usually located along the riparian areas. Variation in fruit trees planted increase food sources for forest birds. With only a small scale of farming activities, negative effect on bird population is under control. A site visit after one year of sampling period showed selected forested areas have been cleared, believed for rubber plantation. Forest conversion to monoculture such as rubber and oil palm plantation are known to cause severe impact to bird distribution (Aratrakom et al., 2006). This will be further discussed in 5.2.2 below.

132 Large forest patches covered the upper part of KRB and only several forest reserves remain at the lower stream. The middle and lower stream areas of KRB are dominated by agriculture and development, respectively. Both resulted from a combination of population pressure, economic growth and technologies. Without any control and strict regulation, human disturbance in forested areas can become a predominant factor that could cause habitat loss and wildlife extinction (Peh et a/.,

2005). Many studies have documented negative effect of human disturbance on bird community in forested areas (Brooks eta/., 1997; Brooks eta/., 1999a & 1999b).

Forest dependent species that was recognized as permanent forest resident is very sensitive towards habitat destruction (Waltert et a/., 2005) while birds with high tolerance will continually survive (Sodhi eta/., 2004). This situation can be found in oil palm plantation as discussed below.

5.1.2 Oil palm plantation

Bird species found abundant in the plantation are all common in non-forest habitats. This difference is presumably the result of the simple, more open structure and single-species dominance in oil palm plantation. The homogenous, uniform age and physiognomy of the oil palm trees result in far less structural complexity than in the diverse and uneven-aged of secondary forest. The oil palm plantation is relatively sparse and the understorey poorly developed. This means fewer opportunities for camouflage or cover-up, which is particularly important for breeding birds and forest dependent species. Moreover, this environment could be responsible for the much lower abundance of invertebrates on understorey plants in oil palm plantation (Aratrakom eta/., 2006). 133 As mentioned above, oil palm plantation covered most areas at middle stream of Kerian River Basin. Investigation on bird changes due to land conversion is important to present an overview of current situation and also for future reference.

This study reveals about 76% of forest birds were not observed and it was comparable with other studies conducted in southern Peninsular Malaysia (Peh et al.,

2005; Peh et al., 2006; Koh & Wilcove, 2008). Groups well represented in forest but absent or poorly documented in plantation include woodpeckers, barbets, leafbirds and babblers. This is also similar with bird changes following conversion of lowland forest to oil palm plantation in southern Thailand (Aratrakorn et al., 2006). Oil palm plantation is categorized as unfavorable environment due to their low availability in food sources and frequently receive human disturbance especially during fruit harvesting activity (Aratrakom et al., 2006). Most birds in this area are common species (or generalist) that are adaptable to unfavorable environment and feed on a wide range of food sources.

The most common bird species such as Oriental Magpie Robin (Copsychus saularis), White-throated Kingfisher (Halcyon smyrnensis) and Yellow-vented

Bulbul (Pycnonotus goaivier) were abundant and frequently seen either at the edge or inside plantation area. In fact, they were most dominant bird colonies in oil palm plantation where observation and netting managed to record adults (male and female) and juvenile in almost sampling session. There was also no variation of species composition in captured specimens as where they were always dominated by the same common species. The other common birds such as Asian Glossy Starling

(Aplonis panayensis), Common Myna (Acridotheres tristis) and Common Flameback

(Dinopium javanense) were only found at the edge of oil palm plantation and rarely 134 captured. Oil palm has an oily, fleshy outer layer (the pericarp) with single seed, also rich in oil and the plantation understorey has few fruting shrubs. The lower food abundance is probably an important factor in the lower bird species in the plantation.

The lack of fruit probably explains the lesser importance of both the resident and winter visitor insectivore-frugivore in the plantation.

These results agree with bird documentation in other oil palm plantation in

Malaysia, where bird densities during migratory season were considerably lower in an oil palm plantation than in nearby secondary and primary forest (Fitzherbert,

2008; Koh & Wilcove, 2008). Other studies in tropical Asia (Lambert, 1992;

Shankar Raman & Sukumar, 2002) have also found that monoculture plantations support fewer forest dependent species than natural forests. All these studies used natural forest either primary/secondary or at least much older than the plantations.

As stated before, birds in oil palm plantation are sensitive towards fruit harvesting activity. Result showed numbers of species observed and captured reduced dramatically. During fruit harvesting, oil palm's fronds were removed and unfortunately several Malkoha's nests located between fronds fell to the ground.

Adult Malkoha have to abandoned its nest and seek shelter elsewhere.

Communication with owner plantation indicates that, oil palm's fruit is harvested regularly every two weeks. Through observation, clearance of adjacent land for second time replantation also could cause the disappearance of birds. Only several birds were seen appeared at the edge of the plantation.

135 A major loss of bird that results from oil palm plantation in this area in some way was seen crucial for other bird groups. As an example oil palm plantation that is located in riparian areas of Kerian River was identified to be important when it served as movement corridor and connect several forest patches in surrounding areas.

This is strongly agreed when this study recorded 17 forest birds visiting at the edge of oil palm areas. Besides, small ponds and wet areas in the oil palm plantation attract Javan Pond-heron (Ardeola speciosa), Little Heron (Butorides striata) and

Eastern Cattle Egret (Bubulcus coromandus) to exist.

Predators such as Crested Serpent-eagle (Spilornis cheela), Buffy Fish Owl

(Ketupa ketupu) and Collared Scops Owl (Otus lettia) were common residents in the oil palm plantation. They were observed several times perched silently on the oil palm's frond. A study of small mammals conducted parallel to this study in the same oil palm plantation showed that trapping success of Tupaia glis and Rattus tiomanicus were relatively high (Shafie, 2011 ). This is also similar to the finding by

Buckle et a/. (1997), Mahmood-Ul-Hasssan (2007) and Figueroa et a/., (2009) that stated abundance of preys including small mammals (e.g. Rattus tiomanicus and

Tupaia glis) and snakes in oil palm plantation allow predators to survive very well.

Other studies have showed that the use of predators was beneficial to control rat population in oil palm plantation (Puan eta/., 2011; Meyrom eta/., 2009). Other predators such as Black baza (Aviceda leuphotes) and Oriental honey buzzard

(Pernis ptilorhynchus) were seen soaring above oil palm plantation but there was no evidence of existence in the plantation.

136 5.1.3 Paddy field

Paddy field was the other type of monoculture that covered most of the lower stream of Kerian River Basin. This temporary wetland habitat continuously support many waterbirds and land birds and differ from with other habitat types. Past studies suggest that paddy fields are a man-made habitat that is very suitable for waterbirds and land birds to forage, breed and find shelter (Zou et al., 2006; Razafimanjato et al., 2007; Takahashi & Ohkawara, 2007; Wood et al., 2010). These birds also comprised migratory species that utilize the paddy fields located along their migratory routes (Masero et al., 2010). Farming activities, paddy growing seasons and paddy field landscapes were the main factors that influence bird foraging activities and occurrence (Kelly et al., 2008; IbaDez et al., 2010; King et al., 2010).

Throughout the study period, observation indicates that farming activities and paddy growing seasons regularly influenced bird occurrence in the paddy plots of Bandar

Baharu, Kedah. Observations showed different bird groups use paddy field in different planting processes (Table 5.1 ).

137 Table 5.1 Summary of frequent birds observed during different stages of paddy growing season in paddy field, Bandar Baharu, Kedah from March 2009-February 2010

Months Paddy growing season I Human Frequent birds observed activities ~~~~~~~------~~~~~

April-May • Just before harvesting, rice • Scaly-breasted 2009 ripens about 100 days Munia • Baya Weaver Little

July 2009 • Burning activity in the rice • Jungle Myna field plots to remove the rice straw

September­ • Transplanting activity • White-rumped October 2009 • Direct seedling Munia • Rice plots inundated with • Eastern Cattle Egret intermediate water level (5- 10

December • Just before harvesting, rice • White-romped 2009 ripens about 100 days Munia

138 Personal communications with farmers concludes that there were three main stages of paddy growing seasons. At the early stage of planting, ploughing begins after paddy plots were flooded with intermediate water level (5-10 em). Heavy machines were used during the stage of paddy planting. A large flock of Eastern

Cattle Egret (Bubulcus coromandus) estimated between 150-180 individuals were seen following behind the machine, when many invertebrates prey, small frogs, tadpoles and small fish were exposed and become easily available to birds. In the second stage, planting and transplanting activities were done followed by manual weeding of the fields throughout the growing season. Pesticides and fungicides were actively used to eliminate rodents, weeds and fungus. The use of insecticides, herbicides and fungicides in the paddy field might cause harmful impacts towards bird species. Some of these chemicals were believed to be highly toxic to birds and could increase mortality rate and bioaccumulation in birds resulting in negative reproductive effect (Parsons et a!., 201 0). However, further investigation on the effect of pesticide used on bird communities in Bandar Baham should be conducted.

Paddy fields were flooded during the growing season and able to attract a variety of birds which consist of migrants and residents that required wet areas for foraging area and breeding ground. Little Egret (Butorides striata), Javan Pond- heron (Ardeola speciosa) and Eastern Cattle Egret (Bubulcus coromandus) were seen in breeding plumage and used wet areas as their foraging habitat. Raptor such as

Black-shouldered Kite (Elanus caeruleus) was seen in perch and ready to hunt. Just before harvesting season, the rice ripens and this attracts granivore species such as

White-rumped Munia (Lonchura striata) and Scaly-breasted Munia (Lonchura punctulata) to forage. In the last stage, fields and the rice crop were drained and 139 harvested respectively. The dried fields and the remaining grains left after harvesting were fed on by many bird species, mainly granivores.

5.2 Bird observation analysis across habitat

Sampled birds of three different habitat types is summarized according to diversity index, richness indices, heterogeneity, evenness, cluster analysis of species distribution, rarefaction method and species accumulation that has been analyzed.

Bird existence was much influenced on their adaptation towards surrounding environments. It has been demonstrated several times that bird species diversity is correlated with the vegetation complexity in a habitat (Yorke, 1984; Waltert et al.

2004; Sodhi et al. 2008). As example, paddy field is a plantation with simple vegetation structure and temporary wetlands which are utilized mostly by waterbirds.

Meanwhile, secondary forest that has complex vegetation and dense understorey is particularly suited for forest dependent species. Several forest birds were observed at the edge of oil palm plantation and paddy field because they used these habitats as connector between forest patches and feeding ground, respectively.

Changes obtained from Margalef and Menhenick indices between months in all habitat types are due to the influence from fruiting season, migratory season, food availability and unfavourable weather such as heavy precipitation. These factors affect bird existence across habitat types. Secondary forest and paddy field show distinct changes in both indices because these habitat types receive large number of migratory bird compared to oil palm plantation. Secondary forest attracts more bird 140 species during fruiting season, while paddy field serves as stop over area and feeding ground for many migratory and resident birds. Both heterogeneity and evenness measures indicate secondary forest is the most preferable habitat for various bird species since this habitat scored the highest heterogeneity and maximal evenness.

Secondary forest and oil palm plantation were grouped together as illustrated in a dendogram of cluster analysis. This indicates bird species recorded in oil palm plantation has greater overlap with bird species recorded in secondary forest compared to paddy field. This is because, the overlap bird species has wide range of habitat use and able to survive in secondary forest that has plenty choices of food and also in oil palm plantation that has limited food source. Paddy fields showed more than 50% dissimilarity of bird species which differ from secondary forest and oil palm plantation. The uniqueness of paddy field as man-made agriculture land that serve as vital habitat for a variety of birds is further discussed in the following subtopic 5. 7.

Meanwhile in each habitat type, rarefaction showed number of expected species increased parallel with the number of observations. As predicted, secondary forest has the highest expected species among the other habitat when it is compared with the same number of observations. On the other hand, oil palm plantation is expected to have slightly higher than paddy field. This happened when 750 observations are used to estimate the number of species richness. However, by the end of sampling period, paddy field scored 70 species compare to only 58 species recorded in oil palm plantation. Thus, in summary this study found secondary forest

141 is the most suitable habitat for many bird species, followed by paddy field and oil palm plantation.

5.3 Mist-netting in secondary forest and oil palm plantation

When compared to a study by Zakaria et al. (2009), this study also found that point count provides better results and this method was more efficient compared to mist-netting. In short, in secondary forest, mist-netting helps to increase the detection of bird species through point count, while the detection through point count in oil palm plantation able to cover most species in that area. This result supports the conclusion by Derlindati & Caziani (2005) and Wang & Finch (2002) who found that mist-netting helps to increase the detection of bird species in complex vegetation structure. Our result revealed in simpler vegetation structure, all bird present could be detected through point count method as a result of only one species failed to detect through point count method in oil palm plantation. This proved by most bird studies in paddy fields where only observation method was conducted to identify birds (Lane & Fujioka 1998; Ichinose eta!., 2006; Pearlstine et al., 2006)

5.4 Bird status in Kerian River Basin

Kerian River Basin (KRB) harbours a wide variety of birds inhabiting a diversified habitat mosaic. The forested areas (primary and secondary forest) located in upper part of KRB is one among the few remaining forest patches which is unique for its varied flora and fauna. High diversity of bird species from different families reveals forest is the most occupied habitat especially for forest bird species. 142 Compared to plantation areas, paddy field and oil palm plantation, both habitats support less totally protected birds and comprised more non-protected birds, game bird and other protected bird (See result pg. 98).

Apart from these, the secondary forest records 96 totally protected birds including two species of near-thratened Pycnonotidae also adds to the uniqueness of this forest patch. The site should be given first priority for conservation of rare forest dependent species such as from family Bucerotidae, Accipitridae and Megalaimidae.

Since, secondary forest is continuous with primary forest, it provides a unique habitat not only for birds but also for many large and small carnivores, herbivores, primates and reptiles. Insects and fruiting trees are suspected to exist in high diversity.

Unfortunately no data is available which detailed studies are required immediately.

Thus secondary forest is an ideal place for conservation of near-threatened birds and also for a large number of secondary forest species. Due to the increase in human population, forested area is presently facing disturbance which will cause habitat loss if proper conservation measures are not taken up immediately. This is further disscussed in subtopic 5.8.

143 5.4.1 Near-threatened bird species

Bird richness showed a pronounced decline with increasing habitat modification. Forest areas m Kerian River Basin are frequently found to be converted into plantation, especially oil palm plantation, development areas and human settlement. In other study which investigates bird diversity changes from forest to plantation in tropical forest-agriculture landscape, southern Uganda, revealed the same result of decline in forest species including family Pycnonotidae

(Naidoo, 2004). Based on the map that has been analyzed, remaining habitat of near­ threatened SBB and GBB was identified mostly in the upper stream of Kerian River

Basin. Most land uses in middle and lower stream have lost critical habitat features which are not suitable for these near-threatened species.

Near-threatened SBB and GBB dominated forest areas were identified to be absent in other habitat types. Bulbul species eat a wide range of different foods, ranging from fruit to seeds, small insects, other arthropods and small vertebrates.

However, near threatened SBB and GBB are specialized frugivore and insectivore­ frugivore species (see Table 3.4, pg. 61). Habitat conversion from forest to plantation reduced the food sources of these near-threatened species. Plantation trees are uniform and result in far less structural complexity than diverse trees in secondary forest. According to Sreekar et al. (2010), the existence of fig trees in dipterocarp forest, Maliau Basin, Sabah, large number of Pycnonotidae fed on the figs while insectivorous species were observed foraging in the trees, presumably consumed large quantities of fig wasps. This means fewer fruits and insects available

144 in plantation compared to forest areas. Thus number of Pycnonotidae declines drastically in plantation areas due to lack of food sources.

5.4.2 Suitability area of near-threatened Scaly-breasted Bulbul (Pycnonotus

squamatus) and Grey-bellied Bulbul (Pycnonotus cyaniventris)

When combined, the results of observation (pg. 73) and netting (March 2009-

February 2010) (pg. 102), validation (primary and secondary data) and suitability area mapping (pg. 124) showed high number of near-threatened SBB and GBB in forested areas and absent in the agricultural and development areas. The population was not distributed evenly within KRB, but concentrated in forested areas. This is not surprising, as forested areas were dominant in the upper stream ofKRB.

Food, vegetation, breeding ground and shelter are essential factors for the near-threatened SBB and GBB habitats. Anthropogenic activities were often the limiting factor for these species to survive (Wells, 2007). As an example, several forest reserves located in the middle and lower part of KRB such as Bukit Panchor and Bukit Relau were identified as moderate suitable habitat for near-threatened SBB and GBB. These forested areas are less suitable compared in the upper part of KRB because most of moderate zones are surrounded by anthropogenic activities such as urban sprawl and monoculture plantation which possibly decreased their suitability area.

145 In a study conducted by Waltert et al. (2005), the distribution of different bird species depended largely on vegetation parameter, rather than any other habitat factors. In agricultural and urban areas such as human settlements, town, rubber and oil palm plantation no near-threatened SBB and GBB was found. These artificial surroundings also seem to be less attractive for near-threatened SBB and GBB.

Result from the mapping showed that the types of vegetation have influences on the grade of suitability area for SBB and GBB. Monoculture area was not an ideal habitat for near-threatened SBB and GBB, which was also verified by data gained from field observation and secondary data. In contrast, the forested areas

(primary and secondary forest) support relatively high population of near-threatened

SBB and GBB. This is mainly due to the high variation of vegetation type that provides a variety of food sources, shelter and ground for breeding. Field study data largely correspond with this suitability area mapping result.

Primary and secondary data in low zone (Table 4.22, pg. 127) such as human settlements, oil palm plantation and orchards (Kg. Sira Badak, Permatang Kerat

Telunjuk and Sg. Teras, Terap) showed the absence of SBB and GBB. From the observations Red-eyed bulbul (Pycnonotus brunneus) was frequently seen. This forest species might use oil palm plantation as movement corridor that connect them between forest patches. The low zone was heavily dominated by built up and sparse vegetation. Thus suitable areas for near-threatened SBB and GBB were extremely rare because of the absence of vegetation and food resources.

146 5.5 Migratory bird species

According to Yacob (2009), there are eight main Migratory Bird Flyways in the world and one of these is the East Asian Australasian flyway. Through this flyway, birds that migrate from northern to southern hemispheres will pass through

Malaysia. Malaysia becomes a favorable stop over and shelter area due to several factors including ample food supply, tropical climate and the west coast of

Peninsular Malaysia was protected from strong winds and wave erosion (Lomoljo et al., 2010). West coast of Peninsular Malaysia has been recognized as important migrating sites for shorebirds in East Asia Australasian Flyway (Wei et al., 2006).

Nevertheless, habitats other than coastal areas in west of Peninsular Malaysia also receive migratory birds. Different habitat types in this study were located in west of Peninsular Malaysia showed paddy field has been visited by 15 species of migratory birds while secondary forest and oil palm plantation recorded only 12

(including netting) and six, respectively.

According to (King et al., 2010) paddy fields in many countries support large number of migratory waterbirds. Migratory bird species in paddy field was also dominated by waterbirds. The reason for the abundance may due to large amount of foods supply such as polychaetes, crustaceans, and mollusks in paddy plots during wintering season (Stafford et al., 2010). Based on personal observation, waterbirds frequently moved from plot to plot selecting quality and quantity of habitat available in order to take advantage from exposed prey resources and maximize their foraging efficiency. 147 In secondary forest, among the minor species, juvenile migratory bird such as

Siberian Blue Robin (Luscinia cyane) and Tiger Shrike (Lanius tigrinus) were netted.

Past study has shown migratory birds that used tropical forest have declined in numbers due to habitat loss while migratory birds using open area habitat did not

(Finch & Forest, 1991 ). This suggests that if human activities occur in secondary forest, migratory birds might decline rapidly compared to paddy field.

The relatively poor composition of migratory bird found at oil palm plantation was probably due to a number of factors including unfavorable feeding ground and offer little environmental advantage compared to forested areas

(Aratrakom et al., 2006). Most migratory species recorded in oil palm plantation comprised of adaptable species, for example Brown Shrike (Lanius cristatus), Asian

Brown Flycatcher (Muscicapa dauurica), Ashy minivet (Pericrocotus divaricatus) and Black baza (Aviceda leuphotes). The existence of two species of migratory waterbirds most probably due to location of oil palm plantation that is locatated close to streamside and puddles available within this habitat.

