Eco. Env. & Cons. 27 (1) : 2021; pp. (323-331) Copyright@ EM International ISSN 0971–765X

Winter avifaunal assemblage in a periurban agricultural landscape of Gangetic West Bengal,

Pratyush Ghosh1*, Akash Chakraborty1 and Shouvanik Sengupta1, 2

1 Department of Zoology, Chandernagore College, Chandannagar, Hooghly 712 136, W.B., India 2 Department of Zoology, Asutosh College, 92 S.P. Mukherjee Road, Kolkata 700 026, W.B., India

(Received 6 June, 2020; accepted 19 July, 2020)

ABSTRACT The present study was carried out in a periurban agricultural landscape located at Boshipota, Hooghly, West Bengal, India with the objectives like preparation of inventory, evaluation of species composition, abundance and diversity and assessment of foraging guild of the avian assemblage during winter (November- February). Line transect method was employed for the avian survey. In total, 91 species belonging to 16 orders and 43 families were recorded over two consecutive winter seasons, i.e. 2018-19 and 2019-20.

Passeriformes (50.5%) was the dominant avian order and (RDi=6.59) was found to be the most diversified avian family. Bird assemblage of the studied area has shown considerably higher species diversity as reflected in calculated values of different indices of diversity. Twenty (20) winter visitors were recorded from the study area. Analysis of foraging guild has revealed that most of the recorded species were insectivores (35 species) and least number of species is nectarivore (01 species). During the survey, only one ‘Near Threatened’ (NT) species was sighted and rest of the sighted species belonged to ‘Least Concerned’(LC) category (according to their IUCN status). This area has been found to have immense potential to attract avifauna but at the same time also becoming threatened due to rapid urban expansion and anthropogenic interventions.

Key words: Bird, Diversity, Winter, Guild, Agricultural landscape

Introduction Sekercioglu, 2006; Whelan et al., 2008). Characteris- tic avian assemblage of a particular landscape can Agricultural landscapes are progressively being rec- predict the ecosystem integrity and functioning ognized as refugia and often as primary habitat for (Hossain and Aditya, 2016). Functional diversity is a great array of species (Sundar, 2011). usually a stronger determinant of ecosystem functioning tend to colonize in an area having suitable resources than taxonomic diversity (Gamfeldt et al., 2008). In for their survival (Veech et al., 2011). Agricultural addition to spatial distribution, the distribution of landscape, by providing concentrated and highly birds can also vary temporally (Mulwa et al., 2013). predictable source of foods to birds, attract a greater During winter, winter visitors agglomerate in differ- number of bird species, especially the migratory ent habitats including agricultural landscapes. On bird species (Dhindsa and Saini, 1994; Mariappan et the other side, increased fertilizer and pesticide in- al., 2013). Consequently, birds constitute a key com- put and more efficient harvesting methods could ponent of any agro-ecosystem and provide various have deleterious effects on avian assemblage of ecological services therein, notably seed dispersal agroecosystems (Redhead et al., 2018). Apart from and pest control (Haslem and Benett, 2008; that, progressive urbanization causes the most dra- 324 Eco. Env. & Cons. 27 (1) : 2021

