Assessment of Avian and Mammalian Diversity at Selected Sites Along River Chenab By

ASSESSMENT OF AVIAN AND MAMMALIAN DIVERSITY AT SELECTED SITES ALONG RIVER CHENAB BY

MUHAMMAD ALTAF 2008-VA-725

A THESIS SUBMITTED IN THE PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENT FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

WILDLIFE & ECOLOGY

UNIVERSITY OF VETERINARY AND ANIMAL SCIENCES, LAHORE, PAKISTAN

2016

The Controller of Examinations, University of Veterinary and Animal Sciences, Lahore.

We, the Supervisory Committee, certify that the contents and form of the thesis submitted by Mr. Muhammad Altaf Registration No. 2008-VA-725, have been found satisfactory and recommend that it should be processed for the evaluation by the External Examiner (s) for the award of the Degree.

SUPERVISORY COMMITTEE

Supervisor: ______DR. ARSHAD JAVID

Member: ______DR. WASEEM AHMAD KHAN

Member: ______PROF. DR. MUHAMMAD ASHRAF

DEDICATION

Every word of this manuscript is dedicated

My Father (Late) Muhammad Latif

Who sowed seed of Education in my life

And to My Mother “Razia Bibi”

Who,s Prayers and Efforts Grow it in

Full tree

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I am thankful to the most gracious ALMIGHTY ALLAH (AZAWAJAL), Who gave me the health and opportunity to complete this work. I bow my compassionate endowments before THE HOLY PROPHET, HAZRAT MUHAMMAD (PEACE BE UPON HIM) who is ever an ember of guidance and knowledge for humanity. I am highly thank full to UVAS for providing me financial support and scholarship for admission and completion of this task.

I have the honor to express my deep sense of gratitude to my ever affectionate supervisor, Dr. Arshad Javid, Assistant professor of Department of Wildlife and Ecology, for his guidance, thoughtful discussions and inspiring attitude at all times that made it very easy to understand this research and to bring it in the present form.

A lot of thanks to members of my supervisory committee, Dr. Waseem Ahmad Khan, Chairman, Department of Wildlife and Ecology and Prof. Dr. Muhammad Ashraf, Dean, Faculty of Fisheries and Wildlife, University of Veterinary and Animal Sciences, Lahore for time to time guidance and advice.

I feel deepest gratitude for Dr. Abdul Majid Khan, Assistant Professor and Dr. Zulfiqar Ali, Associate Professor, Department of Zoology, University of the Punjab, who were always there to help me.

Special thanks to my younger brother Mr. Muhammad Umair and my fellows Dr. Irfan, Mr. Muhammad Asif Munir, Dr Khalid Javid Iqbal, Dr. Muhammad Sultan Haider, Dr. Ali Husain, Dr. Qaiser Nadeem, M. Yaqoob, Muhammad Yaseen, Muhammad Zahid and Sohail Arif for constant interaction, sharing views and valuable suggestions for the successful accomplishment of present study.

I am also thankful to all the people who supported me in the field and research Mr. Wakas, Mr. Wasif, Rafaqat Ranjha, Mr. M. Shabir Jan, Mr. Abubakar, M. Imran, M. Usman, Noomi.

Last but not least, I must acknowledge my indebtedness to my father (Late) Muhammad Latif and my ever loving Mother Razia Latif. Only due to them, I am here, at this stage of my life. My all qualities, my all assets, my all success are only due to them and their prayers. May Allah bless father souls in Jannah. My acknowledgments will remain incomplete if I don’t

ii appreciate my sisters, Samina and Rizwana and brothers, Muhammad Sohail, Muhammad Awais, Muhammad Ahmad and Muhammad Umair for the motivation to take up this program of studies, financial support and their hands in prayers for my success.

MAY ALLAH BLESS THEM ALL (AAMIN)

Muhammad Altaf

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

DEDICATION (i) ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS (ii) TABLE OF CONTENTS (iv) LIST OF TABLES (v) LIST OF FIGURES (vi) CHAPTERS TITLE PAGE NO 1 INTRODUCTION 01 2 REVIEW OF LITERATURE 05 Experiment 1 22 Assessment of waterfowl diversity of River Chenab, Pakistan. Experiment 2 37 Habitat preferences of avian diversity along the river Chenab, Pakistan. Experiment 3 63 Habitat preferences of wild mammalian species along the river Chenab, Pakistan. 3 Experiment 4 79 The status of fish diversity of river Chenab, Pakistan. Experiment 5 94 Cultural and medicinal significance of avian species along the river Chenab, Punjab, Pakistan Experiment 6 115 Cultural and medicinal significance of mammalian fauna of river Chenab, Punjab, Pakistan. Experiment 7 138 Assessment of human-wildlife conflict along river Chenab, Pakistan. 4 SUMMARY 151 5 Appendices 155

LIST OF TABLES

TABLE. NO TITLE PAGE NO. Experiment 3. 1 1 Coordinates of river Chenab. 26 2 Waterfowl diversity of the study area. 32 3 Diversity, Richness, Evenness and Density of waterfowls 33 of study area. Experiment 3.2 1 GPS coordinates of various sampling stations in the study 40 area. 2 Scientific and common names, food habits (FH), 56 distribution (Dist.), IUCN status (Status) and code of avian species recorded from the study area. 3 Values of various diversity indices for the avian species 62 recorded from different habitat types in the study area (UVH = Urban vegetative habitat; UNVH = Urban non vegetative habitat; ARH = Agriculture rural habitat; AH = Agriculture habitat; FH = Forest habitat; RFH = Rural forest habitat) Experiment 3.3 1 GPS coordinates of sampling stations in the study area. 67 2 Distribution of mammalian species in various habitat types 70 in the study area. 3 Values of diversity indices for mammalian species 71 recorded from different habitat types in the study area. Experiment 3.4 1 Fish diversity record from river Chenab. 85 2 Statistical analysis of the fish diversity of river Chenab. 86 Experiment 3.5. 1 GPS coordinates of sampling sites in the study area. 97 2 Avian species recorded from the study area and their 109 significance in the life of the local people. 3 Medicinal use of avian species by the local health 113 practitioners. Experiment 3.6 1 Medicinal uses of mammalian species recorded from the 132 study area. 2 Significance of mammalian species in the livelihood of 135 local communities.

LIST OF FIGURES

SR NO. CONTENTS PAGE NO Experiment 3.1 Figure 1 Map of river Chenab along with three study sites i.e. head Marala, 27 Khanki, and Qadirabad. Figure 2a Diversity of the birds at the river Chenab. 28 Figure 2b Diversity of the birds at the river Chenab. 29 Experiment 3.2 Figure 1 Map of study area showing forest, wetland, rural, agriculture, urban 42 and semi-urban habitat types in the study area. Figure 2 Cluster analysis showing usage of various habitat types by the avian 46 species of the study area (UVH = Urban vegetative habitat; UNVH = Urban non vegetative habitat; ARH = Agriculture rural habitat; AH = Agriculture habitat; FH = Forest habitat; RFH = Rural forest habitat). Figure 3 Principal components analysis showing diversity and distribution of 47 avian species (codes are mentioned in table 2) across different habitats (UVH = Urban vegetative habitat; UNVH = Urban non vegetative habitat; ARH = Agriculture rural habitat; AH = Agriculture habitat; FH = Forest habitat; RFH = Rural forest habitat). Experiment 3.3 Figure 1 Map of study area showing forest, rural, agriculture, urban and semi- 69 urban habitat types in the study area (UVH = Urban vegetative habitat; UNVH = Urban non vegetative habitat; ARH = Agriculture rural habitat; AFH = Agriculture forest habitat; FH = Forest habitat; RFH = Rural forest habitat). . Figure 2 Cluster analysis showing use of different habitat types by the 71 mammalian species recorded from the study area (UVH = Urban vegetative habitat; UNVH = Urban non vegetative habitat; ARH = Agriculture rural habitat; AFH = Agriculture forest habitat; FH = Forest habitat; RFH = Rural forest habitat). Figure 3 Dentrended component analysis (DCA) indicating interaction of the 72 species with specific habitat type (UVH = Urban vegetative habitat; UNVH = Urban non vegetative habitat; ARH = Agriculture rural habitat; AFH = Agriculture forest habitat; FH = Forest habitat; RFH = Rural forest habitat). Experiment 3.4 Figure 1 The Map of river Chenab along with three study sites i.e. head 83 Marala, Khanki, and Qadirabad. Figure 2 Diversity of the fish and relative abundance, numbers showed the 86 species, serial number in table 1. Experiment 3.5 Figure 1 Showing relative priority level (RPL) indicating relative priority of 114 various species in the life of local communities (Numbers in figure

represent sr. number of the species as mentioned in table 3).

Figure 2 Showing frequency of mention (FM) (Numbers in figure represent sr. 114 number of the species as mentioned in table 3). Experiment 3.6 Figure 1 Showing applications of animals’ body secretions and parts in 121 treatment of different ailments. Figure 2 Showing relative priority level (RPL) indicating relative priority of 137 various mammalian species in the life of local communities (Numbers in figure represent sr. number of the species as mentioned in table 2). Figure 3 Showing frequency of mention (FM) for various mammalian species 137 recorded from the study area (Numbers in figure represent sr. number of the species as mentioned in table 2). Experiment 3.7 Figure 1 Map of the study area showing sites of data collection. 142 Figure 2 Damage to crops by wild animals. 143 Figure 3 Damage to livestock by wild animals. 143 Figure 4 Protective measures for cropland. 145 Figure 5 Potential times of livestock predation. 145

vii

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION

Global avian diversity is represented by 9993 species (Jetz et al. 2012), while the mammals of the world are represented by 5490 species (IUCN 2009). Out of total six bio-geographic regions, three viz. Palearctic, Oriental and Ethiopian are present in Pakistan therefore the country represents a unique blend of floral and faunal diversity. More than 668 avian species have been observed within territory of Pakistan (Mirza and Wasiq 2007) while mammalian fauna of

Pakistan is represented by 195 species (Roberts 1997). The country owns 225 wetlands and abrupt changes in altitude provoke changes in diversity within short distances.

The human population of the world took more than 50,000 years to reach the first billion but it now exceeds 7 billion. Although the speed of population growth peaked in the late 1960s, the accumulating numbers of people have meant that each additional billion has been added more rapidly than at any other time in history. If the population growth rate remains the same, the

United Nations projects that the world population could reach 9.3 billion by 2050 (Bloom 2011).

The increase in human population is threatening the diversity because the increased human populations demand for agriculture intensification, urbanization, industrialization resulting in excessive pollution (Altaf et al. 2013). During the last 10, 000 years, natural vegetations have been converted to agricultural lands and many generalist species adopted new habitats while the habitat specific species became extinct (Bouma et al. 1998). At the end of the 20th century, intensive farming brought changes in land use (Newton 2004; Purtauf et al. 2005; Stoate et al.

2009) which produced negative impacts on the existence and dispersal of many birds while other birds adapted positively to agriculture land.

Introduction

Human-wildlife interaction shares a very long history and the glimpses of this interaction can be visualized from folklores, poetry, art, calligraphy and religion (Şekercioğlu et al. 2012).

The wildlife and biodiversity has direct and indirect use values that are beneficial for humans

(Mols and Visser 2007). The direct use values include provision of food, medicines, shelter, clothing material etc. (Diamond and Filion 1987; Sibley and Monroe Jr 1993) while, the indirect use values include a wide array of important ecosystem services from provision of clean air to water and many more (Assessment 2005). Many wild species are important pollinators and seed dispersers, and there are certain species that are playing their role in maintenance of ecosystems and recycling of nutrients (Heine and Speir 1989).

The terrestrial animals like birds and mammals are the important environment indicators and help to identify priority areas for conservation. Metrics, like species currently inhabiting any specific area, their historic distribution records, the levels of threat to the species aid in protection efforts (Myers 1990; Myers et al. 2000). Major threats to birds of Pakistan include illegal hunting, urbanization, agriculture intensification, eutrophication, pollution and livestock grazing. These threats are leading species towards extinction. It has been observed that 25 bird species that have certain economic value are facing serious threats and require immediate attention (BirdLife, 2004; IUCN, 2011). These species include Siberian crane Grus leucogeranus, sarus crane Grus antigone, dalmatian pelican Pelicanus crispus, ferruginous duck

Aythya nyroca, white-headed duck Oxyura leucocephala, marbled teal Marmoronetta angustriostris, sociable plover Vanellus gregarious, Sindh babbler Moupinia altirostris, lesser white-fronted goose Anser erythropus, long-tailed grass warbler Prinia burnesii, and pallas fish eagle Haliaeetus leucoryphus (Ali and Akhtar 2005; Chaudhry et al. 2012).

Introduction

Birds are sensitive to climate change and even slight changes in temperature affects their diversity and distribution (Pearce-Higgins and Holt 2013). In addition the changes in climate strongly influence morphology, phenology, physiology and life history of birds (Hughes 2003).

Changes in temperature directly affect avifauna diversity as the water requirements of birds increase with increase in temperature and this situation is alarming for birds inhabiting deserts and tropical areas (McKee et al. 2004; McKinney et al. 2010). Similarly, many unknown impacts viz. emerging diseases and invasive species are also associated with climate change

(Şekercioğluet al. 2012).

Out of a total of 195 mammalian species in Pakistan, 12 are Critically Endangered, 12

Endangered, 20 Vulnerable, 32 Near Threatened , 71 Least Concern, 38 Data Deficient and 8 are

Regionally Extinct (Molur 2003). The increase in global temperature also affects the mammalian diversity as temperature increases disrupt hibernation, reduce water availability in arid environments, results in extreme weather events and spread diseases (Garcia-Solache and

Casadevall 2010). Declines in several species of large mammals in Africa have been associated with reduction in precipitation. Decrease in precipitation reduces plant growth and enhances predation risks (Ogutu and Owen Smith 2003; Musiega and Kazadi 2004).

Ethno-ornithology and ethno-‐ mammalogy are the studies of peoples’ awareness about birds and mammals; this field of research can boost conservation efforts, because it will increase knowledge about local diversity (Alves and Souto 2015). Knowledge of the local people and the diversity of the urban and peri-urban areas must be assessed for conservation of species.

However, these studies are neglected and very few researchers focused on this aspect in Pakistan

(Roberts 1997; Grimmet 1998; Mirza and Wasiq 2007). The present study is therefore planned to assess the avian and mammalian diversity of urban, peri-urban and forested landscapes of river

Introduction

Chenab. In addition data were collected regarding ecological knowledge of the local communities and human-wildlife conflicts.

CHAPTER 2 REVIEW OF LITERATURE Humans and biodiversity

The rapid increase in human population has adversely affected diversity around the globe. The ill effects of this increase include pollution, climate change, deforestation, habitat loss and invasion of exotic species (Bierwagen 2007). The urbanized areas are very different from the natural habitats of the species and with the development of new residential areas and allied facilities the bigger ecosystems have been fragmented (McKinney 2002), the natural vegetations have been removed (McNeill 2000) and many native species have been replaced either with exotic ornamental or with the plants having better yields (Holway and Suarez 2006). Therefore, the natural ecosystems have been altered and changed in urbanized, peri-urban and forested landscapes. Up to some extent, moderate urbanization enhances diversity of some of the species by providing nesting and foraging sites (Blair 1996). However, in densely populated areas the natural vegetations have been removed leading to decrease in species diversity and density (Blair

2001).

Diversity is divided into two components as; richness (number of species in a specific area) and evenness (population) (Magurran 2004). The world has more than 27,977 species

(represented to 515 families and 62 orders) (Helfman et al. 2009). Pakistan has wide diversity of fresh and marine water fishes; more than 171 species of freshwater fishes are present in Pakistan

(Peter 1999). Richness of the fish of tropical to subtropical rivers is correlated within the river basin (Welcomme 1979). Asian region has lot of large basins for growth and nesting of fish. The dynamic features of these river ecosystems are the result of changes in level of water cause of change in rainfall in nesting and growth area. This dynamics brings about variety in fish community morphology which is often brought about by impact of environmental factors inside

Review of Literature the river ecosystem, species interactions, food availability and fish movements (Taylor et al.

2006). Mostly lotic water fishes synchronize nesting activity with the flood season and migrate to upstream during rainy season and move back in the dry season (Dudgeon 1992).

To understand diversity patterns, the habitat preferences of species must be considered

(Riem et al. 2012). Some species of birds prefer to live in close proximity of humans while other prefer slightly or completely disturbed habitats; the same in the case of mammals (Bateman and

Fleming 2012; Riemet al. 2012). The avian and mammalian species are greatly influenced by the anthropogenic effects and some species can adjusted to environment while others decline and/or become rare (Recher 1999).

The introduced predators like cats and dogs are abundant in urban areas (Newton 2004) and these predators also affect the diversity in forests (Marzluff et al. 1998). The number of the introduced avian predators viz. sharp-shinned hawk, merlin, northern pygmy owl and Cooper's hawk increased manifold in urbanized habitats leading towards the extinction of many native species (Marzluff et al. 1998). In addition, the birds in densely populated areas are facing threats because artificial food increases chances of disease spread (Martin and Association 1992). Many of the urban species viz. rock doves and blackbirds are the reservoirs for diseases (Marzluff et al.

1998).

Natural habitats have been degraded and converted into the agricultural lands during the last 10, 000 years (Bouma and Droogers 1998). However, the agricultural intensification started at the end of the 20th century (Pimentel et al. 2004) and the scenario resulted in a conflict between the natural biodiversity and the humans (Henle et al. 2008). Although, the increased yields of agricultural lands and intensification of agriculture are the need of the day, at the same

Review of Literature time the conservation of species is also equally important. Humans have invaded almost all types of ecosystems and their role in conservation can never be denied (Henleet al. 2008).

Ruegg et al. (2006) documented that animal distribution is affected by climate change and this change especially influence migratory animals’ changes in their boundaries. About 26% to 72% of migratory species return to their breeding grounds two weeks earlier (Sparks and

Menzel 2002) over the past three decades only due to increases in temperature while if there is decrease in temperature it enhances the tendency for late return. Changes in timing is inversely related with the distance, if the distance is greater than timing of arrival would decrease and vice versa (Sparks and Menzel 2002; Saino et al. 2010). Anthropogenic activities viz. urbanization, agriculture intensification and industrialization are the main causes of global warming or climate change (Saino et al. 2010). Studies on smoke and its impacts in biosphere started during 17th century and the term acid rain was first coined with this phenomenon during 1950s (Bouma and

Droogers, 1998).

Ethno-ornithology

Ethno-ornithology is the study about the relationship of human with birds; many avian species are used for the different purposes; however the conservationists this study has been neglected by most of time only the conservation aspect was preferred (Grimmet 1998; Brook and McLachlan

2005) and involvement of local people was not encouraged (Hunn et al. 2003; Gilchristet al.

2005). Later it was realized conservation of nature is possible with the involvement of local poeple (Gilchrist and Mallory 2007; Brook and McLachlan 2008). It is therefore necessary to relate traditional as well as modern ecological knowledge; so as to enhance local ownership

(Gilchristet al. 2005). This aspect was focused by few researchers during the first decade of twenty first century (Gilchrist et al. 2005; Gilchrist and Mallory 2007).

Review of Literature

Ethno-mammalogy

Ethno-mammalogy study of traditional use of mammalian species in livelihood of human (Alves and Rosa 2007). The importance of mammalian species in the life of human population cannot be denied (Alves et al. 2009). These species have ecological, cultural, religious, economical, medicinal and food values; and worldwide trade of many of the species is major cause of extinction. The markets, where these animals are sold provide valuable information about the significance of local and exotic fauna and flora (Alves et al., 2012).

