sign in sign up
<<
Home , Chandigarh, Indian peafowl, Kalesar National Park, Peafowl, Sultanpur National Park

European Journal of Molecular & Clinical Medicine ISSN 2515-8260 Volume 7, Issue 8, 2020

DISTRIBUTION AND ABUNDANCE OF INDIAN AND THEIR NESTING PREFERENCES WITHIN CITY AND ITS ADJOINING AREAS

Sandaldeep Kaur1 and Tejdeep Kaur Kler2 1Assistant Professor, Department of Zoology, PG Govt. College for Girls, Chandigarh 2Principal Ornithologist, Department of Zoology, Agricultural University,

Abstract - ( cristatus) is widely distributed but its status is unknown in urban landscape. The aim of the study was to estimate the distribution and abundance and nesting preferences of Indian Peafowl in Chandigarh and adjoining areas from January 2017 to December 2017. Two locations in the city viz: Peacock Garden, Sector- 39 (location I), near bus stand Sector- 43 (location II) two locations from adjoining areas i.e. village Palsora (location III) and village Maloya (location IV) were selected. Point transect method was used during study. The total inhabitants of Indian Peafowl was recorded to be 30-35 at location I, 15-20 at location II, 10-15 at location III and IV with flock size ranged between 7-10 individuals. The sex ratio was highly skewed towards females at all selected locations. The thick, thorny and scrub vegetation cover was found to be the most preferred habitat. Indian Peafowl devoted maximum time in feeding and standing followed by roosting, calling and . Roosting was observed on Azadiracta indica (Neem), Ficus religiosa (Peepal), Acacia nilotica (Kikar), Melia azedarach (Dhek). Breeding activities of Indian Peafowl was commenced in the month of April till first week of October. At location I, II, III and IV nests observed were 7, 5, 3, and 2 respectively. It could be inferred that the presence of heterogeneous vegetation comprising of trees, scrub vegetation and grassland which can provide refuge and breeding grounds to Indian Peafowl and these areas should be sustained. Keywords: Breeding, habitat, Indian Peafowl, nesting, roosting.

INTRODUCTION have very close relationship with trees. Trees offer a platform to birds for nesting, roosting, foraging, breeding and feeding purposes. Indian Peafowl (Pavo cristatus) is widely distributed bird but its status is unknown in urban landscape. Abundance of bird is largely influenced by the spatiotemporal distribution of some key environmental resources (Girma et al 2017). The Indian Peafowl is a resident breeder across the and found mainly on the ground in dry, semi-desert areas, grasslands, scrublands, open and deciduous forests, roost in trees or other high places at night. The distribution of Indian Peafowl is almost pervasive and quite common in northern , but due to the high demand of its train , it is presently under peril. It is a bird of scrub-jungles and forest edges, showing affinity to moist, dry deciduous and semiarid biomes. It is also found in agricultural fields, along streams with good vegetation and close to human habitations in a semi- condition (Johnsgard 1986). In India, Pavo cristatus is distributed in the , , , Punjab, and . In Haryana, Pavo cristatus is mainly distributed in (), (), Plantation Sanctuary () and in other districts such as , , , Kurukshetra and Mahendergarh (Chopra et al 2014) It was observed that the Peafowl preferred prosopis bushes for nesting during extensive survey in from the month of June to October. During initial periods, peahens fly farther from nest but as the incubation advanced, they hesitates to move or travel shorter distance from their nest and returned soon. Generally, peahen came off from the nest and feed once or twice a day during incubation as stated 5602