matic and long-lasting land transformation, de- pletes agricultural lands and impart profound im- pact on avifaunal community, causing a significant decline in bird species richness throughout the globe (Rajpar and Zakaria, 2015; Mariappan et al., 2013). Climate change coupled with urbanization aggravates the problem (Pragasan and Madesh, 2018). There is scanty documentation related to avian diversity and community structure along ur- ban-rural gradient or in suburban and periurban areas in India. It is pertinent to create inventories of avifauna in the periurban areas of Kolkata and other metropolitan areas of India. Boshipota is located in the vicinity of Kolkata metropolitan area and its adjacent areas are now experiencing rapid urban growth. Considering this, the present study was undertaken with objectives like- to assess the abun- dance, residential status and species composition of birds and to document the taxonomic as well as functional diversity of avian assemblage during winter in a periurban agricultural landscape located at Boshipota, West Bengal, India. Fig. 1. Map showing location of the Study area- Materials and Methods Boshipota, Hooghly, W.B, India ( Source: Google earth ) Study Area transects were spaced at least 250 m from each other This study was undertaken in a peri-urban agricul- (Bibby et al., 2000). Fortnightly, avifaunal surveys tural landscape located at Boshipota in Hooghly dis- along transects were carried out on foot in the early trict of West Bengal. Boshipota (~22°40’N and morning hours (5:30-9.00 a.m.) and in the evening 88°19’E) is flanked by Dankuni industrial complex (3.00-5:30 p.m.), when the activity of birds is high- and township and Uttarpara-Makhla township (Fig. est. Total eight visits were made per season. No 1). This area is located about 12 km away from cloudy or rainy conditions were detected during the Kolkata metropolis. Physiographically, it is situated days of this study, we walked slowly to complete in the Ganga-Saraswati Plains. The landscape con- 200 m transects in 20 minutes, observing all birds sists of vast stretches of marshy lowland with culti- sitting or flying. All birds detected within 30 m on vated agricultural fields and scattered fallow lands either side of the transect lines were recorded. At with busy vegetation, stray trees and herbs, some each sighting, birds were counted and photo- ditches are also there. During winter, dry grasses graphed (using Nikon D3400 and D5600) whenever covered most of the uncultivated areas. Human possible. To confirm the species identity and to im- settlements are there at the edges of this landscape. prove the accuracy of counting, two Olympus field A narrow road with roadside tree patches bifurcates binoculars (10x50) were used. On the basis of field the whole landscape. observations and photographs, birds were identi- Methods fied using standard field guides (Ali, 2002; Grimmett et al., 2011). Bird surveys were conducted for two consecutive Taxonomic information of each detected avian winter seasons (November, 2018 to February, 2019 species like scientific name, order and family names and November, 2019 to February, 2020) adopting were compiled following Clements Checklists of the line transect method (Bibby et al., 2000). Ten 200 Birds of the World v2019 (https://www.birds. m long transect routes were selected randomly and cornell.edu/clementschecklist) (Clements et al., to avoid the counting of the same bird species twice, 2019) GHOSH ET AL 325

Each species recorded was assigned to one of the recorded from the study area. The species pool in- six feeding guilds, i.e. Carnivore (Car), Frugivore cluded 71 resident bird species and 20 winter visi- (Fru), Granivore (Gra), Insectivore (Ins), Nectarivore tors. During 2018-19 winter, a total count of 2931 (Nec) and Omnivore (Omn), according to their pre- individuals of birds from 16 orders, 42 families and dominant diet (Lim and Sodhi, 2004; Sigel et al., 85 species were recorded. Where as in the next win- 2010). Dietary information was collected mainly fol- ter seasons (2019-20), out of 2806 observations, 84 lowing (Ali, 2002 and http://www.hbw.com/) and species representing 16 orders and 41 families were also from field observations. recorded. A checklist of avifauna sighted from the Based on personal field observations and infor- Study area during 2018-19 and 2019-20 winter sea- mation from suitable documents (Khan and Naher, sons is presented in Table 2. 2009; Grimmett et al., 2011) birds recorded during Among the recorded species (91), 50.5% were one survey were classified under Resident (R) and and 49.5% were non-passerines. Domi- Winter Visitor (WV). Some of the resident birds may nant Order Passeriformes alone represented 46 spe- also be local migrants. IUCN status of the birds is cies belonging to 22 families. Among the non-passe- collected from (https://www.iucnredlist.org). rines, Order Charadriiformes, Order , Order Piciformes and Order had Data analysis shown maximum species richness. All of them were Transect wise bird count data were pooled together represented by 6 species. While the least species rich for season. Based on this pooled data, relative abun- Orders were Apodiformes, Bucerotiformes, dance of the bird species was determined by using Caprimulgiformes, Ciconiiformes, Gruiformes and the following expression: Strigiformes - each was represented by only one n species (Fig. 2). Relative abundance (%) = × 100 N Among the winter visitors, 14 species (70%) be- longed to the Order Passeriformes, 3 species (15%) Where n is the total number of birds of a particular were under the Order Charadriiformes, 2 species species and N is the total no. of birds species. (10%) were from the Order Accipitriformes and the Relative diversity (RDi) of different avian fami- lies was calculated following La Torre-Cuadros et al. (2007). Shannon - Wiener index or Shannon index of di- versity (H’), Simpson’s dominance index (D), Simpson (1-D) and Pielou’s evenness index (J’) (Magurran, 2004) were calculated to discern the pat- terns of diversity of avifaunal assemblage using Past software version 3.20 (Hammer et al., 2001).