Human impact on avifauna diversity

Birds are good indicators of environmental changes, have the ability to migrate and can cross barriers. Environmental pollution has negatively affected avian diversity. Although, there is increasing awareness about the impacts of pollutants however there is scarcity of data on the impacts of ecological pollution on connecting ecosystem levels. The reason is that pollution affects diversity on wider scale but it is difficult to assess sources of pollution affecting adversely

(Furness and Greenwood 1993). Air pollution enhances the risk of diseases spread and has attained global attention (Mix 1986). Mining activities, radioactive material (Møller and

Mousseau 2011), oil spills (Golet et al. 2002) and DDT (Henny et al. 2009) forced many raptor species towards extinction. Birds have been extensively used in ecological studies as environmental indicators or to physical health of the wetlands or associated habitats ((Becker

1989; Becker et al. 1993; Furness 1993; Lemly 1997; Pain et al. 1998; Eens et al. 1999; Tanabe

2002; Sandström et al. 2006; Borges et al. 2016).

It has been proven that many of the chemical compounds have devastating impacts on birds such as diclofenac sodium which is the causative agent of decline of vultures (Green et al. 2006;

Naidoo et al. 2007), many of the crane species like sarus crane, blue rock pigeon, collard doves

Review of Literature are affected by dieldrin (Muralidharan 1993) and house sparrows by 15N (Vincent 2005).

Similarly, the American black duck, dipper, osprey populations declined due to acidity of aquatic medium (Haramis and Chu 1987; Rattner et al. 1987; Parker et al. 1992). Herons and terns declined due to bioaccumulation of pollutants (Schneider 1982) while air pollution affected the populations of parrots, great tits and flycatcher (Chitano et al. 1995; Kagawa 2002; Sun et al.

2005). There was decline in the populations of cormorants due to chlorinated hydrocarbons

(Anderson et al. 1969; Dirksen et al. 1995; Elliott et al. 2001).

Noise pollution is also amongst the major hazards to the diversity. Noise from industries, vehicles, aircrafts and railway is louder, common and more frequent than natural voices. Few studies have been conducted on impacts of anthropogenic noise in aquatic environments however the effects of noise on terrestrial biodiversity are least studied (Popper and Hastings 2009).

The street lights and the lights on buildings affect the physiological processes of birds. Light pollution disturbs behavior of the birds like competitive interactions, predator-prey relations, animal navigation and reproductive behavior. Light repulsed animals lead to local extinctions from native place (Longcore and Rich 2004). There is a wide range of light pollution with the potential to affect birds and mammals including street lights, parking places, airports, individual houses, fireworks, factories, security lights, stadiums, and also vehicles head lights. Light pollution in the marine environment includes lights on fishing vessels (Longcore and Rich 2004;

Rich and Longcore 2013).

Human impact on mammalian diversity

Mammalian diversity varies along forest to urban gradient and these variations are also observed in different climatic zones of the globe for example red foxes (Vulpes vulpes) are generally common in semi-urban and urban habitats of colder zones in England (Harris and Smith 1987)

Review of Literature while these species are rare in semi-urban and urban areas of the warm zones in Japan (Uraguchi et al. 2009). The affect of urbanization has been studied in details in many developed countries like America, Australia and Europe but studied are scares in Asia.

Human-wildlife conflict

The croplands in peri-urban areas are affected by the herbivores and birds inhabiting forest landscapes (Studsrød and Wegge 1995; Madhusudan 2003). Similarly, livestock in peri-urban habitats is affected by the wild carnivores and omnivores living in closed vicinity of these areas.

Mammals usually damage the crops at night while birds during dawn and dusk hours. Sekhar

(1998) reported that wild animals damage 14% of wheat crop and 24% maize per hectare per annum. Similarly, 2% mortalities of the domestic livestock have been recorded due to the predation by leopard, wolf, lynx and brown bear (Din et al. 2013). These losses result in human- wildlife conflict and in return many predator species are killed by humans. Livestock damages were US$ 6193 per household per year; however snow leopards were blamed by herders for only a small proportion of those losses (10%).

Statement of Problem

The avian and mammalian diversity is under continuous threat from ill effects of urbanization that caused fragmentation of larger ecosystems, agricultural intensification, pollution and changed natural climate patters. Similarly, illegal hunting, use of body parts of avian and mammalian species in medicine led many species to extinction.

Present study is therefore planned, keeping in view the following objectives;

1. To assess the avian and mammalian diversity of the study area.

Review of Literature

2. To identify and asses anthropogenic impacts on avian and mammalian diversity of the

study area.

3. To explore the level of human-wildlife conflict in the study area.

Literature Cited

Ali Z, Akhtar. M. 2005. Bird surveys at wetlands in Punjab, Pakistan, with special reference to

the present status of White-headed Duck Oxyura leucocephala. Forktail 21: 43-50.

Altaf M, Javid A, Irfan, Munir MA, Ashraf S, Iqbal KJ, Umair M. 2013. Diversity, distribution

and ecology of birds in summer season flathead Khanki, Punjab, Pakistan. Biologia

(Pak).59:131-137.

Alves RR, Neto NAL, Brooks SE, Albuquerque UP. 2009. Commercialization of animal-derived

remedies as complementary medicine in the semi-arid region of Northeastern Brazil. J

Ethnopharmacol.124:600-608.

Alves RR, Rosa IL. 2007. Zootherapy goes to town: The use of animal-based remedies in urban

areas of NE and N Brazil. J Ethnopharmacol.113:541-555.

Alves RRN, Neta ROS, Trovão D, Barbosa J, Barros AT, Dias TLP. 2012. Traditional uses of medicinal

animals in the semi-arid region of northeastern Brazil. J Ethnobiol Ethnomed.8:4269-4268.

Alves R, Souto WMS. 2015. Ethnozoology: A Brief Introduction. Ethnobiol Conserv.4.

Anderson DW, Hickey JJ, Risebrough RW, Hughes DF, Christensen RE. 1969. Significance of

chlorinated hydrocarbon residues to breeding pelicans and cormorants.

Assessment ME. 2005. Ecosystems and human well-being. Island Press Washington, DC.

Bateman P, Fleming P. 2012. Big city life: carnivores in urban environments. J Zool.287:1-23.

Becker PH, Schuhmann S, Koepff C. 1993. Hatching failure in common terns (Sterna hirundo) in

relation to environmental chemicals. Environ pollut.79:207-213.

Becker PH. 1989. Seabirds as monitor organisms of contaminants along the German North Sea

coast. Helgoländer Meeresuntersuchungen.43:395-403.

Literature Cited

BirdLife International. 2004. State of the world’s birds 2004: indicators for our changing world.

Cambridge UK: BirdLife International.

Bierwagen BG. 2007. Connectivity in urbanizing landscapes: The importance of habitat

configuration, urban area size, and dispersal. Urban ecosyst.10:29-42.

Blair RB. 1996. Land use and avian species diversity along an urban gradient. Ecol appl.6:506-

519.

Blair RB. 2001. Birds and butterflies along urban gradients in two ecoregions of the United

States: is urbanization creating a homogeneous fauna? In: Biotic homogenization.

Springer. p. 33-56.

Bloom DE. 2011. 7 billion and counting. Science.333:562-569.

Borges SH, Cornelius C, Moreira M, Ribas CC, Haft M, Capurucho JM, Almeida R. 2016. Bird

Communities in Amazonian White Sand Vegetation Patches: Effects of Landscape

Configuration and Biogeographic Context. Biotropica. 48(1):121-131.

Bouma J, Droogers P. 1998. A procedure to derive land quality indicators for sustainable

agricultural production. Geoderma.85:103-110.

Bouma J, Varallyay G, Batjes N. 1998. Principal land use changes anticipated in Europe.

Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment.67:103-119.

Brook RK, McLachlan SM. 2005. On using expert-based science to “test” local ecological

knowledge. Ecol Society.10:r3.

Brook RK, McLachlan SM. 2008. Trends and prospects for local knowledge in ecological and

conservation research and monitoring. Biodiver Conserv.17:3501-3512.

Chaudhry MJI, Arshad M, Akbar G. 2012. Some Observations on Threatened and Near

Threatened avifauna of Pakistan. Rec. Zool. Surv. Pakistan. 21:65-72.

Literature Cited

Chitano P, Hosselet JJ, Mapp CE, Fabbri L. 1995. Effect of oxidant air pollutants on the

respiratory system: insights from experimental animal research. Eur respir j.8:1357-1371.

Diamond A, Filion FL. 1987. The Value of Birds: Based on the Proceedings of a Symposium

and Workshop Held at the 19 World Conference of the International Council for Bird

Preservation, June 1986, Kingston, Canada. ICBP.

Din JU, Hameed S, Shah KA, Khan MA, Khan S, Ali M, Nawaz MA. 2013. Abundance of

canids and human canid conflict in the Hindu Kush Mountain range of Pakistan. Wildl

Biol Pract.9:20-29.

Dirksen S, Boudewijn TJ, Slager LK, Mes RG, Van Schaick MJM, De Voogt P. 1995. Reduced

breeding success of cormorants (Phalacrocorax carbo sinensis) in relation to persistent

organochlorine pollution of aquatic habitats in the Netherlands. Environ pollut.88:119-

132.

Dudgeon D. 1992. Endangered ecosystems: a review of the conservation status of tropical Asian

rivers. Hydrobiologia.248:167-191.

Eens M, Pinxten R, Verheyen RF, Blust R, Bervoets L. 1999. Great and blue tits as indicators of

heavy metal contamination in terrestrial ecosystems. Ecotoxicol Environ Safe.44:81-85.

Elliott JE, Wilson LK, Henny CJ, Trudeau SF, Leighton FA, Kennedy SW, Cheng KM. 2001.

Assessment of biological effects of chlorinated hydrocarbons in osprey chicks. Environm

Toxicol Chem.20:866-879.

Furness RW, Greenwood JJ. 1993. Birds as monitors of environmental change. Springer Science

& Business Media.

Furness RW. 1993. Birds as monitors of pollutants. In: Birds as monitors of environmental

change. Springer. p. 86-143.

Literature Cited

Garcia-Solache MA, Casadevall A. 2010. Global warming will bring new fungal diseases for

mammals. MBio.1:e00061-00010.

Gilchrist G, Mallory M, Merkel F. 2005. Can local ecological knowledge contribute to wildlife

management? Case studies of migratory birds. Ecol Society.10:20.

Gilchrist G, Mallory ML. 2007. Comparing expert-based science with local ecological

knowledge: what are we afraid of. Ecol Society.12:r1.

Golet GH, Seiser PE, McGuire AD, Roby DD, Fischer JB, Kuletz KJ, Irons DB, Dean TA,

Jewett SC, Newman SH. 2002. Long-term direct and indirect effects of the'Exxon Valdez'

oil spill on pigeon guillemots in Prince William Sound, Alaska. Mar Ecol Prog

Ser.241:287-304.

Green RE, Taggart MA, Das D, Pain DJ, Sashi Kumar C, Cunningham AA, Cuthbert R. 2006.

Collapse of Asian vulture populations: risk of mortality from residues of the veterinary

drug diclofenac in carcasses of treated cattle. J Appl Ecol.43:949-956.

Grimmet R, Inskipp, C. & Inskip, T. 1998. Birds of the Indian subcontinent.: Christopher

Helm an imprint of A and C Black (Publisher) Ltd, 35 Bedford Row, London

WCIR 4JH.

Haramis GM, Chu DS. 1987. Acid rain effects on waterfowl: use of black duck broods to assess

food resources of experimentally acidified wetlands. ICBP Tech Publ.6:173-181.

Harris S, Smith G. 1987. Demography of two urban fox (Vulpes vulpes) populations. J Appl

Ecol.75-86.

Heine J, Speir T. 1989. Ornithogenic soils of the Cape Bird Adelie penguin rookeries,

Antarctica. Polar Biol.10:89-99.

Literature Cited

Helfman G, Collette BB, Facey DE, Bowen BW. 2009. The diversity of fishes: Biology,

Evolution, and Ecology. John Wiley & Sons.

Henle K, Alard D, Clitherow J, Cobb P, Firbank L, Kull T, McCracken D, Moritz RF, Niemelä J,

Rebane M. 2008. Identifying and managing the conflicts between agriculture and

biodiversity conservation in Europe–A review. Agriculture, Ecosystems &

Environment.124:60-71.

Henny CJ, Yates MA, Seegar WS. 2009. Dramatic declines of DDE and other organochlorines in

spring migrant peregrine falcons from Padre Island, Texas, 1978-2004. J Raptor

Res.43:37-42.

Holway DA, Suarez AV. 2006. Homogenization of ant communities in mediterranean California:

the effects of urbanization and invasion. Biol Conserv.127:319-326.

Hughes L. 2003. Climate change and Australia: trends, projections and impacts. Aust

Ecol.28:423-443.

Hunn E, Johnson D, Russell P, Thornton T. 2003. Huna Tlingit Traditional Environmental

Knowledge, Conservation, and the Management of a “Wilderness” Park1. Current

Anthropol.44:S79-S103.

IUCN. 2002. Red Lists of IUCN.

IUCN. 2009. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2009. IUCN.

IUCN. 2011. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. www.iucnredlist.org.

Jetz W, Thomas GH, Joy JB, Hartmann K, Mooers AO. 2012. The global diversity of birds in

space and time. Nature. 491(7424):444-448.

Kagawa J. 2002. Health effects of diesel exhaust emissions—a mixture of air pollutants of

worldwide concern. Toxicology.181:349-353.

Literature Cited

Lemly AD. 1997. Ecosystem recovery following selenium contamination in a freshwater

reservoir. Ecotoxicol Environ Safe.36:275-281.

Li J, Yin H, Wang D, Jiagong Z, Lu Z. 2013. Human-snow leopard conflicts in the Sanjiangyuan

Region of the Tibetan Plateau. Biol Conserv. 166: 118-123.

Longcore T, Rich C. 2004. Ecological light pollution. Front Ecol Environ.2:191-198.

Madhusudan MD. 2003. Living amidst large wildlife: livestock and crop depredation by large

mammals in the interior villages of Bhadra Tiger Reserve, South India. Environ

Manage.31:0466-0475.

Magurran AE. 2004. Measuring biological diversity.

Martin LR, Association AAE. 1992. A Survey of Agricultural Economics Literature: Agriculture

in Economic Development 1940s To 1990s. U of Minnesota Press.

Marzluff JM, Gehlbach FR, Manuwal DA. 1998. Urban environments: influences on avifauna

and challenges for the avian conservationist. Avian conservation: research and

management. Island Press, Washington, DC.283-299.

McKee JK, Sciulli PW, Fooce CD, Waite TA. 2004. Forecasting global biodiversity threats

associated with human population growth. Biol Conserv.115:161-164.

McKinney LA, Kick EL, Fulkerson GM. 2010. World system, anthropogenic, and ecological

threats to bird and mammal species: a structural equation analysis of biodiversity loss.

Organization & Environment.23:3-31.

McKinney ML. 2002. Urbanization, Biodiversity, and Conservation The impacts of urbanization

on native species are poorly studied, but educating a highly urbanized human population

about these impacts can greatly improve species conservation in all ecosystems.

BioScience.52:883-890.

Literature Cited

McNeill JR. 2000. Something New Under the Sun: An Environmental History of the Twentieth-

Century World (The Global Century Series). WW Norton & Company.

Mirza ZB, Wasiq H. 2007. A field guide to birds of Pakistan Bookland, Lahore.

Mix MC. 1986. Cancerous diseases in aquatic animals and their association with environmental

pollutants: a critical literature review. Mar Environ Res.20:1-141.

Møller AP, Mousseau TA. 2011. Efficiency of bio-indicators for low-level radiation under field

conditions. Ecol Indicat.11:424-430.

Mols CM, Visser ME. 2007. Great tits (Parus major) reduce caterpillar damage in commercial

apple orchards. PloS one.2:e202.

Molur S. 2003. Status and Red List of Pakistan’s Mammals.

Muralidharan S. 1993. Aldrin poisoning of Sarus cranes (Grus antigone) and a few granivorous

birds in Keoladeo National Park, Bharatpur, India. Ecotoxicology.2:196-202.

Musiega DE, Kazadi SN. 2004. Simulating the East African wildebeest migration patterns using

GIS and remote sensing. Afr J Ecol.42:355-362.

Myers JH, Simberloff D, Kuris AM, Carey JR. 2000. Eradication revisited: dealing with exotic

species. Tren Ecol Evol.15:316-320.

Myers N. 1990. The biodiversity challenge: expanded hot-spots analysis.

Environmentalist.10:243-256.

Naidoo V, Duncan N, Bekker L, Swan G. 2007. Validating the domestic fowl as a model to

investigate the pathophysiology of diclofenac in Gyps vultures. Environ Toxicol

Pharmacol.24:260-266.

Newton I. 2004. The recent declines of farmland bird populations in Britain: an appraisal of

causal factors and conservation actions. Ibis.146:579-600.

Literature Cited

Ogutu JO, Owen‐Smith N. 2003. ENSO, rainfall and temperature influences on extreme

population declines among African savanna ungulates. Ecol Lett.6:412-419.

Pain D, Sanchez A, Meharg A. 1998. The Donana ecological disaster: contamination of a world

heritage estuarine marsh ecosystem with acidified pyrite mine waste. Sci Total

Environ.222:45-54.

Parker GR, Petrie MJ, Sears DT. 1992. Waterfowl distribution relative to wetland acidity. The J

Wildl Manage.268-274.

Pearce-Higgins JW, Holt CA. 2013. Impacts of climate change on waterbirds. MCCIP Science

Review 2013.149-154.

Pimentel D, Berger B, Filiberto D, Newton M, Wolfe B, Karabinakis E, Clark S, Poon E, Abbett

E, Nandagopal S. 2004. Water resources: agricultural and environmental issues.

BioScience.54:909-918.

Popper A, Hastings M. 2009. The effects of anthropogenic sources of sound on fishes. J Fish

Biol.75:455-489.

Purtauf T, Roschewitz I, Dauber J, Thies C, Tscharntke T, Wolters V. 2005. Landscape context

of organic and conventional farms: influences on carabid beetle diversity. Agriculture,

Rattner BA, Haramis GM, Chu DS, Bunck CM, Scanes CG. 1987. Growth and physiological

condition of black ducks reared on acidified wetlands. Can J Zool.65:2953-2958.

Recher HF. 1999. The state of Australia's avifauna: a personal opinion and prediction for the new

millennium. Aust Zool.31:11-27.

Rich C, Longcore T. 2013. Ecological consequences of artificial night lighting. Island Press.

Riem JG, Blair RB, Pennington DN, Solomon NG. 2012. Estimating mammalian species

diversity across an urban gradient. Am Midl Nat.168:315-332.

Literature Cited

Roberts TJ. 1997. The Mammals of Pakistan. New Yark: Oxford University Press

Ruegg KC, Hijmans RJ, Moritz C. 2006. Climate change and the origin of migratory pathways in

the Swainson's thrush, Catharus ustulatus. Biogeography.33:1172-1182.

Saino N, Ambrosini R, Rubolini D, von Hardenberg J, Provenzale A, Hüppop K, Hüppop O,

Lehikoinen A, Lehikoinen E, Rainio K. 2010. Climate warming, ecological mismatch at

arrival and population decline in migratory birds. Proceedings of the Royal Society B:

Biological Sciences.rspb20101778.

Sandström UG, Angelstam P, Mikusiński G. 2006. Ecological diversity of birds in relation to the

structure of urban green space. Landsc. urban plan. 77(1): 39-53

Schneider R. 1982. Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) in cod tissues from the Western Baltic:

significance of equilibrium partitioning and lipid composition in the bioaccumulation of

lipophilic pollutants in gill-breathing animals. Meeresforsch.29:69.

Şekercioğlu ÇH, Primack RB, Wormworth J. 2012. The effects of climate change on tropical

birds. Biol Conserv.148:1-18.

Sekhar NU. 1998. Crop and livestock depredation caused by wild animals in protected areas: the

case of Sariska Tiger Reserve, Rajasthan, India. Environ Conserv.25:160-171.

Sibley C, Monroe Jr B. 1993. A world checklist of birds. Ann Arbor, MI: Edwards Brothers Inc.

Sibley CG, Monroe BL. 1990. Distribution and Taxonomy of Birds of the World.