148 5.6 Variation of bird feeding guilds across habitat types

In this subtopic, the discussion is focused on bird feeding guilds in every habitat types (see result subtopic 4.10 pg. 111).

5.6.1 Secondary forest

There were seven groups of bird feeding guilds in secondary forest dominated by insectivore birds, followed by insectivore-frugivore, frugivore, carnivore, omnivore, insectivore-nectarivore and granivore. The most important factor that affected pattern of feeding guilds is the complexity of habitat structure (Iongh & Van

Weerd, 2006). Feeding guild showed strong relationship when correlated with different habitat types. Studies have revealed guild such as insectivorous birds showed positive relationship with relatively undisturbed habitat; meanwhile, granivore and nectarivore showed significantly abundance in disturb environment

(Dekercioglu et al., 2002; Chettri et al., 2005; Zakaria et al., 2005; Iongh & Van

Weerd, 2006).

Insectivore birds comprising of sallying insectivore, terrestrial insectivore, foliage-gleaning insectivore and bark-gleaning insectivore were frequently observed in different forest storey. As explained by Zakaria et al. (2005), insectivore birds scored the highest number of species captured in primary forest compared to logged forest. Most probably before forest is converted to secondary forest, insectivore bird existence was higher compared to the present data. Insectivore species was significantly different between secondary forest and oil palm plantation (Table 4.18, 149 pg. 114). According to Chettri et al. (2005) a habitat with dense vegetation, i.e, higher tree density and basal areas, influence the high existence of insects. Insects favor moist condition and dense foliage (Erwin, 2002). Therefore with the presence of high food source, insectivore birds were recorded in high percentage in secondary forest.

Insectivore-frugivore and specialized frugivore recorded abundantly after insectivore species indicates variety of fruits are also available in secondary forest.

Most of insectivore-frugivore birds were represented by Pycnonotidae. This species is adaptable to the variation of fruiting season as they can switch to an insectivorous diet. Thus they are good colonizing species and prefer to inhabit logged forest

(Zakaria et al., 2005). Frugivore species utilized variety of fruits which widely available within secondary forest. Fruit selection by frugivore birds is influenced by color (Gautier-Hion, 1990), seed size and number (Gautier-Hion et al., 1985; Levey,

1987a), nutrient content (Herrera, 1982; Levey, 1987b) and fruiting arrangement

(Denslow & Moermond, 1982; Levey et al., 1984). Abundance of insectivore- frugivore in secondary forest and paddy field was not significant (Table 4.18, pg.

114), where most probably fruting trees available near to paddy plots attract this species to occupy in paddy field areas.

Frugivore species comprised understorey birds and specialist canopy frugivore. Both small and large birds have similarly diverse diets, but small frugivore, such as flowerpecker and bulbuls eat mainly small, carbohydrate-rich fruit, while large frugivore such as hornbills eat large fruit size and carbohydrate-lipid-rich fruits (Moermond & Denslow, 1985). They played important role as seed dispersers 150 which also influence patterns of seed distribution and thus forest structure. Clark et a!. (200 1) found that large birds contributed greater numbers of seeds to the seed rain than any other single disperser category such as monkeys and squirrels.

Secondary forest sustains abundance of frugivore species. Abundance of frugivore species were found to decrease in agriculture areas which scored 75% and

58 %reduction in oil palm plantation and paddy fields respectively. This is matched with studies in other parts of Peninsular Malaysia, Borneo and other tropical countries which found frugivore species appear to be adversely affected by human activities such as logging and habitat conversion (Johns, 1988; Zakaria & Nordin,

1998; Gray, 2007).

Large-bodied species such as Wreathed Hornbill (Aceros undulatus) and

Rhinoceros Hornbill (Buceros rhinoceros) are also threatened by habitat conversion and loss. This is also explained by Iongh & Van Weerd (2006) where large frugivore species is affected by reduction of large fruit trees. Conversion of forest to agriculture areas definitely become a critical problem for these species to survive. In this study, it was found that these hornbills only exist in secondary forest (and nearby primary forest). This is related to the finding on the effect of logging on forest bird in Africa, where numbers of large frugivores decreased as numbers of large fruiting trees decreased (Dranzoa, 1998). Lambert & Marshall (1991) added that, large frugivore species do not feed on the small fruits that are abundantly found in most secondary forest.

151 Pycnonotidae and Megalaimidae are other bird families that rely heavily on

fruits. Secondary forest sustain diverse species of family Pycnonotidae and

Megalaimidae but unfortunately most frugivore species from these families did not

occur in either oil palm plantation or paddy field. Mann-Whitney U-test shows

abundance of frugivore species is significantly different across habitat types (Table

4.18, pg. 114). This is mainly due to the reduction of variety of fruits in monoculture

plantations. Only adaptable species such as Yellow-vented Bulbul (Pycnonotus goiavier) was found colonizing oil palm plantation in large numbers because it consumes a wide range of food sources.

5.6.2 Oil palm plantation

Carnivorous species was identified as the most frequently observed species in oil palm plantations. This guild is comprised with raptors such as Crested Serpent­ eagle (Spilornis cheela), Collared Scops Owl ( Otus lettia) and Buffy Fish Owl

(Ketupa ketupu). As example, Crested Serpent-eagle (Spilornis cheela) was found soaring in this agricultural area 90% of the time in this study. Although they were the most frequent carnivorous species to be seen, their number recorded is only 276 observations in one year sampling period. Thus, species richness of raptor is considered low in oil palm plantation. This is consistent with findings in the five

Neotropical biomes sampled in Argentina that raptor communities strongly influenced by habitat transformation, in tum showed lower abundance of individuals, richness and diversity of species in more transformed landscapes (Carrete et al.,

2009).

152 Existence of carnivorous species in oil palm plantation was mainly influenced by availability of their food sources. This is also explained by a study in southern

Portugal, where number of carnivorous species or predator is proportionately increased with number of prey (Lourenc;o & Sergio, 2006). Preys such as shrews, snakes, and rats were among food sources available in oil palm plantations.

According to Shafie, (2011) abundance of Rattus tiomanicus was low compared to

Tupaia glis with nine individuals out of 40 individuals captured in the same oil palm plantation. As mentioned in previous studies shrews were the favored prey for many raptors throughout the world (Glue, 1974; Lovari et al., 1976; Bose & Guidali, 2001;

McGhie, 2001 ). Moreover, their noisy conflicts and territorial behavior make them vulnerable to predation and this attracts predator to locate them. Therefore they are easier to get than other preys (Nishimura & Abe, 1988; Derting & Cranford, 1989).

Omnivorous bird species was the next abundant in oil palm plantation. As example Yellow-vented Bulbul (Pycnonotus goaivier), Jungle Myna (Acridotheres fuscus) and Common Myna (Acridotheres tristis) were common bird species that have wide option for food sources. They were able to eat a variety of invertebrates and fruits. In oil palm plantation, they prefer to eat the pericarp of oil palm fruit, meanwhile animals that they preferred were Dermaptera, Hymenoptera, Isoptera,

Orthoptera, Coleoptera, leeches and snails (Arshad et al., 2000).

Omnivorous bird is predicted to increase in number if forest is converted to oil palm plantation. Similarly, Aratrakom et a!. (2006) found that omnivorous species has not suffered due to conversion of forest to plantations. This is similar with frugivore bird species that ranked second after omnivorous bird species. These 153 results match the work undertaken by Peh et al. (2005) where most frugivore and

omnivorous species showed persistence in the mixed rural habitat that include village

and agriculture plantations.

Results showed there was 90% loss of insectivorous species due to habitat

conversion into plantation areas. Previous studies found insectivorous species were

particularly sensitive to habitat disturbance (Canaday, 1996; Zakaria & Francis,

2001; DekercioDlu et al., 2002; Kideghesho et a!., 2006) Limited dispersal

capabilities of insectivore species were identified as significant factor that caused reduction of insectivore species (DekercioDlu et al., 2002). A study by Stouffer &

Bierregaard (1995) found insectivore species required large areas of forest to forage but are very hesitant to cross open areas. Insectivore species of secondary forest,

such as Crimson-winged woodpecker (Picus puniceus), Banded woodpecker (Picus miniaceus) and Grey and buffwoodpecker (Hemicircus concretus) were observed to have similar location of foraging areas where they visited daily. These species are very susceptible to disappear from impacted areas. Thus they do not exist in oil palm plantation.

Insectivore-nectarivore in oil palm plantation recorded the lowest number with only seven observations found during sampling period. In contrast in paddy field and secondary forest, numbers of observation recorded were 28 and 20 respectively which were not significantly different (Table 4.18, pg. 114).

Nectariniidae, represented by spiderhunters and sunbirds was the only family of insectivore-nectarivore. These small size birds were very sensitive to habitat disturbance. Therefore, m agriculture areas, richness of insectivore-nectarivore 154 decreased and common species such as Olive-backed Sunbird (Cinnyris jugularis) was frequently recorded.

5.6.3 Paddy field

Paddy field is another man-made habitat that supports various groups of carnivorous birds; such as heron, egret, eagle, bittern, sandpiper, plover, lapwing and kingfisher. These groups of bird were common and abundantly found in paddy field areas ofBandar Baharu, Kedah. Other countries such as Korea, Japan, China, United

States, Indonesia and India also recorded various species of waterbirds that inhabited paddy field areas (Fasola et al., 2004; Ichinose et al., 2006; Elphick, 2008; Fujioka et al., 2010; Pierluissi et al., 2010).

Paddy fields sustain many food sources that attract large number of carnivorous species. Thus, it is a significant foraging habitat for carnivorous birds

(Fernando, 1993; Lane & Fujioka, 1998; Fujioka & Yoshida, 2001; Lombardini et al., 2001). Carnivorous species prefers to feed on animals that range from small to large sizes. Observation showed animals such as small invertebrates, fish, snakes and rodents were among predominant diet for them. As explained by Stafford et al.

(20 10), most waterbirds diet in paddy fields consists of benthic and surface-dwelling invertebrates and aquatic vertebrates. The main foods include tadpoles, adult frogs, crustacean and fish (Longoni, 201 0). Surrounding environment gradually changed following paddy growing season. At different stages of paddy growing season, different kind of organisms exist (Stafford et al., 2010). Thus it provides potential microhabitat and potential food for birds. For example, during flooding stage, 155 aquatic organisms from Kerian River will enter the paddy plots through adjacent

waterways. Carnivorous species such as heron, egret and bittern were concentrated

in these plots ready to seek aquatic organism. This has been explained by Fujioka et

al. (2010), where waterbirds including plovers, sandpipers and herons seek small

aquatic animals such as earthworms, aquatic insects, frogs and fish during paddy

growing season.

After 100 days of growing season, paddy fields were harvested. Small mammals attracted to ripening stages of paddy emerged to feed on grains

(Hasanuzzaman et al., 2010). Many small mammals crowded into marginal habitat

along canals and roads. This might increase the availability of prey sources during the harvest season. Large predators such as Brahminy Kite (Haliastur indus), Black-

shouldered Kite (Elanus caeruleus) and Crested Serpent-eagle (Spilornis cheela) were observed to occur in the harvested areas and respond quickly to the intentional burning of fields. Most raptors in this study were believed to originate from nearby forest patches, mangrove and oil palm plantation. Paddy field served as feeding ground for these species to survive.

Omnivorous and granivorous birds recorded second and third highest feeding guilds found in paddy fields. Both guilds comprise land birds that used paddy fields as foraging habitat. Most of the land birds associated with human settlements and bushes near the paddy plots. Omnivorous birds have a lot of choices of foods since they eat both animals and plants. Mann-Whitney U-test shows abundance of omnivorous birds was significantly different across habitat types (Table 4.18, pg.

114) with high abundance in paddy field. Paddy field that support a variety of 156 vertebrate and invertebrate animals also increased food availability for omnivorous birds, and furthermore this habitat is also important for various animal's breeding place. For example, tadpole, adult frogs, larvae and adult insects are diet for omnivorous species. Besides, a variety fruiting trees that have been planted by farmers near ditches and houses also become primary food sources for omnivorous species.

Granivore species concentrated in paddy fields just before harvesting season.

In this stage, the rice ripens and attracts granivore species such as White-rumped

Munia (Lonchura striata) and Scaly-breasted Munia (Lonchura punctulata) to forage. Granivore species also occur during harvesting season where fields and rice crops were drained and harvested. The left-over grains after harvesting become the potential food for granivore species (Maeda, 2001; Stafford et al., 2006; Fujioka et al., 2010). Granivore species was significantly different across habitat types (Table

4.18, pg. 114) with paddy field recording the highest abundance and serve as the most ideal habitat for this feeding guild. A study by Stafford et al. (2010) recorded

66-672 kg/ha of seed mass in paddy fields of North America turns out to be the most potential food for granivore species.

The study showed that it could result in 30% reduction of insectivorous species if forest is converted into paddy fields. The reduction in insect biomass is the factor that contributes to the disappearance of insectivore species. As mentioned by

O'Connell et al. (2000) diminished numbers of insect were due to the low complexity of habitat structure. Forest that has complex vegetation structure, offers more niches, and comprised high plant and insect diversity to support more bird species (Miller et 157 a!., 2004). Large numbers of prey for birds were identified in forest which includes spiders (Aranae), Lepidoptera and Diptera (Pettersson eta!., 1995).

This is in contrast to oil palm plantation and paddy fields which are structurally simpler and offer fewer but different feeding niches (Fujioka & Yoshida, 2001;

Fitzherbert, 2008; Koh & Wilcove, 2008). However, the reduction of insectivore species in paddy field was lower compared to the reduction in oil palm plantation as shown through Mann-Whitney U-test (Table 4.18, pg. 114). This is because paddy fields are temporary wetlands that could support insects that are dependent on water at certain stages of life cycle. Adaptable species such as Blue-tailed Bee-eater

(Merops philippinus) and Brown Shrike (Lanius cristatus) were among insectivore species frequently found to forage in paddy fields.

Carnivorous species is largely dependent on habitat characteristic such as plant species composition and vegetation structure (Graham & Blake, 2001).

Through Mann-Whitney U-test, carnivorous species is significantly different between secondary forest and paddy field, and oil palm plantation and paddy field

(Table 4.18, pg. 114). Abundance of carnivorous species was relatively low in secondary forest and oil palm plantation compared to paddy field. This is most probably influenced by low visibility of preys in secondary forest and oil palm plantation, as opposed to high visibility in paddy field. Besides, birds of prey in secondary forest were difficult to observe than in paddy field. These explained the differences found between habitat types.

158 Insectivore-granivore species that existed in paddy field were significantly

different from secondary forest and oil palm plantation (Table 4.18, pg. 114). Paddy

field supports a variety of insects and large volume of grains and insectivore­

granivore species frequently forage near human houses and paddy fields. This

species is represented by Eurasian Tree-sparrow (Passer montanus) and Baya

Weaver (Ploceus philippinus).

5. 7 Secondary forest and paddy fields as important habitat for different bird

species

From this study there is clear variation in bird species and feeding guilds in the three habitat types. Secondary forest and paddy fields were found to be significantly important for different group of birds, while oil palm plantation is inhabited by common species mostly found in either secondary forest or paddy fields. In this subtopic, discussion is focused on the importance of secondary forest and paddy fields as valuable habitats for bird communities.

Both habitats are characterized by very different environment, vegetation structure and receive different frequency of human activities. In Kerian River Basin, forested areas only remain in the upstream and most paddy fields dominate the lower stream. The secondary forest is located at least 180 m above sea level and surrounded by hilly area which is in contrast to paddy fields that record less than seven m above sea level. The difference of altitude will promote different bird species to inhabit each habitat (Orians, 1969).

159 Several bird species that frequently inhabit hilly areas were recorded in secondary forest such as Wreathed Hombill (Aceros undulatus), Blue-winged

Leafbird (Chloropsis cochinchinensis) and Streak-eared Bulbul (Pycnonotus blanfordi) which were absent in low altitude habitat. Hilly areas comprised tall trees and various fruiting trees which are able to support frugivorous species. Meanwhile, paddy fields exclusively serve as habitat for low altitude species that are dependent on water areas such as Marsh Sandpiper (Tringa stagnatilis), Common Sandpiper

(Actitis hypoleucos) and Purple Heron (Ardea purpurea).

The difference of vegetation characteristics in both habitats strongly influence bird occurrence. Secondary forest is structurally complex and can sustain a wide range of plant species with different heights, offers more niches to support more bird species (Miller et al., 2004). Meanwhile paddy fields which are structurally simpler would offer fewer but different feeding niches (Fujioka & Yoshida, 2001;

Fitzherbert, 2008; Koh & Wilcove, 2008). In addition, variation of habitat structure in both secondary forest and paddy field allow different body sizes of bird to occupy.

In Kerian River Basin, most of small-sized birds were adaptable to complex structure of middle and understorey of secondary forest. These small-sized birds such as Asian Brown Flycatcher (Muscicapa dauurica), Yellow-breasted

Flowerpecker (Dicaeum maculatus) and Little Spiderhunter (Arachnothera longirostra) can easily move in the narrow spaces of complex vegetation.

Meanwhile, large-sized birds, raptors and hombills require wide spaces to perch, hunt or forage and thus they are only able to dominate at the canopy level of large tall trees. In contrast to paddy field, its open areas allow large body sized waterbirds, 160 such as Purple Heron (Ardea purpurea), Intermediate Egret (Mesophoyx intermedia) and Great Egret (Ardea alba) to move, forage and roost flexibly in wide spaces.

Both habitat types received human disturbance with different level of activities. Subsequently it can have direct influence toward bird distribution.

Human activities have been shown to cause negative impact toward bird distribution and may result in decrease bird population (Canaday, 1996; Lussier et al., 2006). In this secondary forest, logging activity halted in the last 20 years and currently accessed by villagers who extract on forest resources. However, changes of bird population in the secondary forest cannot be concluded due to lack of bird data before logging activity took place.

Nevertheless, if compared to data collected by Peh et al. (2005) in pristine forest of Bekok and Belumut, Johor, with bird data in secondary forest of Kerian

River Basin, few adaptable species such as Yell ow-vented Bulbul (Pycnonotus goiavier), Oriental Magpie Robin (Copsychus saularis) and White-throated

Kingfisher (Halcyon smyrnensis) found absent were present in secondary forest of

Kerian River Basin. However about 50% of forest dependent bird in Bekok and

Belumut failed to be recorded in the secondary forest of Kerian River Basin. Hence, it is assumed that logging activity could be a potential factor that caused a decreased in forest dependent species and also lead to changes in bird distribution.

161 However, human activities in paddy field can have different impact toward bird distribution. Human activities usually increased during paddy growing season which include farming activities such as planting, pest control and harvesting. These periods attracted different bird groups. This create a unique, temporary and rapidly changing habitat which is often very productive as breeding and feeding ground for waterbirds and landbirds (Fujioka et al., 2010; Longoni, 2010; Stafford et al., 2010).

Hence, farming activities have important relation towards bird patterns in paddy field.

5.8 Conservation concern

In this subtopic, focus is on the conservation concern towards bird species within Kerian River Basin. Discussion includs steps toward conservation efforts and creating awareness among public.

The main threat to bird species in Kerian River Basin is land conversion from forest to agriculture. Conversion to oil palm plantation, paddy fields and rubber plantation after logging has been the main factor that remove bird habitat (Aratrakorn et al., 2006). One of conservation efforts to reduce land conversion activities is the establishment of protected areas in Kerian River Basin. Other studies have proved the establishment of protected areas are able to reduced wildlife extinction

(Kawanishi & Sunquist, 2004; Harrison & Ford, 2006).

For example, tiger and other wildlife were best protected in Taman Negara national park due to its vastness, remoteness, strict legislation, anti-poaching patrols 162 and low human and road densities (Kawanishi & Sunquist, 2004). Through this study, suitability area map produced for near-threatened SBB and GBB has showed most intact forested areas in KRB can be gazetted as protected areas. This will also benefit wildlife other than near-threatened SBB and GBB. However, in order to avoid human-wildlife conflict, human needs should not be excluded. Therefore, selected small areas within protected areas can be reserved for villagers who are dependent on forest resources.