European Journal of Molecular & Clinical Medicine ISSN 2515-8260 Volume 7, Issue 8, 2020 by Johnsingh and Murali (1978), Ali and Ripley (1987) and Yasmin (1995). It was observed that a variable nesting period was found from different places from January to October in (Ali and Ripley 1987); November to March in South India (Johnsingh and Murali 1978); and July to September in Aligarh (Yasmin 1995), as these period are related with the . Interestingly, they make a nest at protective places by using prosopis bushes and dried grasses intermingled with small dry twigs which effectively concealed their nests to avoid predators (Budgey 1994, Gardiner 1996 and Takahashi and Hasegawa 2008). METHODOLOGY The present study was carried out in two locations in the city viz: Peacock Garden, Sector- 39 (location I), near bus stand sector- 43 (location II) two locations from adjoining areas i.e. village Palsora (location III) and village Maloya (location IV). Point transect method was used for the survey of different birds (Verner 1985). Identification of birds inhabiting the study areas was done on the basis of visual observations on their morphological characteristics like shape, size and of the beak, wings, eyes, feathers, legs and other body parts by using binocular (7x50) and comparing them with those described by Ali (2003). Identification of trees in the area was done according to Sahni (1998). Point transect method Birds inhabiting or foraging in the specified transect were counted with the help of point transect method (Verner 1985). Observations were made on weekly basis in morning between 6:00 am to 8:00 am in summers and between 7:00 am to 9:00 am in winters. If noise or call of any bird was heard, it was not taken into consideration. Count of only those birds was made which were present within transect while showing to and fro movements and occurring beyond the fixed distance were not taken into consideration. The movements of the birds was noted as precisely as possible so as to avoid pseudo replication. Instruments used i) Camera: Bird photography was also done using camera Nikon B500 having 16.0 Mega Pixels and Optical Zoom 40x. ii) Binocular: A Bushnell binocular with the range of 7×50 was used for the bird watching. iii) Altimeter: Ravi altimeter was used to measure the tree height and nest height from ground level. Statistical Analysis: One way ANOVA was used to compare the abundance and various breeding activities of Indian Peafowl between different locations. Behavioural activities: The field observations on the behavioral activity patterns of Indian Peafowl were carried out from January 2017 to December 2017. The survey sites included Location I, II III and IV. The field area is distributed under different categories of crops such as wheat, maize, , vegetables, fodder and orchards. The method of scan sampling was followed (Altmann 1974). Scan sampling is a technique of observing and recording behavior with time intervals. The activities of individuals were recorded at pre selected time intervals. In this case, two types of data recording were carried out. Each behavioral activities of Indian Peafowl was noted like feeding, standing, walking, running, display, preening, calling, flying and roosting in both the selected areas. First, continuous monitoring of Indian Peafowl was carried out for 30 minutes and recorded for activity and time budget; secondly, survey was carried out during early morning and early evening hours. All the sightings of peafowl were recorded on data sheet. The male and female Indian Peafowl was distinguished by their neck color appearance, i.e., males recognized by blue neck and female recognized by green neck. Roosting and foraging: The roosting habits of Indian Peafowl were observed in all the selected locations. The tree species used by Indian Peafowl for roosting in orchards, scrubby and dense regions were recorded and identified in all the study locations. The point count method was used to record feeding habits of Indian Peafowl (Blondel et al 1981).

5603

European Journal of Molecular & Clinical Medicine ISSN 2515-8260 Volume 7, Issue 8, 2020