Results Fig. 2. Percentage of species composition under different avian Orders During the Study period, overall a total of 91 bird species belonging to 16 orders and 43 families were

Table 1. Classification of avian feeding guilds (Gray et al., 2007; Lim and Sodhi, 2004) Feeding guild Code used Food source Carnivore Càr Non insect including Vertebrates (e.g. fish, lizards), snails, large arthropods etc. Frugivore Fru Fruits Granivore Gra Seeds, grains and nuts Insectivore Ins Insects and some small arthropods Omnivore Omn Any two or more of the above Nectarivore Nec Floral nectar 326 Eco. Env. & Cons. 27 (1) : 2021 Least concerned, NT= status guild status -19 -20 Family IUCN Feeding Residential 2018 2019 AccipitriformesAccipitriformesAccipitriformes AccipitridaeAccipitriformes AccipitridaeAccipitriformes AccipitridaeAccipitriformes Accipitridae LCApodiformes Accipitridae LCBucerotiformes Accipitridae LCCaprimulgiformes Omn LCCharadriiformes Apodidae Caprimulgidae Upupidae LC CarCharadriiformes Omn LCCharadriiformes Charadriidae LC CarCharadriiformes R Jacanidae CarCharadriiformes WV Rostratulidae LC Omn LCCharadriiformes R LC Scolopacidae InsCiconiiformes WV ScolopacidaeColumbiformes LC Scolopacidae # LC R Ins InsColumbiformes R # Car LCColumbiformes Ciconiidae LC - Columbidae R OmnCoraciiformes # # LC Omn Columbidae # Coraciiformes Car R Columbidae R R # # Ins # LC - LCCoraciiformes Alcedinidae R Ins R LCCoraciiformes Alcedinidae # WV # LCCoraciiformes - WV Gra #Coraciiformes Car Alcedinidae # # LC WV Gra # Cuculiformes LC # GraCuculiformes Coraciidae # # # # Cuculiformes # Meropidae LC Car R # RCuculiformes Cuculidae # Car R # # LCGruiformes Cuculidae - R LCPasseriformes Cuculidae Car - LCPasseriformes R Cuculidae # #Passeriformes Ins # R LC # Rallidae Ins Acrocephalidae LC # Ins Acrocephalidae R LC # # Omn Aegithinidae LC LC # # R LC Ins # # R Omn LC R LC # Ins Ins R # # Ins # R R Omn Ins # - WV # R WV # # R # # # # R # # # # # # # # # # # # # PasseriformesPasseriformesPasseriformes Alaudidae Cisticolidae Cisticolidae LC LC LC Gra Ins Ins R R R # # # # # # Milvus migrans Circus aeruginosus Pernis ptilorhynchus Circus melanoleucos Accipiter badius Elanus caeruleus Cypsiurus balasiensis Upupa epops Caprimulgus macrurus Vanellus indicus Metopidius indicus Rostratula benghalensis Gallinago gallinago Tringa glareola Actitis hypoleucos Anastomus oscitans Columba livia Streptopelia decaocto Spilopelia chinensis Alcedo atthis Halcyon smyrnensis Ceryle rudis benghalensis Coracias affinis Merops orientalis Eudynamys scolopaceus Cacomantis merulinus Centropus sinensis Hierococcyx varius Amaurornis phoenicurus Acrocephalus dumetorum Acrocephalus stentoreus Aegithina tiphia assamica Cisticola juncidis Prinia inornata Checklist of bird species recorded from the study area along with their residential status, feeding guild and IUCN status. [LC= Near threatened, R= Resident, WV= Winter Visitor, # = Sighted, - =Not-sighted] kingfisher Table 2. Sl.No. Common name1 Black kite Scientific name Order 234 Eurasian marsh 5 Oriental honey buzzard 6 Pied harrier 7 Shikra 8 Black-winged kite 9 Asian palm swift 10 Eurasian hoopoe 11 Large-tailed nightjar Red-wattled lapwing 12 Bronze-winged jacana 13 Greater painted snipe 14 Common snipe 15 Wood sandpiper 16 Common sandpiper 17 Asian openbill stork 18 Rock pigeon 19 Eurasian collared dove 20 Spotted dove 