The effectiveness of protected areas can be increased through the establishment of buffer zone in surrounding areas (Zagt et al., 201 0). By definition, buffer zone provides a potential area that can reduce edge effects that may penetrate up to 50 minto critical habitats (Murcia, 1995; Lynagh & Urich, 2002). The zone should be applied for conservation and development where human activities are limited for research, education, training, recreation and tourism. In other study by

Curran et al. (2004), degradation of buffer zone in protected areas of Indonesian forest by logging and conversion activities has removed many trees and fauna communities. This shows buffer zone was important to maintain critical habitat.

Thus, establishment of protected areas and buffer zone along stream sides should be implemented in Kerian River Basin in order to enhance bird community and other wildlife.

Whether plantations are seen as having conservation value or not depends on the species to be conserved. Oil palm plantations are poor substitutes for secondary forest in Kerian River Basin but their forest bird species (visitor) is richer than that in urban gardens which is established by human. According to Lancaster & Rees 163 (1979) urbanized environment is dominated by only common species. Although bird

density is low, visitors such as forest species and several other insectivore-frugivore

species such as Red-eyed Bulbul (Pycnonotus brunneus), do enter the plantation and

probably deposit seeds of native tree and shrub species in the oil palm plantation

area. Older oil palm plantations often have dense understorey of shrub species and

through observations suggest that most of the bird species overlapped with secondary

forest because of the edge habitat. Thus, from this study, monoculture can enhance

bird diversity and abundance at sites where natural forest succession is slow or

absent.

Oil palm trees in plantations in Kerian River Basin were found grown close to

the edge of the river. Through observation, forest birds such as Gold-whiskered

Barbet (Megalaima chrysopogon) and Black-headed Bulbul (Pycnonotus atriceps)

that cross this plantation usually perch on nearby mixed vegetation. This type of

vegetation was commonly found in abandoned oil palm areas. Unfortunately the

mixed vegetation only comprise of small areas compared to the large oil palm

plantation. This study suggests that the riparian areas at Kerian River are able to

facilitate movement of many other forest birds including near-threatened species,

such as Pycnonotus atriceps, if mixed vegetations are larger and wider.

Nevertheless, regeneration of mixed vegetation such as tall trees, bamboos and

shrubs required dispersal of seed by birds to this area.

164 Previous study showed that in degraded habitats including agriculture areas most seeds dispersed by birds were from disturbed habitat rather than forest (Duncan

& Chapman, 1999). Although birds are unlikely to disperse many tall trees of forest plant in agriculture areas, dispersal of pioneer species are able to promote the first succession stage of forest regeneration (Luck & Daily, 2003). Once mixed vegetation is established along the riparian areas, a richer diversity may be attracted to continue the regeneration process. The establishment of riparian strip on the abandoned land is predicted to result in the substantial increase in the species richness of the oil palm plantation.

For paddy field, this habitat is identified as a unique habitat that supports various species of waterbirds and land birds. Bird study and awareness of this temporary wetland is in low concern. Hence, conservation works in paddy field can be started through bird surveys in various part of paddy field in Kerian River Basin.

This is important to provide current information of bird status and population estimate. A collaborative effort between three states namely Perak, Kedah and

Penang; Wildlife Department and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) is also important for ongoing monitoring program. All data from surveys and monitoring can be used for the sustainability development and to improve management and conservation strategies within Kerian River Basin.

Rapid encroachment from the surrounding development on the paddy field is a main concern, because paddy field areas were located less than 10 km from Parit

Buntar town and surrounded by human settlement. This entire area can be rapidly converted into residential housing, industrial sites and roads. Farmers should avoid 165 selling their paddy fields to any developer. It is possible to have a special campaign for paddy field that served as habitat or "hometown" for many waterbirds and land birds. The important message behind this campaign is to create awareness among villagers (e.g. farmers and children) about the existence of protected birds in their backyard. This campaign can be more attractive with several activities such as to have games among children or teenagers and several lecture series for farmers. All activities must be able to achieve the goals of the campaign.

This campaign can be conducted through collaboration between local residents, private environmental conservation organizations (NGOs) and local government. Although this type of campaign has not yet been conducted in

Malaysia, it has been successfully conducted in Tokyo with four major activities

(Kobori & Primack, 2003); (1) the campaign encourages a broad range of people to contribute money to buy land and to get involved in the conservation and management of paddy fields and surrounding habitats, (2) the organization promotes work to restore paddy field landscapes with the help of farmers and volunteers, (3) researchers and local people help each other to gather information about endangered species and cultural information about the people and landscape and (4) the establishment of environmental education program such as experience working in paddy field, bird and wildlife watching and participation in paddy harvesting activity.

Hence, if similar activities can be implemented in Malaysia, it is possible to help a broad range of people to identify and appreciate bird and other wildlife that exist in our traditional landscape.

166 Another approach is through the establishment of links between research universities and conservation projects that can be beneficial towards biodiversity conservation in paddy fields. According to Kobori & Primack (2003 ), research development by universities can be achieved through the use of paddy fields areas as a site to teach students about conducting research related to paddy field ecology, management and restoration. Lecture series on paddy fields ecology need to be conducted for better understanding among students. Paddy field areas can be used by post-graduates students for their advanced research. Yearly survey and monitoring of species in paddy fields together with the landscape information and status will help to make comparisons over time. Thus any changes of diversity and landscape pattern can be detected.

Each habitat could possibly have environmental and social value. The values it contains include rare species, recreational sites or resources harvested by local residents (Jenning et al, 2003). These values are considered critical importance where this habitat can be defined as a High Conservation Value (HCV) habitat.

According to Jenning et al (2003), HCV habitat needs to be appropriately managed in order to maintain or enhance the identified values. Identifying the HCV area in

Kerian River Basin is therefore the essential first step in developing appropriate management for them. Result of suitability area for near-threatened Scaly-breasted

Bulbul (Pycnonotus squamatus) and Grey-bellied Bulbul (Pycnonotus cyaniventris) indicates forested area in the upper basin of KRB is the most appropriate area for

HCV. This area has critical importance value that needs to be conserved.

167 Implementation of all actions on conservation as stated above are mainly to preserve the remaining forest areas, upgrading movement corridors for birds in oil palm plantation and to maintain the quality of paddy fields as important habitat for great diversity of waterbirds and land birds. This implementation needs strong support and commitment from public, conservation organizations (from NGOs), government and scientist in order to achieve a successful conservation program.

Through successful program, it is expected to produce Malaysian citizens that have high conservation concern on bird and wildlife that exist in their surrounding environments. Thus human-wildlife conflict can be reduced which will benefit both people and wildlife.

168 CHAPTER6

CONCLUSION

6.1 General conclusion

Variation in bird diversity and feeding guilds in different habitat types were predominantly influenced by vegetation structure and food availability. Secondary forest comprised of forest dependent birds which most of them are identified as totally protected birds. Half of these bird species (61 species) were similar to the list of bird found in Malaysia's primary forest as showed in study by Peh eta/. (2005).

This indicates that secondary forest in close proximity to intact primary forest may hold considerable conservation value in this area of Kerian River Basin. High bird diversity and abundance in secondary forest also fits with the established fact that higher diversity of habitats leads to high diversity of species. This does not only refer to the relatively diverse vegetation in secondary forest but also due to their location that is far from human disturbance and adjacent to riparian areas. Based on feeding guild analysis, insectivore, insectivore-frugivore and frugivore species that are largely dependent on a variety of fruiting trees, dominate in secondary forest.

Fruiting trees not only attract frugivore but also insectivore to forage.

This study has demonstrated that, if forested areas are to be converted into oil palm plantation, almost all forest dependent species could disappear. Bird species which dominated in oil palm habitat is highly adaptable towards human disturbance and tolerate extreme environment. For example, oil palm consists of drier habitats due to the absence of canopy layers and uniform tree height. Only adaptable species 169 were seen to dominate here with high number of observations. Since, the environment is favourable for them, the population increased over time because of low competition from other species. Nevertheless, existence of nearby abandoned areas with mixed vegetation has attracted forest birds to use this plantation as their movement corridor. Carnivores and omnivores are two dominant feeding guilds in this habitat type. Both are represented by only a few species which were commonly observed in oil palm plantation such as Crested Serpent-eagle (Spilornis cheela) and

Yellow-vented Bulbul (Pycnonotus goiavier).

If forested areas were to be converted into paddy field, bird composition would be dramatically changed where this habitat is highly adaptable to waterbirds but not for forest dependent species. This temporary wetland is influenced by paddy growing season where in different seasons, different bird groups are attracted to utilize the area. This habitat also harbour a variety of feeding guilds compared to secondary forest and oil palm plantation. Carnivore species largely dominated the paddy field, followed by omnivore and granivore. Carnivore species represented by

Ardeidae and Accipitridae were able to obtain ample food source when paddy plots were inundated and during harvesting season. Omnivore and granivore also obtain enough food supplies during these periods.

Ecological indices (Shannon-Wiener diversity index, Margalef and

Menhinick richness index, heterogeneity and evenness) and other analyses (Kruskal-

Wallis and Mann-Whiteney U-test, rarefaction curve, species accumulation and cluster analysis) revealed that of the three areas studied, secondary forest is the most viable habitat for various bird species including totally protected (TP) bird in this 170 country. This study has identified suitability area for near-threatened SBB and

GBB. The suitability area was determined based on eight factors. The most important factor obtains high score of weights value. Result of weights value indicates forest is the most important factor that determined the suitability area of near-threatened SBB and GBB. Based on the map, high quality suitability area for near-thratened species concentrated at the upper part of Kerian River Basin. As for paddy field, in spite of its accessibility to human activities, it provides diverse habitats and unique temporal niches for waterbirds to occupy for breeding and foraging purposes. Although oil palm plantation is identified to be the least suitable habitat for bird species, it served as stop over area for birds that move along the riparian corridor.

Urgent sustainable planning and implementation for viable bird habitats are needed to avoid uncontrolled land status changes from forest to agriculture area.

This requires strong support from local communities, land owners, non-government organization (NGOs) and local authorities. Authorities of Perak, Kedah and Pulau

Pinang states could use the suitability area map produced from this study for bird conservation action in Kerian River Basin, as forest areas are rapidly converted to other land uses to fullfill human demands.

171 6.2 Future research

From this study, several aspects of further research can be proposed. First, continuous bird monitoring for each habitat type is recommended. Long term data is important to track any changes in bird communities due to factors such as forest regeneration, human disturbance, landscape changes and seasonal activities that may vary with time. Second, study of bird foraging behaviour in three different habitat types is also recommended. According to Robinson & Holmes (1982), variation in vegetation structure, types and abundances of prey could determine the available foraging opportunities. Hence, these habitat variables may influence the patterns of bird habitat selection and community structure.

Lastly, it is highly recommended for researcher to explore birds in paddy fields. Currently, there is very low number of research and publication of birds in

Malaysian traditional landscape that has been done. Many bird studies focused on bird in forested areas and monoculture plantation (e.g. oil palm and rubber plantation). Various kinds of bird studies can be conducted. For example, study of different kind of bird group such as (1) raptors in paddy field, (2) paddy field as stop over and feeding area for migratory birds and (3) seasonal changes of bird communities due to paddy growing process. Farming activities in paddy field that frequently used pesticide and herbicide to control harmful rodents and weeds may directly facilitate bioaccumulation in birds. Thus, this is another important aspect to study on how pesticide will cause negative impact to bird population.

172 REFERENCES

Abdul Rahman, S. & Daud, N. (2011). An analsysis of tourists' attitudes towards sustainable tourism: application to Malaysia. International Journal of Sustainable Development, 14(3-4), 206-224.

Acosta, M., Mugica, L., Blanco, D., L6pez-Lanus, B., Dias, R. A., Doodnath, L. W., et al. (2010). Birds of rice fields in the Americas. Waterbirds, 33(1), 105-122.

Ahmad, S. (2009). Recreational values of mangrove forest in Larut Matang, Perak. Journal ofTropical Forest Science, 21(2), 81-87.

Amano, T., Kusumoto, Y., Tokuoka, Y., Yamada, S., Kim, E. Y., & Yamamoto, S. (2008). Spatial and temporal variations in the use of rice-paddy dominated landscapes by birds in Japan. Biological Conservation, 141(6), 1704-1716.

Amano, T., Li, M. H., & Yoshida, H. (2010). Silent night in Japanese rice fields? A population decline in the Greater-painted Snipe. Ornithological Science, 9(1 ), 49-53.

Aratrakorn, S., Thunhikorn, S., & Donald, P. F. (2006). Changes in bird communities following conversion of lowland forest to oil palm and rubber plantations in southern Thailand. Bird Conservation International, 16(01), 71-82.

Arriaga-Weiss, S. L., Calme', S. & Kampichler, C. (2008). Bird communities in rainforest fragments: guild responses to habitat variables in Tabasco, Mexico. Biodiversity Conservation, 17,173-190.

Arshad, M. I., Zakaria, M., Sajap, A. S., & Ismail, A. (2000). Food and feeding habits of Red junglefowl. Pakistan Journal of Biological Sciences, 3(6), 1024-1026.

Aubad, J., Aragon, P., & Rodriguez, M. A. (2010). Human access and landscape structure effects on Andean forest bird richness. Acta Oecologica, 36(4), 396- 402.

Baillie, J., Hilton-Taylor, C., & Stuart, S. (2004). IUCN red list of threatened species. A global species assessment. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland.

Bambaradeniya, C., Edirisinghe, J., De Silva, D., Gunatilleke, C., Ranawana, K., & Wijekoon, S. (2004). Biodiversity associated with an irrigated rice agro­ ecosystem in Sri Lanka. Biodiversity and Conservation, 13(9), 1715-1753.

Bennett, E. L. & Reynolds, C. J. (1993). The value of a mangrove area in Sarawak. Biodiversity and Conservation, 2, 359-375.

Bernard, H., Fjeldsaa, J. & Mohamed, M. (2009). A case study on the effects of disturbance and conversion of tropical lowland rain forest on the non-volant 173 small mammals in north Borneo: management implications. Mammal Study, 34(2), 85-96.

Bezak:, P., & Halada, L. (2010). Sustainable management recommendations to reduce the loss of agricultural biodiversity in the mountain regions of NE Slovakia. Mountain Research and Development, 30(3), 192-204.

Bird-i-witness. (2010). Bird checklist. Available at: (Accessed date: 17/6/2010).

Bishop, K. D. (2002). A List of birds and other wildlife recorded in Vietnam 19th November to 12th December 2002 Compiled by. Available at: (Accessed date: 15/5/2011).

Blake, J. G., & Loiselle, B. A. (1991). Variation in resource abundance affects capture rates of birds in three lowland habitats in Costa Rica. The Auk, 108(1), 114-130.

Blake, J. G., & Loiselle, B. A. (2001). Bird assemblages in second-growth and old­ growth forests, Costa Rica: perspectives from mist nets and point counts. The Auk, 118(2), 304-326.

Borges, S. H., & Stouffer, P. C. (1999). Bird communities in two types of anthropogenic successional vegetation in central Amazonia. The Condor, 101(3), 529-536.

Bose, M., & Guidali, F. (2001). Seasonal and geographic differences in the diet of the Bam owl in an agro-ecosystem in northern Italy. Journal of Raptor Research, 35(3), 240-246.

Brooks, T. M., Pimm, S. L., & Collar, N. J. (1997). Deforestation predicts the number of threatened birds in insular Southeast Asia. Conservation Biology, 11(2), 382-394.

Brooks, T. M., Pimm, S. L., & Oyugi, J. 0. (1999a). Time lag between deforestation and bird extinction in tropical forest fragments. Conservation Biology, 13(5), 1140-1150.

Brooks, T. M., Pimm, S. L., Kapos, V., & Ravilious, C. (1999b). Threat from deforestation to montane and lowland birds and mammals in insular South east Asia. Journal ofAnimal Ecology, 68(6), 1061-1078.

Brooks, T. M., Mittermeier, R. A., Mittermeier, C. G., Da Fonseca, G. A. B., Rylands, A. B., Konstant, W. R., eta!. (2002). Habitat loss and extinction in the hotspots of biodiversity. Conservation Biology, 16( 4 ), 909-923.

Brown, S., & Lugo, A. E. (1990). Tropical secondary forests. Journal of Tropical Ecology, 6(0 1), 1-32. 174 Brujinzeel, L. A. & Veneklaas E. J. (1998). Climatic conditions and tropical montane forest productivity: the fog has not lifted yet. Ecology, 79(1), 3-9.

Buckle, A., Chia, T., Fenn, M., & Visvalingam, M. (1997). Ranging behaviour and habitat utilisation of the Malayan wood rat (Rattus tiomanicus) in an oil palm plantation in Johore, Malaysia. Crop Protection, 16(5), 467-473.

Burton, P. J., Messier, C., Adamowicz, W. L., & Kuuluvainen, T. (2006). Sustainable management of Canada's boreal forests: progress and prospects 1. Ecoscience, 13(2), 234-248.

Canaday, C. (1996). Loss of insectivorous birds along a gradient of human impact in Amazonia. Biological Conservation, 77(1), 63-77.

Carrete, M., Tella, J. L., Blanco, G., & Bertellotti, M. (2009). Effects of habitat degradation on the abundance, richness and diversity of raptors across Neotropical biomes. Biological Conservation, 142(10), 2002-2011.

Carver, S. J. (1991). Integrating multi-criteria evaluation with geographical information systems. International Journal of Geographical Information Science, 5(3), 321-339.

Chakhar, S., & Martel, J. M. (2003). Enhancing geographical information systems capabilities with multi-criteria evaluation functions. Journal of Geographic Information and Decision Analysis, 7(2), 4 7-71.

Chye, L. K. (2010). Birding hotspot: Belum-Temenggor forest complex, north Peninsular Malaysia. BirdingASIA, 14, 15-22.

Chettri, N., Deb, D. C., Sharma, E., & Jackson, R. (2005). The relationship between bird communities and habitat. Mountain Research and Development, 25(3), 235-243.

Clark, C., Poulsen, J., & Parker, V. (2001). The role of arboreal seed dispersal groups on the seed rain of a lowland tropical forest. Biotropica, 33( 4), 606-620.

Cleary, D. F. R., Boyle, T. J. B., Setyawati, T., Anggraeni, C. D., Loon, E. E. V., & Menken, S. B. J. (2007). Bird species and traits associated with logged and unlogged forest in Borneo. Ecological Applications, 17(4 ), 1184-1197.

Clevenger, A. P., Wierzchowski, J., Chruszcz, B., & Gunson, K. (2002). GIS­ generated, expert-based models for identifying wildlife habitat linkages and planning mitigation passages. Conservation Biology, 16(2), 503-514.

Cummins, K. W., Wilzbach, M. A., Gates, D. M., Perry, J. B. & Taliaferro, W. B. (1989). Shredders and riparian vegetation. BioScience, 39(1), 24-30.

175 Curran, L. M., Trigg, S. N., McDonald, A. K., Astiani, D., Hardiono, Y. M., Siregar, P., Caniago, I. & Kasischke, E. (2004). Lowland forest loss in protected areas oflndonesia Borneo. Science, 303, 1000.

Decandido, R., Allen, D. & Yosef, R. (2004). A comparison of spring migration phenology of bee-eaters and Oriental Honey-buzzards Pernis pthilorhyncus at Tanjung Tuan, Malaysia, 2000-01. ARDEA, 92(2), 169-174.

Danielsen, F., & Heegaard, M. (1995). Impact of logging and plantation development on species diversity: a case study from Sumatra. Management of Tropical Forests: Towards an Integrated Perspective, 73-92.

Denslow, J. S., & Moermond, T. C. (1982). The effect of accessibility on rates of fruit removal from tropical shrubs: an experimental study. Oecologia, 54(2), 170-176.

Derlindati, E. J., & Caziani, S. M. (2005). Using canopy and understory mist nets and point counts to study bird assemblages in Chaco forests. The Wilson Bulletin, 117(1 ), 92-99.

Derting, T. L., & Cranford, J. A. (1989). Physical and behavioral correlates of prey vulnerability to Bam owl (Tyto alba) predation. American Midland Naturalist, 121(1), 11-20.

DOAP. (2007). Department of Agriculture Perak. Perak database book 2007.

Donoso, D. A., Johnston, M. K. & Kaspari, M. (2010). Trees as templates for tropical litter arthropods diversity. Oecologia, 164(1 ), 201-211.