Breeding behavior: For elucidating the accurate breeding behavior, parameters such as site and structure of the nest, nesting material, incubation period, season of breeding, display were monitored at all the studied locations (Hollamby et al 2003). To record the breeding behavior of Indian peafowl observation were taken on weekly intervals at all the studied locations from January 2017 to December 2017. Nest characteristics: The nest characteristics like shape of the nest and materials used were noted down carefully. The number of eggs present in each nest, nest diameter, radius of nest and nest circumference were also recorded with respect to every location. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: In our study, the breeding activities of Indian Peafowl commenced in March and continued till October in a period from January 2017 to December 2017. At location I, the breeding activities were noted from end of March up to September. At location II, breeding activities were observed from May to July in three breeding seasons. The breeding of Indian Peafowl started from June to August at location III. At location IV, the breeding season was recorded from April to end of October during all studied breeding . Based on the observations made in three breeding seasons at four studied locations, the breeding season was found to be ranged from March to end October. Mushtaq-ul-Hassan et al (2012) noted that Indian Peafowl was found breeding between April to October. In the present study, it was seemed that there was early commencement of breeding season by one month at studied locations The total inhabitants of Indian Peafowl was recorded to be 30-35 at location I, 15-20 at location II, 10-15 at location III and IV with flock size ranged between 7-10 individuals (Table 1). The sex ratio was highly skewed towards females at all selected locations. The thick, thorny and scrub vegetation cover was found to be the most preferred habitat. Indian Peafowl devoted maximum time in feeding and standing followed by roosting, calling and display. Roosting was observed on Azadiracta indica (Neem), Ficus religiosa (Peepal), Acacia nilotica (Kikar), Melia azedarach (Dhek). Breeding activities of Indian Peafowl was commenced in the month of April till first week of October. At location I, II, III and IV nests observed were 7, 5, 3, and 2 respectively (Table 1). Significant difference was found between different selected locations (Table 2). Observations from location I, II, III and IV showed that males were recorded spending more time in activities like feeding, standing, walking, running, roosting, calling; some activities were restricted like display, preening and flying during breeding period from January 2017 to December 2017 respectively. Females consumed most of the observed activity time in feeding, standing, walking followed by other activities like running, roosting, flying, calling, display and preening in the said locations. Indian Peafowl are ground foragers and they were found to spend more time in feeding as compared to other activities. The time spent in foraging activities was more in early morning when they come out from their nocturnal roosting sites and also in late afternoon in the study areas. At all the locations males used to spend an average time of five minutes out of observation period of 30 minutes in feeding activity. Most common activity of Indian Peafowl was feeding followed by standing and walking. Foraging females spent an average of two minutes to four minutes out of observation period of 30 minutes as mentioned in materials and methods at all the said locations. During breeding season, Indian Peafowl spent more time in standing, roosting, and displaying and less time in walking than in later days. Standing seemed to be an important behavioral state for a primarily ground living bird like Indian Peafowl, as it enabled the bird to be in vigilant from predators and human disturbance. This posture might have enabled the adult males to locate groups of females from a distance. At all selected locations, males spent above an average time of four minutes and females spent an average time of three minutes in standing activity. Males spent their maximum time in walking, calling, displaying in open areas to attract females. Males and females did not show any trend of walking activity in relation to the months at both the locations. When disturbed, they usually escaped by running and rarely take flight. At location I the trend of running activity of males and females was different from each other throughout the . Males and females spent above two minutes on an average in running activity during observation time of 30 minutes at all said locations.

5604

European Journal of Molecular & Clinical Medicine ISSN 2515-8260 Volume 7, Issue 8, 2020