Sparks TH, Menzel A. 2002. Observed changes in seasons: an overview. Int J Climatol.22:1715-

1725.

Stoate C, Báldi A, Beja P, Boatman N, Herzon I, Van Doorn A, De Snoo G, Rakosy L, Ramwell

C. 2009. Ecological impacts of early 21st century agricultural change in Europe–a

review. J Environ Manage.91:22-46.

Literature Cited

Studsrød JE, Wegge P. 1995. Park-people relationships: the case of damage caused by park

animals around the Royal Bardia National Park, Nepal. Environ Conserv.22:133-142.

Sun Q, Wang A, Jin X, Natanzon A, Duquaine D, Brook RD, Aguinaldo J-GS, Fayad ZA, Fuster

V, Lippmann M. 2005. Long-term air pollution exposure and acceleration of

atherosclerosis and vascular inflammation in an animal model. Jama.294:3003-3010.

Tanabe S. 2002. Contamination and toxic effects of persistent endocrine disrupters in marine

mammals and birds. Mar Pollut Bull.45:69-77.

Taylor BW, Flecker AS, Hall RO. 2006. Loss of a harvested fish species disrupts carbon flow in

a diverse tropical river. Science.313:833-836.

Uraguchi K, Yamamura K, Saitoh T. 2009. Estimating number of families for an urban fox

population by using two public data sets. Popul Ecol.51:271-277.

Vincent KE. 2005. Investigating the causes of the decline of the urban House Sparrow Passer

domesticus population in Britain.

Welcomme RL. 1979. Fisheries ecology of floodplain rivers. Longman London.

CHAPTER 3 EXPERIMENT 1 Title: ASSESSMENT OF WATERFOWL DIVERSITY OF RIVER CHENAB,

PAKISTAN

M. Altaf1*, A. Javid1, A. M. Khan2, M. Umair3, Irfan1, S. Ashraf1, M. Idnan1, M.S. Haider4 and

Z. Ali2

1Department of Wildlife and Ecology, University of the Veterinary and Animal Sciences,

Lahore, Pakistan

2Environmental Health and Wildlife, Department of Zoology, University of the Punjab, Lahore,

Pakistan

3Department of Plant Sciences, Quaid-i-Azam University, Islamabad, Pakistan

4Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture, University of the Veterinary and Animal Sciences,

Lahore, Pakistan

Corresponding Auther: [email protected]

This manuscript has been published

Journal of Animal and Plant Sciences 25(3 supp. 2):382-388

2015

Impact factor: 0.448

Experiment 1

Abstract

River Chenab is an important wetland of Punjab province and the tree plantations around the river are the part of tropical thorn forest. But as a consequence of deforestation much of the natural forested areas have been turned to agricultural land. The main objective of study was to explore the unexplored data of the avifauna diversity and special focus on endangered avian species Sterna acuticauda of river Chenab. This one year study extending from May, 2013 through April, 2014 was conducted along a 90 km long belt of the river Chenab. The study was focused at three heads of the river namely head Marala (district Sialkot), head Khanki (district

Gujrat) and head Qadirabad (district Gujranwala). Surveys were made during dawn (5:00 am to

8:00 am) and dusk (4:00 pm to 7:00 pm) hours and a total of 51waterbird species belonging to 33 genera, 16 families and 8 orders were recorded from the study area. Throughout the year a total of 2531 birds from recorded from head Marala, 2026 from the head Khanki and 2230 from head

Qadirabad. Diversity indices were analyzed through statistical software PAST version 2.17 C.

Shannon-Weiner diversity index at head Marala was 2.62, at head Khanki it was 2.64 while at head Qadirabad it was 2.78. It can be concluded from the present study that the river Chenab is waterfowl rich and should be declared as protected site for waterfowls.

Key words: Evenness, Margalef, Wetland, Richness, Qadirabad.

1. Introduction

Wetlands provide habitat to a variety of organisms and are important sites for genetic diversity, and evolution of both the terrestrial and aquatic organisms. Wetlands are categorized on the basis of age, chemical composition, origin and size (Gorham and Janssens 1992).

Experiment 1

Wetlands are the transitional zones between the aquatic and terrestrial environments and therefore are of immense importance for the organisms inhabiting water and the terrestrial medium. In addition these are the most productive sites hence provide food source to almost all the water birds. Anthropogenic impacts like pollution, industrialization, agriculture intensification and urbanization are adversely affecting the life in these areas (Ali 2005; Altaf et al. 2013). Pakistan has many climatic and vegetation zones within a relatively small area.

Various climatic regimes in the country resulted in a variety of wetland systems ranging from high-altitude cold wetlands to hot and humid wetlands in coastal areas. There are more than 225 wetlands in Pakistan while 19 have international importance. Wetlands in Pakistan cover an area of 780,000 hectares, comprising 9.7 percent of the total surface area of the country with 74% freshwater and 26% of coastal wetland areas (IUCN 1989; Altaf et al. 2014).

The birds on the globe are described by 9042 species (Sibley and Monroe 1990), while 2700 avian species have been reported from Asia (Collar et al. 2001). Similarly, 668 bird species have been recorded within territorial limits of Pakistan (Mirza and Wasiq 2007).

The diversity patterns are difficult to map and monitor along a large geographical area while there is dire need to conserve 12% of the world’s threatened birds, 25% mammals, 40% amphibians and 20% invertebrates (Vié et al. 2009). The diversity extinction will keep rising

(McKee et al. 2004) until, besides directly biodiversity monitoring, the information regarding habitat variables that may influence species diversity are not considered while conserving the species (Cody 1981). A common field-measured habitat metric used by ornithologists (Pidgeon et al. 2001), and to a lesser extent, mammalogists (August 1983) and entomologists (MacArthur and MacArthur 1961).

Experiment 1

The avian diversity in Pakistan is facing substantial threats due to loss of natural habitat, illegal hunting and leasing of land for cultivation. These activities seriously degrade the natural habitat of wild birds (He and Hubbell 2011; Umair 2012; Altafet al. 2013). Eutrophication also led to increased sedimentation and oxygen deficiency hence adversely affecting the diversity directly and indirectly. Sterna acuticauda is the wetland and resident birds of Pakistan; this species of population in Pakistan is decreasing day by day. The main reason is that the habitat of this bird is almost lost e.g. sands pits are converted into the agriculture land, while threats are also present like predation, dames, over fishing, pollution and water extraction. The present study was therefore conducted to explore the unexplored of the avifauna diversity with a special focus on endangered avian species Sterna acuticauda of river Chenab.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1.Study area

River Chenab starts from Kangra and Kulu districts of Himachal Pradesh in India and enters

Pakistan near Diawara village, district Sialkot. Total length of the river is 960 km (Siddiqi and

Tahir-Kheli 2004). This one year study extending from May 2013 through April 2014 was conducted along a 90 km long belt of river Chenab from district Sialkot to district Gujranwala.

The forest vegetation at head Marala (Sub-area i.e. SA-1), head Khanki (SA-2) and head

Qadirabad (SA-3) (table1); and associated cultivated areas at each head were surveyed during dawn and dusk hours and data on ecology and population status of fluvial avian diversity was collected (figure 1).

2.2.Climate

Experiment 1

The climate of the study area is sub-tropical with average temperature variations of 5oC during winter to 45oC during summer. The pH of riverine water is slightly basic ranging from 7.9 to 8.1

(Anonymous 2007).

Table 1. Coordinates of river Chenab.

Study Area Types of habitat Coordinate Elevation (ft) Head Marala (Sialkot) Forest habitat 32o39'59 N, 74o28'05 E 811 Bahlolpur Agri-Rural Forest habitat 32o34'55 N, 74o25'41 E 840 Head Khanki (Gujrat) Forest habitat 32о24'32 N, 73о58'39 E 712 Ghazi Chak Agri-Rural Forest habitat 32о30'00 N, 73о05'39 E 739 Head Qadirabad(Gujranwala) Forest habitat 32о19'06 N, 73о41'36 E 683 Kot Hara Agri-Rural Forest habitat 32о16'06 N, 73о42'22 E 695

2.3.Methodology

The waterfowl diversity of study area was estimated through linear count survey method and both, the direct (direct observations and voices) and indirect (nests, carcasses and group questionnaire survey) methods were used. To correctly identify the waterfowl species of the study area: (Roberts 1991; Mirza and Wasiq 2007; Grimmett et al. 2008) were consulted.

The collected data was interpreted through computer-based software PAST version 2.17C and

Dominance (D), Shannon-Wiener diversity index (H’), Simpson Index (S), Margalef (R) and

Evenness (E) were recorded following (Hammert 2001). Census Index was computed using following formula;

Census Index = n/area

Where n = numbers of birds

Experiment 1

Figure 1. Map of river Chenab along with three study sites i.e. head Marala, Khanki, and Qadirabad.

3. Results and Discussion

During present survey, a total of 51 waterfowl species representing 33 genera, 16 families and 8 orders were recorded from the study area. During the study period a total of 2531 water birds representing 51 species, 33 genera, 16 families and 8 orders were recorded from head Marala.

Dominance, Census Index, Shannon-Wiener diversity index, Simpson Index, Margalef Index and

Evenness were recorded as 0.138, 2.531, 2.62, 0.86, 6.38 and 0.27, respectively (Table 3).

Similarly, 2026 waterfowls belonging to 50 species, 32 genera, 16 families and 8 orders were recorded from head Khanki. Dominance, Census Index, Shannon-Wiener diversity index,

Simpson Index, Margalef Index and Evenness were 0.129, 2.023, 2.64, 0.87, 6.57 and 0.27 respectively at head Khanki. At head Qadirabad, a total of 2230 water birds representing 51 species, 33 genera, 16 families and 8 orders were recorded during entire study period. The

Experiment 1

Dominance at head Qadirabad was 0.115, Census Index 2.23, Shannon-Wiener diversity index

2.78, Simpson Index 0.88, Margalef Index 6.48 while Evenness was 0.32. The present study revealed that 51 waterfowl species representing 33 genera, 16 families and 8 orders were recorded from the study area. While other studies shows that 43 waterfowl species representing

27 genera, 10 families and 6 orders from Rasool barrage; district Jhelum (Akbar et al. 2010) while 32 species waterfowl species belonging to 17 families and 6 orders during their survey to river Ravi (Iqbal et al. 2011).

Figure 2a. Diversity of the birds at the river Chenab.

Experiment 1

Figure 2b. Diversity of the birds at the river Chenab.

The avifauna diversity of various waterfowl species along with their feeding habitats (i.e. 2

Herbivore, 10 omnivore, 4 Insectivore, 12 carnivore, and 22 Piscivore) and distribution (i.e. 11 resident bird, 2 summer breeder, 31 winter visitor and 7 year round visitors) is summarized in

Table 2. The IUCN (2015) red list results showed that the diversity of river Chenab has one avian species (Black-bellied Tern) endangered, one species (Indian Skimmer) as Vulnerable, 3 species (Darter/Snake Bird, Painted Stork, Indian River Tern) as near threatened and 46 species as least count. Intermediate egret (n =1577 ), large egret (n =1303), little egret (n = 971), purple heron (n= 244), grey heron (n= 220), black-winged stilt (n= 218), Indian pond heron (n= 214), cattle egret (n= 145), night heron (n= 145) and Indian river tern (n= 140) were more common while the numbers of garganey (n= 5), pied avocet (n= 5) and little stint (n= 5), Eurasian coot

(n= 4) and Temminck's stint (n= 3) were lowest in the study area (figure 2 and Table 2).

During present survey, little grebe, Indian pond heron, cattle egret, large egret, purple heron, white-throated kingfisher, white-breasted waterhen and Black-winged stilt were observed as

Experiment 1 resident bird species of the study area. Similarly, seven waterfowl species namely little cormorant, darter bird, yellow bittern, little egret, intermediate egret, whiskered tern and Indian skimmer were year round visitors throughout the study period. Out of them, little egret, intermediate egret and little cormorant were more common while the Indian skimmer was the least counted species. Little Tern and Night heron were observed as the summer breeders. These species were common and easily observed during present survey.

During present survey, grey heron, painted stork, bar-headed goose, common shelduck, ruddy shelduck, mallard, common teal, Eurasian wigeon, garganey, shoveler, tufted duck, common pochard and pintail duck, watercock, Eurasian coot, common crane, pied avocet, Indian courser, little stint, Temminck's stint, dunlin, Jack snipe, marsh sandpiper, greenshank, green sandpiper, wood sandpiper, lesser black-headed gull, gull-billed tern, Indian river tern, whiskered tern and black-bellied terns were observed as the winter visitor waterfowl species.

Black-bellied terns Sterna acuticauda is distributed in Pakistan, China, India, Nepal, Bangladesh,

Myanmar, Thailand, Laos, Cambodia and Vietnam. The species is now declining at an unprecedented rate and is extinct from many parts of South-East Asia (Thomas and Poole 2003;

Inskipp et al. 2013). S. acuticauda was categorized as Near Threatened in 2010 (IUCN 2010) however due to rapid decrease in its population the species is now listed amongst Endangered category (IUCN 2015).

In Pakistan, it is noted that (Roberts 1991) S. acuticauda feeding along the rivers and freshwater bodies. Ali and Akhtar (2005) recorded 14 individuals of Sterna acuticauda from head

Qadirabad, 4 from head Marala, 25 from river Ravi and 256 from Chashma barrage. The major factor of species decline is agricultural intensification (IUCN 2015). During present survey, a

Experiment 1 total of 7 S. acuticauda, 3 from head Marala, 2 from head Khanki and 2 from head Qadirabad were recorded during winter season. It was further observed that even very small piece of land in the river was being utilized for the agriculture purposes. Similarly, the towns have been developed adjacent to the river banks. These may be the reasons for rapid decrease in populations of S. acuticauda.

Conclusion: A total of 51 water bird species belonging to 33 genera, 16 families and 8 orders were recorded from the study area during present survey and it is therefore suggested that

Chenab is rich in waterfowl diversity and should be declared as protected site for waterfowls.

Authors’ contributions

MA design study and conducted waterfowl survey; AJ supervised the project; MA, ZA, AMK helped in data analysis; MU involved in sampling, field survey and data collection. All the authors critically read this article and approved as the final manuscript.

Experiment 1

Table 2. Waterfowl diversity of the study area.

Scientific name Common name Family Order FH Dist. SA-1 SA-2 SA-3 Total IUCN Tachybaptus ruficollis Little Grebe /Dabchick Podicipedidae Podicipediformes Piscivore R 5 4 7 16 LC Phalacrocorax niger Little/Javanese Cormorant Phalacrocoracidae Suliformes Piscivore Y 45 9 25 79 LC Anhinga melanogaster Darter/Snake Bird Anhingidae Suliformes Piscivore Y 5 34 24 63 NT Ixobrychus sinensis Chinese/Yellow Bittern Ardeidae Pelecaniformes Piscivore Y 5 3 2 10 LC Nycticorax nycticorax Night Heron Ardeidae Pelecaniformes Piscivore S 60 29 56 145 LC Ardeola grayii Indian Pond Heron Ardeidae Pelecaniformes Piscivore R 79 60 75 214 LC Bubulcus ibis Cattle Egret Ardeidae Pelecaniformes Piscivore R 55 45 45 145 LC Egretta garzetta Little Egret Ardeidae Pelecaniformes Piscivore Y 250 500 221 971 LC Egretta alba Large Egret Ardeidae Pelecaniformes Piscivore R 498 290 515 1303 LC Ardea cinerea Grey Heron Ardeidae Pelecaniformes Piscivore W 80 45 95 220 LC Egretta intermedia Intermediate Egret Ardeidae Pelecaniformes Piscivore Y 717 400 460 1577 LC Ardea cinerea Purple Heron Ardeidae Pelecaniformes Piscivore R 99 55 90 244 LC Mycteria leucocephala Painted Stork Ciconiidae Ciconiiformes Piscivore W 2 3 3 8 NT Anser indicus Bar-headed Goose Anserinae Anseriformes Herbivore W 22 4 24 50 LC Tadorna ferruginea Common Shelduck Anatidae Anseriformes Carnivore W 24 4 25 53 LC Tadorna tadorna Ruddy Shelduck Anatidae Anseriformes Carnivore W 35 45 36 116 LC Anas platyrhynchos Mallard Anatidae Anseriformes Omnivore W 74 8 35 117 LC Anas crecca Common Teal Anatidae Anseriformes Carnivore W 18 35 34 87 LC Anas strepera Gadwall Anatidae Anseriformes Insectivore W 35 25 41 101 LC Anas Penelope Eurasian Wigeon Anatidae Anseriformes Grainivore W 35 17 43 95 LC Anas querquedula Garganey Anatidae Anseriformes Omnivore W 2 2 1 5 LC Anas clypeata Shoveler Anatidae Anseriformes Carnivore W 7 3 16 26 LC Aythya fuligula Tufted Duck Anatidae Anseriformes Omnivore W 4 6 23 33 LC Aythya ferina Common Pochard Anatidae Anseriformes Omnivore W 4 5 21 30 LC Anas acuta Pintail Duck Anatidae Anseriformes Herbivore W 3 6 12 21 LC Amaurornis phoenicurus White-breasted Waterhen Rallidae Gruiformes Omnivore R 33 35 32 100 LC Gallinula chloropus Common Moorhen Rallidae Gruiformes Omnivore R 45 40 45 130 LC Gallicrex cinerea Watercock Rallidae Gruiformes Omnivore W 5 2 5 12 LC Fulica atra Eurasian Coot Rallidae Gruiformes Omnivore W 3 0 1 4 LC Grus grus Common Crane Gruidae Gruiformes Omnivore W 3 4 2 9 LC Himantopus himantopus Black-winged Stilt Recurvirostridae Charadriiformes Carnivore R 85 99 34 218 LC Recurvirostra avosetta Pied Avocet Recurvirostridae Charadriiformes Carnivore W 2 1 2 5 LC Cursorius coromandelicus Indian Courser Glareolidae Charadriiformes Insectivore W 4 3 8 15 LC Calidris minuta Little Stint Scolopacidae Charadriiformes Insectivore W 2 1 2 5 LC Calidris temminckii Temminck's Stint Scolopacidae Charadriiformes Insectivore W 1 1 1 3 LC

Experiment 1

Calidris alpine Dunlin Scolopacidae Charadriiformes Carnivore W 2 2 5 9 LC Lymnocryptes minimus Jack Snipe Scolopacidae Charadriiformes Omnivore W 2 2 4 8 LC Tringa stagnatilis Marsh Sandpiper Scolopacidae Charadriiformes Carnivore W 2 2 3 7 LC Tringa nebularia Greenshank Scolopacidae Charadriiformes Carnivore W 3 2 4 9 LC Tringa ochropus Green Sandpiper Scolopacidae Charadriiformes Carnivore W 2 2 5 9 LC Tringa glareola Wood Sandpiper Scolopacidae Charadriiformes Carnivore W 2 2 3 7 LC Larus fuscus Lesser Black-headed Gull Laridae Charadriiformes Carnivore W 2 2 2 6 LC Gelochelidon nilotica Gull-billed Tern Sternidae Charadriiformes Piscivore W 22 55 17 94 LC Sterna aurantia Indian River Tern Sternidae Charadriiformes Piscivore W 45 50 45 140 NT Sterna acuticauda Black-bellied Tern Sternidae Charadriiformes Piscivore W 3 2 2 7 EN Sterna albifrons Little Tern Sternidae Charadriiformes Piscivore S 27 50 14 91 LC Chlidonias hybridus Whiskered Tern Sternidae Charadriiformes Piscivore Y 5 8 3 16 LC Rynchops albicollis Indian Skimmer Rynchopidae Charadriiformes Piscivore Y 2 2 1 5 VU Halcyon smyrnensis White-throated Kingfisher Alcedinidae Coraciiformes Piscivore R 3 3 2 8 LC Alcedo atthis Common Kingfisher Alcedinidae Coraciiformes Piscivore R 8 7 13 28 LC Ceryle rudis Small Pied kingfisher Alcedinidae Coraciiformes Piscivore R 55 9 46 110 LC Note: FH (Feeding Habit), Distribution (Dist.), Least Count (LC), Vulnerable (VU), Near Threatened (NT) and Endangered (EN)

Table 3. Diversity, Richness, Evenness and Density of waterfowls of study area.