Dranzoa, C. (1998). The avifauna 23 years after logging in Kibale National Park, Uganda. Biodiversity and Conservation, 7( 6), 777-797.

Duncan, R. S., & Chapman, C. A. (1999). Seed dispersal and potential forest succession in abandoned agriculture m tropical Africa. Ecological Applications, 9(3), 998-1008.

Dybas, C. L. Y. N. (2006). Biodiversity: the interplay of science, valuation, and policy. BioScience, 56(1 0), 792-798.

Elphick, C. S. (2008). Landscape effects on waterbird densities in California rice fields: taxonomic differences, scale-dependence, and conservation implications. Waterbirds, 31(1), 62-69.

Engelmann, F., & Engels, J. (2002). 9 technologies and strategies for ex-situ Conservation. Managing plant genetic diversity, 89.

Erwin, T. L. (2002). Tropical forests: their richness in Coleoptera and other arthropod species. Foundations of Tropical Forest Biology: classic papers with commentaries, 36(1), 438. 176 Fasola, M., Galeotti, P., Dai, N., Dong, Y., & Zhang, Y. (2004). Large numbers of breeding egrets and herons in China. Waterbirds, 27(1), 126-128.

Feeley, K. J. & Terborgh, J. W. (2008). Direct versus indirect effects of habitat reduction on the loss of avian species from tropical forest fragments. Animal Conservation, 11, 353-360.

Felton, A., Wood, J., Felton, A. M., Hennessey, B., & Lindenmayer, D. B. (2008). Bird community responses to reduced-impact logging in a certified forestry concession in lowland Bolivia. Biological Conservation, 141 (2), 545-555.

Fernando, C. (1993). Rice field ecology and fish culture - an overview. Hydrobiologia, 259(2), 91-113.

Figueroa, R. R. A., Rau, J. R., Mayorga, S., Martinez, D. R., Corales S, E. S., Mansilla, A., et al. (2009). Rodent Prey of the Barn Owl Tyto alba and Short­ Eared Owl Asio flammeus During Winter in Agricultural Lands in Southern Chile. Wildlife Biology, 15(2), 129-136.

Finch, D. M., & Forest, R. M. (1991). Population ecology, habitat requirements, and conservation of neotropical migratory birds: rocky mountain forest and range experiment station. Available at: (Accessed date: 20/5/2011).

Fitzherbert, E. B., Struebig, M. J., Morel, A., Danielsen, F., Briihl, C. A., Donald, P. F., et al. (2008). How will oil palm expansion affect biodiversity? Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 23(1 0), 538-545.

Foster, M. S. (1977). Ecological and nutritional effects of food scarcity on a tropical frugivorous bird and its fruit source. Ecology, 58(1), 73-85.

Fujioka, M., & Yoshida, H. (2001). The potential and problems of agricultural ecosystems for birds in Japan. Global Environmental Research, 5(2), 151- 161.

Fujioka, M., Don Lee, S., Kurechi, M., & Yoshida, H. (2010). Bird use of rice fields in Korea and Japan. Waterbirds, 33(sp1), 8-29.

Freiberg, M. & Freiberg, E. (2000). Epiphyte diversity and biomass in the canopy of lowland and montane forests in Ecuador. Journal of Tropical Ecology 16, 673-688.

Gautier-Hion, A., Duplantier, J. M., Quris, R., Feer, F., Sourd, C., Decoux, J. P., et al. (1985). Fruit characters as a basis of fruit choice and seed dispersal in a tropical forest vertebrate community. Oecologia, 65(3), 324-337.

Gautier-Hion, A. (1990). Interactions among fruit and vertebrate fruit-eaters in an African tropical rain forest. Reproductive ecology of tropical forest plants, 219-230. 177 Geneletti, D. (2004). A GIS-based decision support system to identify nature conservation priorities in an alpine valley. Land Use Policy, 21(2), 149-160.

Glue, D. E. (1974). Food of the Bam owl in Britain and Ireland. Bird Study, 21(3), 200-210.

Gonzalez Varo, J. P. (2010). Fragmentation, habitat composition and the dispersal/predation balance in interactions between the Mediterranean myrtle and avian frugivores. Ecography, 33(1), 185-197.

Graham, C. H., & Blake, J. G. (2001). Influence of patch-and landscape-level factors on bird assemblages in a fragmented tropical landscape. Ecological Applications, 11 ( 6), 1709-1721.

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

Greenberg, R., & Center, S.M. B. (1998). Biodiversity in the cacao agroecosystem: shade management and landscape considerations. Available at: (Accessed date: 01/05 /2011).

Gregory, R. D., Gibbons, D. W., & Donald, P. F. (2004). Bird census and survey techniques. Bird Ecology and Conservation; A Handbook of Techniques, 17- 56.

Guadagnin, D. L., Peter, A. S., Perello, L. F. C., & Maltchik, L. (2005). Spatial and temporal patterns of waterbird assemblages in fragmented wetlands of southern Brazil. Waterbirds, 261-272.

Guariguata, M. R., & Ostertag, R. (2001). Neotropical secondary forest succession: changes in structural and functional characteristics. Forest Ecology and Management, 148(1-3), 185-206.

Harris, G. M., & Pimm, S. L. (2004). Bird species' tolerance of secondary forest habitats and its effects on extinction. Conservation Biology, 18( 6), 1607- 1616.

Harrison, A. E., & Ford, H. A. (2006). The impact of disturbance on Pied oystercatcher (Haematopus longirostris) breeding behaviour and success in northern NSW: preliminary results from two seasons' monitoring. The Stilt, 49, 53.

Harvey, C. A., Medina, A., Sanchez, D. M., Vilchez, S., Hernandez, B., Saenz, J. C., et al. (2006). Patterns of animal diversity in different forms of tree cover in agricultural landscapes. Ecological Applications, 16(5), 1986-1999.

178 Hasanuzzaman, A., Alam, M., & Bazzaz, M. (2010). Comparative efficiency of some indigenous traps to capture rats in the wheat field of Bangladesh. Journal of Agriculture & Rural Development, 7(1), 121-125.

Herzog, S. K., & Kessler, M. (2002). Estimating species richness of tropical bird communities from rapid assessment data. The Auk, 119(3), 749-769.

Herrera, C. M. (1982). Seasonal variation in the quality of fruits and diffuse coevolution between plants and avian dispersers. Ecology, 63(3), 773-785.

Hirzel, A., Hausser, J., Chessel, D., & Perrin, N. (2002). Ecological-niche factor analysis: how to compute habitat-suitability maps without absence data? Ecology, 83(7), 2027-2036.

Ibanez, C., Curc6, A., Riera, X., Ripoll, I., & Sanchez, C. (2010). Influence on birds of rice field management practices during the growing season: a review and an experiment. Waterbirds, 33(sp1), 167-180.

Ichinose, T., Yokokawa, A., Asmiwyati, I. G. A. A. R., Arifin, N.H. S., & Kataoka, M. (2006). Relationships between bird distribution and land use in an agricultural landscape, Bali, Indonesia. Conservation Biology in Asia, chapter 21,277-284.

Iongh, H., & Van Weerd, M. (2006). The use of avian guilds for the monitoring of tropical forest disturbance by logging. Wageningen, Tropenbos Documents, 17.

IUCN. (2011). The IUCN red list of threatened species. Available at: (Accessed date: 27/05/2011)

Iwata, T., Nakano, S., & Murakami, M. (2003). Stream meanders increase insectivorous bird abundance in riparian deciduous forests. Ecography, 26(3), 325-337.

Jenning, S., Nussbaum, R., Judd, N. & Evans, T. (2003). The high conservation value forest toolkit. Pro Forest, Edition 1, 1-161.

Joerin, F., Theriault, M., & Musy, A. (2001). Using GIS and outranking multicriteria analysis for land-use suitability assessment. International Journal of Geographical Information Science, 15(2), 153-174.

Johns, A. D. (1988). Effects of "selective" timber extraction on rain forest structure and composition and some consequences for frugivores and folivores. Biotropica, 20(1), 31-37.

Johns, A. G. (1996). Bird population persistence in Sabahan logging concessions. Biological Conservation, 75(1), 3-10.

179 Johnson, M. D. & Sherry, T. W. (2001). Effects of food availability on the distribution of migratory warblers among habitats in Jamaica. Journal of Animal Ecology, 70(4), 546-560.

Johnson, T., Applegate, R., Hoover, D., Gipson, P., & Sandercock, B. (2009). Evaluating avian community dynamics in restored riparian habitats with mark-recapture models. The Wilson Journal of Ornithology, 121 ( 1), 22-40.

Karr, J. R. (1980). Geographical variation in the avifaunas of tropical forest undergrowth. The Auk, 97(2), 283-298.

Katoh, K., Sakai, S., & Takahashi, T. (2009). Factors maintaining species diversity in satoyama, a traditional agricultural landscape of Japan. Biological Conservation, 142(9), 1930-1936.

Kaur, R., Ong, T., Lim, K. C. & Yeap, C. A. (2011). A survey on mass movements of the vulnerable Plain-pouched hombill in the Bel urn-Temengor forest complex, Peninsular Malaysia. The Raffles Bulletin ofZoology, 24, 171-176.

Kawanishi, K., & Sunquist, M. E. (2004). Conservation status of tigers in a primary rainforest of Peninsular Malaysia. Biological Conservation, 120(3), 329-344.

Kelly, J. P., Stralberg, D., Etienne, K., & McCaustland, M. (2008). Landscape influence on the quality of heron and egret colony sites. Wetlands, 28(2), 257- 275.

Kideghesho, J. R., Nyahongo, J. W., Hassan, S. N., Tarimo, T. C., & Mbije, N. E. (2006). Factors and ecological impacts of wildlife habitat destruction in the Serengeti Ecosystem in Northern Tanzania. African Journal ofEnvironmental Assessment and Management, 11, 17-32.

King, S., Elphick, C. S., Guadagnin, D., Taft, 0., & Amano, T. (2010). Effects of landscape features on waterbird use of rice fields. Waterbirds, 33(sp1), 151- 159.

Ko, C., Lin, R. S., Ding, T. S., Hsieh, C. H., & Lee, P. F. (2009). Identifying biodiversity hotspots by predictive models: a case study using Taiwan's endemic bird species. Zoological studies, 48(3), 418-431.

Kobori, H., & Primack, R. B. (2003). Participatory conservation approaches for satoyama, the traditional forest and agricultural landscape of Japan. AMBIO: A Journal ofthe Human Environment, 32(4), 307-311.

Kochummen, K. M., LaFrankie, J. J. V. & Manokaran, N. (1990). Floristic composition of Pasoh Forest Reserve, a lowland rain forest in Peninsular Malaysia. Journal ofTropical Forest Science 3(1), 1-13.

Koh, L. P., & Wilcove, D. S. (2008). Is oil palm agriculture really destroying tropical biodiversity? Conservation Letters, 1(2), 60-64. 180 Krebs, C. J. (1999). Ecological Methodology, 2nd edition. Addison-Welsey Educational Publishers, Canada.

Kudus, M. R. (201la). MNS-Bird Conservation Council report 2010. Suara Enggang, 19(1), 34-35.

Kudus, M. R. (2011b). MNS-BCC chaiman's letter. Suara Enggang, 19(2), 2-3.

Kwok, H., & Corlett, R. T. (2000). The bird communities of a natural secondary forest and a Lophostemon confertus plantation in Hong Kong, South China. Forest Ecology and Management, 130(1-3), 227-234.

LaFleur, N., Rubega, M., & Parent, J. (2009). Does frugivory by European (Sturnus vulgaris) facilitate germination in invasive plants?. The Journal of the Torrey Botanical Society, 136(3), 332-341.

Lambert, F. R., & Marshall, A. G. (1991). Keystone characteristics ofbird-dispersed Ficus in a Malaysian lowland rain forest. Journal ofEcology, 79(3), 793-809.

Lambert, F. R. (1992). The consequences of selective logging for Bornean lowland forest birds. Philosophical Transactions: Biological Sciences, 335(1275), 443-457.

Lancaster, R. K. & Rees, W. E. (1979). Bird communities and the structure of urban habitats. Canadian Journal ofZoology, 57(12), 2358-2368.

Lane, S. J., & Fujioka, M. (1998). The impact of changes in irrigation practices on the distribution of foraging egrets and herons (Ardeidae) in the rice fields of central Japan. Biological Conservation, 83(2), 221-230.

Larsen, S., Sorace, A., & Mancini, L. (2010). Riparian bird commumties as indicators of human impacts along Mediterranean streams. Environmental Management, 45(2), 261-273.

Laurance, S. G. W. (2004). Responses of understory rain forest birds to road edges in central Amazonia. Ecological Applications, 14( 5), 1344-13 57.

Lauver, C. L., Busby, W. H., & Whistler, J. L. (2002). Testing a GIS model of habitat suitability for a declining grassland bird. Environmental Management, 30(1), 88-97.

Law of Malaysia, (2010). Wildlife Conservation Act 2010. Available at: (Accessed date: 28/09/2011).

Lawton, J., Bignell, D., Bolton, B., Bloemers, G., Eggleton, P., Hammond, P., et al. (1998). Biodiversity inventories, indicator taxa and effects of habitat modification in tropical forest. Nature-London, 391, 72-75.

181 Lee, T. M., Soh, M. C. K., Sodhi, N., Koh, L. P., & Lim, S. L. H. (2005). Effects of habitat disturbance on mixed species bird flocks in a tropical sub-montane rainforest. Biological Conservation, 122(2), 193-204.

Lee, T. M., Sodhi, N. S., & Prawiradilaga, D. M. (2007). The importance of protected areas for the forest and endemic avifauna of Sulawesi (Indonesia). Ecological Applications, 17(6), 1727-1741.

Lehmkuhl, J. F., Burger, E. D., Drew, E. K., Lindsey, J. P., Haggard, M., & Woodruff, K. Z. (2007). Breeding birds in riparian and upland dry forests of the Cascade Range. The Journal ofWildlife Management, 71(8), 2632-2643.

Levey, D. J., Moermond, T. C., & Denslow, J. S. (1984). Fruit choice in neotropical birds: the effect of distance between fruits on preference patterns. Ecology, 65(3), 844-850.

Levey, D. J. (1987a). Seed size and fruit-handling techniques of avian frugivores. The American Naturalist, 129(4), 471-485.

Levey, D. J. (1987b ). Sugar-tasting ability and fruit selection in tropical fruit-eating birds. The Auk, 104(2), 173-179.

Levey, D. J. (1988). Spatial and temporal variation in Costa Rican fruit and fruit­ eating bird abundance. Ecological Monographs, 58(4), 251-269.

Lim, H. C., & Sodhi, N. S. (2004). Responses of avian guilds to urbanisation in a tropical city. Landscape and urban planning, 66(4), 199-215.

Lindsay, D. L., Barr, K. R., Lance, R. F., Tweddale, S. A., Hayden, T. J. & Leberg, P. L. (2008). Habitat fragmentation and genetic diversity of an endangered, migratory songbird, the Golden-cheeked warbler (Dendroica chrysoparia). Molecular Ecology, 17,2122-2133.

Lombardini, K., Bennetts, R. E., & Tourenq, C. (2001). Foraging success and foraging habitat use by Cattle Egrets and Little Egrets in the Camargue, France. Condor, 103(1), 38-44.

Lomoljo, R. M., Ismail, A., Kong, Y. A. P. C., & Ismail, A. R. (2010). The status of migratory shorebirds diversity in Ramsar site during southward and northward migration in Kuala Gula Birds Sanctuary. The Journal for the East Asian-Australasian Flyway, (58), 51-56. Longoni, V. (2010). Rice fields and waterbirds in the Mediterranean region and the Middle East. Waterbirds, 33(spl), 83-96.

Loreau, M., Naeem, S., Inchausti, P., Bengtsson, J., Grime, J., Hector, A., et al. (2001). Biodiversity and ecosystem functioning: current knowledge and future challenges. Science, 294(5543), 804.

182 Louette, M., Bijnens, L., Agenong'a, U., & Fotso, R. (1995). The utility of birds as bioindicators: case studies in equatorial Africa. Belgian journal of zoology 125(1), 157-165.

Louren<:;o, R., & Sergio, F. (2006). The food habits of Eurasian eagle-owls m southern Portugal. Journal ofRaptor Research, 40(4), 297-300.

Lovari, S., Renzoni, A., & Fondi, R. (1976). The predatory habits of the Bam owl (Tyto alba scopoli) in relation to the vegetation cover. Boll. Zoo/, 43, 173- 191.

Luck, G. W., & Daily, G. C. (2003). Tropical countryside bird assemblages: richness, composition, and foraging differ by landscape context. Ecological Applications, 13(1), 235-247.

Lussier, S. M., Enser, R. W., Dasilva, S. N., & Charpentier, M. (2006). Effects of habitat disturbance from residential development on breeding bird communities in riparian corridors. Environmental Management, 38(3), 504- 521.

Lynagh, F. M., & Urich, P. B. (2002). A critical review of buffer zone theory and practice: A Philippine case study. Society & Natural Resources, 15(2), 129- 145.

Maas, B., Putra, D. D., Waltert, M., Clough, Y., Tscharntke, T. & Schulze, C. H. (2009). Six years of habitat modification in a tropical rainforest margin of Indonesia do not affect bird diversity but endemic forest species. Biological Conservation, 142,2665-2671.

MacKinnon, J. R. (1993). A field guid to the birds of Borneo, Sumatra, Java, and Bali, the Greater Sunda Islands. Oxford University Press, Oxford and New York.

Machtans, C. S., Villard, M.A., & Hannon, S. J. (1996). Use of riparian buffer strips as movement corridors by forest birds. Conservation Biology, 1 0(5), 1366- 1379.

Maeda, T. (2001). Patterns of bird abundance and habitat use in rice fields of the Kanto Plain, central Japan. Ecological Research, 16(3), 569-585.

Mahmood-Ul-Hassan, M., Beg, M. A., Mushtaq-Ul-Hassan, M., Mirza, H. A., Siddique, M., & Sergio, F. (2007). Nesting and diet of the Bam owl (Tyto alba) in Pakistan. Journal ofRaptor Research, 41(2), 122-129.

Maimon, A. & Ho, N.-K. (1998). Mist-netting records of some pest and non-pest rice field birds of the Muda Rice Agroecosystem. Rice Agroecosystem of the Muda Irrigation Scheme, Malaysia. Malaysian Institude for Nuclear Technology Research (MINT), Selangor, Malaysia.

183 Mallari, N. A. D., Collar, N. J., Lee, D. C., McGowan, P. J. K., Wilkinson, R. & Marsden, S. J. (2011). Population densities of understorey birds across a habitat gradient in Palawan, Philippines: implications for conservation. Fauna & Flora International, Oryx, 45(2), 234-242.

Malczewski, J. (1999). GIS and multicriteria decision analysis. John Wiley & Sons, Inc, Canada.

Malczewski, J. (2006). GIS-based multicriteria decision analysis: a survey of the literature. International Journal of Geographical Information Science, 20(7), 703-726.

Masero, J. A., Santiago-Quesada, F., SAnchez-GuzmAn, J. M., Villegas, A., Abad­ GOmez, J. M., Lopes, R. J., et al. (2010). Long lengths of stay, large numbers, and trends of the Black-tailed Godwit (Limosa limosa) in rice fields during spring migration. Bird Conservation International, 1(-1), 1-13.

Mason, N. W. H., Mouillot, D., Lee, W. G., & Wilson, J. B. (2005). Functional richness, functional evenness and functional divergence: the primary components of functional diversity. Oikos, ill (1 ), 112-118.

McGhie, H. (2001). Diet of Barn owl in East Ross and East Ness. Scottish Birds, 22(2), 92-103.

Merola-Zwartjes, M., & DeLong, J. P. (2005). Avian species assemblages on New Mexico golf courses: surrogate riparian habitat for birds? Wildlife Society Bulletin, 33(2), 435-447.

Meyers, J. M. (1993). Evaluation of three elevated mist-net systems for sampling birds. Journal ofField Ornithology, 64(2), 270-277.

Meyrom, K., Motro, Y., Leshem, Y., Aviel, S., Izhaki, I., Argyle, F., et al. (2009). Nest-box use by the Barn owl Tyto alba in a biological pest control program in the Beit She'an Valley, Israel. Ardea, 97(4), 463-467.