Sharma (1978) described that Indian Peafowl spend their maximum time in foraging, roosting and resting activities. According to Johnsingh and Murali (1978) females while foraging did not show any interest in displaying males. Dawkins (1989) reported that Indian Peafowl spent only about one quarter of their daily time budgets on feeding, but more than one-fifth on resting and further mentioned that adult males spent only about half as much time as females in feeding. Most common activity of Indian Peafowl was feeding followed by standing and walking (Galusha 1996). Walther (2003) has reported that Indian Peafowl spent 42 % of their daily time budgets for standing, often on an elevated perch from which they surveyed their surroundings and called regularly. Walther and Clayton (2005) suggested that females spent most of the time in walking as compared to males. Verma and Verma (2009) studied the population status; sex structure and habitat use of Indian Peafowl and found to be influenced by age and sex. Harikrishnan et al (2010) found that males and females spent different proportion of time in different activities and varied during breeding and non-breeding season. It was further reported that females showed significant variation only in proportion of time spent in feeding and walking. The Indian Peafowl are omnivorous and feed on seeds, insects, fruits, small and . In the present study, observations on foraging behavior revealed that Indian Peafowl spend more time on feeding on different types of plant matter than the animal matter. Similar observations were recorded by Navaneethakannan (1981). They were noted to spend maximum time in feeding activity as compared to other activities. At location I and IV, the sites preferred by Indian Peafowl were surveyed where they spent maximum time of day and night for roosting. There was maximum diversity of tree type i.e. why they preferred tall trees with dense foliage, or thorny trees for roosting. Veeramani (1999) reported similar observations that Indian Peafowl preferred dense foliaceous species for roosting. Ali and Ripley (1983) had reported that large birds used tall trees and small birds need small trees for roosting. Johansgard and Murali (1980) mentioned similar results that Indian Peafowl (Pavo cristatus) roosted on tall trees. Same observations were given by Bergmann (1980) and Johansgard (1986) that Indian Peafowl preferred tall trees for roosting. They were found to prefer trees like Kikar, Eucalyptus, Pear, Poplar, Lasura, Amaltas, Peepal, Jamun, , , Pilkan, Dhek for roosting. All these were stout branched trees which could afford moving space, accommodating their long train feathers as well as could withstand their weight. The roost tree height ranged from 8-23m and the roost height varied between 7-18m. Similar observations were given by Dodia (2011) that Indian Peafowl roosted mainly on Azadiracta indica, Ficus bengalensis, Eucalyptus and Cocos nucifera in Gujarat state. Ali and Ripley (1987) mentioned that Indian Peafowl regularly roosted on the same tree for generations. Different workers had also done detailed work on roosting of Indian Peafowl (Trivedi and Johnsingh 1996, Yasmin and Yahya (2000). At location III and IV, observations revealed that Indian Peafowl preferred rooftops of the residential houses and other buildings (schools, panchayat etc.). Kushwaha and (2016) had given similar observations that Indian Peafowl were seen roosting on buildings during the day time. Majority of males were found to roost in solitary or in single rather than in association with other flock members. Nesting: During present study, there was observed variation in the nesting structure in all the selected locations. The observations on nesting preference revealed that Indian Peafowl used bushes, dry sticks, decaying materials, debris and grassland for nesting at each selected locations. The nesting preference of Indian Peafowl was observed in dense bushes at each selected locations. Ganguli (1965) and Vyas (1994) attributed that the nest was deep scratch in the ground lined with dry sticks, leaves and dead decaying matter. Indian Peafowl construct nest by digging shallow scraped depression in the ground in a concealed area of vegetation. Similar findings on nesting preferences was given by Johnsgard (1986), Gardiner (1996), Mateos (1998), Subramanian and John (2001), Harikrishnan et al (2010) and Yorzinski and Anoop (2013). During all the observations, nests were made of shallow scraped depression in ground whereas nesting materials used found to be different. In the present study, based on different nesting material, they were categorized into nesting material type 1, nesting material type 2 and type nesting material 3. At location I, there were observed 7 nests during 2017. It was observed that four nests were made of dry leaves and sticks of bushes lining ground (nesting material type 1). Nests made of dry sticks, leaves; unusual material like polythene and other debris lining ground (nesting material type 2) were three in number Nest made of dry and small sticks, dry leaves cushioned with plucked grass blades (nesting 5605

European Journal of Molecular & Clinical Medicine ISSN 2515-8260 Volume 7, Issue 8, 2020 material type 3) was not observed. It might be due to the ploughed area. At location II, two nests were observed of nesting material type 1. There was one nest of nesting material type 2. There were noticed two nests of nesting material type 3 each during 2017. At location III, out of 3; two nests were noticed each of nesting material type 1 and one nest nests consisted of nesting material type 2. There were no nests spotted of nesting material type 3 during our study period. A nest of nesting material type 3 was not observed. It might be due to the agricultural and cultivated fields. In all the study period, one nest of nesting material type 1 and one nest of nesting material type 2 were recorded at location IV (table 3). The nest depth, radius of nest and nest circumference ranged from 3.57 to 4.30 cm, 9.86 to 10.10 cm and 61.90 to 65.94 cm at different locations during year 17 respectively (Fig 1 and table 1). Mittal and Chaturvedi (2013) also recorded nest diameter, nest radius and nest circumference as 35.00 to 46.00 cm, 17.50 to 43.00 cm and 125.00 to 168.00 cm respectively. Table 1: Abundance and various breeding activities of Indian Peafowl observed in different locations Location I Location II Location III Location IV No. of Indian Peafowl observed 30-35 15-20 10-15 10-15 Flock size 8-10 7-9 5-7 4-7 No. of nests 7 5 3 2 Nest depth (cm) 3.57 4.30 3.94 4.25 Nest radius (cm) 9.86 10.10 9.98 10.50 Nest circumference (cm) 61.90 63.43 62.67 65.94 Figure 1: Nest morphology of Indian Peafowl at different selected locations in breeding season 2017

Table 2: Statistical analysis of abundance and various breeding activities of Indian Peafowl between different locations One- Way ANOVA Source of Variation SS df MS F P-value F critical Between Groups 67.01 3 22.33 0.041 0.988 3.098 Within Groups 10772.84 20 538.64 Total 10839.85 23 Table 3: Different types of nesting material used by Indian Peafowl at selected locations Nests observed Nests observed Nests observed at Nests observed at Type of nesting at Location I at Location II Location III Location IV materials 2017 2017 2017 2017 (n=7) (n=5) (n=3) (n=2) Nesting material type 1 4 2 2 1 5606