Study Area Population Dominance Simpson Shannon Evenness Margalef Density SR-1 2531 0.138 0.86 2.62 0.27 6.38 2.531 SR-2 2026 0.129 0.87 2.64 0.27 6.57 2.023 SR-3 2230 0.115 0.88 2.78 0.32 6.48 2.23

Experiment 1

References

Akbar M, Zaib-un-Nisa, Janjua AS. 2010. Waterfowl Population Estimation at Rasool Barrage,

Game Reserve, Jhelum, Pakistan (1996 – 2005). Pakistan J life Soc Sci. 8:11-15.

Ali Z. 2005. Ecology, distribution and conservation of migratory birds at Uchalli Wetlands

Complex, Punjab, Pakistan. Thesis PhD. University of the Punjab.

Ali Z, Akhtar M. 2005. Bird surveys at wetlands in Punjab, Pakistan, with special reference to

the present status of White-headed Duck Oxyura leucocephala. Forktail.21:43.

Altaf M, Javid A, Irfan, Munir MA, Ashraf S, Iqbal KJ, Umair M. 2013. Diversity, distribution

and ecology of birds in summer season flathead Khanki, Punjab, Pakistan. Biologia

(Pak).59:131-137.

Altaf M, Javid A, Munir M, Ashraf S, Umair M, Iqbal K, Khan A, Ali Z. 2014. Diversity of wild

mammalian fauna of Chenab riverine forest, Punjab, Pakistan. J Anim Plant Sci. 24:1342-

1347.

Anonymous 2007. Surface water quality monitoring in Punjab. In: Directorate of Land

Reclamation Punjab Canal Bank Moghalpura, Lahore.: Government of Punjab.

August PV. 1983. The role of habitat complexity and heterogeneity in structuring tropical

mammal communities. Ecology.1495-1507.

Cody ML. 1981. Habitat selection in birds: the roles of vegetation structure, competitors, and

productivity. BioScience.31:107-113.

Collar NJ, Crosby R, Crosby M. 2001. Threatened birds of Asia: the BirdLife International red

data book. UK: BirdLife International Cambridge.

Gorham E, Janssens JA. 1992. The paleorecord of geochemistry and hydrology in northern

peatlands and its relation to global change. Suo.43:117-126.

Experiment 1

Grimmett R, Roberts TJ, Inskipp T, Byers C. 2008. Birds of Pakistan. Pakistan: A&C Black.

Hammert Q, D. A. T. Harper & P. D., Ryan, . 2001. Past paleontological statistical software

package for education and data analysis. Palaeontol stat.4.

He F, Hubbell SP. 2011. Species-area relationships always overestimate extinction rates from

habitat loss. Nature.473:368-371.

Inskipp C, Baral HS, Inskipp T, Stattersfield A. 2013. The state of Nepal birds 2010. J Threat

Taxa. 5:3473-3503.

Iqbal M, Salem I, Ali Z, Khan MA, Akhtar M. 2011. Bird Ecology from the Ravi river of

Lahore: Habitat Degradation. J Anim Plant Sci.21:817-821.

IUCN 1989. Pakistan Fact Sheet Water. Journalist Resource Centre for the Environment.

IUCN Pakistan.

IUCN 2010. The IUCN the red list of threatened species. IUCN.

IUCN 2015. The IUCN the red list of threatened species. IUCN.

MacArthur RH, MacArthur JW. 1961. On bird species diversity. Ecology.42:594-598.

McKee JK, Sciulli PW, Fooce CD, Waite TA. 2004. Forecasting global biodiversity threats

associated with human population growth. Biol Conserv.115:161-164.

Mirza Z, Wasiq H. 2007. A field guide to the birds of Pakistan. Bookland, Lahore.

Pidgeon A, Mathews N, Benoit R, Nordheim E. 2001. Response of avian communities in the

northern Chihuahuan Desert to historic habitat change. Conserv Biol.15:1772-1788.

Roberts TJ. 1991. The birds of Pakistan. Pakistan: Oxford University Press Karachi.

Sibley CG, Monroe BL. 1990. Distribution and Taxonomy of Birds of the World.

Siddiqi T, Tahir-Kheli S. 2004. Water Needs in South Asia: Closing the Demand Supply Gap

(Honolulu, GEE-21).

Experiment 1

Thomas W, Poole C. 2003. An annotated list of the birds of Cambodia from 1859 to 1970.

Forktail.103-128.

Umair M. 2012. Distribution and Impact of Parthenium hysterophorous on Wetland Diversity

at Head Khanki, Pakistan. Thesis (unpublished): University of Gujrat, Gujrat.

Vié J-C, Hilton-Taylor C, Stuart SN. 2009. Wildlife in a changing world: an analysis of the 2008

IUCN Red List of threatened species. IUCN.

CHAPTER 3 EXPERIMENT 2

Title: HABITAT PREFERENCES OF AVIAN DIVERSITY ALONG THE RIVER

CHENAB, PAKISTAN.

M. Altaf1*, A. Javid1, M. Ashraf2, A. M. Khan3, M. Umair4, MSH khan5, Irfan1, SM Hussian6

and Z. Ali3

1Department of Wildlife and Ecology, University of the Veterinary and Animal Sciences,

Lahore, Pakistan

2Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture, University of the Veterinary and Animal Sciences,

Lahore, Pakistan

3Department of Zoology, University of the Punjab, Lahore, Pakistan

4School of Agriculture and Biology, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai

5Department of Wildlife, Ministry of Climate Change, Islamabad, Pakistan

6Department of Zoology, Government College University, Faislabad, Pakistan

Corresponding auther: [email protected]

This manuscript has been submitted in Acta Zoologica Bulgarica

Submitted date: February 2016

Impact Factor: 0.53

Experiment 2

Summary

The diversity and habitat preferences of avian species along the River Chenab were assessed for a period of one year extending from May 2013 through to April 2014. The study area was divided into different habitat types on the basis of vegetation and urbanization and was designated as forest habitat (FH), wetland habitat (WLH), rural forest habitat (RFH), agriculture habitat (AH), agriculture rural habitat (ARH), urban non vegetative habitat (UNVH) and urban vegetative habitat (UVH). Linear count method was applied and data was collected through direct and indirect observations. Total 150 avian species were recorded from all the habitat types along the River Chenab. Species richness was 17.37 and 109 avian species were recorded from

FH, the richness at WLH, FRH, AH, ARH and UVH was noted as 5.669 (51 species), 11.51 (95 species), 8.595 (60 species), 9.011 (74 species) and 5.051 (43 species), respectively. The lowest richness of 19 species (Margalef index value 2.364) was recorded from UNVH. Shannon Wiener index provides quantitative report of diversity which was highest at FH (4.261) followed by RFH

(3.746), ARH (3.746), AH (3.623), WLH (2.723), UVH (3.215) and UNVH (2.247). Similarly,

Simpson’s index (D) was recorded as a maximum of 0.978 at FH. It can be concluded that many of the avian species are habitat specific and the connection/corridors between similar habitat types might be fruitful for the conservation of avian species.

Key words: Punjab, Egret, Shannon, Tern, Pheasant.

1. Introduction

A rapid increase in human population has negatively affected the diversity through an increase in pollution, and changes in deforestation, habitat loss and invasion of exotic species (Bierwagen

2007). The urbanized areas are very much different from natural habitats of the species and, with the development of new residential areas and allied facilities, the ecosystems have been

Experiment 2 fragmented (McKinney 2002). Natural vegetations have been replaced either with exotic ornamental or with the plants having better yields (McNeill 2000; Holway and Suarez 2006).

Therefore, the natural ecosystems have been altered and changed in urbanized, peri-urban and forested landscapes. Up to some extent, moderate urbanization enhances diversity of some of the species by providing nesting and foraging sites (Blair 1996). However, in densely populated areas the natural vegetations have been removed leading to decreases in diversity and density of the biodiversity (Blair 2001).

It is noted that many researchers have no focused on urban diversity and ecosystem until 20th century; they only focused on the natural habitats (Roberts 1991,1992; Grimmett 1998; Mirza and Wasiq 2007). However, management and maintenance of urban ecosystems was considered during mid of the 20th century (McKinney 2002; Veech 2006; Pickett et al. 2011). At the end of

20th century, conservation and restoration of urbanized ecosystems became a much greater challenge (Miller and Hobbs 2002).

Asia was considered amongst most diversity rich continents, however, increases in human population has adversely affected the diversity of the region (McDonald et al. 2008) as the increasing population demanded more food and shelter resulting in agriculture intensification, urbanization, industrialization and pollution (Altaf et al. 2014). During the last 10,000 years, natural vegetations have been converted to agricultural lands; the generalist species adopted new habitats while the habitat specific species became extinct (Di Giulio et al. 2009). At the end of the 20th century, intense farming brought changes in land use (Stoate et al. 2009) and affected the diversity of the areas at massive scales. Population census of all the species in urbanized and per- urban areas is pre-requisite for conservation planning.

Experiment 2

The birds are good environmental indicators and help to identify priority areas for conservation.

Metrics, like species currently inhabiting any specific area, their historic distribution records and the levels of threat to the species aid in protection efforts (Myers 1990; Myers et al. 2000). Major threats to birds of Pakistan include illegal hunting, urbanization, agriculture intensification, eutrophication, pollution and livestock grazing. These threats are leading species towards extinction. The present project was therefore designed to evaluate the anthropogenic impacts on avian diversity along River Chenab, Pakistan.

2. Materials and methods

2.1. Study area

District Gujranwala covers an area of 3,622 Km2, and is amongst the most populated cities of

Pakistan with a population of 4.48 million (Sheikh 2012a). District Gujrat covers an area of

3,192 Km2 with a population of 2.44 million (Sheikh 2012b). District Sialkot covers an area of

3,016 Km2 with a population of 3.303 million (Sheikh 2012c). Seven sites were selected from each district (table 1).

Table 1. GPS coordinates of various sampling stations in the study area.

Sampling Stations Habitat Types Location Elevation (ft) District Sialkot Head Marala Forest Habitat 32o39'59 N, 74o28'05 E 811 Head Marala Wetland Habitat 32o38'08 N, 74o22'27 E 801 Motra agriculture Agriculture Habitat 32o24'40 N, 74o24'47 E 840 Bahlolpur Rural Forest Habitat 32o34'55 N, 74o25'41 E 840 Motra Agri-Rural Habitat 32o23'07 N, 74o25'18 E 777 Latifa bad Urban Non Vegetative Habitat 32o29'42 N, 74o32'05 E 840 Murad Pur Urban Vegetative Habitat 32o31'09 N, 74o30'05 E 808 District Gujrat Head Khanki Forest Habitat 32о28'32 N, 73о03'39 E 712 Head Khanki Wetland Habitat 32о25'52 N, 73о59'53 E 728 Kunjah Agriculture Agriculture Habitat 32о30'57 N, 73о57'22 E 734 Ghazi Chak Rural Forest habitat 32о30'00 N, 73о05'39 E 739 Kunjah Agri-Rural Habitat 32о31'52 N, 73о58'29 E 735 Walled City Urban Non Vegetative Habitat 32о34'26 N, 74о04'39 E 802

Experiment 2

Green Town Urban Vegetative Habitat 32о33'27 N, 74о04'39 E 756 District Gujranwala Head Qadirabad Forest Habitat 32о19'06 N, 073о41'36E 683 Head Qadirabad Wetland Habitat 32о22'06 N, 073о49'06E 700 Verpal Agriculture Agriculture Habitat 32о14'38 N, 073о53'04E 701 Kot Hara Rural Forest Habitat 32о16'06 N, 073о42'22E 695 Varpal Chattha Agri-Rural Habitat 32о13'02 N, 073о54'26E 704 Noor Bawa Urban Non Vegetative Habitat 32о09'44 N, 074о10'56E 758 Qila Sundar Singh Urban Vegetative Habitat 32о08'33 N, 074о10'00E 731

2.2. Evaluation of landscape

The study area was divided into different habitat types on the basis of vegetation and human habitations. The coordinates of the selected sites were taken and a GIS based map of the study area was prepared. The habitat types included (1) forest habitat (FH), consisting of totally wild plantation, (2) wetland habitat (WLH) consisted of water catchment area and some submerged and merged plants, (3) rural forest habitat (RFH) consisted of houses as well as forest plantations, (4) agriculture habitat (AH) was comprised of agriculture land and plantations in hedgerows, (5) agriculture rural habitat (ARH) consisted of agriculture land along with houses,

(6) urban non vegetative habitat (UNVH) consisted of houses, roads and have almost no plantation; and urban vegetative habitats (UVH) consisted of houses along with few plantations

(figure 1).

2.3.Climate

The study area along River Chenab is hot and humid during summer and cold during winter.

June and July are the hottest months with an average temperature of 40ºC temperature; while temperature during winter (November to January) may drop to 4ºC. The terrain is plain and contains fertile soil (Anonymous 2007).

Experiment 2

Figure 1. Map of study area showing forest, wetland, rural, agriculture, urban and semi-urban habitat types in the study area.

Experiment 2

1.1.Floral diversity

Prominent aquatic vegetation of the study area includes hydrilla (Hydrilla verticillata), water lily (Nymphaea lotus), horned pondweed (Zannichellia palustris), reed (Phragmites karka), curly- leaf pondweed (Potamogeton crispus), Indian lotus (Nelumbo nucifera), lesser Indian reed mace (Typha angustata), eel grass (Vallisneria spiralis), muskgrass (Chara sp.) and lyngbye's sedge (Carex fedia).

Important natural vegetation of the surrounding plains includes athel (Tamarix aphylla), jand

(Prosopis cineraria), kans grass (Saccharum spontaneurn), goose grass (Eleusine compressa), shisham (Dalbergia sissoo), Indian plum (Zizyphus mauritiana) and Kikar or thorn-tree (Acacia nilotica) (Roberts 1984). Most common weed species of the study area include common cockle- bur (Xanthium strumarium), burra gokharu (Tribulus terrestris L.), prostrate spurge (Euphorbia prostrata L.), white-top weed (Parthenium hysterophorus), devil's horsewhip (Achyranthes aspera), Indian doab (Cynodon dactylon), slender amaranth (Amaranthus viridis), and marijuana

(Cannabis sativa). Wheat (Triticum aestivum), rice (Oryza sativa) and pea plants (Pisum sativum) are the prominent crop of the area (Umair et al. 2013).

1.2. Methodology

The data regarding diversity and distribution of avian species along different habitats was collected from May 2013 through April 2014 during dawn and dusk hours on a monthly basis. A linear count survey method was used to determine avian diversity along different habitats and direct (total/physical count and calls or voices) and indirect (nests, marks on trees, and group questionnaire survey) observations were taken. Binoculars were used to observe the birds and

Roberts (1991, 1992), Grimmett et al. (1998) and Mirza and Wasiq (2007) were consulted to correctly identify the species.

1.3. Data Analysis

Experiment 2

Statistical analysis PAST version 2.17c was applied to determine the Simpson diversity,

Shannon Wiener (H) and Margalef (R) diversity indices, Evenness (E), and Dominance

(Hammert et al. 2001). Principle Component Analysis (PCA) was used to examine relationships between avian fauna and habitat variables and Cluster Analysis (CA) was applied to observe similarities among the different habitats.

Census index was computed through following formula;

Census Index (density) = n/area (hectare)

Where n = numbers of birds

3. Results

3.1. Species diversity

During present survey, a total of 150 avian species were identified from all the habitat types along the River Chenab (table 2). Species richness was 17.37 and 109 avian species were recorded from FH, the richness at WLH, FRH, AH, ARH and UVH was noted as 5.669 (51 species), 11.51 (95 species), 8.595 (60 species), 9.011 (74 species) and 5.051 (43 species), respectively. The lowest richness of 19 species (Margalef index value 2.364) was recorded from

UNVH (table 3).

Shannon Wiener index provides quantitative report of diversity which was highest at FH

(4.261) followed by RFH (3.746), ARH (3.746), AH (3.623), WLH (2.723), UVH (3.215) and

UNVH (2.247). Similarly, Simpson’s index (D) was recorded as a maximum of 0.978 at FH, followed by ARH (0.966), AH (0.9592), FRH (0.954), WLH (0.8796), UVH (0.9487) and

Experiment 2

UNVH (0.867) as shown in table 3. One Endangered (0.7%), six Near Threatened (4%), 2

Vulnerable (1.3%) and 141 Least Concern (94%) species was recorded from the study area (table

2).

3.2. Species densities

Maximum species density with avian population of 6770 (bird sightings) was recorded from the

WLH, followed by UVH (4087 sightings), FRH (3523 sightings), ARH (3299 sightings), UNVH

(2025 sightings) and very least at FH (501 sightings). Highest dominance was recorded from

UVNH (0.133) while the same was lowest (0.02204) at FH (table 3).

3.3. Feeding habits

The feeding habits of the avian species were recorded and it was observed that 4 % of the species were herbivore, 18 % omnivore, 1 % frugivore, 9% granivore, 28% insectivore, 25% carnivore and 15% were 22 Piscivore. A total of 57 (38%) species were resident, 11 (2.3%) were summer breeders, 72 (48%) were winter visitors and 10 (6.7%) species were year round visitors (table 2).

The data indicated that the habitat specific species recorded are enlisted in Red Data Book such as black-bellied tern (EN), snake bird (NT), painted stork (NT), Indian river tern (NT), red necked falcon (NT), Kashmir roller (NT), long-tailed grass (NT) and Indian skimmer (VU) %) and are more prone to extinction (table 2).

3.4. Habitat preferences of avian species

Cluster analysis indicated that there the species were mainly inhabiting two habitats, Group (G1) has only one habitat WLH while Group (G2) was further divided into two sub groups i.e. Sub

Group 1 (SG1) and Sub Group 2 (SG2), both these subgroups showed negative interaction with

Experiment 2 each other. SG1 was further consisted of two habitats i.e. UVH and UNVH and had strong interactions (0.96). SG2 was further subdivided into two sub-groups designated as Sub Group 2-I

(SG2-I) and Sub Group 2-II (SG2-II), both showed lower values for similarity (0.04). SG2-I was further subdivided into two habitats i.e. FH and RFH and both these habitats showed high similarity (0.96). SG2-II was further comprised of two habitats i.e. AH and ARH that had similarity of 0.96 (figure 2).

Figure 2. Cluster analysis showing usage of various habitat types by the avian species of the study area (UVH = Urban vegetative habitat; UNVH = Urban non vegetative habitat; ARH = Agriculture rural habitat; AH = Agriculture habitat; FH = Forest habitat; RFH = Rural forest habitat).

The first two axes of the principal component analysis (PCA) explained 82.2% of variation in the sampled avian community (Component 1: 65.81 %; Component 2: 16.4%). Variables loading onto Component 1 included Rural Forest Habitats (RFH) (r = -0.6), Urban Vegetative Habitats

(UVH) (r = -0.4) and Agriculture Habitats (AH) (r = 0.2). The direction and magnitude of these associations shows that component 1 synthesized response of avian community to semi-urban 46

Experiment 2 and urban habitats as well as can be documented as a gradient of development extent. Natural and disturbed habitats also loaded onto component 2 (UNVH: r = 1.35; WLH: r = 0.3; ARH: r =

0.78 and FH: r = 0.3). Each principal component is not correlated with component 1; similarly, avian community patterns extracted by component 2 are not related to those explained by component 1. PCA indicated that the habitats are different from each other and anthropogenic impacts are playing major role in shaping bird communities (figure 3).

Figure 3. Principal components analysis showing diversity and distribution of avian species (codes are mentioned in table 2) across different habitats (UVH = Urban vegetative habitat; UNVH = Urban non vegetative habitat; ARH = Agriculture rural habitat; AH = Agriculture habitat; FH = Forest habitat; RFH = Rural forest habitat).