Miller, J. R., Wiens, J. A., Hobbs, N. T., & Theobald, D. M. (2003). Effects of human settlement on bird communities in lowland riparian areas of Colorado (USA). Ecological Applications, 13( 4), 1041-1059.

Miller, J. R., Dixon, M. D., & Turner, M. G. (2004). Response of avian communities in large-river floodplains to environmental variation at multiple scales. Ecological Applications, 14(5), 1394-1410.

Minor, E. & Urban, D. (2010). Forest bird communities across a gradient of urban development. Urban ecosystem,l3(5), 51-71.

MOA .(2010). Ministry of Agriculture, Malaysia. Malaysian plantations. Available at: (Accessed date: 22/04/2011). 184 Moegenburg, S. M., & Levey, D. J. (2003). Do frugivores respond to fruit harvest? An experimental study of short-term responses. Ecology, 84(1 0), 2600-2612.

Moermond, T. C., & Denslow, J. S. (1985). Neotropical avian frugivores: patterns of behavior, morphology, and nutrition, with consequences for fruit selection. Ornithological Monographs(36), 865-897. MPOC. (2010). Malaysian Palm Oil Council. Malaysian palm oil industry. Available at:

Munda, G. (2005). Multiple criteria decision analysis and sustainable development. Multiple criteria decision analysis: State ofthe art surveys, 953-986.

Murcia, C. (1995). Edge effects in fragmented forests: implications for conservation. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 1 0(2), 58-62.

Myers, N. (1988). Threatened biotas: "hot spots" in tropical forests. The environmentalist, 8(3), 187-208.

Najera, A. & Simonetti, J. A. (2010). Can oil palm plantations become bird friendly? Agroforestry systems, 80, 203-209.

Naidoo, R. (2004). Species richness and community composition of songbirds in a tropical forest agricultural landscape. Animal Conservation, 7(1), 93-105.

Nik Fadzly, N. R. & Shahrul Anuar, M.S. (2009). Species inventory and the distribution of avifauna of the Muda Rice Agroecosystem. Rice Agroecosystem: Biodiversity and Its Environment with Special Reference to Muda Agricultural Development Authority (MADA). Universiti Sains Malaysia (USM), Pulau Pinang, Malaysia.

Nik Fadzly, N. R., Shahrul Anuar, M. S., & Mashhor, M. (2007). Avian distribution and diversity in forest gap and closed canopy areas of lowland tropical forest. Jurnal Biosains, 18(2), 57-75.

Nishimura, K., & Abe, M. T. (1988). Prey susceptibilities, prey utilization and variable attack efficiencies ofUral owls. Oecologia, 77(3), 414-422.

Noske, R. A. (1995). The ecology of mangrove forest birds in Peninsular Malaysia. Ibis, 137, 250-263.

NRE. (2008). Malaysian Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment. Spatial data of Kerian River Basin.

O'Connell, T. J., Jackson, L. E., & Brooks, R. P. (2000). Bird guilds as indicators of ecological condition in the central Appalachians. Ecological Applications, 10(6), 1706-1721.

185 Okuda, T., Suzuki, M., Adachi, N., Quah, E. S., Hussein, N. A., & Manokaran, N. (2003). Effect of selective logging on canopy and stand structure and tree species composition in a lowland dipterocarp forest in Peninsular Malaysia. Forest ecology and management, 175(1-3), 297-320.

Orians, G. H. (1969). The number of bird species in some tropical forests. Ecology, 783-801.

Parody, J. M., Cuthbert, F. J., & Decker, E. H. (2001). The effect of 50 years of landscape change on species richness and community composition. Global Ecology and Biogeography, 1 0(3), 305-313.

Parsons, K. C., Mineau, P., & Renfrew, R. B. (2010). Effects of pesticide use in rice fields on birds. Waterbirds, 33(sp1), 193-218.

Pearlstine, E. V., Mazzotti, F. J., & Kelly, M. H. (2006). Relative distribution and abundance of wintering raptors in agricultural and wetland landscapes of south Florida. Journal ofRaptor Research, 40(1), 81-85.

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

Peet, R. K. (1974). The measurement of species diversity. Annual Review ofEcology and Systematics, 5, 285-307.

Peh, K. S. H., Jong, J., Sodhi, N. S., Lim, S. L. H., & Yap, C. A.M. (2005). Lowland rainforest avifauna and human disturbance: persistence of primary forest birds in selectively logged forests and mixed-rural habitats of southern Peninsular Malaysia. Biological Conservation, 123( 4), 489-505.

Peh, K. S. H., Sodhi, N. S., DeJong, J., Sekercioglu, C. H., Yap, C. A.M., & Lim, S. L. H. (2006). Conservation value of degraded habitats for forest birds in southern Peninsular Malaysia. Diversity and Distributions, 12(5), 572-581.

Pettersson, R. B., Ball, J. P., Renhom, K. E., Esseen, P. A., & Sjoberg, K. (1995). Invertebrate communities in boreal forest canopies as influenced by forestry and lichens with implications for birds. Biological Conservation, 74(1), 57-63.

Phua, M. H., & Minowa, M. (2005). A GIS-based multi-criteria decision making approach to forest conservation planning at a landscape scale: a case study in the Kinabalu area, Sabah, Malaysia. Landscape and urban planning, 71 (2-4 ), 207-222.

Pierluissi, S., King, S. L., & Kaller, M. D. (2010). Waterbird nest density and nest survival in rice fields of Southwestern Louisiana. Waterbirds, 33(3), 323-330.

186 Poulin, B., Lefebvre, G., & McNeil, R. (1994). Characteristics of feeding guilds and variation in diets of bird species of three adjacent tropical sites. Biotropica, 26(2), 187-197.

Primavera, J. H. & Esteban, J. M.A. (2008). A review of mangrove rehabilitation in the Philippines: successes, failures and future prospects. Wetlands Ecology and Mangement, 16(5), 345-358.

Puan, C. L., Goldizen, A. W., Zakaria, M., Hafidzi, M. N., & Baxter, G. S. (2011). Absence of differential predation on rats by Malaysian barn owls in oil palm plantations. Journal ofRaptor Research, 45(1), 71-78.

Ralph, C. J., Dunn, E. H., Peach, W. J., & Handel, C. M. (2004). Recommendations for the use of mist nets for inventory and monitoring of bird populations. Stud. Avian Bioi, 26, 187-196.

Rao, E. V. S. P. & Puttanna, K. (2000). Nitrates, agriculture and environment. Current Science, 79(9), 1163-1168.

Razafimanjato, G., Sam, T., & Thorstrom, R. (2007). Waterbird monitoring in the Antsalova region, western Madagascar. Waterbirds, 30(3), 441-447.

Renton, K. (200 1). Lilac-crowned parrot diet and food resource availability: resource tracking by a parrot seed predator. The Condor, I 03, 62-69.

Robinson, S. K. & Holmes, R. T. (1982). Foraging behavior of forest birds: The relationship among search tactics, diet, and habitat structure. Ecology, 63(6), 1918-1931.

Robson, C. (2008). A field guide to the birds of South-east Asia. New Holland Publisher, UK.

Salem, B. (2003). Application of GIS to biodiversity monitoring. Journal of arid environments, 54(1), 91-114.

Schmiegelow, F. K. A., Machtans, C. S., & Hannon, S. J. (1997). Are boreal birds resilient to forest fragmentation? An experimental study of short-term community responses. Ecology, 78(6), 1914-1932.

DekercioDlu, <;.H., Ehrlich, P.R., Daily, G. C., Aygen, D., Goehring, D., & Sandi, R. F. (2002). Disappearance of insectivorous birds from tropical forest fragments. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States ofAmerica, 99(1), 263-267.

Selmi, S., & Boulinier, T. (2003). Does time of season influence bird species number determined from point-count data? A capture-recapture approach. Journal of Field Ornithology, 74(4), 349-356.

187 Shah, A. S. R. M., Mansor, M., Shah, S. A.M., Rawi, C. S.M., Ahmad, A. H., & Jaafar, I. (2008). Agrobiodiversity ofMuda Rice agroecosystem: a case study in largest granary area of Malaysia. Wetland Science, 6(1 ), 34-44.

Shafie, N. J. (20 11 ). Population distribution of small mammals along Kerian River Basin with emphasis on three different habitat types. Unpublished MSc thesis, Universiti Sains Malaysia.

Shankar Raman, T.R. & Sukumar, R. (2002). Responses of tropical rainforest birds to abandoned plantations, edges and logged forest in the Western Ghats, India. Animal Conservation, 5, 201-216.

Sharpley, A. N., Daniel, T. Sims, T., Lemunyon, J., Stevens, R. & Parry, R. (2003). Agricultural Phosphorus and Eutrophication Second Edition. Agricultural Research Service, ARS-149. United States Department of Agriculture.

Shearman, P. L., Ash, J., Mackey, B., Bryan, J. E. & Lokes, B. (2009). Forest conversion and degradation in Papua New Guinea 1972-2002. Biotropica, 41(3), 379-390.

Shochat, E., Lerman, S. B., Anderies, J. M., Warren, P. S., Faeth, S. H., & Nilon, C. H. (20 10). Invasion, competition, and biodiversity loss in urban ecosystems. BioScience, 60(3), 199-208.

Sigel, B. J., Douglas Robinson, W., & Sherry, T. W. (2010). Comparing bird community responses to forest fragmentation in two lowland Central American reserves. Biological Conservation, 143(2), 340-350.

Simberloff, D., & Dayan, T. (1991). The guild concept and the structure of ecological communities. Annual Review ofEcology and Systematics, 22, 115- 143.

Singh, J., & Kushwaha, S. (2008). Forest biodiversity and its conservation in India. International Forestry Review, 1 0(2), 292-304.

Smith, P. G. R., & Theberge, J. B. (1987). Evaluating natural areas using multiple criteria: theory and practice. Environmental Management, 11(4), 447-460.

Sodhi, N. S., Liow, L. H., & Bazzaz, F. A. (2004). Avian extinctions from tropical and subtropical forests. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics, 35, 323-345.

Sodhi, N. S., Yap, C. A-M., & Peh, K. S-H. (2007). Phenology of tropical birds in Peninsular Malaysia: effects of selective logging and food resources. The Auk. 124(3), 945-961.

Sodhi, N. S., Posa, M. R. C., Lee, T. M., & Warkentin, I. G. (2008). Perspectives in ornithology: effects of disturbance or loss of tropical rainforest on birds. The Auk, 125(3), 511-519. 188 Sodhi, N. S., Koh, L. P., Clements, R., Wanger, T. C., Hill, J. K., Hamer, K. C., et al. (2010a). Conserving Southeast Asian forest biodiversity in human-modified landscapes. Biological Conservation, 143(10), 2375-2384.

Sodhi, N. S., Posa, M. R. C., Lee, T. M., Bickford, D., Koh, L. P., & Brook, B. W. (2010b). The state and conservation of Southeast Asian biodiversity. Biodiversity and Conservation, 19(2), 317-328.

Suhaila, A. H., & Salmah, C. M. R. (2011). Stoneflies (Insecta: Plecoptera) in Malaysia tropical rivers: Diversity and seasonality. Journal of Entomology and Nematology, 3(2), 30-36.

Sreekar, R., Le, N. T. P., & Harrison, R. D. (2010). Vertebrate assemblage at a fruiting fig (Ficus caulocarpa) in Maliau basin, Malaysia. Tropical Conservation Science, 3(2), 218-227.

Stafford, J. D., Kaminski, R. M., & Reinecke, K. J. (2010). Avian foods, foraging and habitat conservation in world rice fields. Waterbirds, 33(sp1), 133-150.

Stohlgren, T. J., Bull, K. A., Otsuki, Y., Villa, C. A., & Lee, M. (1998). Riparian zones as havens for exotic plant species in the central grasslands. Plant Ecology, 138(1), 113-125.

Store, R., & Kangas, J. (2001). Integrating spatial multi-criteria evaluation and expert knowledge for GIS-based habitat suitability modelling. Landscape and urban planning, 55(2), 79-93.

Stouffer, P. C., & Bierregaard, R. 0. Jr. (1995). Use of Amazonian forest fragments by understory insectivorous birds. Ecology, 76(8), 2429-2445.

Strange, M. & Jeyarajasingam, A. (1999). Birds: A Photographic guide to the birds of Peninsular Malaysia and Singapore. Sun Tree Publishing Limited, Singapore.

Styring, A. R., & Ickes, K. (2001). Woodpecker abundance in a logged (40 years ago) vs. unlogged lowland dipterocarp forest in Peninsular Malaysia. Journal oftropical ecology, 17(02), 261-268.

Styring, A. R., & Zakaria, M. (2004). Foraging ecology of woodpeckers in lowland Malaysian rain forests. Journal oftropical ecology, 20(05), 487-494.

Sundar, K. S. G. (2006). Flock size, density and habitat selection of four large waterbirds species in an agricultural landscape in Uttar Pradesh, India: implications for management. Waterbirds, 29(3), 365-374.

Sundar, K. S. G. (2009). Are rice paddies suboptimal breeding habitat for Sarus cranes in Uttar Pradesh, India? The Condor, 111(4), 611-623.

189 Sundar, K. S. G. & Subramanya, S. (2010). Bird use of rice fields in the Indian Subcontinent. Waterbirds, 33(sp1), 44-70.

Szaro, R. C. (1986). Guild management: an evaluation of avian guilds as a predictive tool. Environmental Management, 10(5), 681-688.

Takahashi, M., & Ohkawara, K. (2007). Breeding behavior and reproductive success of Grey-headed Lapwing Vanellus cinereus on farmland in central Japan. Ornithological Science, 6(1), 1-9.

Tews, J., Brose, U., Grimm, V., Tielborger, K., Wichmann, M., Schwager, M., eta!. (2004). Animal species diversity driven by habitat heterogeneity/diversity: the importance of keystone structures. Journal of Biogeography, 31(1), 79- 92.

Tilman, D., Fargione, J., Wolff, B., DOAntonio, C., Dobson, A., Howarth, R., Schindler, D., Schlesinger, W. H., Simberloff, D. & Swackhamer, D. (2001). Forecasting agriculturally driven global environmental change. Science 292(281), 281-284.

Tramer, E. J. (1969). Bird species diversity: components of Shannon's formula. Ecology, 927-929.

Traweger, D., & Slotta-Bachmayr, L. (2005). Introducing GIS-modelling into the management of a brown rat (Rattus norvegicus Berk.) (Mamm. Rodentia Muridae) population in an urban habitat. Journal of Pest Science, 78(1), 17- 24.

Waltert, M., Mardiastuti, A., & Muhlenberg, M. (2004). Effects of land use on bird species richness in Sulawesi, Indonesia. Conservation Biology, 18(5), 1339- 1346.

Waltert, M., Bobo, K. S., Sainge, N. M., Pennon, H., & Muhlenberg, M. (2005). From forest to farmland: habitat effects on Afrotropical forest bird diversity. Ecological Applications, 15( 4), 1351-1366.

Wang, Y., & Finch, D. M. (2002). Consistency of mist netting and point counts in assessing landbird species richness and relative abundance during migration. The Condor, 1 04(1 ), 59-72.

Wei, D. L. I. Z. U. 0., Aik, Y. C., Chye, L., Kumar, K., Tiah, L., & Chong, Y. (2006). Shorebird surveys of the Malaysian coast November 2004-April 2005. Stilt, 7.

Wells, D. R. (1999). Birds of the Thai-Malay Peninsula: Volume I: Non-Passerines. Academic Press London, UK

Wells, D. R. (2007). The birds of the Thai-Malay Peninsula. Volume II: Passerines. Christopher Helm, London. 190 Wood, C., Qiao, Y., Li, P., Ding, P., Lu, B., & Xi, Y. (2010). Implications of rice agriculture for wild birds in China. Waterbirds, 33(sp1), 30-43.

Yacob, M. R. (2009). Recreational demand in bird sanctuary: the case of Kapar Bird Sanctuary, Kelang, Malaysia. International Journal of Business and Management, 4(12), 99-111.

Yang, R. C., & Yeh, F. C. (1992). Genetic consequences of in situ and ex situ conservation of forest trees. Forestry Chronicle, 68, 720-720.

Yeap, C. A., Sebastian, A. C. & Davison, G. W. H. (2007). Directory of Important Bird Areas in Malaysia: Key sites for conservation. MNS Conservation Publication No. 8, MNS Malaysia.

Yong, D. L., Qie, L., Sodhi, N. S., Koh, L. P., Peh, K. S. H., & Lee, T. M. (2011). Do insectivorous bird communities decline on land-bridge forest islands in Peninsular Malaysia? Journal oftropical ecology, 27, 1-14.

Yorke, C. D. (1984). Avian community structure in two modified Malaysian habitats. Biological Conservation, 29(4), 345-362.

Zagt, R. J., Sheil, D., & Putz, F. E. J. (2010). Biodiversity conservation in certified forests: an overview. Biodiversity conservation in certified forests.

Zakaria, M., & Nordin, M. (1998). Comparison of frugivory by birds in primary and logged lowland dipterocarp forests in Sabah, Malaysia. Tropical Biodiversity, 5(1), 1-9.

Zakaria, M., & Francis, C. (2001). The effects of logging on birds in tropical forests of Indo-Australia. Pages 193-212 In RA Fimbel, A. Grajal and JR Robinson (Eds.). The Cutting Edge: conserving wildlife in logged tropical forests. Columbia University Press, New York.

Zakaria, M., Leong, P. C., & Yusuf, M. E. (2005). Comparison of species composition in three forest types: towards using bird as indicator of forest ecosystem health. Journal ofBiological Sciences, 5(6), 734-737.

Zakaria, M., Rajpar, M. N., & Sajap, A. S. (2009). Species diversity and feeding guilds of birds in Paya Indah Wetland Reserve, Peninsular Malaysia. International Journal ofZoological Research, 5(3), 86-100.

Zamri, R., & Zakaria, M. (2002). Immediate effects of selective logging on the feeding guild of the understorey insectivorous birds in Ulu Muda Forest Reserve, Kedah, Malaysia. Proceedings of the Regional Symposium on Environment and Natural Resources, I, 737-744.

Zedler, J. B., & Kercher, S. (2005). Wetland resources: status, trends, ecosystem services, and restorability. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour., 30, 39-74.

191 Zharikov, Y., Skilleter, G. A., Loneragan, N. R., Taranto, T., & Cameron, B. E. (2005). Mapping and characterising subtropical estuarine landscapes using aerial photography and GIS for potential application in wildlife conservation and management. Biological Conservation, 125(1), 87-100.

Zou, F., Yang, Q., Dahmer, T., Cai, J., & Zhang, W. (2006). Habitat use of waterbirds in coastal wetland on Leizhou Peninsula, China. Waterbirds, 29(4), 459-464.

192 APPENDICES

APPENDIX A: Questionnaire

UNIVERSITI SAINS MALAYSIA

SCHOOL OF BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES

QUESTIONNAIRE

Multi-criteria evaluation (MCE) used to predict suitability areas and to determine the weight for factors influencing habitat suitability of threatened Pycnonotus bird species in Kerian River Basin, Perak.

Respondent Information:-

Name:

Department:

Field of Interest/Expertise:

Nur Munira Azman Master in Environmental Biology School ofBiological Sciences, USM. Explanation: Weights can be derived using pair-wise comparison approach. Scale range: 119 to 9 1/9 1/7 1/5 113 1 3 5 7 9 extremely very strongly moderately equally moderately strongly very extremely important ------· --- - -

LESS IMPORTANT MORE IMPORTANT

The continuous rating scale used for the pair wise comparison of factors in the multi-criteria evaluation Example: Factors River Forest Paddy Oil palm Main Elevation Human field plantation Road settlement River 1

Forest 3 1

Paddy 1/7 5 1 field Oil palm 115 3 7 1 plantation Main 9 1/7 9 1/3 1 Road Elevation 5 3 1/7 1/5 1/3 1

Human 3 5 9 3 5 1/3 1 Settlement The criteria are equally important - e.g. when comparing the same criteria such as river in the row and river in the column the value of one (1) are given. Same goes to other factors when comparing the same criteria.

