Bird Species Richness, Relative Abundance and Conservation Statuses in Protected and Unprotected Areas of the Hadejia- Nguru Wetlands
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Ringim and Aliyu Proceedings of 6th NSCB Biodiversity Conference; Uniuyo 2018 (13 -18 pp) Bird species richness, relative abundance and conservation statuses in protected and unprotected areas of the Hadejia- Nguru Wetlands RINGIM, A. S.1* and ALIYU, D2. 1Department of Biological Sciences, Federal University Dutse, P. M. B. 7156, Dutse, Jigawa State, Nigeria 2Kamuku National Park, Birnin- Gwari, Kaduna, Kaduna State, Nigeria *Corresponding author: [email protected], 08020605060 Abstract: Protected Areas (PAs) are designed for biodiversity conservation, and as refuge for bird species. Despite the significant importance of the Hadejia- Nguru Wetlands as Ramsar site and an Important Bird Area, little is known about the bird community. Bird species richness, abundance and conservation statuses were examined and compared between PAs and Unprotected Areas (UPAs) of the wetland. The study was conducted from October to December, 2015. Point count method was employed during the study. A total of 99 census points spaced 400 m apart with radius of 100 m were surveyed from 14 wetlands (seven in PAs and seven in UPAs). A total of 42, 255 individual birds of 148 species belonging to 23 orders and 50 families were recorded. UPAs had 133 species and PAs 121 species (p = 0.4514), however, PAs had higher birds abundance than UPAs. The two areas shared a greater percentages of species composition by 85%. Two globally threatened species were also recorded, the European Turtle Dove Streptopelia turtur (Vulnerable) and Pallid Harrier Circus macrourus (Near Threatened). White-faced Whistling Duck Dendrocygna viduata, and Garganey Spatula querquedula were the dominant species in both areas. Results further revealed that PAs had slightly higher bird population with stable trend than UPAs, in contrast, though those with increasing population were more in UPAs. Differences in species richness between PAs and UPAs could be related to factors, such as vegetation and wetland type or size. High similarity between the two areas indicates that the two habitats shared a greater closeness in species composition. Overall, the population trend of birds in both habitats were found to be stable. Majority of resident species population trend were found to be on the increase, or stable, while intra-African and Palearctic migrants were found to be declining. This study highlights that not only PAs of the HNWs are important for bird conservation, but UPAs, too, are of great significance for the long-term conservation of the wetland bird community. Legal protection of certain wetland areas may help preserve larger bird species. Key words: Bird conservation, Hadejia- Nguru Ramsar Wetland, Protected area and Unprotected areas, Wetland ecology INTRODUCTION Jigawa, and Yobe, with an estimated human The Hadejia-Nguru Wetlands (henceforth HNWs) is a population of 1.5 million (Blench, 2013). Recently, Ramsar site of international importance and an there have been reports about the increase of Important Bird Area (IBA) (Birdlife International, anthropogenic activities within the wetland PAs and 2016a). The wetland was created by the Hadejia and UPAs such as hunting, exploitation of wetland Jama’are Rivers to form the Komodugu- Yobe River resources, e.g. illegal hunting of waterbirds, fuel wood which drains into the Lake Chad. It lies on the and grazing (Ogunkoya and Dami, 2007; Blench, southern edge of the Sahel savannah in North-eastern 2013), which may likely affect bird species. The Nigeria. The mosaic habitats of the HNWs serve as wetland and birds also face great threats from the home for resident and migratory birds (Intra-African ongoing global climate change phenomenon due to its and Palearctic migrants), as well as stopover site for negative impacts, such as range constriction and/or many bird species to rest and refuel during their annual expansion, specifically on migratory species (Birdlife migration (Cresswell, 2012). It is recognized as the International, 2016a). For instance, the population of most important bird conservation area in Nigeria and overwintering Ferruginous goose Aythya nyroca has among the most valued in West Africa (Birdlife declined in the wetland, presumably, due to changes International, 2013). There are about 377 bird species in the global climate (Birdlife International, 2016b). documented for the wetland including 16 globally threatened species (Birdlife International, 2013; In recent decades, there have been extensive studies 2016a). on the role of PAs in maintaining regional, and local bird community (e.g. Devictor et al., 2007; Greve et The HNWs has four categories of PAs; Adiani Forest al., 2011). This is because, the ultimate goal of PAs is Reserves, Baturiya Wetland Reserve, Chad Basin to maintain regional diversity of ecosystems, National Park, Nguru Lake and Marma Channel communities and species (Franco et al., 2007), (Birdlife International, 2013). In addition, there are especially at this