4. Discussions

During the present survey, a decline in avian species diversity was observed from natural to urban habitats. Various avian species viz. bonnelli's eagle, Eurasian kestrel, little crake, snowy plover,

Experiment 2 koel, ashy crowned finch lark, greater short-toed lark, Richard pipit, tawny pipit, tree pipit, black redstart, white-tailed bushchat, Isabelline wheatear, Eastern wheatear, long-tailed grass warbler, moustached sedge warbler, Blyth's reed warbler, booted warbler, Brooks's leaf warbler, Sind babbler, great tit, Spanish sparrow, common rosefinch, reed bunting, little grebe, little cormorant, snake bird, yellow bittern, purple heron, painted stork, bar-headed goose, common shelduck, ruddy shelduck, mallard, common teal, gadwall, Eurasian wigeon, garganey, shoveler, tufted duck, common pochard, pintail duck, Eurasian coot, common crane, pied avocet, Indian courser, little stint, Temminck's stint, dunlin, jack snipe, marsh sandpiper, greenshank, green sandpiper, wood sandpiper, lesser black-headed gull, gull-billed tern, Indian river tern, black-bellied tern, little tern, whiskered tern and Indian skimmer declined from natural landscapes to urban gardient

(table 2). Similar observations have been reported by researchers (White et al. 2005; Clergeau et al. 2006; Grimm et al. 2008; Chamberlain et al. 2009; Fontana et al. 2011; Slabbekoorn 2013) from different parts of the world.

However, avian certain species black kite, red-wattled lapwing, Oriental turtle dove, blue rock pigeon, Indian ring dove, red turtle dove, little brown dove, large Indian parakeet, rose- ringed parakeet, little swift, common hoopoe, collard sand martin, red-vented bulbul, purple sunbird, common myna, bank myna, house crow, common rock chat and house sparrow preferred either semi-urbanized or urbanized landscapes. These findings are supported by the researchers working on avian diversity from different countries (Allen and O’Conner, 2000; Bock et al.,

2001; Pauw and Louw, 2012; Akram et al. 2015; Clucas and Marzluff 2016). Similarly, many species preferred slightly disturbed areas and high species diversity and dominance were recorded from these landscapes (table 2).

Experiment 2

The survey indicated that the type of habitat and availability of food are the major factors affecting species distribution. Specialized birds viz. piscivores, carnivores (except hoopoe), frugivores and herbivores were not recorded from intensively urbanized landscapes; on the other hand, omnivores, insectivores and granivores were recorded in large numbers from highly urbanized areas. These observations are comparable to the findings of many scientists

(Fernández-Juricic 2004; Devictor et al. 2007; Clavel et al. 2010). In highly urbanized areas, availability of food stuffs in the form of garbage and the shelters in houses might attract avian species and these factors can enhance species dominance in intensively urbanized areas. In addition, few people love to feed the wild birds. Similarly, a positive correlation has been reported between insect diversity and urbanized areas. Due to these reasons, omnivore insectivore and granivore avian species have high dominance in urban landscapes (Jokimaki, 1996; Evans et al. 2015).

Dominance and richness of certain avian species such as common rosefinch, red-headed bunting, long-tailed grass warbler, moustached sedge warbler, lesser whitethroat, brooks's leaf warbler, black redstart, white-tailed bushchat and spotted little owlet was high in natural habitats as compared to the urbanized landscapes. These species are are shy, dislike human disturbances and are restricted in natural habitats.

It was also observed during the present study that the agricultural intensification has y affected avian diversity of the area. The diversity of the birds was higher in natural undisturbed areas as compared to the agricultural landscapes. Agriculture practices viz. use of chemicals, farming operations after harvesting of crops and increase in predation rate are the major factors of species decline in agricultural areas. However, a positive correlation existed between avian diversity with farmsteads and hedgerows (Fernández-Juricic 2004; Golawski and Kasprzykowski

Experiment 2

2011; Hiron et al. 2013). It is evident from ecological studies of avian species that predation is one of the major causes of avian species decline. This is because the number of predators increases in agricultural areas and the avian species of these areas are more prone to extinction

(Thirgood et al. 2000; Whittingham and Evans 2004; Seress et al., 2015).

Urban vegetative habitats and rural forest habitats were the only habitat variables correlated with major habitats of principle component analysis (PCA). These variables were also negatively correlated with urban habitats, indicating decrease in diversity with loss of habitat. It was further observed that the specialized species are restricted to natural habitats. These findings are in line with the resuls of other researchers (Fraterrigo and Wiens 2005; Evans et al. 2015;

Menon et al. 2015; Menon and Mohanraj 2016).

Conclusion

The landscape gradients are the factors that affecting the diversity and distribution of avian species. Based on our statistical analysis, we can predict the avian diversity and distribution in a given landscape gradients. It is noted that avian species react rapidly to anthropogenic impact. Conservation and restoration plans for avian species, especially forest diversity, should be measured in the large-scale. However, small green spaces and corridors are important for avian conservation in the urban habitats from where large forest patches have declined. Conservation plans must be focused for the management of urbanization.

References

Altaf M, Javid A, Irfan, Munir MA, Ashraf S, Umair M, Iqbal KJ, Khan AM, Ali Z. 2014.

Diversity of wild Mammalian fauna of Chenab riverine forest, Punjab, Pakistan. J Anim

Plant Sci.24:1342-1347.

Experiment 2

Akram F, Ilyas O, and Prusty A. 2015. Impact of Urbanization on Bird Community Structure in

and around Aligarh City, U.P.India. IJETSR. 2(10): 1-11.

Anonymous. 2007. Surface water quality monitoring in Punjab. In: Directorate of Land

Reclamation Punjab Canal Bank Moghalpura, Lahore. Government of Punjab.

Bierwagen BG. 2007. Connectivity in urbanizing landscapes: The importance of habitat

configuration, urban area size, and dispersal. Urban ecosyst.10:29-42.

Blair RB. 1996. Land use and avian species diversity along an urban gradient. Ecol appl.6:506-

519.

Blair RB. 2001. Birds and butterflies along urban gradients in two ecoregions of the United

States: is urbanization creating a homogeneous fauna? In: Biotic homogenization.

Springer. p. 33-56.

Chamberlain D, Cannon A, Toms M, Leech D, Hatchwell B, Gaston K. 2009. Avian productivity

in urban landscapes: a review and meta‐analysis. Ibis.151:1-18.

Clavel J, Julliard R, Devictor V. 2010. Worldwide decline of specialist species: toward a global

functional homogenization? Front Ecol Environ.9:222-228.

Clergeau P, Jokimäki J, Snep R. 2006. Using hierarchical levels for urban ecology. Trend Ecol

Evol.21:660-661.

Clucas, B. and Marzluff, J.M., 2016. A cross-continental look at the patterns of avian species

diversity and composition across an urbanisation gradient.Wildlife Research, 42(7): 554-

562.

Experiment 2

Devictor V, Julliard R, Couvet D, Lee A, Jiguet F. 2007. Functional homogenization effect of

urbanization on bird communities. Conserv Biol.21:741-751.

Di Giulio M, Holderegger R, Tobias S. 2009. Effects of habitat and landscape fragmentation on

humans and biodiversity in densely populated landscapes. J Environ Manage.90:2959-

2968.

Evans, B.S., Ryder, T.B., Reitsma, R., Hurlbert, A.H. and Marra, P.P., 2015. Characterizing

avian survival along a rural‐to‐urban land use gradient.Ecology, 96(6), pp.1631-1640.

Fernández-Juricic E. 2004. Spatial and temporal analysis of the distribution of forest specialists

in an urban-fragmented landscape (Madrid, Spain): implications for local and regional

bird conservation. Landsc Urban Plan.69:17-32.

Fontana S, Sattler T, Bontadina F, Moretti M. 2011. How to manage the urban green to improve

bird diversity and community structure. Landsc Urban Plan.101:278-285.

Fraterrigo JM, Wiens JA. 2005. Bird communities of the Colorado Rocky Mountains along a

gradient of exurban development. Landsc Urban Plan.71:263-275.

Golawski A, Kasprzykowski Z. 2011. The significance of cereal stubble and manure heaps for

birds wintering in the farmland of eastern Poland. Ardeola.58:277-286.

Grimm NB, Faeth SH, Golubiewski NE, Redman CL, Wu J, Bai X, Briggs JM. 2008. Global

change and the ecology of cities. Science.319:756-760.

Grimmett R, Inskipp, C. & Inskip, T. 1998. Birds of the Indian subcontinent. Christopher

Helm an imprint of A and C Black (Publisher) Ltd, 35 Bedford Row, London

WCIR 4JH. 52

Experiment 2

Hammert Q, Harper DAT, Ryan PD. 2001. Past paleontological statistical software package

for education and data analysis. Palaeontol Stat.4.

Hiron M, Berg Å, Eggers S, Josefsson J, Pärt T. 2013. Bird diversity relates to agri-environment

schemes at local and landscape level in intensive farmland. Agriculture, Ecosyst

Environ.176:9-16.

Holway DA, Suarez AV. 2006. Homogenization of ant communities in mediterranean California:

the effects of urbanization and invasion. Biol Conserv.127:319-326.

Jokimaki J. 1996. Patterns of bird communities in urban environments. PhD Thesis, University

of Lapland, Arctic Centre Reports 16, Finland.

Menon M, Devi MP, Nandagopalan, V, Mohanraj R. 2015. Species Diversity and Functional

Assemblages of Bird Fauna along the Riverine Habitats of Tiruchirappalli, India. In

Environmental Management of River Basin Ecosystems.729-748. Earth System Sci. 729-

748.

Menon, M. and Mohanraj, R., 2016. Temporal and spatial assemblages of invasive birds

occupying the urban landscape and its gradient in a southern city of India. J. Asia-Pacific

Biodivers. 9:74-84.

McDonald RI, Kareiva P, Forman RT. 2008. The implications of current and future urbanization

for global protected areas and biodiversity conservation. Biol Conserv.141:1695-1703.

McKinney ML. 2002. Urbanization, Biodiversity, and Conservation The impacts of urbanization

on native species are poorly studied, but educating a highly urbanized human population

Experiment 2

about these impacts can greatly improve species conservation in all ecosystems.

BioScience.52:883-890.

McNeill JR. 2000. Something New Under the Sun: An Environmental History of the Twentieth-

Century World (The Global Century Series). WW Norton and Company.

Miller JR, Hobbs RJ. 2002. Conservation where people live and work. Conserv Biol.16:330-337.

Mirza ZB, Wasiq H. 2007. A field guide to birds of Pakistan Bookland, Lahore.

Myers JH, Simberloff D, Kuris AM, Carey JR. 2000. Eradication revisited: dealing with exotic

species. Trends in Ecol Evol.15:316-320.

Myers N. 1990. The biodiversity challenge: expanded hot-spots analysis.

Environmentalist.10:243-256.

Pickett S, Cadenasso M, Grove JM, Boone CG, Groffman PM, Irwin E, Kaushal SS, Marshall V,

McGrath BP, Nilon CH. 2011. Urban ecological systems: Scientific foundations and a

decade of progress. J Envirn Manage.92:331-362.

Roberts TJ. 1984. Brief Review of the Status of Wetlands in Pakistan. . Proceedings of the

Asian Continental Section Conference of ICBP: ICBP.

Roberts TJ. 1991. The Birds of Pakistan Karachi Oxford University Press.

Roberts TJ. 1992. The Birds of Pakistan. Karachi: Oxford University Press.

Seress G, Liker A. 2015. Habitat urbanization and its effects on birds. Acta Zool. Acad. Sci.

Hungaricae. 61(4):373-408.

Experiment 2

Sheikh MS. 2012a. District Pre-Investment Study – 2012, Gujranwala. In. p. 1-376.

Sheikh MS. 2012b. District Pre-Investment Study – 2012, Gujrat. In. p. 1-28.

Sheikh MS. 2012c. District Pre-Investment Study – 2012, Sialkot. In. p. 1-31.

Slabbekoorn H. 2013. Songs of the city: noise-dependent spectral plasticity in the acoustic

phenotype of urban birds. Anim Behav.85:1089-1099.

Stoate C, Báldi A, Beja P, Boatman N, Herzon I, Van Doorn A, De Snoo G, Rakosy L, Ramwell

C. 2009. Ecological impacts of early 21st century agricultural change in Europe–a

review. J Environ Manage.91:22-46.

Thirgood SJ, Redpath SM, Haydon DT, Rothery P, Newton I, Hudson PJ. 2000. Habitat loss and

raptor predation: disentangling long–and short–term causes of red grouse declines.

Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B: Biol Sci.267:651-656.

Umair M, Ilyas U, Altaf M. 2013. Diversity and Ecology of Parthenium weeds ar head khanki,

Pakistan. Lambert Academic Publishing.

Veech JA. 2006. A comparison of landscapes occupied by increasing and decreasing populations

of grassland birds. Conserv biol.20:1422-1432.

White JG, Antos MJ, Fitzsimons JA, Palmer GC. 2005. Non-uniform bird assemblages in urban

environments: the influence of streetscape vegetation. Lands Urban Plan.71:123-135.

Whittingham MJ, Evans KL. 2004. The effects of habitat structure on predation risk of birds in

agricultural landscapes. Ibis.146:210-220.

Experiment 2

Table 2. Scientific and common names, food habits (FH), distribution (Dist.), IUCN status (Status) and code of avian species recorded from the study area.

Scientific name Common Name Family Order FH Dist. Status Code WLH FH RFH AH ARH UVH UVNH Milvus migrans Black Kite Accipitridae Accipitriformes Omnivore R LC BK 0 9 127 106 205 230 410 migrans Elanus caeruleus Black Winged Kite Accipitridae Accipitriformes Carnivore R LC BWK 0 2 9 6 14 0 0 Buteo buteo Common Buzzard Accipitridae Accipitriformes Carnivore Y LC CB 0 3 7 4 23 0 0 Aquila rapax Tawny Eagle Accipitridae Accipitriformes Carnivore R LC LE 0 2 11 5 21 0 0 nipalensis Pernis ptilorhynchus Crested Honey Accipitridae Accipitriformes Carnivore Y LC CHB 0 12 6 0 21 0 0 Buzzard Buteo rufinus Long-legged Accipitridae Accipitriformes Carnivore W LC LLB 0 5 13 0 0 0 0 Buzzard Hieraaetus fasciatus Bonnelli's Eagle Accipitridae Accipitriformes Carnivore W LC BE 0 5 8 0 0 0 0 Falco tinnunculus Eurasian Kestrel Accipitridae Accipitriformes Carnivore W LC EK 0 3 6 0 0 0 0 Eremopterix grisea Ashy Crowned Alaudidae Passeriformes Granivore R LC ACFL 0 5 5 0 0 0 0 Finch lark Calandrella Greater Short-toed Alaudidae Passeriformes Granivore W LC GSTL 0 3 6 0 0 0 0 brachydactyla Lark Alauda gulgula Small Skylark Alaudidae Passeriformes Granivore W LC SS 0 4 0 0 9 0 0 Alauda arvensis Common/Eurasian Alaudidae Passeriformes Granivore W LC EL 0 3 0 0 14 0 0 Lark Halcyon smyrnensis White-throated Alcedinidae Coraciiformes Piscivore R LC WTKF 8 0 0 10 0 0 0 Kingfisher Alcedo atthis Common Alcedinidae Coraciiformes Piscivore R LC CKF 28 1 9 20 0 0 0 Kingfisher Ceryle rudis Small Pied Alcedinidae Coraciiformes Piscivore R LC SPKF 110 2 16 6 0 0 0 kingfisher Tadorna ferruginea Common Shelduck Anatidae Anseriformes Carnivore W LC COS 53 0 0 0 0 0 0 Tadorna tadorna Ruddy Shelduck Anatidae Anseriformes Carnivore W LC RUS 116 0 0 0 0 0 0 Anas platyrhynchos Mallard Anatidae Anseriformes Omnivore W LC MA 117 0 0 0 0 0 0 Anas crecca Common Teal Anatidae Anseriformes Carnivore W LC COT 87 0 0 0 0 0 0 Anas strepera Gadwall Anatidae Anseriformes Insectivore W LC GA 101 0 0 0 0 0 0 Anas penelope Eurasian Wigeon Anatidae Anseriformes Granivore W LC EUW 95 0 0 0 0 0 0 Anas querquedula Garganey Anatidae Anseriformes Omnivore W LC GAR 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 Anas clypeata Shoveler Anatidae Anseriformes Carnivore W LC SH 26 0 0 0 0 0 0

Experiment 2

Aythya fuligula Tufted Duck Anatidae Anseriformes Omnivore W LC TD 33 0 0 0 0 0 0 Aythya ferina Common Pochard Anatidae Anseriformes Omnivore W LC CPO 30 0 0 0 0 0 0 Anus actus Pintail Duck Anatidae Anseriformes Herbivore W LC PID 21 0 0 0 0 0 0 Anhinga melanogaster Snake Bird Anhingidae Suliformes Piscivore Y NT SB 63 0 0 0 0 0 0 Anser indicus Bar-headed Goose Anserinae Anseriformes Herbivore W LC BAG 50 0 0 0 0 0 0 Apus affinis Little Swift Apodidae Apodiformes Insectivore R LC LS 0 12 84 0 120 154 29 Nycticorax nycticorax Night Heron Ardeidae Pelecaniformes Piscivore S LC NH 145 2 9 5 0 0 0 Ardeola grayii Indian Pond Heron Ardeidae Pelecaniformes Piscivore R LC IPH 214 1 17 15 0 0 0 Bubulcus ibis Cattle Egret Ardeidae Pelecaniformes Piscivore R LC CE 145 2 49 45 68 159 0 Egretta garzetta Little Egret Ardeidae Pelecaniformes Piscivore Y LC LE 971 4 34 87 60 153 0 Egretta intermedia Intermediate Egret Ardeidae Pelecaniformes Piscivore Y LC IH 1577 0 7 26 77 146 0 Exobrychus sinensis Chinies/Yellow Ardeidae Pelecaniformes Piscivores Y LC YB 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 Bittern Egretta alba Large Egret Ardeidae Pelecaniformes Piscivore R LC LAE 1303 1 2 0 3 0 0 Ardea cinerea Grey Heron Ardeidae Pelecaniformes Piscivore W LC GH 220 0 0 0 13 9 0 Ardea cinerea Purple Heron Ardeidae Pelecaniformes Piscivore R LC PH 244 0 0 0 0 0 0 Tephrodornis Lesser/Common Campephagidae Passeriformes Carnivore R LC CWS 0 1 31 0 46 0 0 pondicerianus Wood Shrike Pericrocotus ethologus Long-tailed Campephagidae Passeriformes Insectivore W LC LTM 0 2 15 0 0 0 0 Minivet Caprimulgus European Nightjar Caprimulgidae Caprimulgiformes Insectivore W LC EN 0 4 12 0 0 0 0 europaeus Hoplopterus indicus Red-wattled Charadrius Charadriiformes Insectivore R LC RWL 0 22 38 34 154 180 15 Lapwing Charadrius Snowy Plover Charadrius Charadriiformes Carnivore W LC SP 0 2 9 0 0 0 0 alexandrinus Vanellus vanellus Great Plover Charadrius Charadriiformes Carnivore W LC GP 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 Mycteria leucocephala Painted Stork Ciconiidae Ciconiiformes Piscivore W NT PAS 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 Streptopelia orientalis Oriental Turtle Columbidae Columbiformes Granivore W LC OTD 0 6 93 7 12 50 13 Dove Columba livia Blue Rock Pigeon Columbidae Columbiformes Granivore R LC BRP 0 4 68 10 34 40 16 Streptopelia decaocto Indian Ring Dove Columbidae Columbiformes Granivore R LC IRD 0 7 58 8 108 103 28 Streptopelia Red Turtle Dove Columbidae Columbiformes Granivore S LC LTD 0 6 103 6 98 93 0 tranquebarica Streptopelia Little Brown Dove Columbidae Columbiformes Granivore R LC LBD 0 8 83 13 97 120 5 senegalensis Coracias benghalensis Indian Roller/Blue Coracidae Coraciiformes Carnivore R LC BJ 0 4 34 7 14 0 0 Jay 57