When comparing two different criteria, for example row (e.g. river) and column (e.g. forest). If the criterion in the row (e.g. river) is 3 times more important than the criteria in the column (e.g. forest), the value of 3 is assigned. If the criterion in column (road) is 3 times less important than the criteria in the row (oil palm plantation) then the value of 113 is assigned.

Question 1: Factors influencing the habitat suitability ofPycnonotidae: 1. Black-headed bulbul (Pycnonotus atriceps) 2. Scaly-breasted bulbul (Pycnonotus squamatus) 3. Grey-bellied bulbul (Pycnonotus cyaniventris) 4. Cream-vented bulbul (Pycnonotus simplex) 5. Red-eyed bulbul (Pycnonotus brunneus) 6. Spectacled bulbul (Pycnonotus erythropthalmos) 7. Hairy-backed bulbul (Hypsipetes criniger) Factors River Forest Paddy Oil palm Road Elevation Human field plantation settlement River 1

Forest 1

Paddy 1 field Oil palm 1 plantation Road 1

i Elevation 1

Human 1

Settlement i ------

*All criteria must be evaluated in term of their distances that influence Pycnonotus habitat suitability. APPENDIX B: List of bird species recorded and their conservation status in three habitat types along Kerian River Basin

Family English/Malay name Scientific name Habitat, protection and conservation status Ardeidae Purple Heron; Pucung Ardea purpurea IS, R&M, C, TP Serandau Little Heron; Pucung Butorides striata IS/MG/MF, R&M, A, TP Keladi Chinese Pond Heron; Ardeola baccus IS/MG, M, RA, NP Pucung China Javan Pond-Heron; Ardeola speciosa IS/MG, M, RA, NP Pucung Jawa Eastern Cattle Egret; Bubulcus OC,M,C, TP Bangau Kendi coromandus Great Egret; Bangau Ardea alba MF/MG, R&M, A, TP Besar Intermediate Egret; Mesophoyx IS/MF/MG, M, U ,TP Bangau Kerbau intermedia Little Egret; Bangau Egretta garzetta IS/MF/MG, M, C, TP Kecil Black-crowned Night- Nycticorax IS/MG, R, C, TP Heron; Pucung Kuak nycticorax Cinnamon Bittern; Ixobrychus IS, R, C, TP Pucung Bendang cinnamomeus Yell ow Bittern; Pucung Ixobrychus IS, R&M, C, TP Merah sinensis Accipitrinae Black Baza; Lang Baza Aviceda leuphotes OC/LF, M, C, TP Hi tam Oriental Honey Pernis OC/LF/LMF, R&M, C, Buzzard; Lang Lebah ptilorhynchus TP Black-shouldered Kite; Elanus caeruleus OC,R,C, TP Lan_gTikus Brahminy Kite; Lang Haliastur indus MG,R,A, TP Merah White Bellied Sea Haliaeetus CW,R,C, TP Eagle; Lang Siput leucogaster Crested Serpent-eagle; Spilornis cheela MG/LF/LMFIUMF, R, C, LangKuik TP Pied Harrier; Lang Circus OC/IS, M, G, TP Tangling melanoleucos Black Eagle; Lang lctinaetus LF/LMFIUMF, R, U, TP Hi tam malayensis Changeable Hawk- Spizaetus LF,R,C,TP eagle; Lang Hindek cirrhatus Blyth's Hawk-eagle; Spizaetus LF/LMF, R, C, TP LangHantu alboniger Falconidae Black-Thighed Falconet; Microhierax LF,R,C,TP Palko Rajawali fringillarius APPENDIX B: Continued

Family English/Malay name Scientific name Habitat, protection and conservation status Phasianidae Red Junglefowl; Ayam Gallus gallus LF,R,C,GB Hutan Rallidae White-breasted Amaurornis IS, R&M, A, GB Waterhen; Ruak-Ruak phoenicurus W atercock; Burung Gallicrex cinerea IS, R&M, C, GB Ayam-ayam Vanellidae Grey-headed Lapwing; Vane/Ius cinereus OC,M,RA,GB Rapang Kepala Kelabu Pacific Golden Plover; Pluvial is fulva OC/MF, C, GB Rapang Kerinyut Scolopacidae Marsh Sandpiper; Tringa stagnatilis MF,M,C,GB Kedidi Paya Wood Sandpiper; Tringa glareola IS/MF, M, C, GB Kedidi Kayu Common Sandpiper; Actitis hypoleucos OC/IS/MF, M, C, GB Kedidi Pasir Common Snipe; Kedidi Gallinago OC,M, U,GB Pasir KallinaKO Columbidae Thick-billed Pigeon; Treron MG/LFILMF, R, C, GB curvirostra Pink Necked Green Treron vernans MG/OC, R, C, GB Pigeon; Punai Gading Rock Pigeon; Pergam Columba !iva GP,I,C,NP Batu Little Cuckoo-dove; Macropygia LF/LMFIUMF, R, C, GB Tekukur Api rujiceps Spotted Dove; Streptopelia GP/OC, R, C, NP Balam chinensis Peaceful Dove; Merbok Geopelia striata GP/OC, R, C, NP Aman Emerald Dove; Punai Chalcophaps LF/LMF, R, C, OPB Tanah indica Psittacidae Blue-crowned Hanging Loriculus LF/LMF, R, C, OPB Parrot galgulus Cuculidae Chestnut-breasted Zanclostomus MG/LF, R, C, TP Malkoha; Cenok Birah curvirostris Indian Cuckoo; Sewah Cuculus LF, R&M, C, TP India micropterus Banded Bay Cuckoo; Cacomantis LF,R,C,TP Sewah Takuwih sonneratti Plaintive Cuckoo; Cacomantis OCILF, R, C, TP Sewah Mati Anak merulinus Drongo Cuckoo; Sewah Surniculus LF/LMF, R&M, C, TP Sawai lugubris Asian Koel; Sewah Eudynamys MG/OC, R&M, C, TP Tahu scolopaceus APPENDIX B: Continued

Family English/Malay name Scientific name Habitat, protection and conservation status Black-bellied Malkoha; Rhopodytes diardi LF,R,U,TP Cenok Perot Hi tam Green-billed Malkoha; Rhopodytes tristis LF/LMF, R, C, TP CenokKera Raffle's Malkoha; Rhinortha LF,R,C,TP CenokKerak chlorophaeus Greater Coucal; But-But Centropus OC/LF, R, C, TP Besar sinensis Lesser Coucal; But-But Centropus OC,R,C, TP Kecil benKalensis Tytonidae Common Bam-owl; Tyto alba GP/OC, R, C, TP Pungguk Jelapang Oriental Bay-owl; Phodilus badius LF,R,U,TP Jampok Pantai Strigidae Collared Scops Owl; Otus lettia GP/OC/LF, R, C, TP Hantu Reban Buffy Fish Owl; Hantu Ketupa ketupu GP/OC/MG/LF, R, C, TP Kuning Apodidae Edible-nest Swiftlet; Aerodramus OCILF/LMF, R, C, TP Layang-layang Gua fuciphaga Black-nest Swiftlet; Aerodramus OCILF/LMF, R, C, TP Layang-layang Padi maxim us Glossy Swiftlet; Collocalia OCILFILMFIUMF, R, C, Layang-layang Licin esculenta TP Brown Needletail; Hirundapus LF/LMF/UMF, R&M, C, Layang-layang Besar giganteus TP Silver-romped Rhaphidura LF/LMF/UMF, R, C, TP Needletail; Layang- leucopygialis layang Kecil Fork-tailed Swift; Apus pacificus LF/LMF/UMF, M, C, TP Layang-layang Ekor Cabang House Swift; Layang- Apus affinis GP/OC/LF/LMF, R, C, layang Rumah TP Hemiprocnidae Whiskered Treeswift; Hemiprocne GP/OC/MG/LF/LMF, R, Layang-layang Jambul comata C,TP Kecil Grey-romped Treeswift; Hemiprocne GP/OC/MG/LF/LMF, R, Layang-layang Jambul longipennis C,TP Kelabu Alcedinidae Common Kingfisher; Alcedo atthis IS/MG, R&M, C, TP Pekaka Cit-cit Kecil Blue-eared Kingfisher; Alcedo meninting LF,R,U,TP Pekaka Bintik-bintik APPENDIX B: Continued

Family English/Malay name Scientific name Habitat, protection and conservation status Oriental Dwarf Cexy erithacus LF, R&M, C, TP Kingfisher;Pekaka Rimba Halcyonidae Stork-billed Kingfisher; Pelargopsis IS/MG/LF, R, C, TP PekakaEmas capensis White-throated Halcyon GP/OC, R, C, TP Kingfisher; Pekaka smyrnensis Dada Putih Meropidae Blue-tailed Bee-eater; Merops OC,R,C, TP Berek-Berek Carik Dada philippinus Blue-throated Bee-eater; Merops viridis OC, R,C ,TP Berek-berek Tadah Hujan Prionopidae Large Wood Shrike; Tephrodornis LF/LMF, R, C, TP Rembah Kayu Besar f(Ularis Coraciidae Dollarbird; Tiong Batu Eurystomus OC, R&M, C, TP orienta/is Bucerotidae Oriental Pied Hombill; Anthracoceros OC/LF, R, C, TP Enggang Belulang albirostris Rhinoceros Hombill; Buceros LF/LMF, R, C, TP Enggang Lilin!Badak rhinoceros Wreathed Hornbill; Aceros undulatus LF/LMF, R, C, TP Enggang Gunung Megalaimidae Gold-whiskered Barbet; Megalaima LF/LMF, R, C, TP Takor Jambang Emas chrysopogon Red-crowned Barbet; Megalaima LF/LMF, R, C, TP Takor Mahkota Merah mystacophanos Red-throated Barbet; Megalaima LF /LMF, R, C, TP Takor Raya mystacophanos Blue-eared Barbet; Megalaima LF/LMF, R, C, TP Takor Akar australis Coppersmith Barbet; Megalaima GP/OC/MG, R, C, TP Takor Tembaga haemacephala Brown Barbet; Takor Calorhamphus LF/LMF, R, C, TP Dahan fuliginosus Picidae Rufous Woodpecker; Micropternus LF,R,C,TP Belatok Biji Nangka brachyurus Crimson-winged Picus puniceus LF /LMF, R, C, TP Woodpecker; Belatok Mas Banded Woodpecker; Picus miniaceus MG/LF/LMF, R, C, TP Belatok Merah Common Flameback; Dinopium GP/OC/MG/LF, R, C, TP Belatok Pinang Muda javanense APPENDIX B: Continued

Family English/Malay name Scientific name Habitat, protection and conservation status Buff-romped Meiglyptes tristis LF/LMF, R, U, TP Woodpecker; Belatok A wan Buff-necked Meiglyptes tukki LF,R,U,TP Woodpecker; Belatok Tuki-tuki Grey-capped Picoides LF,R,C,TP Woodpecker; Belatok canicapillus Bela can Sunda Pygmy Pico ides MG/LF, C, TP Woodpecker; Belatok moluccensis Belacan Kecil Grey and Buff Hemicircus LF/LMF, R, U, TP Woodpecker; Belatok concretus Punggoh Orange-backed Rheinwardtipicus LF,R,U,TP Woodpecker; Belatok validus Ranum Eurylaimidae Black-and-Red Cymbirhynchus MG/LF, R, C, TP Broadbill; Takau Rakit macrorhynchos Black-and-Yellow Eurylaimus LF,R,C,TP Broadbill; Takau Hitam ochromalus Kuning Pittidae Blue-winged Pitta; Pacat Pitta moluccensis LF, R&M, C, TP Sayap Biru Hirundinidae Bam Swallow; Sualo Hirundo rustica OC,M,A, TP A_pi House Swallow; Sualo Hirundo tahitica OC,R,C, TP Batu Campephagidae Bar-winged Flycatcher- Hemipus picatus LF/LMF, R, C, TP shrike; Rembah Bukit Black-winged Hemipus LF/LMF, R, C, TP Flycatcher-shrike; hirundinaceus Rembah Batu Aegithinidae Lesser Cuckoo-shrike; Coracina LF/LMF, R, U, TP Burung Kelabu Kecil fimbriata Pied Triller; Rembah Lalage nigra GP/OC, R, C, TP Kening Putih Ashy Minivet; Mas Pericrocotus GP/OC/MG/LF, M, C, TP Padang divaricatus Scarlet Minivet; Mas Pericrocotus LF/LMF, R, C, TP Belukar speciosus Common lora; Kunyit Aegithina tiphia GP/OC/MG, R, C, TP Kecil Chloropseidae Lesser Green Leafbird; Chloropsis LF,R,C,TP Burung Daun Kecil cynopOKOn APPENDIX B: Continued

Family English/Malay name Scientific name Habitat, protection and conservation status Greater Green Leafbird; Chloropsis LF,R,C,TP Burung Daun Besar sonnerati Blue-winged Leafbird; Chloropsis LF /LMF, R, C, TP Daun Sayap Biru cochinchinensis Pycnonotidae Black-headed Bulbul; Pycnonotus LF /LMF, R, C, TP Merbah Siam atriceps Black-creasted Bulbul; Pycnonotus LF /LMF, R, C, TP Merbah Jambul Hitam flaviventris Scaly-breasted Bulbul; Pycnonotus LF/LMF, R, U, TP Merbah Dada Bersisik squamatus Grey-bellied Bulbul; Pycnonotus LF/LMF, R, C, TP Merbah Dada Kelabu cyaniventris Striped-throated Bulbul; Pycnonotus LF/LMF, R, C, TP Merbah Luris Leber .finlaysoni Yell ow-vented Bulbul; Pycnonotus GP/OC, R, A, NP Merbah Kapur KOaivier Olive-winged Bulbul; Pycnonotus LF,R,C,TP Merbah Belukar plumosus Streak-eared Bulbul; Pycnonotus GP/OC, T, U, TP Merbah Telinga Lurus blanfordi Cream-vented Bulbul; Pycnonotus LF,R,C,TP Merbah Mata Putih simplex Red-eyed Bulbul; Pycnonotus LF,R,C,TP Merbah Mata Merah brunneus Spectacled Bulbul; Pycnonotus LF,R,U,TP Merbah Kecil erythropthalmos Ochraceous Bulbul; Criniger LF/LMF, R, C, TP Merbah Beringin ochraceus Hairy-backed Bulbul; Hypsipetes LF,R, U,TP Merbah Bulu Panjang criniger Tengkuk Grey-cheeked Bulbul; Alophoixus bres LF,R,C,TP Merbah Sampah Dicruridae Crow-billed Drongo; Dicrurus MG/LF, M, U, TP Cecawi Paruh Gagak annectans Bronzed Drongo; Dicrurus aeneus LF/LMF, R, C, TP Cecawi Keladi Greater Racquet-tailed Dicrurus LF/LMF, R, C, TP Drongo; Cecawi Anting- paradiseus Anting Oriolidae Black-naped Oriole; Oriolus chinensis GP/OC, R&M, C, TP Dendang Selayang Irenidae Asian Fairy-bluebird; Irena puella LF/LMF, R, C, TP Dendang_ Gajah Corvidae House Crow; Gagak Corvus splendens GP/OC/LF/LMF, R, C, Rumah NP APPENDIX B: Continued

Family English/Malay name Scientific name Habitat, protection and conservation status Southern Jungle Crow; Corvus GP/OC/LF/LMF, R, C, Gagak Paruh Besar macrorhynchos NP Timaliidae Puff-throated Babbler; Pellorneum MG/LF, R, U, TP Rimba Bintik-Bintik ruficeps Short-tailed Babbler; Malacocincla LF,R,C,TP Rimba Ekor Pendek malaccensis Horsfield's Babbler; Trichastoma LF,R,U,TP Rimba Hutan sepiarium Abbott's Babbler; Rimba Malacocincla LF,R,C,TP Riang abbotti Grey-headed Babbler; Stachyris LF,R,U,TP Rimba Kepala Kelabu poliocephala Chesnut-winged Stachyris LF,R,C,TP Babbler; Rimba Sayap erythroptera Merah Pin-striped Tit-babbler; Macronus gularis LF/LMF, R, C, TP Rimba Berjalur White-bellied Erpomis; Erpornis LF/LMF, R, U, TP Rimba berjambul hijau zantholeuca Acrocephalidae Arctic Warbler; Phylloscopus GP/MG/LF/LMF, M, C, borealis TP Cisticoladiae Common Tailorbird; Orthotomus GP/OC/MG/LF/LMF, R, Perenjak Pisang sutorius C,TP Dark-necked Tailorbird; Orthotomus GP/MG/LF/LMF, R, C, Perenjak Belukar atrogularis TP Rufous -tailed Orthotomus MG/LF, R, U, TP Tailorbird; Perenjak sericeus Rimba Rufescent Prinia; Prinia rufescens LF/LMF, R, C, TP Perenjak Belukar Yellow-bellied Prinia; Prinia flaviventris OC, R, C, TP Perenjak Padi Muscicapidae Asian Brown Muscicapa GP/NGILF/LMF, M, C, Flycatcher; Sambar Asia dauurica TP Yellow-romped Ficedula GP/OC/LF/LMF, R, C, Flycatcher; Sambar zanthopygia NP Tongkeng Kuning Mugimaki Flycatcher; Ficedula LF /LMF, M, C, TP Sambar Mugimaki mugimaki Tickell's Blue Cyornis tickelliae GP/LF, M, C, TP Flycatcher; Sambar Kelicap Ranting Siberian Blue Robin; Luscinia cyane LF/LMF, M, C, TP Murai Siberia Oriental Magpie Robin; Copsychus GP/OC/LF/LMF, R, C, Murai Kampung saularis NP APPENDIX B: Continued

Family English/Malay name Scientific name Habitat, protection and conservation status White-romped Shama; Copsychus MG/LF, R, C, TP Murai Batu malabaricus Rhipiduridae Pied Fantail; Sambar Rhipidura MG/LF/LMF, R&M, C, Murai Gila javanica TP Monarchidae Asian Paradise- Terpsiphone OC/IS/LF /LMF /UMF, M, Flycatcher; Sambar paradisi C,TP Ekor Panjang Motacillidae Grey Wagtail; Kedidi Motacilla cinerea OC/IS/LF/LMF /UMF, M, Batu C,TP Paddyfield Pipit; Ciak Anthus rufulus R&M Padang Laniidae Brown Shrike; Tirjup Lanius cristatus GPIOC, M, C, TP Tanah Tiger Shrike; Tirjup Lanius tigrinus LF/LMF, M, C, TP Rimau Sturnidae Asian Glossy Starling; Aplonis GP/OC, R, A, NP Perling Mata Merah panayensis Common Myna; Tiong Acridotheres GPIOC, R, A, NP Gembala Kerbau tristis Jungle Myna; Tiong Acridotheres OC,R,U,NP sa wah fuscus Crested myna; Tiong Acridotheres GP/OC, I, U, TP Cina cristatellus Nectariniidae Plain Sunbird; Kelicap Anthreptes LF,R,U,TP Kelabu simplex Brown-throated Anthreptes GP/OC/MG, R, C, TP Sunbird; Kelicap malaccensis Mayan_g_ Kelapa Ruby-cheeked Sunbird; Anthreptes LF,R,C,TP Keliciip Belukar singalensis Olive-backed Sunbird; Cinnyris jugularis GPIOCIMG, R, C, TP Kelicap Bukit Little Spiderhunter; Arachnothera GP/LF/LMF, R, C, TP KeliciipJantung Kecil longirostra Long-billed Arachnothera LF/LMF, R, U, TP Spiderhunter; Kelicap robusta Jantung Paruh Panjang Spectacled Arachnothera LF,R,U,TP Spiderhunter; Kelicap jlavigaster Jantung Besar Yellow-eared Arachnothera LF/LMF, R, C, TP Spiderhunter; Kelicap chrysogenys Jantung Telinga Kuning Grey-breasted Arachnothera GPIOCIMG, R, C, TP Spiderhunter; Kelicap a.!finis Jantung Dada Kelabu APPENDIX B: Continued