21 Common kingfisher White-throated 2223 Pied kingfisher 24 25 Indochinese roller 26 Green bee-eater 27 Asian koel 28 Plaintive cuckoo 29 Greater coucal 30 Common-hawk cuckoo 31 White-breasted waterhen 32 Blyth’s reed warblar 33 Clamorous reed warbler 34 Common iora Bengal bush 3536 Zitting cisticola Plain prinia GHOSH ET AL 327 status guild status -19 -20 Family IUCN Feeding Residential 2018 2019 PasseriformesPasseriformesPasseriformesPasseriformes CisticolidaePasseriformes CorvidaePasseriformes CorvidaePasseriformes Corvidae LCPasseriformes DicruridaePasseriformes Emberizidae LCPasseriformes Estrildidae LC InsPasseriformes Estrildidae LC LCPasseriformes Estrildidae LC OmnPasseriformes Estrildidae Omn LCPasseriformes Fringillidae Omn R LCPasseriformes Hirundinidae Ins Gra R LCPasseriformes Hirundinidae R LC GraPasseriformes Laniidae LC R LC GraPasseriformes Laniidae WV LC Gra R #Passeriformes Leiothrichidae GraPasseriformes Motacillidae # R GraPasseriformes Ins Motacillidae # LC R # LCPasseriformes Ins # Motacillidae # R LC # Passeriformes Motacillidae # LC R # WVPasseriformes Motacillidae LC Omn WV # InsPasseriformes # Muscicapidae # LC Ins RPasseriformes # # Muscicapidae LC InsPasseriformes # Muscicapidae LC Ins # R LC #Passeriformes # Muscicapidae WV # Ins # LCPasseriformes Muscicapidae Ins R # LC WVPasseriformes Nectariniidae # Ins # # LC WVPasseriformes Ins Oriolidae # LCPasseriformes Ins Oriolidae # # R WV LCPasseriformes Ins # Passeridae # Ins # Phylloscopidae R R # # # Ins Ploceidae WV LC Nec Pycnonotidae LC WV LC # # # # LC WV # Omn WV # LC # # LC # Ins Fru R # Omn # # # R # Fru # Omn - WV # R R # # # R R # # # # - # - # - # # # # PasseriformesPasseriformesPasseriformesPasseriformes PycnonotidaePasseriformes Sturnidae Sturnidae LC Sturnidae Sturnidae LC Fru LC LC Omn LC Omn R Omn Omn R R R # R # # # # # # # # # Orthotomus sutorius Corvus splendens Corvus macrorhynchos Dendrocitta vagabunda Dicrurus macrocercus Emberiza melanocephala Lonchura punctulata Amandava amandava Lonchura malacca Euodice malabarica Carpodacus erythrinus Hirundo rustica Cecropis daurica Lanius cristatus Lanius schach Argya striata Motacilla citreola Motacilla alba Anthus rufulus Motacilla flava Motacilla maderaspatensis Copsychus saularis Calliope calliope Luscinia svecica Saxicola maurus Ficedula albicilla Cinnyris asiaticus Oriolus xanthornus Oriolus kundoo Passer domesticus Phylloscopus collybita Ploceus philippinus Pycnonotus cafer Pycnonotus jocosus Acridotheres fuscus Gracupica contra Acridotheres tristis Sturnia pagodarum Continued ... No. Table 2. Sl. Common name37 Common tailorbird Scientific name Order 3839 House crow 40 Large-billed crow 41 Rufous treepie 42 Black drongo 43 Black-headed bunting 44 Scaly-breasted munia 45 Red munia 46 Tricoloured munia 47 Indian silverbill 48 Common rosefinch 49 Barn swallow 50 Red-rumped swallow 51 Brown shrike 52 Long-tailed shrike 53 Jungle babbler 54 Citrine wagtail 55 White wagtail 56 57 Western yellow wagtail 58 White-browed wagtail 59 Oriental magpie-robin 60 Siberian rubythroat 61 Bluethroat 62 Siberian stonechat 63 Taiga flycatcher 64 Purple sunbird 65 Black-hooded oriole 66 Indian golden oriole 67 House sparrow 68 Common chiffchaff 69 Baya weaver 70 Red-vented bulbul Red whiskered bulbul 7172 Jungle myna 73 Asian pied starling 74 Common myna Brahminy starling 328 Eco. Env. & Cons. 27 (1) : 2021