Experiment 2

Coracias garrulus Kashmir Roller Coracidae Coraciiformes Carnivore R NT KR 0 0 2 0 7 0 0 Dendrocitta Indian Tree Pie Corvidae Passeriformes Frugivore R LC ITP 0 6 18 6 6 11 0 vagabunda Corvus splendens House Crow Corvidae Passeriformes Omnivore R LC HC 0 33 280 68 310 405 345 Clamator jacobinus Pied Crested Cuculidae Cuculiformes Insectivore S LC PCC 0 9 38 7 0 0 0 Cuckoo Centropus sinensis Common Crow Cuculidae Cuculiformes Omnivore R LC CCP 0 3 12 30 107 0 0 Pheasant Eudynamys scolopacea Koel Cuculidae Cuculiformes Frugivore S LC K 0 4 12 0 0 0 0 Dicrurus macrocercus Black Drongo/King Dicruridae Passeriformes Insectivore R LC KC 0 11 32 33 82 0 0 Crow Emberiza schoeniclus Reed Bunting Emberizidae Passeriformes Insectivore W LC RB 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 Emberiza bruniceps Red-headed Emberizidae Passeriformes Insectivore W LC RHB 0 4 10 0 0 0 0 Bunting Lonchura malabarica Indian Silverbill Estrildidae Passeriformes Granivore R LC IS 0 2 4 3 6 0 0 Amandava amandava Red Munia Estrildidae Passeriformes Insectivore R LC RM 0 3 9 0 6 0 0 Falco chicquera Red Necked Falcon Falconidae Falconiformes Carnivore Y NT RNF 0 2 0 3 9 0 0 Carpodacus Common Fringillidae Passeriformes Granivore W LC CR 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 erythrinus Rosefinch Cursorius Indian Courser Glareolidae Charadriiformes Insectivore W LC INC 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 coromandelicus Grus grus Common Crane Gruidae Gruiformes Omnivore W LC COC 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 Riparia paludicola Indian Sindh Hirundinidae Passeriformes Insectivore R LC ISM 0 5 31 8 24 107 0 Martin Riparia riparia Collard Sand Hirundinidae Passeriformes Insectivore W LC CSM 0 6 59 30 45 73 0 Martin Hirundo rustica Common Swallow Hirundinidae Passeriformes Granivore W LC CS 0 4 131 24 40 300 64 Hirundo smithii Wire-tailed Hirundinidae Passeriformes Granivore S LC WTS 0 2 92 8 13 121 6 Swallow Larus fuscus Lesser Black- Laridae Charadriiformes Carnivore W LC LBHG 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 headed Gull Merops orientalis Little Green Bee- Meropidae Coraciiformes Insectivore R LC LGBE 0 4 42 11 71 0 0 eater Merops superciliosus Blue-cheeked Bee- Meropidae Coraciiformes Insectivore S LC BCBE 0 1 4 7 8 0 0 eater Motacilla citreola Yellow-headed Motacillidae Passeriformes Insectivore W LC YHGB 0 2 15 6 9 87 0 were Grey-backed W Wagtail Motacilla alba Siberian Pied Motacillidae Passeriformes Insectivore W LC SPW 0 4 20 7 13 58 0 dukhunensis Wagtail Anthus Richard Motacillidae Passeriformes Insectivore R LC TP 0 1 7 0 0 0 0 novaeseelandiae Pipit/Paddy Pipit Anthus campestris Tawny Pipit Motacillidae Passeriformes Insectivore W LC TPI 0 3 12 0 0 0 0

Experiment 2

Anthus trivialis Tree Pipit Motacillidae Passeriformes Insectivore W LC TRPI 0 3 14 0 0 0 0 Motacilla alba Hodgeson's Pied Motacillidae Passeriformes Insectivore W LC HPW 0 3 12 0 0 8 0 alboides Wagtail Motacilla citreola Yellow-Headed Motacillidae Passeriformes Insectivore W LC YHBC 0 2 23 0 8 0 0 citreola Black-Collared W Wagtail Motacilla citreola Yellow-headed Motacillidae Passeriformes Insectivore W LC YHBB 0 4 7 0 6 6 0 calcarata Black-backed W Wagtail Motacilla cinerea Grey Wagtail Motacillidae Passeriformes Insectivore W LC GWAG 0 2 16 4 10 74 0 Motacilla Large Pied Wagtail Motacillidae Passeriformes Insectivore R LC LPWA 0 2 15 0 9 0 0 maderaspatensis G Ficedula parva Red-breasted Muscicapidae Passeriformes Insectivore W LC RBF 0 2 13 3 10 7 0 Flycatcher Rhipidura aureola White-browned Muscicapidae Passeriformes Insectivore R LC WBFF 0 2 15 0 10 8 0 Fantail Flycatcher Nectarinia asiatica Purple Sunbird Nectariniidae Passeriformes Omnivore S LC PS 0 5 42 0 33 27 30 Oriolus oriolus Golden Oriole Oriolidae Passeriformes Insectivore W LC GO 0 3 9 7 8 0 0 Parus major Great Tit Paridae Passeriformes Insectivore W LC GT 0 3 7 0 0 0 0 Passer domesticus House Sparrow Passeridae Passeriformes Omnivore R LC HS 0 11 101 24 125 215 238 Passer hispaniolensis Spanish Sparrow Passeridae Passeriformes Omnivore W LC SS 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 Phalacrocorax niger Little Cormorant Phalacrocoracidae Suliformes Piscivore Y LC LC 79 2 0 0 0 0 0 Francolinus Black partridge Phasianidae Accipitriformes Herbivore R LC BP 0 7 23 8 63 0 0 francolinus Francolinus Indian Grey Phasianidae Accipitriformes Herbivore R LC IGP 0 8 23 6 15 0 0 pondicerianus Partridge Coturnix coturnix Common Quail Phasianidae Accipitriformes Herbivore S LC CQ 0 5 0 6 50 0 0 Ploceus philippinus Baya Weaver Ploceidae Passeriformes Carnivore R LC BW 0 0 0 24 66 0 0 Tachybaptus ruficollis Little Grebe Podicipedidae Podicipediformes Piscivore R LC LG 16 1 0 0 0 0 0 Psittacula eupatria Large Indian Psittacidae Psittaciformes Omnivore R LC LIP 0 5 5 4 25 16 3 Parakeet Psitta krameri Rose-Ringed Psittacidae Psittaciformes Omnivore R LC RRP 0 4 16 5 17 11 1 Parakeet Pycnonotus leucogenys White-cheeked Pycnonotidae Passeriformes Omnivore R LC WCBU 0 2 15 9 15 0 0 Bulbul Pycnonotus cafer Red-vented Bulbul Pycnonotidae Passeriformes Omnivore R LC RVBU 0 12 43 4 72 198 135 Amaurornis White-breasted Rallidae Gruiformes Omnivore R LC WBW 100 1 14 5 13 5 0 phoenicurus Waterhen Gallinula chloropus Common Moorhen Rallidae Gruiformes Omnivore R LC COM 130 2 13 16 16 4 0 Rallus aquaticus Water Rail Rallidae Gruiformes Omnivore W LC WR 0 7 0 0 48 0 0

Experiment 2

Porzana parva Little Crake Rallidae Gruiformes Omnivore W LC LC 0 1 16 0 0 0 0 Gallicrex cinerea Watercock Rallidae Gruiformes Omnivore W LC WAC 12 1 5 0 0 0 0 Fulica atra Eurasian Coot Rallidae Gruiformes Omnivore W LC EUC 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 Himantopus Black-winged Stilt Recurvirostridae Charadriiformes Carnivore R LC BWS 218 0 29 7 0 0 0 himantopus Recurvirostra avosetta Pied Avocet Recurvirostridae Charadriiformes Carnivore W LC PA 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 Remiz pendulinus Penduline Tit Remizidae Passeriformes Insectivore W LC PT 0 1 11 8 55 0 0 Rynchops albicollis Indian Skimmer Rynchopidae Charadriiformes Piscivore Y VU ISK 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 Calidris minuta Little Stint Scolopacidae Charadriiformes Insectivore W LC LIS 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 Calidris temminckii Temminck's Stint Scolopacidae Charadriiformes Insectivore W LC TES 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 Calidris alpina Dunlin Scolopacidae Charadriiformes Carnivore W LC DUN 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lymnocryptes minimus Jack Snipe Scolopacidae Charadriiformes Omnivore W LC JAS 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 Tringa stagnatilis Marsh Sandpiper Scolopacidae Charadriiformes Carnivore W LC MAS 7 0 26 0 0 0 0 Tringa nebularia Greenshank Scolopacidae Charadriiformes Carnivore W LC GRS 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 Tringa ochropus Green Sandpiper Scolopacidae Charadriiformes Carnivore W LC GS 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 Tringa glareola Wood Sandpiper Scolopacidae Charadriiformes Carnivore W LC WS 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 Gelochelidon nilotica Gull-billed Tern Sternidae Charadriiformes Piscivore W LC GBT 94 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sterna aurantia Indian River Tern Sternidae Charadriiformes Piscivore W NT IRT 140 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sterna acuticauda Black-bellied Tern Sternidae Charadriiformes Piscivore W EN BBT 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sterna albifrons Little Tern Sternidae Charadriiformes Piscivore S LC LT 81 0 0 0 0 0 0 Chlidonias hybridus Whiskered Tern Sternidae Charadriiformes Piscivore Y LC WT 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 Athene brama Spotted Little Strigidae Strigiformes Carnivore S LC SLO 0 1 0 10 6 16 0 Owlet Sturnus vulgaris Common Starling Sturnidae Passeriformes Omnivore W LC CS 0 2 7 9 24 0 0 Sturnus roseus Rosy Starling Sturnidae Passeriformes Omnivore W LC RS 0 3 7 4 12 0 0 Acridothere tristis Common Myna Sturnidae Passeriformes Omnivore R LC CM 0 34 437 33 199 370 340 Acridothere Bank Myna Sturnidae Passeriformes Omnivore R LC BM 0 23 405 26 143 327 225 ginginianus Turdoides caudatus Common Babler Timaliidae Passeriformes Insectivore R LC CB 0 5 99 24 6 23 0 Turdoides earlei Striated Babbler Timaliidae Passeriformes Insectivore R LC SB 0 3 0 6 28 0 0 Turdoides striatus Jungle Babbler Timaliidae Passeriformes Insectivore R LC JB 0 3 23 11 92 0 0 Chrysomma altirostre Sind Babbler Timaliidae Passeriformes Insectivore R VU SB 0 1 0 0 0 0 0

Experiment 2

Cisticola juncidis Fan-tailed Warbler Turdidae Passeriformes Carnivore R LC FTW 0 1 0 8 6 29 0 Phoenicurus ochruros Black Redstart Turdidae Passeriformes Insectivore W LC BRED 0 1 22 0 0 0 0 Saxicola leucura White-tailed Turdidae Passeriformes Insectivore R LC WTBU 0 12 20 0 0 0 0 Bushchat Cercomela fusca Common Rock chat Turdidae Passeriformes Insectivore S LC CRCH 0 4 9 0 0 50 94 Oenanthe isabellina Isabelline Wheatear Turdidae Passeriformes Insectivore W LC IWH 0 3 16 0 0 0 0 Oenanthe picata Variable/Eastern Turdidae Passeriformes Insectivore W LC EW 0 2 11 0 0 0 0 Wheatear Saxicoloides fulicata Indian Robin Turdidae Passeriformes Insectivore R LC IR 0 2 35 0 25 12 0 Prinia gracilis Streaked Long- Turdidae Passeriformes Carnivore R LC SLTW 0 3 8 0 5 8 0 tailed Warbler Prinia inornata Tawny/Plain Turdidae Passeriformes Herbivore R LC PCP 0 3 0 0 33 0 0 Coloured Prinia Prinia burnesii Long-tailed Grass Turdidae Passeriformes Carnivore R NT LTGW 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 Warbler Orthotomus sutorius Tailor Bird Turdidae Passeriformes Carnivore R LC TB 0 2 12 0 46 5 0 Acrocephalus Moustached Sedge Turdidae Passeriformes Carnivore W LC MSW 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 melanopogon Warbler Acrocephalus Blyth's Reed Turdidae Passeriformes Carnivore W LC BRW 0 1 8 0 0 0 0 dumetorum Warbler Hippolais caligata Booted Warbler Turdidae Passeriformes Carnivore W LC BW 0 1 9 0 0 0 0 Prinia socialis Ashy long-tailed Turdidae Passeriformes Carnivore R LC ALTW 0 3 9 0 8 10 0 Warbler Sylvia curruca Lesser Whitethroat Turdidae Passeriformes Omnivore W LC LWT 0 4 15 0 5 0 0 Phylloscopus Brooks's Leaf Turdidae Passeriformes Carnivore W LC BLW 0 2 10 0 0 0 0 subviridis Warbler Upupa epops Common Hoopoe Upupidae Coraciiformes Carnivore R LC CB 0 12 49 16 20 59 28 Note: R = resident; W = winter visitor; S = summer breeder; Y = Year round visitor; UVH = Urban vegetative habitat; UNVH = Urban non vegetative habitat; ARH = Agriculture rural habitat; AH = Agriculture habitat; FH = Forest habitat; RFH = Rural forest habitat.

Experiment 2

Table 3. Values of various diversity indices for the avian species recorded from different habitat types in the study area (UVH = Urban vegetative habitat; UNVH = Urban non vegetative habitat; ARH = Agriculture rural habitat; AH = Agriculture habitat; FH = Forest habitat; RFH = Rural forest habitat).

Statistical Analysis WLH FH FRH AH ARH UVH UVNH Species number (SN) 51 109 95 60 74 44 20 Individual Numbers (IN) 6770 501 3523 958 3299 4274 2028 Dominance (D') 0.1204 0.02204 0.04603 0.04083 0.03397 0.04789 0.1326 Simpson (S) 0.8796 0.978 0.954 0.9592 0.966 0.9521 0.8674 Shannon (H') 2.723 4.261 3.746 3.623 3.746 3.284 2.254 Evenness (E) 0.2986 0.6504 0.4458 0.6244 0.5723 0.6065 0.4765 Margalef (R) 5.669 17.37 11.51 8.595 9.011 5.143 2.495 Densities (D) 13.54 1.002 7.046 1.916 6.598 8.548 4.056

CHAPTER 3 EXPERIMENT 3

Title: HABITAT PREFERENCES OF WILD MAMMALIAN SPECIES ALONG THE

RIVER CHENAB, PAKISTAN

M. Altaf1*, A. Javid1, M. Ashraf2, A. M. Khan3, Z. Ali3, Irfan1, S.M. Hussain and M. Umair4

1Department of Wildlife and Ecology, University of the Veterinary and Animal Sciences,

Lahore, Pakistan

2Department of Fisheries and Wildlife, University of the Veterinary and Animal Sciences,

Lahore, Pakistan

3Department of Zoology, University of the Punjab, Lahore, Pakistan

4 School of Agriculture and Biology, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai

*Corresponding auther: [email protected]

This paper has submitted in Animal Biodiversity and Conservation

Submitted date: March 2016

Abstract

The present research was conducted to assess the anthropogenic impacts and habitat preferences of mammalian species along the River Chenab, Pakistan. The mammalian diversity was recorded along forested landscapes, cultivated plantations, semi-urban and urban areas. The data on diversity and distribution of various mammalian species was collected through the point count

Experiment 3 method viz. direct observation (personal count and record voices) and indirect observation

(presences of carcasses, fecal pellet, pug marks and meeting with local communities). The habitat preferences of large, medium and small mammals varied significantly. A decline in mammalian diversity was observed from forest habitat to urban landscapes. Indian wild boar,

Asiatic jackal, Indian fox, jungle cat, Indian pangolin and long eared desert hedgehog preferred forested areas as well as slightly modified habitats while Northern palm squirrel, house mouse, house shrew and rat species preferred human habitations. Similarly, few species such as the small Indian mongoose, Soft-furred field rat, short tailed mole rat, Asiatic jackal and Indian gerbil preferred cultivated areas. It can be concluded that many of the mammalian species are habitat specific and corridors and connections between different landscapes are important for the conservation of mammalian diversity.

Key words: Punjab, DCA, Shannon, desert hare, squirrel.

1. Introduction

Human population took 50, 000 years to reach one billion, then increased exponentially and has now crossed 7 billion. The speed of population growth peaked during the late 1960s, and accumulating numbers of people have meant that each additional billion has been added more rapidly than at any other time in history. If population growth rate remains the same, the world population could reach 9.3 billion by 2050 (Bloom 2011).

Asia was considered amongst most diversity rich continents, however, increases in human population have adversely affected the diversity of the region (McDonald et al. 2008) as the increasing populations required more food and shelter which resulted in agriculture intensification, urbanization, industrialization and pollution (Altaf et al. 2014). During the last

Experiment 3

10,000 years, natural vegetations have been converted to agricultural lands; the generalist species adopted new habitats while the habitat specific species became extinct (Di Giulio et al. 2009). At the end of the 20th century, intense farming brought changes in land use (Stoate et al. 2009) and affected the diversity of the areas. Population census of all the species in urbanized and per- urban areas is pre-requisite for conservation planning.

Conservationists inclined towards the restoration of species in urbanized areas have to face many challenges (Miller and Hobbs 2002), therefore this topic has has fewer investigations (Miller and

Hobbs 2002). However, at the end of 20th century, levels of urbanization were studied (Veech

2006) and management of urbanized ecosystems was especially focused (Clergeau et al. 2006).

Mammals are an important part of all types of ecosystems and play a significant role in the sustainability of ecosystems. Many of the mammalian species have nutritional values and good source of protein in humans’ diets (Robbins 1983). Various species are important agents in ecotourism and research (Bodmer et al. 1994; Lindsey et al. 2007).

Nature lovers like to spend time with animals and are amused to observe their activities like feeding, voice calls etc. and these activities instigate conservation efforts among masses

(McKinney 2002). Kit fox (Vulpes macrotis mutica) are common in some urban habitats of USA

(Nelson et al. 2007), people of these area are involved in conservation efforts of the species both in urban and natural habitats (Dearborn and Kark 2010). Squirrels prefer to live in peri-urban areas of Pakistan (Altaf et al. 2012). Data regarding mammalian diversity and distribution is the first step towards species conservation (McKinney 2002).

Experiment 3

Urbanization and habitat loss are the major factor of decline of mammalian diversity in Pakistan

(Altafet al. 2014). Other factors include shortage of food, change in vegetation, pollution

(Shochat et al. 2010) and human negative behavior (Rytwinski and Fahrig, 2012).

To understand diversity patterns it is essential to identify habitat preferences of species (Riem et al. 2012). It is wrong perception that diversity always decreases with increase in density of human population. Some species prefer to live in close association of humans (Saito and Koike

2013) in addition species richness is higher at ecotone regions (Magura et al. 2004). Mammalian diversity varies from forested landscapes to urban areas. A lot of work on diversity of mammalian species has been conducted in America, Australia and Europe while mammalian species of Asian region are less focused. The primary aim of the present study was to understand anthropogenic impact and distribution patterns of mammalian species from forested landscapes through urbanized gradients.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study area

This one year study extending from May, 2013 through April, 2014 was conducted in three districts viz. Gujranwala, Gujrat and Sialkot in Punjab, Pakistan. All these districts are densely populated and the entire natural ecosystems have been changed into agro-ecosystems. Rice, wheat and sugarcane are the major agricultural crops (figure 1).

District Gujranwala covers an area of 3,622 Km2, is the third most populated city of the country with a population of 4.48 million (Sheikh 2012a). District Gujrat covers an area of 3,192 Km2 with a population of 2.44 million (Sheikh 2012b). District Sialkot covers an area of 3,016 Km2 with a population of 3.303 million (Sheikh 2012c). The River Chenab is the major water body of

Experiment 3 the study area and irrigates most of the agricultural lands. However, inland water is also major source for irrigation. Six study sites were selected in each district for the observation of mammalian diversity of the study area (table 1).