Family English/Malay name Scientific name Habitat, protection and conservation status Streaked Spiderhunter; Arachnothera LMF/UMF, R, C, TP Kelicap Jantung Gunung maKna Dicaeidae Yellow-breasted Dicaeum LF/LMF, R, U, TP Flowerpecker; Sepah maculatus Puteri Raja Crimson-breasted Dicaeum MG/LF, R, C, TP Flowerpecker; Sepah percussus Puteri Pelangi Yell ow-vented Dicaeum LF,R,C,TP Flowerpecker; Sepah chrysorrheum Puteri Berjalur Plain Flowerpecker; Dicaeum LF,R,U,TP Sepah Puteri Bongsu concolor Orange-bellied Dicaeum LF/LMF, R, C, TP Flowerpecker; Sepah trigonostigma Puteri Bukit Scarlet-backed Dicaeum GP/OC/MG/LF, R, C, TP Flowerpecker; Sepah cruentatum Puteri Merah Passeridae Eurasian Tree-sparrow; Passer montanus GP/OC, R, A, NP CiakRumah Ploceidae Baya Weaver; Ciak Ploceus OC,R,C,NP Tempua philippinus Estrildidae White-rumped Munia; Lonchura striata OC/LF/LMF, R, U, NP Pipit Tuli White-bellied Munia; Lonchura LF,R,U,NP Pipit Ekor Emas leucogastra Scaly-breasted Munia; Lonchura GP/OC, R, C, NP Pipit Pinang punctulata Chesnut Munia; Pipit Lonchura OC,R,C,NP Raw a atricapilla White-headed Munia; Lonchura maja OC,R,C,NP Pipit Phylloscopidae Zitting Cisticola; Cekup Cisticola juncidis OC,R,C, TP Layang

Abbreviation: (HABIT AT) GP- Gardens and parks (including wooded suburban areas), OC­ Open country (open grassy areas, scrub and tin mines),IS- Inland freshwater swamps (mining pools, lakes and paddy fields), MG- Mangroves, LF- Lowland rainforest (including secondary forest and forest edge), LMF- Lower montane rainforest (including secondary forest and forest edge), (STATUS) R- Resident, M- Passage migrant/winter visitor, V- Vagrant, I- Introduced, (INCIDENCE OF OCCURANCE) C- Common, U- Uncommon, RA- Rare, (PROTECTION BY LAW IN PENINSULAR MALAYSIA) TP- Totally protected (may not be hunted or reared in captivity), GB- Game birds (may be hunted under license), OPB- Other protected birds (may be reared in captivity under license) and NP-Not protected. APPENDIX C: List of bird species recorded in secondary forest, Ulu Selama, Perak (March 2009-February 2010)

Family English/Malay name Scientific name Habitat, protection and conservation status Accipitrinae Oriental Honey Pernis OC/LF/LMF, R&M, C, Buzzard; Lang Lebah ptilorhynchus TP Crested Serpent-eagle; Spilornis cheela MG/LF/LMFIUMF, R, LangKuik C,TP Changeable Hawk- Spizaetus LF,R,C,TP eagle; Lang Hindek cirrhatus Blythy's Hawk-eagle; Spizaetus LF/LMF, R, C, TP LangHantu alboniger Falconidae Black-thighed Microhierax LF,R,C,TP Falconet; Palko fringillarius Rajawali Columbidae Thick-billed Pigeon; Treron MG/LF/LMF, R, C, GB PunaiLengguak curvirostra Little Cuckoo-dove; Macropygia LF/LMFIUMF, R, C, GB Tekukur Api ru{iceps Emerald Dove; Punai Chalcophaps LF/LMF, R, C, OPB Tanah indica Psittacidae Blue-crowned Loriculus LF/LMF, R, C, OPB Hanging Parrot; Bayan galgu/us Serindit Cuculidae Chestnut -breasted Zanc/ostomus MG/LF, R, C, TP Malkoha; Cenok birah curvirostris Indian Cuckoo; Sewah Cuculus LF, R&M, C, TP India micropterus Banded Bay Cuckoo; Cacomantis LF,R,C,TP Sewah Takuwih sonneratti Plaintive Cuckoo; Cacomantis OC/LF, R, C, TP Sewah Mati Anak merulinus Drongo Cuckoo; Surniculus LF/LMF, R&M, C, TP Sewah Sawai lugubris Black-bellied Rhopodytes LF,R,U,TP Malkoha; Cenok Perut diardi Hi tam Raffle's Malkoha; Rhinortha LF,R,C,TP CenokKerak chlorophaeus Greater Coucal; But- Centropus OC/LF, R, C, TP but Besar sinensis Strigidae Collared Scops Owl; Otus lettia GP/OC/LF, R, C, TP Hantu Reban* Hemiprocnidae Whiskered Treeswift; Hemiprocne GP/OC/MG/LF/LMF, R, Layang-layang Jambul comata C,TP Kecil Grey-rumped Hemiprocne GP/OC/MG/LF/LMF, R, Treeswift; Layang- longipennis C,TP layang Jambul Kelabu Alcedinidae Blue-eared Kingfisher; Alcedo meninting LF,R,U,TP Pekaka Bintik-bintik APPENDIX C: Continued

Family English/Malay name Scientific name Habitat, protection and conservation status Oriental Dwarf Cexy erithacus LF, R&M, C, TP Kingfisher; Pekaka Rimba Halcyonidae White-throated Halcyon GP/OC, R, C, TP Kingfisher; Pekaka smyrnensis Dada Putih Meropidae Blue-tailed Bee-eater; Merops OC,R,C, TP Berek-berek Carik philippinus Dada Blue-throated Bee- Merops viridis OC,R,C ,TP eater; Berek-berek TadahHujan Prionopidae Large Wood Shrike; Tephrodornis LF/LMF, R, C, TP Rembah Kayu Besar gularis Bucerotidae Rhinoceros Hombill; Buceros LF/LMF, R, C, TP Enggang Lilin/Badak rhinoceros Wreathed Hombill; Aceros undulatus LF/LMF, R, C, TP Enggang Gunung Megalaimidae Gold-whiskered Megalaima LF/LMF, R, C, TP Barbet; Takor chrysopogon Jambang Emas Red-crowned Barbet; Megalaima LF/LMF, R, C, TP Takor Mahkota Merah mystacophanos Red-throated Barbet; Megalaima LF/LMF, R, C, TP TakorRaya mystacophanos Blue-eared Barbet; Megalaima LF/LMF, R, C, TP Takor Akar australis Brown Barbet; Takor Calorhamphus LF/LMF, R, C, TP Dahan fuliginosus Picidae Crimson-winged Picus puniceus LF/LMF, R, C, TP Woodpecker; Belatok Mas Banded Woodpecker; Picus miniaceus MG/LF/LMF, R, C, TP Belatok Merah Common Flameback; Dinopium GP/OC/MG/LF, R, C, Belatok Pinang Muda javanense TP Buff-rumped Meiglyptes tristis LF/LMF, R, U, TP Woodpecker; Belatok A wan Grey-capped Pico ides LF,R,C,TP Woodpecker; Belatok canicapillus Belacan SundaPygmy Picoides MG/LF, C, TP Woodpecker; Belatok moluccensis Belacan Kecil Grey and Buff Hemicircus LF/LMF, R, U, TP Woodpecker; Belatok concretus Punggoh APPENDIX C: Continued

Family English/Malay name Scientific name Habitat, protection and conservation status Orange-backed Rheinwardtipicus LF,R,U,TP Woodpecker; Belatok validus Ranum Eurylairnidae Black-and-Yell ow Eurylaimus LF,R,C,TP Broadbill; Takau achroma/us Hitam Kuning Campephagidae Bar-winged Hemipus picatus LF/LMF, R, C, TP Flycatcher-shrike; Rembah Bukit Black-winged Hemipus LF/LMF, R, C, TP Flycatcher-shrike; hirundinaceus RembahBatu Aegithinidae Lesser Cuckoo-shrike; Coracina LF/LMF, R, U, TP Burung Kelabu Kecil .fimbriata Pied Triller; Rembah Lalage nigra GP/OC, R, C, TP Kening Putih Ashy Minivet; Mas Pericrocotus GPIOCIMGILF, M, C, Padang divaricatus TP Scarlet Minivet; Mas Pericrocotus LF/LMF, R, C, TP Belukar speciosus Common lora; Kunyit Aegithina tiphia GPIOCIMG, R, C, TP Kecil Chloropseidae Lesser Green Chloropsis LF,R,C,TP Leafbird; Burung cynopogon Daun Kecil Greater Green Chloropsis LF,R,C,TP Leafbird; Burung sonnerati DaunBesar Blue-winged Leafbird; Chloropsis LF/LMF, R, C, TP Daun Sayap Biru cochinchinensis Pycnonotidae Black-headed Bulbul; Pycnonotus LF/LMF, R, C, TP Merbah Siam a triceps Black-creasted Bulbul; Pycnonotus LF/LMF, R, C, TP Merbah Jambul Hitam flaviventris Scaly-breasted Bulbul; Pycnonotus LF/LMF, R, U, TP Merbah Dada Bersisik squamatus Grey-bellied Bulbul; Pycnonotus LF/LMF, R, C, TP Merbah Dada Kelabu cyaniventris Striped-throated Pycnonotus LF/LMF, R, C, TP Bulbul; Merbah Luris finlaysoni Leher Yellow-vented Bulbul; Pycnonotus GPIOC, R, A, NP Merbah Kapur goaivier Olive-winged Bulbul; Pycnonotus LF,R,C,TP Merbah Belukar plumosus Streak-eared Bulbul; Pycnonotus GP/OC, T, U, TP Merbah Telinga Lurus blanfordi Cream-vented Bulbul; Pycnonotus LF,R,C,TP Merbah Mata Putih simplex APPENDIX C: Continued

Family English/Malay name Scientific name Habitat, protection and conservation status Red-eyed Bulbul; Pycnonotus LF,R,C,TP Merbah Mata Merah brunneus Spectacled Bulbul; Pycnonotus LF,R,U,TP Merbah Kecil erythropthalmos Ochraceous Bulbul; Criniger LF/LMF, R, C, TP Merbah Beringin ochraceus Hairy-backed Bulbul; Hypsipetes LF,R, U,TP Merbah Bulu Panjang criniger Tengkuk Grey-cheeked Bulbul; Alophoixus bres LF,R,C,TP Merbah Sampah* Dicruridae Crow-billed Drongo; Dicrurus MG/LF, M, U, TP Cecawi Paruh Gagak annectans Bronzed Drongo; Dicrurus aeneus LF/LMF, R, C, TP Cecawi Keladi Greater Racquet- Dicrurus LF/LMF, R, C, TP tailed Drongo; paradiseus Cecawi Anting-anting Oriolidae Black-naped Oriole; Oriolus GP/OC, R&M, C, TP Dendang Selayang chin ens is Irenidae Asian Fairy-bluebird; Irena puella LF/LMF, R, C, TP Dendang Gajah Corvidae Southern Jungle Corvus GP/OC/LF/LMF, R, C, Crow; Gagak Paruh macrorhynchos NP Besar Timaliidae Puff-throated Pellorneum MG/LF, R, U, TP Babbler; Rimba rujiceps Bintik-bintik Short-tailed Babbler; Malacocincla LF,R,C,TP Rimba Ekor Pendek* malaccensis Horsfield's Babbler; Trichastoma LF,R,U,TP RimbaHutan sepiarium Abbott's Babbler; Malacocincla LF,R,C,TP RimbaRiang abbotti Grey-headed Babbler; Stachyris LF,R,U,TP Rimba Kepala poliocephala Kelabu* Chesnut-winged Stachyris LF,R,C,TP Babbler; Rimba erythroptera Say_a}_)_ Merah Pin-striped tit- Macro nus LF/LMF, R, C, TP Babbler; Rimba gularis Berjalur White-bellied Erpornis LF/LMF, R, U, TP Erpornis; Rimba zantholeuca Berj ambul Hij au Acrocephalidae Arctic Warbler; Phylloscopus GP/MG/LF/LMF, M, C, Cekup Daun Artik borealis TP Cisticoladiae Common Tailorbird; Orthotomus GP/OC/MG/LF/LMF, R, Perenjak Pisang sutorius C,TP APPENDIX C: Continued

Family English/Malay name Scientific name Habitat, protection and conservation status Dark-necked Orthotomus GP/MG/LF/LMF, R, C, Tailorbird; Perenjak atrogularis TP Belukar Rufescent Prinia; Prinia rufescens LF/LMF, R, C, TP Perenjak Belukar Yellow-bellied Prinia OC,R,C, TP Prinia; Perenjak Padi jlaviventris Muscicapidae Asian Brown Muscicapa GP/NG/LF/LMF, M, C, Flycatcher; Sambar dauurica TP Asia Yellow-rumped Ficedula GP/OC/LF/LMF, R, C, Flycatcher; Sambar zanthopygia NP Tongkeng Kuning Mugimaki Ficedula LF/LMF, M, C, TP Flycatcher; Sambar mugimaki Mugimaki Tickell's blue Cyornis GP/LF, M, C, TP Flycatcher; Sambar tickelliae Kelicap Ranting Siberian Blue Robin; Luscinia cyane LF/LMF, M, C, TP Murai Siberia* Oriental Magpie Copsychus GP/OC/LF/LMF, R, C, Robin; Murai saularis NP Kampung White-rumped Copsychus MG/LF, R, C, TP Shama; Murai Batu malabaricus Monarchidae Asian Paradise- Terpsiphone OC/IS/LF/LMFIUMF, M, flycatcher; Sambar paradisi C,TP Ekor Panjang Motacillidae Grey Wagtail; Kedidi Motacilla OC/IS/LF/LMFIUMF, M, Batu cinerea C,TP Laniidae Brown Shrike; Tirjup Lanius cristatus GPIOC, M, C, TP Tanah Tiger Shrike; Tirjup Lanius tigrinus LF/LMF, M, C, TP Rimau N ectariniidae Plain Sunbird; Anthreptes LF,R,U,TP Kelicap Kelabu simplex Little Spiderhunter; Arachnothera GP/LF/LMF, R, C, TP Kelicap Jantung Kecil lon~irostra Long-billed Arachnothera LF/LMF, R, U, TP Spiderhunter; Kelicap robusta Jantung Paruh Panjang Spectacled Arachnothera LF,R,U,TP Spiderhunter; Kelicap jlavigaster Jantung Besar Yellow-eared Arachnothera LF/LMF, R, C, TP Spiderhunter; Kelicap chrysogenys Jantung Telinga Kuning APPENDIX C: Continued

Family English/Malay name Scientific name Habitat, protection and conservation status Grey-Breasted Arachnothera GP/OC/MG, R, C, TP Spiderhunter; Kelicap affinis Jantung Dada Kelabu Streaked Arachnothera LMFIUMF, R, C, TP Spiderhunter; Kelicap magna Jan tung Gunung Dicaeidae Yellow-breasted Dicaeum LF/LMF, R, U, TP Flowerpecker; Sepah maculatus Puteri Raja Crimson-breasted Dicaeum MG/LF, R, C, TP Flowerpecker; Sepah percussus Puteri Pelangi Yellow-vented Dicaeum LF,R,C,TP Flowerpecker; Sepah chrysorrheum Puteri Berjalur Plain Flowerpecker; Dicaeum LF,R,U,TP Sepah Puteri Bongsu concolor Orange-bellied Dicaeum LF /LMF, R, C, TP Flowerpecker; Sepah trigonostigma Puteri Bukit Scarlet-backed Dicaeum GP/OC/MG/LF, R, C, TP Flowerpecker; Sepah cruentatum Puteri Merah Estrildidae White-rumped Lonchura striata OC/LF/LMF, R, U, NP Munia; Pipit Tuli Chesnut Munia; Pipit Lonchura OC,R,C,NP Raw a atricapilla

Abbreviation: (HABITAT) GP- Gardens and parks (including wooded suburban areas), OC­ Open country (open grassy areas, scrub and tin mines ),IS- Inland freshwater swamps (mining pools, lakes and paddy fields), MG- Mangroves, LF- Lowland rainforest (including secondary forest and forest edge), LMF- Lower montane rainforest (including secondary forest and forest edge), (STATUS) R- Resident, M- Passage migrant/winter visitor, V­ Vagrant, I- Introduced, (INCIDENCE OF OCCURANCE) C- Common, U- Uncommon, RA- Rare, (PROTECTION BY LAW IN PENINSULAR MALAYSIA) TP- Totally protected (may not be hunted or reared in captivity), GB- Game birds (may be hunted under licence), OPB- Other protected birds (may be reared in captivity under licence) and NP- Not protected. * Bird recorded only through netting. APPENDIX D: List of bird species recorded in oil palm plantation, Selama, Perak (March 2009-February 2010)

Family English/Malay name Scientific name Habitat, protection and conservation status Ardeidae Little Heron; Pucung Butorides striata IS/MG/MF, R&M, A, TP Keladi* Javan Pond-heron; Ardeola speciosa IS/MG, M, RA, NP Pucung Jawa* Eastern Cattle Egret; Bubulcus OC,M,C, TP Bangau Kendi* coromandus Accipitrinae Black Baza; Lang baza Aviceda OC/LF, M, C, TP Hi tam* leuphotes Oriental Honey Pernis OC/LF/LMF, R&M, C, Buzzard; Lang lebah* ptilorhynchus TP Crested Serpent-eagle; Spilornis cheela MG/LF/LMFIUMF, R, LangKuik* C,TP Phasianidae Red Junglefowl; A yam Gallus gallus LF,R,C,GB Hut an Rallidae White-breasted Amaurornis IS, R&M, A, GB Waterhen; Ruak-ruak* phoenicurus Columbidae Pink Necked Green Treron vernans MG/OC, R, C, GB Pigeon; Punai Gading Spotted Dove; Merbok Streptopelia GP/OC, R, C, NP Balam chinensis Peaceful Dove; Geopelia striata GP/OC, R, C, NP MerbokAman Emerald Dove; Punai Chalcophaps LF/LMF, R, C, OPB Tanah* indica Cuculidae Asian Koel; Sewah Eudynamys MG/OC, R&M, C, TP Tahu scolopaceus Black-bellied Rhopodytes LF,R,U,TP Malkoha; Cenok Perut diardi Hi tam Green-billed Malkoha; Rhopodytes LF/LMF, R, C, TP CenokKera tristis Raffle's Malkoha; Rhinortha LF,R,C,TP Cenok kerak chlorophaeus Greater Coucal; But- Centropus OC/LF, R, C, TP but besar* sinensis Tytonidae Oriental Bay-owl; Phodilus badius LF,R,U,TP Jampok Pantai Strigidae Collared Scops Owl; Otus lettia GP/OC/LF, R, C, TP HantuReban Buffy Fish Owl; Hantu Ketupa ketupu GP/OC/MG/LF, R, C, kuning TP Alcedinidae Common Kingfisher; Alcedo atthis IS/MG, R&M, C, TP Pekaka Cit-cit Kecil Blue-eared Kingfisher; Alcedo meninting LF,R,U,TP Pekaka Bintik-bintik* Halcyonidae White-throated Halcyon GP/OC, R, C, TP Kingfisher; Pekaka smyrnensis Dada Putih APPENDIX D: Continued