remaining one species belonged to the Order Piciformes. Analysis of the relative diversity of the ob- served families revealed that family Accipitridae was the most diversified avian

family in the study area (RDi: value= 6.59), followed by Motacillidae, Muscicapidae and

Sturnidae (each with RDi value of 5.48). In contrast, 21 families with single species and

having RDi value of 1.09 were poorly repre- sented in the study area (Table 3). Family wise distribution of the observed winter visitors in the study area revealed that most of the species (04) belonged to the family Muscicapidae. It was also observed that all the 3 species recorded from the family Scolopacidae were winter visitors.

status guild status -19 -20 During this avian survey, considering the pooled data of 2 consecutive winter seasons, in terms of relative abundance (RA), Asian pied starling (Gracupica contra) [7.53%] had the highest relative abundance followed by Asian palm swift (Cypsiurus balasiensis) [7.46%] and Eurasian Collared dove (Streptopelia decaocto) Family IUCN Feeding Residential 2018 2019 [6.79%]. On the other hand, Pied harrier (0.01%) had the lowest relative abundance. During the first year of the study (2018-19), among the observed species Asian Pied Star- ling showed highest relative abundance (7.36%), whereas Pied Harrier (Circus melanoleucos), Blue throated barbet (Psilopogon

PasseriformesPasseriformesPelecaniformesPelecaniformes SturnidaePelecaniformes Turdidae ArdeidaePelecaniformes ArdeidaePiciformes ArdeidaePiciformes LC ArdeidaePiciformes LCPiciformes LC LC Omn MegalaimidaePiciformes LC Omn Megalaimidae LC Car Megalaimidae LCPiciformes Car Picidae R LCPsittaciformes Car R LCPsittaciformes Car Picidae R FruStrigiformes RSuliformes Fru Psittaculidae Picidae R #Suliformes Fru Psittaculidae LC R #asiaticus R Strigidae LC # LC # R NT # Phalacrocoracidae Ins R - # Phalacrocoracidae LC LC), # Fru - LC InsShikra # # Fru LC # # R Car Ins # # Car(Accipiter # R Car R # R # WV R # Rbadius R # # # # ) # and # # # # # Large- # # # # # tailed nightjar (Caprimulgus macrurus) showed least relative abundance (0.03% each). During the next year (2019-20), among the observed species, Asian palm swift was in the first rank with relative abundance of 7.55%, whereas Shikra, Large-tailed nightjar, Common iora (Aegithina tiphia) along with 3 winter visitors namely Common rosefinch (Carpodacus Sturnia malabarica Geokichla citrina Ardeola grayii Egretta garzetta Bubulcus ibis Ardea cinerea Psilopogon asiaticus Psilopogon haemacephalus Psilopogon lineatus Picus xanthopygaeus Dinopium benghalense Jynx torquilla Psittacula krameri Psittacula eupatria Athene brama Microcarbo niger Phalacrocorax fuscicollis erythrinus), Taiga flycatcher (Ficedula albicilla) and Siberian rubythroat (Calliope calliope) had the least relative abundance (0.03%). Among winter visitors, Barn swallow (Hirundo rustica) consistently secured the highest rank in terms of relative abundance for 2 successive winter seasons. Birds of diverse food habit were observed Continued ...

woodpecker Flameback during this survey. Analysis of the feeding or dietary guild revealed that of the recorded 91 Table 2. Sl.No. Common name75 Chestnut-tailed starling Scientific name Order 7677 Orange-headed thrush 78 Indian pond heron 79 Little egret 80 Cattle egret 81 Grey heron 82 Blue-throated barbet 83 Coppersmith barbet 84 Lineated Barbet Streak-throated 85 Black-rumped 8687 Eurasian wryneck 88 Rose-ringed parakeet 89 Alexandrine parakeet 90 Spotted owlet 91 Little cormorant Indian cormorant Species, 35 Species (38.46%) were insectivores, GHOSH ET AL 329

Table 3. RDi value of different avian families observed during the survey Avian Families RDi Value Accipitridae 6.593 Motacillidae, Muscicapidae, Sturnidae 5.494 Cuculidae, Estrildidae, Ardeidae 4.395 Picidae, Megalaimidae, Corvidae, Cisticolidae, Alcedinidae, Columbidae, Scolopacidae 3.296 Coraciidae, Acrocephalidae, Hirundinidae, Laniidae, Oriolidae, Pycnonotidae, Psittaculidae, Phalacrocoracidae 2.197 Apodidae, Upupidae, Caprimulgidae, Rostratulidae, Jacanidae, Charadriidae, Ciconiidae, Meropidae, Rallidae, Aegithinidae, Alaudidae, Dicruridae, Emberizidae, Fringillidae, Leiothrichidae, Nectariniidae, Passeridae, Phylloscopidae, Ploceidae, Turdidae, Strigidae 1.098