Table 1. GPS coordinates of sampling stations in the study area.

Samling station Habitat Type Location Elev(ft) District Sialkot Head Marala Forest habitat (FH-1) 32o39'59 N, 74o28'05 E 811 Head Marala Agriculture Forest habitat (AFH-1) 32o40'02 N, 74o29'07 E 801 Bahlolpur Rural Forest habitat (RFH-1) 32o34'55 N, 74o25'41 E 840 Motra Agri-Rural Habitat (ARH-1) 32o23'07 N, 74o25'18 E 777 Latifa bad Urban Non Vegetative Habitat (UNVH-1) 32o29'42 N, 74o32'05 E 840 Murad Pur Urban Vegetative Habitat (UVH-1) 32o31'09 N, 74o30'05 E 808 District Gujrat Head Khanki Forest habitat (FH-2) 32о28'32 N, 73о03'39 E 712 Head Khanki Agriculture Forest habitat (AFH-2) 32о30'17 N, 73о07'56 E 732 Ghazi Chak Rural Forest habitat (RFH-2) 32о30'00 N, 73о05'39 E 739 Kunjah Agri-Rural Habitat (ARH-2) 32о31'52 N, 73о58'29 E 735 Walled City Urban Non Vegetative Habitat (UNVH-2) 32о34'26 N, 74о04'39 E 802 Green Town Urban Vegetative Habitat (UVH-2) 32о33'27 N, 74о04'39 E 756 District Gujranwala Head Qadirabad Forest habitat (FH-3) 32о19'06 N, 073о41'36E 683 Head Qadirabad Agriculture Forest habitat (AFH-3) 32о20'58 N, 073о43'14E 690 Kot Hara Rural Forest habitat (RFH-3) 32о16'06 N, 073о42'22E 695 Varpal Chattha Agri-Rural Habitat (ARH-3) 32о13'02 N, 073о54'26E 704 Noor Bawa Urban Non Vegetative Habitat (UNVH-3) 32о09'44 N, 074о10'56E 758 Qila Sundar singh Urban Vegetative Habitat (UVH-3) 32о08'33 N, 074о10'00E 731 Note: Elev =Elevation

2.1.1. Climate

The territory of the River Chenab is hot and humid during summer and cold during winter with temperature ranges from minimum temperature 4ºC during winters to 40 ºC during summer. June and July are the hottest months while December and January are the coldest months of the year.

The topography is plan and mostly land is fertile (Anonymous 2007).

Experiment 3

2.1.2. Floral diversity

Prominent aquatic vegetation of the study area includes hydrilla (Hydrilla verticillata), water lily

(Nymphaea lotus), horned pondweed (Zannichellia palustris), reed (Phragmites karka), curly- leaf pondweed (Potamogeton crispus), muskgrass (Chara sp.) and lyngbye's sedge (Carex fedia).

Important natural vegetation of the surrounding plains includes athel (Tamarix aphylla), jand

(Cannabis sativa). Wheat (Triticum aestivum), rice (Oryza sativa) and pea plants (Pisum sativum) are the prominent crop of the area (Umair et al. 2013).

Methodology

The data regarding mammalian diversity was collected during dawn and dusk hours. A point count survey method was used for population estimation of mammalian fauna of the study area.

Both, direct (total/physical count and calls or voices) and indirect (nests, fecal pellets, foot- prints, marks on trees, and group questionnaire survey) methods were applied to find out mammalian diversity of the area. Binoculars (32x50) were used to observe the animals and

“Mammals of Pakistan” books were consulted to correctly identify the species (Roberts 1997).

Experiment 3

Figure 1. Map of study area showing forest, rural, agriculture, urban and semi-urban habitat types in the study area (UVH = Urban vegetative habitat; UNVH = Urban non vegetative habitat; ARH = Agriculture rural habitat; AFH = Agriculture forest habitat; FH = Forest habitat; RFH = Rural forest habitat).

Experiment 3

2.2.

2.3. Data analysis

For the statistical analysis, PAST version 2.17c was applied (Hammert et al. 2001) to find out the Simpson diversity, Shannon diversity (H), Evenness (E), Margalef (R), Dominance,

Dentrended component analysis (DCA) and Cluster analysis. DCA was used to examine relationships between mammalian fauna and habitat variables.

3. Results and Discussion

During the present survey, a total of 17 mammalian species (including 11 small and 6 medium and large) were recorded from the study area. Maximum 17 species recorded from forest habitat, while 16, 14, 8, 5 and 3 species were recorded from agriculture forest habitat, rural forest habitat, agriculture rural habitat, urban vegetative habitat and urban non-vegetative habitat, respectively

(table 2).

Table 2. Distribution of mammalian species in various habitat types in the study area.

Scientific name Common name Abbreviation FH AFH RFH ARH UVH UNVH (RA) (RA) (RA) (RA) (RA) (RA) Suncus murinus House shrew HS 2.63 4.34 5.10 3.88 17.09 23.81 Suncus etruscus Mediterranean pygmy shrew MPS 0.53 0.87 1.02 2.33 0.00 0.00 Lepus migricollis dayanus Desert hare DH 6.58 2.31 5.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 Funnambulus pennantii Northern palm squirrel NPS 9.21 5.78 16.84 9.30 8.55 0.00 Hystrix cristatus Indian crested porcupine ICP 26.32 20.23 22.19 0.00 0.00 0.00 Millardia meltada Soft-furred field rat SFR 1.32 4.34 0.00 3.88 0.00 0.00 Rattus rattus House rat HR 3.42 5.78 10.46 28.68 25.64 27.62 Mus musculus House mouse HM 0.79 4.34 9.44 25.58 42.74 48.57 Tatera indica Indian gerbil IG 0.79 4.34 0.51 11.63 0.00 0.00 Hemiechinus collaris Long eared desert hedgehog LEDH 1.58 2.89 3.83 0.00 0.00 0.00 Canus aureus Asiatic jackal AJ 2.63 18.79 6.38 0.00 0.00 0.00 Vulpes bengalensis Indian/Bengal fox IF 1.32 0.58 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Herpestes javanicus Small Indian mongoose SIM 7.89 13.01 5.61 5.43 5.98 0.00 Sus scrofa Indian wild boar IWB 31.58 8.67 12.76 0.00 0.00 0.00 Nesokia indica Short tailed mole rat STMR 1.84 2.89 0.00 9.30 0.00 0.00 Manis crassicaudata Indian Pangolin IP 0.53 0.29 0.26 0.00 0.00 0.00 Felis chaus Jungle Cat JC 1.05 0.58 0.77 1.53 0.00 0.00

Experiment 3

Note: RA = Relative Abundance; UVH = Urban vegetative habitat; UNVH = Urban non vegetative habitat; ARH = Agriculture rural habitat; AFH = Agriculture forest habitat; FH = Forest habitat; RFH = Rural forest habitat. Highest values for Simpson index (0. 8828) and Shannon wiener diversity index (2.398) were recorded for agriculture forest habitat while highest value for species richness/Margalef index

(R) i.e. 2.694 were observed for forest habitat. Similarly, Evenness was highest (0.9505) for urban non-vegetative habitats (Table 3).

Table 3. Values of diversity indices for mammalian species recorded from different habitat types in the study area.

Diversity Indices FH AFH RFH ARH UVH UNVH Number of species recorded 17 17 14 10 5 3 Individuals 380 346 393 131 117 105 Dominance index (D) 0.1918 0.1172 0.1272 0.1797 0.2885 0.3689 Simpson diversity index (S) 0.8082 0.8828 0.8728 0.8203 0.7115 0.6311 Shannon wiener diversity index (H') 2.054 2.398 2.244 1.947 1.393 1.048 Evenness index (E) 0.4588 0.6472 0.6739 0.7005 0.8053 0.9505 Margalef index (R) 2.694 2.737 2.176 1.846 0.84 0.4297

Figure 2. Cluster analysis showing use of different habitat types by the mammalian species recorded from the study area (UVH = Urban vegetative habitat; UNVH = Urban non vegetative habitat; ARH = Agriculture rural habitat; AFH = Agriculture forest habitat; FH = Forest habitat; RFH = Rural forest habitat).

Experiment 3

Cluster analysis for different habitat types (figure 2) indicated two groups i.e. group one (G1) and group two (G2). G1 is represented by two habitats i.e. UVH and UNVH. Both the groups have similarity index of 0.8. G2 is mainly divided into two sub-groups i.e. Sub Group 1 (SG1) and Sub Group 2 (SG2) that have relatively lower similarity index of 0.3. SG1 is further subdivided in to two groups i.e. Sub Group 1A (SG1A) and Sub Group 1B (SG1B), both have moderate type of similarity i.e. 0.5. SG1B has two habitats i.e. AFH and FH that have have similarity index of 0.8 (Figure 2).

Figure 3. Dentrended component analysis (DCA) indicating interaction of the species with specific habitat type (UVH = Urban vegetative habitat; UNVH = Urban non vegetative habitat; ARH = Agriculture rural habitat; AFH = Agriculture forest habitat; FH = Forest habitat; RFH = Rural forest habitat). Dentrended component analysis (DCA) revealed that mammalian diversity is dependent and strongly influenced by the habitat type. Indian fox showed greater affinity for AFH and FH while

Indian wild boar, Mediterranean pygmy shrew, desert hare, jungle cat, Indian crested porcupine, 72

Experiment 3 small Indian mongoose and long eared desert hedgehog and Indian pangolin showed greater affinity with natural and slightly disturbed habitats i.e. FH, RFH and AFH. Northern palm squirrel showed greater affinity for slightly disturbed RFH while Indian gerbil and short tailed mole rat showed more affinities for AFH and ARH. Similarly, house shrew, house mouse and house rat showed greater affinities with ARH, UVH and UNVH (figure 3).

A first step towards conservation is the measurement of biodiversity in any habitat

(Branton and Richardson 2011). Diversity measures of different habitat types of the study area showed that the River Chenab is heterogeneous mixture of smaller fragments of different habitat types that influence mammalian diversity inhabiting specific type of habitat. Mammalian species react rapidly to anthropogenic impacts that are leading many mammalian species towards extinction (Stoate et al. 2009; Khan et al. 2015; Gangadharan et al. 2016). The analysis of habitat types provides useful insight for the conservation of mammalian species.

During the present survey a declining trend in mammalian species from forest to urban habitats has been observed. However, different species prefer different habitats, some species prefer slightly or completely disturbed habitats while large and medium sized mammalian species i.e. Indian fox, Indian wild boar, Indian pangolin, desert hare and jungle cat usually prefer forest landscapes. Similar results have been documented by Bateman and Fleming (2012) and Riem et al. (2012). Northern palm squirrel, small Indian mongoose, Mediterranean pygmy shrew, Asiatic jackal, soft-furred field rat and Indian crested porcupine species preferred to live in slightly disturbed habitats. While some species like to prefer completely disturbed areas like house shrew, house rat and house mouse.

Experiment 3

Garbage in urban areas is a source of food for many carnivorous and omnivorous mammalian species (Hirasawa et al. 2006). Thus urban habitats provide food and shelters to many wild species hence influencing mammalian diversity. On the other hand, some wild species are shy and prefer natural areas with little human interference. These species therefore have constricted their ranges and are confined to left over natural habitats. However, they enter in the populated areas during night when there is little human interference e.g. Asiatic jackal and wild boar. Similarly, few species viz. small Indian mongoose, jungle cat and Indian crested porcupine prefer to live close to human habitations similar results were recorded on the different parts of the world about different species (Stoate et al. 2009; Riem et al. 2012; Saito and Koike, 2013;

Mahmood et al. 2014).

Conclusion

It is concluded that mammalian diversity and distribution vary in different habitats i.e. urban, rural and natural habitats. During the research noted that many factors that impacts the diversity and distribution of the mammalian diversity; while main factors are food, shelter, human presence, large fragmentation, loss of habitat, invasive plant species and removal of plantation.

References

Altaf M, Javid A, Irfan, Munir MA, Ashraf S, Umair M, Iqbal KJ, Khan AM, Ali Z. 2014.

Diversity of Wild Mammalian Fauna of Chenab Riverine Forest, Punjab, Pakistan. J

Anim Plant Sci. 24:1342-1347.

Altaf M, Khan AM, Umair M, Irfan, Munir MA. 2012. Status of wild birds and mammals in

urban habitats of Gujranwala, Punjab, Pakistan. Punjab Uni J Zool. 27 9-12.

Experiment 3

Anonymous. 2007. Surface water quality monitoring in Punjab. In: Directorate of Land

Reclamation Punjab Canal Bank Moghalpura, Lahore. Government of Punjab.

Bateman P, Fleming P. 2012. Big city life: carnivores in urban environments. J Zool. 287:1-23.

Bloom DE. 2011. 7 billion and counting. Science.333:562-569.

Bodmer RE, Fang TG, Moya I L, Gill R. 1994. Managing wildlife to conserve Amazonian

forests: population biology and economic considerations of game hunting. Biol

Conserv.67:29-35.

Branton M, Richardson JS. 2011. Assessing the Value of the Umbrella Species Concept for

Conservation Planning with Meta Analysis. Conserv Biol.25:9-20. ‐

‐ Clergeau P, Jokimäki J, Snep R. 2006. Using hierarchical levels for urban ecology. Trend Ecol

Evol.21:660-661.

Dearborn DC, Kark S. 2010. Motivations for conserving urban biodiversity. Conserv

Biol.24:432-440.

Di Giulio M, Holderegger R, Tobias S. 2009. Effects of habitat and landscape fragmentation on

humans and biodiversity in densely populated landscapes. J Environ Manage. 90:2959-

2968.

Gangadharan A, Vaidyanathan S. St Clair CC. 2016. Categorizing species by niche

characteristics can clarify conservation planning in rapidly‐developing landscapes. Anim.

Conserv. 19: 1-11.

Experiment 3

Hammert Q, Harper DAT, Ryan PD. 2001. Past paleontological statistical software package

for education and data analysis. Palaeontol Stat.4.

Hirasawa M, Kanda E, Takatsuki S. 2006. Seasonal food habits of the raccoon dog at a western

suburb of Tokyo. Mammal Study.31:9-14.

Lindsey PA, Alexander R, Mills M, Romanach S, Woodroffe R. 2007. Wildlife viewing

preferences of visitors to protected areas in South Africa: implications for the role of

ecotourism in conservation. J Ecotour.6:19-33.

Khan AA, Khan WA, Chaudhry AA. 2015. Mammalian Diversity in Thar Desert Habitat of

Tharparkar District, Sindh, Pakistan. Pakistan J. Zool. 47(5): 1205-1211.

Mahmood T, Irshad N, Hussain R. 2014. Habitat preference and population estimates of Indian

pangolin (Manis crassicaudata) in district Chakwal of Potohar Plateau, Pakistan. Russian

J. Ecol. 45(1): 70-75.

Magura T, Tóthmérész B, Molnár T. 2004. Changes in carabid beetle assemblages along an

urbanisation gradient in the city of Debrecen, Hungary. Landsc Ecol.19:747-759.

McDonald RI, Kareiva P, Forman RT. 2008. The implications of current and future urbanization

for global protected areas and biodiversity conservation. Biol Conserv.141:1695-1703.

McKinney ML. 2002. Urbanization, Biodiversity, and Conservation The impacts of urbanization

on native species are poorly studied, but educating a highly urbanized human population

about these impacts can greatly improve species conservation in all ecosystems.

BioScience.52:883-890.

Miller JR, Hobbs RJ. 2002. Conservation where people live and work. Conserv Biol.16:330-337.

Experiment 3

Nelson JL, Cypher BL, Bjurlin CD, Creel S. 2007. Effects of habitat on competition between kit

foxes and coyotes. J Wildl Manage.71:1467-1475.

Riem JG, Blair RB, Pennington DN, Solomon NG. 2012. Estimating mammalian species

diversity across an urban gradient. Am Midl Nat.168:315-332.

Robbins C. 1983. Wildlife feeding and nutrition. Elsevier.

Roberts TJ. 1984. Brief Review of the Status of Wetlands in Pakistan. Proceedings of the

Asian Continental Section Conference of ICBP; 1984: ICBP.

Roberts TJ. 1997. The Mammals of Pakistan. New Yark: Oxford University Press.

Saito M, Koike F. 2013. Distribution of wild mammal assemblages along an urban–rural–forest

landscape gradient in warm-temperate East Asia. PloS one.8:e65464.

Sheikh MS. 2012a. District Pre-Investment Study – 2012, Gujranwala. In. p. 1-376.

Sheikh MS. 2012b. District Pre-Investment Study – 2012, Gujrat. In. p. 1-28.

Sheikh MS. 2012c. District Pre-Investment Study – 2012, Sialkot. In. p. 1-31.

Shochat E, Lerman SB, Anderies JM, Warren PS, Faeth SH, Nilon CH. 2010. Invasion,

competition, and biodiversity loss in urban ecosystems. BioScience.60:199-208.

Stoate C, Báldi A, Beja P, Boatman N, Herzon I, Van Doorn A, De Snoo G, Rakosy L, Ramwell

C. 2009. Ecological impacts of early 21st century agricultural change in Europe–a

review. J Environ Manage.91:22-46.

Experiment 3

Umair M, Ilyas U, Altaf M. 2013. Diversity and Ecology of Parthenium weeds ar head khanki,

Pakistan. Lambert Academic Publishing.

Veech JA. 2006. A comparison of landscapes occupied by increasing and decreasing populations

of grassland birds. Conserv Biol.20:1422-1432.

CHAPTER 3 EXPERIMENT 4

Title: THE STATUS OF FISH DIVERSITY OF RIVER CHENAB, PAKISTAN

Muhammad Altaf1, Arshad Javid1, Abdul Majid Khan2, Ali Hussain4, Muhammad Umair3,

Zulfiqar Ali2

1Department of Wildlife and Ecology, UVAS, Lahore, Pakistan,

2Department of Zoology, University of the Punjab, Lahore, Pakistan,

3Department of Plant Sciences, Quaid-i-Azam University, Islamabad Pakistan,

4Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture, UVAS, Lahore, Pakistan

This manuscript has been published

Journal of Animal and Plant Sciences 25(3 supp. 2):564-569

2015

Impact factor: 0.448

Abstract

River Chenab is an important wetland of Punjab, Pakistan. Water of the river is becoming pollutant due to anthropogenic impact i.e. industrial waste, urbanization, agriculture intensification. The main objectives of the study were to know the diversity and distribution of fish species of river Chenab. The study was focused at three heads of the river namely head

Experiment 4

Marala (district Sialkot), head Khanki (district Gujrat) and head Qadirabad (district Gujranwala).

Status of fish diversity was recorded with the help of local fisher man from the study area; the data was collected in all seasons. Both, direct and indirect methods were applied to find out fish diversity of the area. The diversity indices were analyzed through statistical software PAST version 2.17 C. During the sampling 34 species was recorded from the river Chenab. The diversity indices indicate that higher diversity is present at the head Qadirabad than head Khanki and Marala. The reason is that there is present large number of natural and manmade ponds; during the flood these pond fishes move to the river further eggs and fingerlings move to rivers through birds and fisherman.

Key words: Fish Diversity, River Chenab, Pakistan.

1. Introduction

Pakistan has largest canal system and also has more than 225 wetlands; only 19 are listed as

Ramsar sites. Pakistan covers 780,000 hectares area which is consists of 9.7% (73% of freshwater and 26.06% of coastal wetland areas) of the total wetland area of the country (IUCN

1989; Altaf et al. 2014). Freshwater is an essential and limited resource; which is necessary for animals as well as human activities like agriculture, industry, drink and domestic needs (Bartram and Ballance 1996). The water history and water resource use is as old as human evolution

(Gleick et al. 2002). Water played vital role in the evolution of human societies and civilizations.

Most of the ancient human societies and civilizations established near the freshwater resources like rivers, ponds and streams (Gupta and Gupta 2006).