European Journal of Molecular & Clinical Medicine ISSN 2515-8260 Volume 7, Issue 8, 2020

Nesting material type 2 3 1 1 1 Nesting material type 3 - 2 - Nesting material type 1= Dry leaves and sticks of bushes lining ground, Nesting material type2 = Dry sticks, leaves, unusual material like polythene and other debris lining ground, Nesting material type 3 = Dry and small sticks, dry leaves cushioned with plucked grass blades CONCLUSION Based on the present observations, it could be inferred that the breeding season of Indian Peafowl is from March to end October in Punjab State. It could be inferred from the present study that the abundance and nesting of Indian Peafowl is highly influenced by variables like vegetation, habitat features, food availability and human-related disturbances. Indian Peafowl occupy different sub habitat types within the agricultural landscape both in villages, semi urban and semi forest areas of Punjab. During the study period, habitat preferred by Indian Peafowl consisted of thick, thorny and scrub vegetation cover. The absence of wild vegetation for ground nesters like Indian Peafowl in villages seemed to be limiting factor for nesting sites thereby influencing population abundance. Restoration of habitats both for nesting and roosting purposes can be made possible with the participation of village community. The double prolonged approach of protecting Indian Peafowl breeding sites and protecting crops from its depredation requires proper location specific population and damage assessment for its effective implementation. To increase its population suitable habitat, rich vegetation diversity should be provided to increase its population. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT Authors are grateful to Prof.& Head, Department of Zoology, Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana for providing necessary facilities. REFERENCES 1. Ali S and Ripley SD (1983) Handbook of the birds of India and Pakistan (compact edition). pp 138. Oxford University Press, , India. 2. Ali S and Ripley SD (ed) (1987) Compact Handbook of the Birds of India and Pakistan together with those of , Nepal, Bhutan, And . Pp.1-737. Oxford University Press Inc. Delhi, India. 3. Ali S (ed) (2003) The Book of Indian Birds. Pp. 1-402. Oxford University Press, Bombay. 4. Altmann J (1974) Observational Study of Behaviour: Sampling Methods. Behaviour 49: 227–67. 5. Bergmann J (1980) The Peafowl of the World, Saiga Publication Co. Limited. 6. Blondel J, Ferry C and Frochot B (1981) Point counts with unlimited distance. Stud Avian Biol 2(6): 414-20. 7. Budgey HV (1994) Parental strategies of Indian peahen. Ph.D. dissertation. Open University, U.K. 8. Chopra G and Kumar T (2014) A Study of Food and Feeding Habits of Blue Peafowl, Pavo cristatus L. 1758 in District Kurukshetra, Haryana (India). Int J Res Stud Biosci 2(6): 11-16. 9. Dawkins MS (1989) Time budgets in Red Jungle as a baseline for the assessment of welfare in domestic fowl. Appl Anim Behav Sci 24: 77-80. 10. Dodia PP (2011). Roost tree selection by the common Indian Peafowl (Pavo cristastus) at Bhavnagar District, Gujarat (India). Life Sci Leaflets 11:346-54. 11. Galusha J and Hill J (1996) A Study of the behavior of Indian Peacocks (Pavo cristatus) On Protection Island, Jefferson County. Washington, USA. Pavo 34: 23-31. 12. Ganguli U (1965) A Peahen nests on a roof. Newsletter for Birdwatchers. 5(4): 4-6.

5607

European Journal of Molecular & Clinical Medicine ISSN 2515-8260 Volume 7, Issue 8, 2020