21 Species (23.07%) were omnivores, 16 species Discussion (17.77%) were carnivores, 10 species (10.98%) were granivores, 8 species (8.97%) were frugivores and This study shows that the concerned periurban ag- only one species (1.09%) was nectarivore. Of the 20 ricultural landscape hosts an array of birds, both winter visitors, 15 species (75%) were insectivores, 3 residents and winter visitors during the winter sea- species (15%) were found to be the carnivores and son. On the basis of this avian survey, we found that rest 2 species (10%) were granivores (Fig. 3). this area has an immense potential to attract bird population. As depicted in the checklist (Table 2), bird species assemblage here exhibits relatively greater taxo- nomic as well as functional diversity. Empirical as well as theoretical evidences prove that local species richness is highly influenced by the landscape and regional species pool and structurally more complex landscape bears greater number of avian species (Pragsan and Madesh, 2018). Most of the bird spe- cies in the studied area belonged to the order Passeriformes (~51%). This finding is in congruence with the findings of Patra and Chakrabarti (2014), Roy et al. (2016); Ghosh (2016) and Payra et al. (2017) Fig. 3. Comparative representation of numbers of avian reported from different locale of Southern West species belonging to different feeding guilds Bengal. Praveen et al. (2016) also mentioned that order Passeriformes is the most predominant avian taxa in The calculated value of Shannon index (H’) for India. Though some authors reported that the Study area during 2018-19 winter season was Muscicapidae or Ardeidae (Mukhopadhyay and 3.61 and the values of Pielou’s evenness index (J’), Mazumdar, 2017) is the most diversified avian fam- Simpsons index of dominance (D) and Simpson (1- ily, but in this study Accipitridae (with RDi Value D) were 0.81, 0.04 and 0.96 respectively. During 6.59) was found to be the most diverse family fol- 2019-20 winter season, the calculated value of Shan- lowed by Muscicapidae, Sturnidae and non index was 3.60 and the values of J’, D and 1-D Motacillidae. This relatively higher species richness were found to be closely similar with that of the pre- of the assemblage (as observed) may be due to the vious year. varied habitats in the area (Girma et al., 2017). Habi- During the study period, among the sighted bird tat heterogeneity can influence relative abundance, species, only one ‘Near Threatened’ (NT) species richness and species composition (Rajpar and namely, Alexandrine parakeet (Psittacula eupatria) Zakaria, 2015). Variations in functional role in the was recorded and remaining 90 species were ‘Least ecosystem and resource utilization pattern are also Concerned’ (LC) as per IUCN red list. reflected in this rich assemblage. The present survey 330 Eco. Env. & Cons. 27 (1) : 2021