Family English/Malay name Scientific name Habitat, protection and conservation status Megalaimidae Gold-whiskered Megalaima LF/LMF, R, C, TP Barbet; Takor chrysopogon Jambang Emas* Blue-eared Barbet; Megalaima LF/LMF, R, C, TP Takor Akar* australis Picidae Rufous Woodpecker; Micropternus LF,R,C,TP Belatok Biji Nangka* brachyurus Common Flameback; Dinopium GP/OC/MG/LF, R, C, Belatok Pinang Muda javanense TP Buff-necked Meiglyptes tukki LF,R, U, TP Woodpecker; Belatok Tuki-tuki* Eurylaimidae Black-and-Red Cymbirhynchus MG/LF, R, C, TP Broadbill; Takau macrorhynchos Rakit* Pittidae Blue-winged Pitta; Pitta moluccensis LF, R&M, C, TP Pacat Sayap Biru* Hirundinidae House Swallow; Sualo Hirundo tahitica OC,R,C, TP Batu Aegithinidae Pied Triller; Rembah Lalage nigra GP/OC, R, C, TP Kening Putih Ashy Minivet; Mas Pericrocotus GP/OC/MG/LF, M, C, Padang divaricatus TP Common lora; Kunyit Aegithina tiphia GP/OC/MG, R, C, TP Kecil Pycnonotidae Black-headed Bulbul; Pycnonotus LF/LMF, R, C, TP Merbah Siam* a triceps Yellow-vented Bulbul; Pycnonotus GP/OC, R, A, NP Merbah Kapur goaivier Olive-winged Bulbul; Pycnonotus LF,R,C,TP Merbah Belukar* p/umosus Red-eyed Bulbul; Pycnonotus LF,R,C,TP Merbah Mata Merah* brunneus Dicruridae Crow-billed Drongo; Dicrurus MG/LF, M, U, TP Cecawi Paruh Gagak annectans Greater Racquet-tailed Dicrurus LF/LMF, R, C, TP Drongo; Cecawi paradiseus Anting-anting Oriolidae Black-naped Oriole; Oriolus chinensis GP/OC, R&M, C, TP Dendang Selayang Corvidae Southern Jungle Crow; Corvus GP/OC/LF/LMF, R, C, Gagak Paruh Besar macrorhynchos NP Timaliidae White-bellied Erpornis LF/LMF, R, U, TP Erpornis; Rimba zantho/euca Berjambul Hijau* Cisticoladiae Common Tailorbird; Orthotomus GP/OC/MG/LF/LMF, R, Perenjak Pisang sutorius C,TP Rufous -tailed Orthotomus MG/LF, R, U, TP Tailorbird; Perenjak sericeus Rimba* APPENDIX D: Continued

Family English/Malay name Scientific name Habitat, protection and conservation status Yellow-bellied Prinia; Prinia OC,R,C, TP Perenjak Padi flaviventris Muscicapidae Asian Brown Muscicapa GP/NG/LF/LMF, M, C, Flycatcher; Sambar dauurica TP Asia Yellow-rumped Ficedula GP/OC/LF/LMF, R, C, Flycatcher; Sambar zanthopygia NP Tongkeng Kuning Tickell's Blue Cyornis tickelliae GP/LF, M, C, TP Flycatcher; Sambar Kelicap Ranting*/** Oriental Magpie Copsychus GP/OC/LF/LMF, R, C, Robin; Murai saularis NP Kampung White-rumped Shama; Copsychus MG/LF, R, C, TP Murai Batu* malabaricus Rhipiduridae Pied Fantail; Sambar Rhipidura MG/LF/LMF, R&M, C, Murai Gila javanica TP Motacillidae Grey Wagtail; Kedidi Motacilla cinerea OC/IS/LF/LMFIUMF, Batu* M,C,TP Laniidae Brown Shrike; Tirjup Lanius cristatus GP/OC, M, C, TP Tanah Sturnidae Asian Glossy Starling; Aplonis GP/OC, R, A, NP Perling Mata Merah panayensis Common Myna; Tiong Acridotheres GP/OC, R, A, NP Gembala Kerbau tristis Jungle Myna; Tiong Acridotheres OC,R, U,NP Sawah fuscus Nectariniidae Brown-throated Anthreptes GP/OCIMG, R, C, TP Sunbird; Kelicap malaccensis Mayang Kelapa Ruby-cheeked Anthreptes LF,R,C,TP Sunbird; Kelicap singalensis Belukar* Olive-backed Sunbird; Cinnyris GPIOCIMG, R, C, TP Kelicap Bukit ju?;Ularis Little Spiderhunter; Arachnothera GP/LF/LMF, R, C, TP Kelicap Jantung Kecil longirostra Dicaeidae Orange-bellied Dicaeum LF/LMF, R, C, TP Flowerpecker; Sepah trigonostigma Puteri Bukit Scarlet-backed Dicaeum GP/OC/MG/LF, R, C, Flowerpecker; Sepah cruentatum TP puteri merah APPENDIX D: Continued

Family English/Malay name Scientific name Habitat, protection and conservation status Estrildidae White-rumped Munia; Lonchura striata OC/LF/LMF, R, U, NP Pipit Tuli White-bellied Munia; Lonchura LF,R,U,NP Pipit Ekor Emas leucogastra

Abbreviation: (HABITAT) GP- Gardens and parks (including wooded suburban areas), OC­ Open country (open grassy areas, scrub and tin mines),IS- Inland freshwater swamps (mining pools, lakes and paddy fields), MG- Mangroves, LF- Lowland rainforest (including secondary forest and forest edge), LMF- Lower montane rainforest (including secondary forest and forest edge), (STATUS) R- Resident, M- Passage migrant/winter visitor, V­ Vagrant, I- Introduced, (INCIDENCE OF OCCURANCE) C- Common, U- Uncommon, RA- Rare, (PROTECTION BY LAW IN PENINSULAR MALAYSIA) TP- Totally protected (may not be hunted or reared in captivity), GB- Game birds (may be hunted under licence), OPB- Other protected birds (may be reared in captivity under licence) and NP- Not protected. * Not inhabit oil palm plantation but found perching at the edge of oil palm plantation or soaring above plantation; **Bird recorded only through netting. APPENDIX E: List of bird species recorded in paddy field, Bandar Baharu, Kedah (March 2009-February 2010)

Family English/Malay name Scientific name Habitat, protection and conservation status Ardeidae Purple Heron; Pucung Ardea purpurea IS, R&M, C, TP Serandau Little Heron; Pucung Butorides striata IS/MG/MF, R&M, A, TP Keladi Chinese Pond Heron; Ardeola baccus IS/MG, M, RA, NP Pucung China Javan Pond-heron; Ardeola speciosa IS/MG, M, RA, NP PucungJawa Eastern Cattle Egret; Bubulcus OC,M,C, TP Bangau Kendi coromandus Great Egret; Bangau Ardea alba MF/MG, R&M, A, TP Besar Intermediate Egret; Mesophoyx IS/MF/MG, M, U ,TP Bangau Kerbau intermedia Little Egret; Bangau Egretta garzetta IS/MF/MG, M, C, TP Kecil Black-crowned Night- Nycticorax IS/MG, R, C, TP heron; Pucung Kuak nvcticorax Yell ow Bittern; Pucung Ixobrychus IS, R&M,C, TP Merah sinensis Cinnamon lxobrychus IS, R, C, TP Bittern;Pucung Bendang cinnamomeus Accipitrinae Oriental Honey Pernis OC/LF/LMF, R&M, C, Buzzard; Lang Lebah* ptilorhynchus TP Black-shouldered Kite; Elanus caeruleus OC,R,C, TP Lang Tikus* Brahminy Kite; Lang Haliastur indus MG,R,A, TP Merah* Crested Serpent-eagle; Spilornis cheela MG/LF/LMFIUMF, R, LangKuik* C,TP Pied Harrier; Lang Circus OC/IS, M, G, TP Tangling* melanoleucos Rallidae White-breasted Amaurornis IS, R&M, A, GB Waterhen; Ruak-ruak* phoenicurus Watercock; Burung Gallicrex cinerea IS, R&M, C, GB Ayam-ayam Vanellidae Grey-headed Lapwing; Vanellus cinereus OC,M,RA,GB Rapang Kepala Kelabu Pacific Golden Plover; Pluvialis fulva OC/MF,C,GB Rapang Kerinyut* Scolopacidae Marsh Sandpiper; Tringa stagnatilis MF,M,C,GB Kedidi Paya* Wood Sandpiper; Tringa glareola IS/MF, M, C, GB KedidiKayu Common Sandpiper; Actitis OC/IS/MF, M, C, GB Kedidi Pasir hypoleucos Common Snipe; Kedidi Gallina go OC,M, U,GB Pasir J

Family English/Malay name Scientific name Habitat, protection and conservation status Columbidae Rock Pigeon; Pergam Columba !iva GP, I,C, NP Batu* Spotted Dove; Merbok Streptopelia GP/OC, R, C, NP Balam chinensis Peaceful Dove; Geopelia striata GP/OC, R, C, NP MerbokAman Cuculidae Asian Koel; Sewah Eudynamys MG/OC, R&M, C, TP Tahu* sco/opaceus Greater Coucal; But- Centropus OC/LF, R, C, TP but Besar* sinensis Lesser Coucal; But-but Centropus OC,R, C, TP Kecil* bengalensis Tytonidae Common Bam-owl; Tyto alba GP/OC, R, C, TP Pungguk J elapang Halcyonidae Stork-billed Pelargopsis IS/MG/LF, R, C, TP Kingfisher; Pekaka capensis Emas* White-throated Halcyon GP/OC, R, C, TP Kingfisher; Pekaka smyrnensis Dada Putih Meropidae Blue-tailed Bee-eater; Merops OC,R, C, TP Berek-berek Carik philippinus Dada* Blue-throated Bee- Merops viridis OC,R,C ,TP eater; Berek-berek Tadah Hu1an* Coraciidae Dollarbird; Tiong Eurystomus OC, R&M, C, TP Batu* orienta/is Bucerotidae Oriental Pied Hombill; Anthracoceros OC/LF, R, C, TP Enggang Belulang* albirostris Megalaimidae Coppersmith Barbet; Megalaima GP/OCIMG, R, C, TP Takor Tembaga* haemacephala Picidae Common Flameback; Dinopium GP/OC/MG/LF, R, C, Belatok Pinang Muda* javanense TP Hirundinidae Bam Swallow; Sualo Hirundo rustica OC,M,A, TP Api* House Swallow; Sualo Hirundo tahitica OC,R,C,TP Batu* Aegithinidae Pied Triller; Rembah Lalage nigra GP/OC, R, C, TP Kening Putih* Common lora; Kunyit Aegithina tiphia GPIOCIMG, R, C, TP Kecil* Pycnonotidae Yellow-vented Bulbul; Pycnonotus GP/OC, R, A, NP Merbah Kapur* goaivier Oriolidae Black-naped Oriole; Oriolus chinensis GP/OC, R&M, C, TP Dendang Selayang* Corvidae House Crow; Gagak Corvus splendens GP/OC/LF/LMF, R, C, Rumah* NP Southemjungle Crow; Corvus GP/OC/LF/LMF, R, C, Gagak Paruh Besar* macrorhynchos NP APPENDIX E: Continued

Family English/Malay name Scientific name Habitat, protection and conservation status Cisticoladiae Common Tailorbird; Orthotomus GP/OC/MG/LF/LMF, R, Perenjak Pisang* sutorius C,TP Dark-necked Orthotomus GP/MG/LF/LMF, R, C, Tailorbird; Perenjak atrogularis TP Belukar* Yellow-bellied Prinia; Prinia OC,R,C, TP Perenjak Padi* flaviventris Muscicapidae Oriental Magpie Copsychus GP/OC/LF/LMF, R, C, Robin; Murai saularis NP Kampung* Rhipiduridae Pied Fantail; Sambar Rhipidura MG/LF/LMF, R&M, C, Murai Gila* _javanica TP Paddyfield Pipit; Ciak Anthus rufulus R&M Padang* Laniidae Brown Shrike; Thjup Lanius cristatus GP/OC, M, C, TP Tanah* Sturnidae Asian Glossy Starling; Aplonis GP/OC, R, A, NP Perling Mata Merah* panayensis Common Myna; Tiong Acridotheres GP/OC, R, A, NP Gembala Kerbau* tristis Jungle Myna; Tiong Acridotheres OC,R, U,NP Sawah* fuscus Crested myna; Tiong Acridotheres GP/OC, I, U, TP Cina cristatellus Nectariniidae Brown-throated Anthreptes GP/OC/MG, R, C, TP Sunbird; Kelicap malaccensis Mayang Kel<1pa* Olive-backed Sunbird; Cinnyris GP/OC/MG, R, C, TP Kelicap Bukit* juf{Ularis Dicaeidae Scarlet-backed Dicaeum GP/OC/MG/LF, R, C, Flowerpecker; Sepah cruentatum TP Puteri Merah* Passeridae Eurasian Tree- Passer montanus GP/OC, R, A, NP Sparrow; Ciak Rumah* Ploceidae Baya weaver; Ciak Ploceus OC,R,C,NP Tempua* philippinus Estrildidae White-rumped Munia; Lonchura striata OC/LF/LMF, R, U, NP Pipit Tuli* Scaly-breasted Munia; Lonchura GP/OC, R, C, NP Pipit Pinang* punctulata Chesnut Munia; Pipit Lonchura OC,R,C,NP Raw a atricapilla APPENDIX E: Continued

Family English/Malay name Scientific name Habitat, protection and conservation status White-headed Munia; Lonchura maja OC,R,C,NP Pipit Uban Phylloscopidae Zitting Cisticola; Cisticola juncidis OC,R,C, TP Cekup layang

Abbreviation: (HABITAT) GP- Gardens and parks (including wooded suburban areas), OC­ Open country (open grassy areas, scrub and tin mines),IS- Inland freshwater swamps (mining pools, lakes and paddy fields), MG- Mangroves, LF- Lowland rainforest (including secondary forest and forest edge), LMF- Lower montane rainforest (including secondary forest and forest edge), (STATUS) R- Resident, M- Passage migrant/winter visitor, V­ Vagrant, I- Introduced, (INCIDENCE OF OCCURANCE) A- Abundant C- Common, U­ Uncommon, RA- Rare, (PROTECTION BY LAW IN PENINSULAR MALAYSIA) TP­ Totally protected (may not be hunted or reared in captivity), GB- Game birds (may be hunted under licence), OPB- Other protected birds (may be reared in captivity under licence) and NP- Not protected. *May not inhabit paddy field but used paddy field as their foraging ground APPENDIX F: Birds captured in three different habitat type ofKerian River Basin

Pina moluccensis Motacilla cinerea (Blue-winged Pitta) (Grey Wagtail) Habitat: Oil palm plantation Habitat: Oil palm plantation Feeding guild: Carnivore Feeding guild: Carnivore

Buceros rhinoceros Otus lettia (Rhinoceros Hombill) (Collared Scops-Owl) Habitat: Secondary forest Habitat: Oil palm plantation Feeding guild: Omnivore Feeding guild: Carnivore

Pycnonotus atriceps Alcedo meninting (Black-headed Bulbul) (Blue-eared Kingfisher) Habitat: Secondary forest Habitat: Oil palm plantation Feeding guild: Jnsectivore­ Feeding guild:Carnivore frugivore Lonchura striata Cisticola juncidis (White-rumped Munia) (Zitting Cisticola) Habitat: Paddy field Habitat: Paddy field Feeding guild: Grainivore Feeding guild: Insectivore

Eurystomus orienta/is Lonchura punctulata (Dollar Bird) (Scaly-breasted Munia) Habitat: Open areas Habitat: Paddy field Feeding guild: Insectivore Feeding guild: Grainivore

Egretta garzetta Bubulcus coromandus (Little Egret) (Eastern Cattle Egret) Habitat: Paddy field Habitat: Paddy field Feeding guild: Carnivore Feeding guild:Carnivore APPENDIX G: Results of raster image for factors that have influence towards suitability area of near-threatened Scaly-breasted Bulbul (Pycnonotus squamatus)

and Grey-bellied Bulbul (Pycnonotus cyaniventris)

0 791 1581 2372 3162 3953 4743 5534 6324 7115 7905 8696 !MII5 10277 11067 11858 121648

(a) Base map of rivers in Kerian River Basin

(b) Base map of oil palm plantation in Kerian River Basin (c) Base map of houses in Kerian River Basin

(d) Base map of rubber plantation in Kerian River Basin (e) Base map of paddy fields in Kerian River Basin APPENDIX H: Results of map distance for factors that have influence towards suitability area of near-threatened Scaly-breasted Bulbul (Pycnonotus squamatus)

and Grey-bellied Bulbul (Pycnonotus cyaniventris)

0 16 32 48 64 80 96 112 128 143 159 175 191 207 223 239 255

(a) Map of distance from river

0 16 32 48 64 80 96 112 128 143 159 175 101 207 223 239 255

(b) Map of distance from oil palm plantation 0 16 32 48 84 80 96 112 128 143 159 175 191 207 223 239 255

(c) Map of distance from houses

0 16 32 48 64 80 96 112 128 143 159 175 191 207 223 239 255

(d) Map of distance from rubber plantation 0 16 32 48 64 80 96 112 128 143 159 175 191 207 223 239 255

(e) Map of distance from paddy fields Appendix I: Coordinate of validation points

Zone Location X y Low Nibong Tebal 276615 572241 Kg Sg. Kechil, Bukit Panchor 280489 571509 Beriah (Kanan) 297801 562880 Beriah (Kanan) 295561 566928 Sg. Batu, Bandar Baharu 303315 588952 Kuala Dingin, Mahang 300997 581465 Selama 299012 573134 Bagan Barn 300930 572136 Bagan Barn 306627 568291 Serdang 293910 576523 Permatang Kerat Telunjuk 285548 566152 Bagan Samak 280423 567635 Alor Pongsu 289460 560024 Kg Sira Badak, Beriah 297595 564424 Parit Buntar 277372 565267 Selama 301009 577468 Sg. Tengas, Terap 298863 583912 Medium Bukit Panchor 283053 570996 Bukit Panchor 283789 568845 Gunung Bongsu 297586 588540 Lata Tebing Tinggi, Ulu Selama 310086 576407 Redang Panjang 311982 565955 Hutan Rizab Bukit Relau 288416 577083 High Gunung Inas 318436 593381 Gunung Inas 313426 578885 Gunung Bongsu 298313 589463 Ulu Ijok 315704 576835 Gunung Bintang 319083 600070 Selama Water Intake, Ulu Selama 318405 582363 Sg. Siputeh, Selama 314193 582269 Rutan Rizab Ijok 304663 577376 Hutan Rizab Ulu Ijok 316666 570201 LIST OF PUBLICATION AND PROCEEDING

Azman, N.M., Abdul Latip, N.S., Mohd Sah, S.A., Shafie, N.J. and Khairuddin, N.L. 2011. Avian diversity and feeding guild in secondary forest, oil palm plantation and paddy field in riparian area of Kerian River Basin, Perak, Malaysia. Tropical Life Science Research, 22(2), 61-84.

Azman, N.M., Abdul Latip, N.S., Mohd Sah, S.A. and Shafie, N.J. 2011. Birds of traditional landscape in northern Peninsular Malaysia. 2nd Asian Wetland Symposium 18-20 July 2011. The Magellan Sutera Hotel, Sutera Harbour Resort, Kota Kinabalu, Sabah, Malaysia. (Oral presentation)

Azman, N.M., Abdul Latip, N.S., Mohd Sah, S.A. and Shafie, N.J. 2011. Bird communities and feeding guilds from three different habitat types in selected areas of Kerian River Basin, Perak. Proceedings of The 5th Annual PPSK Postgraduate Colloquium 22-23 June 2011. School of Biological Sciences, Universiti Sains Malaysia, Penang. (Oral presentation)

Azman, N.M., Wan Ibrahim, W.M., Shafie, N.J. Abdul Latip, N.S. and Mohd Sah, S.A. 2011. Mapping of bird abundance and richness using GIS in Kerian River Basin, northern Peninsular Malaysia. Persidangan Kebangsaan Geografi & Alam Sekitar Kali Ke-3 8-10 Februari 2011. Bangunan e­ Leaming, Universiti Pendidikan Sultan Idris, Tanjung Malim, Perak. (Oral presentation)

Azman, N.M., Abdul Latip, N.S., Mohd Sah, S.A. and Shafie, N.J. 2010. Diversity and feeding guild of avifauna in two different habitat types in selected area along riparian of Kerian River, Perak, Malaysia. The 7th IMT-GT UNINET and the 3rd Joint International PSU-UNS Conferences 7-8 October 2010. Prince of Songkla University, Hat Yai, Songkhla, Thailand. (Poster presentation: Excellent student poster)

Azman, N.M., Abdul Latip, N.S., Mohd Sah, S.A. and Shafie, N.J. 2010. Diversity and the distribution of avifauna near to Kerian River Basin. National Conference on Environmental & Health 17-18 March 2010. Renaissance Hotel, Kota Bharu, . (Poster presentation)

Azman, N.M., Abdul Latip, N.S., Mohd Sah, S.A. and Shafie, N.J. 2009. Habitat mapping of Kerian River Basin with reference to spatial distribution of bird species. Proceedings of The 2nd Annual PPSK Postgraduate Colloquium 14 May 2009. School of Biological Sciences, Universiti Sains Malaysia, Penang. (Oral presentation)