point in time when many PAs are several unprotected areas of the wetland that are not faced with anthropogenic pressures. Since after the legally protected by law which in this study are termed establishment of the HNWs’ PAs, it is not well known Unprotected Areas (UPAs). The wetland covers about how they have contributed to biodiversity 350, 000 hectares that cuts across three states; Bauchi, conservation and bird conservation, in particular. In 13 Ringim and Aliyu Proceedings of 6th NSCB Biodiversity Conference; Uniuyo 2018 (13 -18 pp) recent times, data on avian community in the HNWs METHODOLOGY is poorly understood due to Boko Haram insurgency in the North-eastern Nigeria, which made the wetland Study area areas very difficult to access. It is on this basis that this The study was conducted in the Hadejia-Nguru study sought to explore the role of the HNWs PAs in Wetlands (12o 1' N and 13o N, 1o15' E and 11o 3' E, maintaining bird community. The objective of this Figure 1) between October to December, 2015. The study was to examine and compare bird species wetlands experience two distinct seasons: wet season, richness, relative abundance and conservation status May- September and dry season from October- April. in PAs and UPAs of the HNWs. It was hypothesized Rainfall is between 500- 600 mm and temperature that PAs will have higher bird species richness, ranges from 12°C in cold season to about 40°C in dry relative abundance, and more bird species with season (Ogunkoya and Dami, 2007). The wetland increasing or stable population trend than UPAs. This vegetation has been categorized into three namely, (i) study is necessary in order to provide up to date Scrub savannah (ii) Raised areas locally known as information about the effectiveness of the HNWs’ PAs tudu, and (iii) Seasonally flooded areas (Birdlife in maintaining bird community, which is fundamental International, 2015). from monitoring and biodiversity conservation viewpoint. Figure 1: Map of the HNWs showing the location of the 14 sampling sites in PAs and UPAs A total of 99 point count stations were surveyed in count stations were spaced 400 m to avoid double seven wetlands in PAs (48 census point stations) and counting. All census points surveyed were visited in seven wetlands in the UPAs (51 census point the morning from 6- 10 h and in the evening from stations). Protected wetlands include Nguru Lake, 16- 18 h. Point count stations were replicated thrice Oxbow Lake, Gwayo, Kwasabat, Maram, Marma and for standardization purposes, the average Channel and Kandamau, while wetland sites in the number of birds counted in the morning and evening UPAs comprised of Barrack, Kirikasamma, Muzza, for all the wetlands surveyed was taken throughout Dumbari, Kacallari, Hadejia Barrage and Zemo. the study period (three months). Bird observation Point count method described by Bibby (2000) was was done using Braun Binocular 16 x 50 m, and used to survey birds. Birds seen or heard were were identified according to the Field guide of the recorded for 10 minutes within 100 m radius. Point 14 Ringim and Aliyu Proceedings of 6th NSCB Biodiversity Conference; Uniuyo 2018 (13 -18 pp) birds of Western Africa by Borrow and Demey Bird species richness and relative abundance (2014). In total, 148 bird species were recorded from PAs and UPAs of the HNWs during the study. UPAs had Data Analyses higher bird species richness (133 species) than PAs Bird diversity in this study were interpreted as (121 species) as hypothesized, however, the species richness (number of species recorded in PAs difference was not significant (χ2 = 0.5669, df = 1, p and UPAs). Chi square (χ2) was used to test the = 0.4514). The two areas were similar in species difference in species richness between PAs and composition by 81% indicating that they shared a UPAs. Bird species were categorized as resident, high number of bird species. Families with the intra-African migrant, or Palearctic migrants richest number of species were Accipitridae (13 (Borrow and Demey, 2014). Conservation statuses species), Ardeidae (11 species), and Columbidae (9 of all birds were based on the IUCN Red List, 2015. species), while those with the lowest were These categories include: Least Concern-population Bucerotidae and Jacanidae (2 species each), trend increasing (↑), Least Concern-population trend Coliidae, Coraciidae and Pandionidae (1 species decreasing (↓), Least Concern-population trend each). Two species on the IUCN Red List of stable (-), Least Concern-population trend unknown Threatened Species (2017) were also recorded; the (*), and Unassessed Population (**). Near Threatened Pallid Harrier Circus macrourus recorded from both areas, and the Vulnerable SØrensen's similarity index (Cs) was used to European Turtle Dove Streptopelia turtur recorded measure species similarity between PAs and UPAs only in the PAs. The latter and 13 other species were according to Magurran (1988), using the formula not previously reported in HNWs. Bird abundance below; in both PAs and UPAs recorded were categorized into resident, intra-African and Palearctic migrant as 2푗 shown in the Table 1.