revealed that most of the recorded species were in- record more number of species from this area. sectivorous (38.46%), almost closely similar percent- Nonetheless, this study would certainly provide a age of insectivores was reported by different au- preliminary database for further research. It is also thors from the same biogeographical region as Khan implied, that long-term year-round surveys are re- and Naher (2009), Roy et al. (2016), Dey and Ghosh quired to monitor any changes in the avian assem- (2016), Mukhopadhay and Majumdar (2017). Fewer blage of this landscape due to expansion of urban frugivore (8.97%) and nectarivore (~1%) were ob- areas. served during the study period. Large number of insectivores may be due to high Acknowledgement abundance of insect in this agricultural landscape. Moreover, insectivorous birds play an important The authors are grateful to the Principal, role in the biological control of insect pests (Thakur Chandernagore College, Chandannagar, Hooghly et al., 2010). Insectivorous birds thriving on agricul- for his support to carry out the work. The authors tural fields often consume insect pests with pesti- would also like to thank all the faculty members of cides and being at higher trophic level, birds also Department of Zoology, Chandernagore College for face the higher risk of biomagnification of these con- their suggestions and kind support. taminants (Sanchez-Bayo, 2011). Some other stres- sors are also associated with the agricultural land- References scape like changing in cropping species and pattern, reduction in prey abundance, removal of Bibby, C. J., Burgess, N. D., Hill, D. A. and Mustoe, S.H. seminatural habitats etc. (Sundar and Kittur, 2013; 2000. Bird Census Techniques. Academic Press. Redhead et al., 2018). But in our study area, rapid Clements, J.F., Schulenberg, T.S., Iliff, M.J., Billerman, S.M., urban expansion could be a potent threat to avi- Fredericks, T.A, Sullivan, B.L. and Wood, C.L . 2019. fauna. Urbanization may lead to changes in habitat The eBird/Clements Checklist of Birds of the World: 2019.Downloaded from https:// structure and resource availability and ultimately www.birds.cornell.edu/clementschecklist. decreased avian diversity (Sengupta et al., 2014). Crooks, R.K., Suarez, A.V. and Bolger, D.T. 2004. Avian Progressive urbanization might promote biotic ho- assemblages along a gradient of urbanization in a mogenization whereby a diverse avian fauna could highly fragmented landscape. Biological Conserva- be replaced by fewer generalist species (Crooks et tion. 115 : 451–462. al., 2004). Fewer number of winter visiting water Derso, S., Beyene, A., Getachew, M. and Ambelu, A. 2015. birds were observed during the study. This may be Assessment of ecological quality of hot springs in the due to lack of large water bodies in the studied Eastern Amhara Region. Environmental Systems Re- landscape. search. 4 : 19. Dey, T. and Ghosh, J. 2016. Study of the avifaunal species In this study, the calculated values of Shannon diversity of the Krishnanagar govt. college campus, index were 3.61 and 3.60 respectively for 2018-19 & Krishnanagar, Nadia, West Benagal. Journal of Ento- 2019-20 winter seasons. The Shannon index values mology and Zoology Studies. 4(5) : 121-125. generally range from 1.5-3.5, rarely exceed 4.5. The Dhindsa, M. S. and Saini, H. K. 1994. Agricultural ornithol- values above 3.0 indicate the balanced nature of the ogy/: an Indian perspective. J. Biosci. 19 (4) : 391–402. habitat & less than 1.0 indicates the presence of pol- Gamfeldt, L., Hillebrand, H. and Johnson, P. R. 2008. lution and degradation of habitat structure (Derso et Multiple functions increase the importance of al., 2015). The values of Simpson (1-D) and Pielou’s biodiversity for ecosystem functioning. Ecology. 89: evenness index span between 0-l. When the values 1223–1231. Ghosh, K. 2016. Avian Diversity and species richness in are getting closer to 1, it signifies individual species Khanyan and adjoining areas of Hooghly District, are relatively evenly distributed (Pielou, 1966; Smith West Bengal. International Journal of Fauna and Bio- and Wilson, 1996). On the basis of the above criteria, logical Studies. 3 (3) : 119-126. it can be said that the studied area had greater spe- Girma, Z., Mengesha, G. and Asfaw, T. 2017. Diversity, cies diversity as well as evenness. Only one NT/ relative abundance and distribution of avian fauna ‘Near Threatened’ species was observed and rest in and around Wondo Genet forest, South-cental were LC/‘Least Concerned’. Ehiopia. Research Journal of Forestry. 11 : 1-12. The inventory of birds given here is not likely to Grimmett, R., Inskipp, C. and Inskipp, T. 2011. Birds of the be complete and more intensive survey may help to Indian Subcontinent. Oxford University Press and GHOSH ET AL 331