13. Gardiner TP (1996) Peafowl, their conservation, breeding and management. Vol 87 World Assoc, Reading, UK. 14. Girma Z, Mamo Y, Mengesha G, Verma A and Asfaw T (2017) Seasonal abundance and habitat use of bird species in and around Wondo Genet Forest, south‐central Ethiopia. Ecol Evol 7(10): 3397– 405. 15. Harikrishnan S, Vasudevan K, and Sivakumar K (2010) Behavior of Indian Peafowl Pavo cristatus Linn. 1758 during the mating period in a natural population. Open Ornithol J 3: 13-19. 16. Hollamby S, Sikarskie JG and Stuht J (2003) Survey of Peafowl (Pavo cristatus) for potential pathogens at three Michigan zoos. J Zoo Wildlife Med 34(4): 375-79. 17. Johnsgard PA (1986) The of the World. Oxford University Press. New York. 18. Johnsingh AJT and Murali S (1978) The ecology and behaviour of the Indian Peafowl (Pavo cristatus) L. of Injar. J Bombay Nat Hist Soc 75(4): 1069-79. 19. Johnsingh AJT and Murali S (1980) The ecology and behavior of Indian Peafowl Pavo cristatus Linn. of Injar. J Bombay Nat Hist Soc 75: 1069-079. 20. Kushwaha S and Kumar A (2016) A Review on Indian Peafowl (Pavo cristatus) Linnaeus, 1758. J Wildlife Res 4: 42-59. 21. Mateos C (1998) in the ring necked pheasant: a review. Ethol Ecol Evol 10: 313-32. 22. Mittal and Chaturvedi S (2013) Roosting and nesting habits of Indian Peafowl, Pavo cristatus L. at Keoladeo National Park, Bharatpur, Rajasthan, India. World J Appl Sci Res 3(2): 61‐64. 23. Mushtaq-Ul-Hassan M, Ali Z, Arshad M, Mahmood S and Mahmood-Ul-Hassan M (2012) Effects of mating sex ratios in Indian Peafowl (Pavo cristatus) on production performance at Wildlife Research Institute, Faisalabad (Pakistan). Iranian J Vet Res 13: 143-46. 24. Navneethakannan K (1981) Activity pattern in a colony of Peafowl (Pavo cristatus) in nature. J Bombay Nat Hist Soc 81(2): 387-93. 25. Sahni KC (1998) The book of Indian trees. Bombay Natural History Society. 26. Sharma K (1978) Social and Sexual Behavior of Peafowl. Environ Aware 1: 169-71. 27. Subramanian K S and John M C (2001) Roosting and nesting habitat of free ranging Indian Peafowl (Pavo cristatus) in Southern . Zoos Print J 16(7): 537-38. 28. Takahashi M and Hasegawa T (2008) Seasonal and diurnal use of eight different call types by Indian Peafowl (Pavo cristatus). J Ethol 26(3): 375-81. 29. Trivedi P, Johnsingh AJT (1996) Roost selection by Indian Peafowl (Pavo cristatus) in Gir Forest, Gujarat, India. J Bombay Nat Hist Soc 93(1):25-29. 30. Veeramani A, Sathyanarayana MC (1999) Ecology and behaviour of the Indian Peafowl (Pavo cristatus) in Mudumalai Wildlife Sanctuary, Tamil Nadu, India. Pavo 37(2): 1-6. 31. Verma L and Verma A (2009) Population status, structure and habitat use of Peafowl Pavo cristatus in and around Keoladeo National Park: implications for management. Annual Res Seminar. Keoladeo National Park. 32. Verner J (1985) Assessment of counting techniques. Curr Ornithol 2: 247-302. 33. Vyas R (1994) Unusual breeding site of Indian Peafowl. Newsletter Birdwatch 34(6): 139. 34. Walther BD (2003) Peacocks Devote Maintenance Time To Their Ornamental Plumage? Time Budgets of Male Blue Peafowl. Pavo cristatus Lundiana 4: 149-54.

5608

European Journal of Molecular & Clinical Medicine ISSN 2515-8260 Volume 7, Issue 8, 2020

35. Walther B, Clayton D (2005) Elaborate Ornaments Are Costly To Maintain: Evidence for High Maintenance Handicaps. Behav Ecol 16: 89-95. 36. Yasmin S (1995) Ecology and biology of the Indian Peafowl (Pavo cristatus) in the Aligarh region. Ph.D. dissertatioin. Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh. 37. Yasmin S and Yahya HAS (2000) Group size and vigilance in Indian Peafowl Pavo cristatus (Linn.), Family: . J Bombay Nat Hist Soc 97(3): 425-28. 38. Yorzinski JL and Anoop KR (2013) Peacock copulation calls attract distant females. Behaviour 61- 74.

5609