Christopher Helm. peninsular Malaysia. The Journal of and Plant Hammer, Ø., Harper, D.A.T. and Ryan, P.D. 2001. PAST: Sciences. 25 (1) : 114-124. Paleontological statistics software package for edu- Redhead, J. W., Hinsley, S. A., Beckmann, B. C., Broughton, cation and data analysis. Palaeontologia Electronica R. K. and Pywell, R. F. 2018. Agriculture, Ecosystems 4(1) : 9pp. http://palaeo-electronica.org/2001_1/ and Environment Effects of agri-environmental past/issue1_01.htm habitat provision on winter and breeding season Hossain, A. and Aditya, G. 2016. Avian diversity in agri- abundance of farmland birds. Agriculture, Ecosystems cultural landscape: records from Burdwan, West and Environment. 251: 114–123. Bengal, India. Proceedings of the Zoological Society. Roy, S., Pashi, R., Dey, S. and Jha, S. 2016. Diversity of birds 69(1) : 38–51. at crop fields of Mondouri, West Bengal. The Journal http://www.hbw.com/ accessed on 30 March 2020. of Plant Protection Sciences. 8(1-2): 12–17. IUCN.2020. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. https:/ Sánchez-Bayo F. 2011. Impacts of agricultural pesticides on /www.iucnredlist.org. accessed on 30 March 2020. terrestrial ecosystems. In: Sánchez-Bayo F., van den Khan, S. I. and Naher, H. 2009. Birds in Kurigram district Brink P.J., Mann R. M. (eds.) Ecological Impacts of of Bangladesh. Journal of Threatened Taxa. 1(4) : Toxic Chemicals. Bentham Science Publishers, pp. 63- 11245–250. 87. Lim, H. C. and Sodhi, N. S. 2004. Responses of avian guilds Sekercioglu, C.H. 2006. Increasing awareness of avian eco- to urbanisation in a tropical city. Landscape and Ur- logical function. Trends in Ecology & Evolution. 21(8): ban Planning. 66 : 199-215. 464–471. Magurran, A. 2004. Measuring Biological Diversity. Sengupta, S., Mondal, M. and Basu, P. 2014. Bird species Blackwell Publishing. Oxford, UK. assemblages across a rural urban gradient around Mariappan, N., Kalfan, B. K. A. and Krishnakumar, S. 2013. Kolkata, India. Urban Ecosystem. 17(2) : 585-596. Assessment of Bird Population in Different Habitats Sigel, B. J., Robinson, W. D. and Sherry, T. W. 2010. Com- of Agricultural Ecosystem. International Journal of paring bird community responses to forest fragmen- Scientific Research in Environmental Sciences. 1(11): tation in two lowland Central American reserves. 306–316. Biological Conservation. 143 (2) : 340–350. Mukhopadhyay, S. and Mazumdar, S. 2017. Composition, Smith, B. and Wilson, J. 1996. A consumers guide to even- diversity and foraging guilds of avifauna in a sub- ness indices. Oikos. 76 : 70-82. urban area of southern West Bengal, India. The Ring. Sundar, K. S. G. 2011. Agricultural intensification, rainfall 39 : 103-120. patterns, and large waterbird breeding success in the Mulwa, R.K., Bohning-Gaese, K. and Schleuning, M. 2013. extensively cultivated landscape of Uttar Pradesh, High Bird Species Diversity in Structurally Hetero- India. Biological Conservation. 144 : 3055–3063. geneous Farmland in Western Kenya. Biotropica. 44: Sundar, K. S. G. and Kittur, S. 2013. Can wetlands main- 801–809. tained for human use also help conserve Patra, G. and Chakrabarti, S. 2014. Avian Diversity in and biodiversity/? Landscape-scale patterns of bird use around Digha, District—East Midnapore (West Ben- of wetlands in an agricultural landscape in north gal, India). Advances in Bioscience and Biotechnology, India. Biological Conservation. 168 : 49-56. 05(07) : 596–602. Thakur, M.L., Mattu V.K., Lal, H., Sharma, V.N., Raj, H. Payra, A., Mondal, K. and Mishra, R. K. 2017. Status and and Thakur, V. 2010. Avifauna of Arki Hills, Solan diversity of avifauna in coastal areas of South Ben- (Himachal Pradesh), India. Indian BIRDS. 5 : 162-166. gal , India. World Scientific News. 74 : 209-237. La Torre-Cuadros, M.A., M.D.L.A.L., Herrando-Perez, S. Pielou, E.C. 1966. The measurement of diversity in differ- and Young, K.R. 2007. Diversity and structure pat- ent types of biological collections. Journal of Theoreti- terns for tropical montane and premontane forests cal Biology. 13 : 131-144. of central Peru, with an assessment of the use of Pragasan, L. A. and Madesh, M. 2018. Species diversity and higher-taxon surrogacy. Biodiversity and Conserva- abundance of birds on Bharathiar University Cam- tion. 16 : 2965-2988. pus, Tamil Nadu, India. Journal of Threatened Taxa. Veech, J.A., Small, M.F. and Baccus, J.T. 2011. The effect of 10(6) : 11725-11731. habitat on the range expansion of a native and an Praveen J., Jayapal R. and Pittie A. 2016. Checklist of the introduced bird species. Journal of Biogeography. 38: birds of India. Indian BIRDS. 11(5&6) : 113-172A. 69–77. Rajpar, M. N. and Zakaria, M. 2015. Bird abundance and Whelan, C.J., Wenny, D.G. and Marquis, R.J. 2008. Ecosys- its relationship with microclimate and habitat vari- tem services provided by birds. Annals of New York ables in open-area and shrub habitats in selangor , Academy of Sciences. 1134 (1): 25-60.