The water quality is very important for the survival of the living, which is the mercy of the natural and anthropogenic impacts. Water quality is decreased day by day due to

Experiment 4 anthropogenic impact i.e. agriculture intensification, industrialization and extreme urbanization

(Singh et al. 2007). Heavy metals are the pollutants, which pollute the environment for a long time and irreversible that also impact on the productivity of aquatic ecosystem and ecology

(Majagi et al. 2008). Heavy metals in freshwater medium are destructive for aquatic biodiversity even at very low quantity (Schüürmann and Markert 1998).

Diversity is divided into two components as; richness (number of species in a specific area) and evenness (population) (Magurran 2004). The world has more than 27,977 species

(represented to 515 families and 62 orders) (Nelson 2006; Helfman et al. 2009). Pakistan has wide diversity of fresh and marine water fishes; more than 171 species of freshwater fishes are present in Pakistan (Peter 1999). Richness of the fish of tropical to subtropical rivers is correlated within the river basin (Welcomme 1979). Asian region has lot of large basins for growth and nesting of fish. The dynamic features of these river ecosystems are the result of changes in level of water cause of change in rainfall in nesting and growth area (Thorp et al. 2008). This dynamics brings about variety in fish community morphology which are often brought about by impact of environmental factors inside the river ecosystem (Taylor et al. 2006), species interactions (Winemiller 1989), food availability and fish movements (Taylor 1997). Mostly lotic water fishes synchronize nesting activity with the flood season and migrate to upstream during rainy season and move back in the dry season (Dudgeon 1992). Some of them are very important economically, these are used as; food, ornamental and medical purposes. The main objectives of the study are to know the diversity of fish and distribution of fish species of the river Chenab,

Punjab, Pakistan.

Experiment 4

2. Materials and Methods

The study was carried out in the following three years (from Dec. to Nov.) viz.2006-07, 2009-10 and 2013-14 during sun-up (5:00 am to 10:00 am) hours. Data on ecology and population status of fish diversity was recorded with the help of local fisher man from the study area; the data was collected in all seasons in whole years.

Study area: Head Marala is located at 32o 38'59 N, 74o 28'05 E, elevation of 243 m. Head

Khanki is present at 32о25'07 N, 073о57'39 E, and 220 m elevation. Head Qadirabad is present at

32о20'16 N, 073о42'36 E, and 205 m elevation (Figure-1). River Chenab starts from the Kangra and Kulu districts of Himachal Pradesh, provinces of India and enters in Pakistan near Diawara village, district Sialkot. Total length (in Pakistan and India) of river Chenab is 960 km. Annual water flow is 26.44 billion cubic meters. Head Marala, head Qadirabad, head Khanki and head

Trimmu are the important water reservoirs of the river (Siddiqi and Tahir-Kheli, 2004). River

Chenab forest is included in Tropical thorn forest (Siddiqui, 1997) large area of the forest has changed into the agriculture land which covers most of the forest area. Some agricultural land lies in river basin and island type dry areas are prominent.

Climate: Climate of the area is sub-tropical, annual average temperature ranges from 5oC during winter to 45oC during summer. The pH of water is alkaline and averages 7.9 to 8.1 (Anonymous

2007).

Experiment 4

Figure: 1. The Map of river Chenab along with three study sites i.e. head Marala, Khanki, and Qadirabad.

Methodology: Both, direct (total count) and indirect (meetings with locals, carcasses and remaining of fishes) observation methods were applied to find out fish diversity of the area.

(Mirza 2004) was consulted for identification and previous distribution of fishes of the study area. Boat surveys were also conducted once in each season for diversity of fish. Fish specimens were collected from river Chenab. The fishing effort was done by using gill nets with the same length (100 m to 20 m) and height (1.6 m), but with mesh size 1.5 inches and more. Wahera nets are also (Altaf et al. 2011a; Altaf et al. 2011b) used during present study for the fish collection.

Some collected specimens are preserved in Department of Zoology, University of the Punjab and

Department of Zoology, Government Islamia College Gujranwala.

Statistical analysis: Computation of data for the Simpson (S), Shannon diversity (H’),

Evenness (E), Margalef (R) and Dominance (D) of fish was recorded by using a computer-based program PAST version 2.17C (Hammert 2001).

Experiment 4

3. Results and Discussion

The river Chenab is the most important wetland of Pakistan, which has wide diversity of the flora and fauna. During the research 34 species (Table-1, Figure-2) and 1766 number of the fishes were recorded from the river Chenab. Mirza et al. (2006) recorded 51 species and 1191 fish specimens from the river Jhelum. (Khan et al. 2008) recorded the 20 species from the

Chashma barrage and also 22 species specimen collected from the Taunsa barrage. (Mirza et al.

2011) documented 51 species during the survey of the river Jhelum. Altafet al. (2011b) identified the 33 species from the head Qadirabad. (Khan et al. 2011) recorded the 50 species from the

Ravi while 30 species recorded from the river Jhelum. Qadir (2010) recorded the 24 species and

1506 specimen from the Nullah Aik and Nullah Palku.

The diversity indices (Table 2) of this area as; Dominance of fish at head Qadirabad is 0.09, head

Khanki is 0.13 and head Marala is 0.12, Simpson index at head Qadirabad is 0.91, head Khanki is 0.87 and head Marala is 0.88, Shannon index at head Qadirabad is 2.83, head Khanki is 2.57 and head Marala is 2.62, Evenness at head Qadirabad is 0.5, head Khanki is 0.41 and head

Marala is 0.43,Margalef at head Qadirabad is 5.14, head Khanki is 5.02 and head Marala is 4.77,

Brillouin index at head Qadirabad is 2.72, head Khanki is 2.46 and head Marala is 2.53 and

Menhinick at head Qadirabad is 5.14, head Khanki is 5.02 and head Marala is 4.77. (Khanet al.

2011) collected the specimen from the river Ravi computed them as; Shannon index was 1.33,

Simpson index was 0.912 and Evenness was 0.41, while at river Jhelum Shannon index was

1.329, Simpson index was 0.949 and Evenness was 0.906. (Altaf et al. 2011b) recorded the

Shannon index as; 3.11 from head Qadirabad. Statistical computed results and diversity indices indicate that high diversity is present at the head Qadirabad. The reason is that there is present large number of natural and manmade ponds which also cultured fish; during the flood (in 2010,

Experiment 4

2014) these fishes move to the river; further eggs and fingerlings are also disperse through birds

(i.e. egrets, cormorants, kingfishers, herons, terns and etc.) and fisherman (During fishing activities). While other areas like head Khanki and Marala have very low number of artificial and natural ponds so these areas have lower diversity than head Qadirabad.

Table 1. Fish diversity record from river Chenab.

Sr. Scientific name Common Name IUCN H.Q. (R.A.) H.K. (R.A) H.M. (R.A) No Status 1 Ctenopharyngodon idella Grass Carp NE 0.049 0.013 0.032 2 Cyprinus carpio Common Carp VU 0.065 0.018 0.037 3 Hypophthalmichthys molitrix Silver Carp NT 0.057 0.011 0.055 4 Cirrhinus mrigala Mori LC 0.089 0.055 0.049 5 Cirrhinus reba Reba Machhali LC 0.003 0.005 0.008 6 Labeo rohita Raho LC 0.081 0.071 0.094 7 Labeo calbasu Kalbans LC 0.008 0.013 0.016 8 Labeo dero Dero Machhali LC 0.008 0.013 0.018 9 Catla catla Thaila LC 0.138 0.093 0.154 10 Channa punctata Dola LC 0.071 0.096 0.106 11 Channa marulious Soul LC 0.013 0.008 0.015 12 Oreochromis aureus Tilapia NE 0.179 0.227 0.292 13 Rita rita Khaga LC 0.041 0.032 0.057 14 Bagarius bagarius Foji Khaga NT 0.024 0.019 0.018 15 Mystus cavasius Tangra Machhali LC 0.011 0.003 0.008 16 Mastacembelus armatus Baam Machhali LC 0.006 0.008 0.011 17 Sperata sarwari Sangari NE 0.013 0.011 0.015 18 Wallago attu Mali NT 0.006 0.008 0.008 19 Eutropiichthys vacha Jhali LC 0.013 0.008 0.010 20 Tor macrolapis Masheer NE 0.003 0.002 0.006 21 Clupisoma garua Bachhwa LC 0.005 0.000 0.000 22 Notopterus notopterus But Pari LC 0.010 0.006 0.011 23 Barilius modestus Lahori Chalwa NE 0.002 0.003 0.002 24 Puntius sophore Sophore Popra LC 0.005 0.002 0.005 25 Puntius ticto Ticto Popra LC 0.003 0.000 0.003 26 Parambassis ranga Ranga Sheesha LC 0.011 0.008 0.010 27 Sisor rabdophorus Kirla Machhali LC 0.003 0.005 0.000 28 Xenentodon cancila KaanMachhali LC 0.003 0.008 0.006 29 Garra gotyla Pather Chat LC 0.002 0.005 0.010 30 Osteobrama cotio Pali Roo Machhali LC 0.008 0.005 0.002 31 Salmostoma bacaila Choti Chal Machhali LC 0.019 0.013 0.008 32 Heteropneustes fossilis Sangehi Machhali LC 0.013 0.002 0.005 33 Gagata cenia Gagata Cenia LC 0.003 0.002 0.002 34 Macrognathus pancalus Garoj LC 0.032 0.008 0.011 Note: R.A. (Relative Abundance), H.Q. (Head Qadirabad), H.K. (Head Khanki) and H.M. (Head Marala), LC

Experiment 4

Table 2. Statistical analysis of the fish diversity of river Chenab.

Serial number Head Qadirabad Head Khanki Head Marala Number of Species 34 32 32 Dominance (D) 0.09 0.13 0.12 Simpson (S) 0.91 0.87 0.88 Shannon (H') 2.83 2.57 2.62 Evenness (E) 0.50 0.41 0.43 Brillouin index (B) 2.72 2.46 2.53 Menhinick index (M) 1.37 1.46 1.24 Margalef (R) 5.14 5.02 4.77

0.35 Head Qadirabad Head Khanki Head Marala 0.30

0.25

0.20

0.15

0.10 Relativeabundance

0.05

0.00 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34

Fish Species

Figure 2. Diversity of the fish and relative abundance, numbers showed the species, serial number in table 1. The IUCN (2014) red list results showed that the diversity of river Chenab has only one fish species (Common Carp) Vulnerable (VU), only three species (Silver Carp, Foji Khaga and Mali) as; Near Threatened (NT), 25 species are counted as Least Concern, while 5 species are Not

Evaluated (EV).

Experiment 4

During this study noted that grass carp, common carp and silver carp are the invasive species of

Pakistan, and relative abundance (RA) of grass carp is recorded as; 0.049from the head

Qadirabad, 0.013 (RA) from the head Khanki and 0.032 (RA) from the head Marala. Common carp recorded as; 0.065 (RA) from the head Qadirabad, 0.018 (RA) from the head Khanki and

0.037 (RA) from the head Marala. And silver carp recorded as 0.057 (RA) from the head

Qadirabad, 0.011 (RA) from the head Khanki and 0.055 (RA) from the head Marala. These species are recorded (Rafique and Khan 2012) from the different parts of the Punjab as; Khanki,

Qadirabad (Altafet al. 2011a; Altafet al. 2011b), Chashma, Taunsa, (Khanet al. 2008), Jhelum and Ravi rivers (Khanet al. 2011).

Among the native carps, mori, reba machhali and raho are the native carp species in Pakistan, during the survey mori is noted as; 0.089 (RA) from the head Qadirabad, 0.055 (RA) from the head Khanki and 0.049 (RA) from the head Marala. Reba Machhali is encountered as; 0.003

(RA) from the head Qadirabad, 0.005 (RA) from the head Khanki and 0.008 (RA) from the head

Marala. Reba Machhali is encountered as; 0.003 (RA) from the head Qadirabad, 0.005 (RA) from the head Khanki and 0.008 (RA) from the head Marala. Raho is observed from all three sites of the river Chenab, 0.081 (RA) from the head Qadirabad, 0.071 (RA) from the head

Khanki and 0.094 (RA) from the head Marala. This fish is encountered from the different parts of the Sindh, KPK, Balochistan and Punjab (Rafique and Khan, 2012) viz. river Jhelum (Mirza et al. 2011), head Balloki, Trimmu (Khan et al. 2011), Taunsa, Chashma (Khan et al. 2008), Jhelum

Bridge and Saila Baga (Mirza et al. 2006), Khanki and Qadirabad (Altaf et al. 2011a, b).

Kalbans (0.008 RA from the head Qadirabad, 0.013 RA from the head Khanki and 0.0916 RA),

Dero Machhali (0.008 RA from the head Qadirabad, 0.013 RA from the head Khanki and 0.018

RA from the head Marala), thaila (head Qadirabad= 0.071 RA, head Khanki=0.093 RA and head

Experiment 4

Marala=0.154 RA), Dola (head Qadirabad= 0.138 RA, head Khanki=0.096 RA and head

Marala=0.106 RA), Soul (head Qadirabad= 0.013 RA, head Khanki=0.008 RA and head

Marala=0.015 RA) and tilapia (0.179 RA=head Qadirabad, 0.227 RA=head Khanki and 0.292

RA= head Marala) are recorded during research, these fishes also recorded from Sindh, KPK,

Punjab (Rafique and Khan 2012) as; river Jhelum (Rafique et al. 2012), head Balloki, Trimmu

(Khan et al. 2011), Taunsa, Chashma (Khan et al. 2008), Nullah Aik and Palku (Qadir 2010),

Khanki and Qadirabad (Altaf et al. 2011a). Khaga (0.041 RA=head Qadirabad, 0.032 RA=head

Khanki and 0.057 RA=head Marala), Foji Khaga (0.024 RA =head Qadirabad, 0.019 RA=head

Khanki and 0.018 RA= head Marala)encountered as; these species also recorded from the different parts of the AJK, Sindh, KPK, Balochistan, Punjab (Rafique and Khan 2012) as; head

Balloki, Trimmu (Khan et al. 2011), Taunsa, Chashma (Khan et al. 2008) and Qadirabad (Altaf et al. 2011a).

Tangra Machhali (head Qadirabad=0.011 RA, head Khanki=0.003 RA and head Marala=0.008

RA), Baam Machhali (head Qadirabad=0.081 RA, head Khanki= 0.071 RA and head

Marala=0.081 RA), Sangari (head Qadirabad=0.013 RA, head Khanki= 0.011 RA and head

Marala=0.015 RA), Mali(head Qadirabad= 0.006 RA, head Khanki=0.008 RA and head

Marala=0.008 RA), But Pari (0.010 RA=head Qadirabad, 0.006 RA=head Khanki and 0.011

RA=head Marala) and Jhali (head Qadirabad= 0.013 RA, head Khanki= 0.008 RA and head

Marala= 0.01 RA) are recorded. These species are reported from the different part of the Punjab viz. river Jhelum (Mirza et al. 2011), head Balloki, Trimmu (Khan et al. 2011), Nullah Aik and

Palku (Qadir, 2010), Qadirabad (Altafet al. 2011a), Sheikhupura Dhand, Jhelum Bridge and

Saila Baga (Mirza et al. 2006).

Experiment 4

Calculated data shows that Bachhwa is recorded from only one site of the river Chenab viz. head

Qadirabad0.053 RA. This fish is recorded from the various parts of the AJK, Sindh, Punjab

(Rafique and Khan 2012) as; river Jhelum (Mirza et al. 2011), head Balloki, Trimmu (Khan et al.

2011), Taunsa, Chashma (Khan et al. 2008), Qadirabad (Altaf et al. 2011a), Jhelum Bridge,

Darapur Dhand and Rasool Barrage (Mirza et al. 2006).

During this study noted that Lahori Chalwa is encountered from river Chenab as; 0.002 (RA) from the head Qadirabad, 0.003 (RA) from the head Khanki and 0.002 (RA) from the head

Marala. This fish is also reported from the different parts of the Punjab as; river Jhelum (Mirza et al. 2011), head Balloki and Trimmu (Khan et al. 2011).

Sophore Popra is captured from river Chenab as; 0.005 (RA) from the head Qadirabad, 0.002

(RA) from the head Khanki and 0.005 (RA) from the head Marala. This fish is also reported from the different parts of the Punjab as; river Jhelum (Mirza et al. 2006; Mirza et al. 2011), head Balloki, Trimmu (Khan et al. 2011), Nullah Aik and Palku (Qadir 2010), Qadirabad (Altaf et al. 2011a).

With the other fishes, Ticto Popra specimen is also collected from two sites of the river Chenab,

0.003 (RA) from the head Qadirabad and 0.003 (RA) from the head Marala. This fish is also reported from the different parts of the Punjab as; river Jhelum (Mirza et al. 2011), head Balloki,

Trimmu (Khan et al. 2011), Nullah Aik and Palku (Qadir 2010), Khanki, Qadirabad (Altaf et al.

2011a), Sheikhupura Dhand, Jhelum Bridge and Chingus Warena (Mirza et al. 2006).

Ranga Sheesha (0.011 RA= head Qadirabad, 0.008 RA=head Khanki and 0.01 RA=head

Marala), Kirla Machhali (0.003 RA =head Qadirabad and 0.005 RA=head Khanki), Kaan

Machhali (0.003 RA=head Qadirabad, 0.002 RA=head Khanki and 0.006 RA=head Marala),

Experiment 4

Pather Chat (0.002 RA=head Qadirabad, 0.005 RA=head Khanki and 0.01=head Marala) and

Pali Roo Machhali (0.008 RA=head Qadirabad, 0.005 RA= head Khanki and 0.002 RA=head

Marala) are recorded from all three sites of the river Chenab, 0.011 (RA) from the head

Qadirabad, 0.008 (RA) from the head Khanki and 0.01 (RA) from the head Marala. This fish is also reported from the different parts of the Punjab as; head Balloki, Trimmu (Khan et al. 2011),

Nullah Aik and Palku (Qadir 2010), Qadirabad (Altaf et al. 2011a).

Sangehi Machhali is captured from all three sites of the river Chenab, 0.003 (RA) from the head

Qadirabad, 0.002 (RA) from the head Khanki and 0.005 (RA) from the head Marala. This fish is also reported from the different parts of the Punjab as; river Jhelum (Mirza et al. 2011), head

Balloki, Trimmu (Khan et al. 2011), Nullah Aik and Palku (Qadir 2010), Qadirabad (Altafet al.

2011a) and Jhelum Bridge (Mirza et al. 2006).

Present assessment shows that Gagata Cenia is reported from all three sites of the river Chenab,

0.003 (RA) from the head Qadirabad, 0.002 (RA) from the head Khanki and 0.002 (RA) from the head Marala. This fish is also reported from the different parts of the Punjab as; river Jhelum

(Mirza et al., 2011), Nullah Aik and Palku (Qadir 2010), Qadirabad (Altaf et al. 2011a), Rasool

Barrage and Marala Dhand (Mirza et al. 2006).

During this study observed that Garoj is encountered from all three sites of the river Chenab,

0.032 (RA) from the head Qadirabad, 0.008 (RA) from the head Khanki and 0.011 (RA) from the head Marala. This fish is also reported from the different parts of the Punjab as; head Balloki,

Trimmu (Khan et al. 2011), Nullah Aik and Palku (Qadir 2010), and Qadirabad (Altaf et al.

2011a).

Experiment 4

References

Altaf M, Javid A, Umair M. 2014. Biodiversity of Ramsar sites in Pakistan. Lambert Academic

Publishing.

Altaf M, Khan AM, Umair M, Chattha SA. 2011a. Diversity of Carps in River Chenab, Pakistan.

Punjab Univ J Zool.26:107-114.

Altaf M, Khan AM, Umair M, Irfan M, Munir MA, Ahmed Z. 2011b. Ecology and diversity of

freshwater fishes of head Qadirabad, Gujranwala. Punjab Univ J Zool.26:1-7.

Anonymous. 2007. Surface water quality monitoring in Punjab. In: Directorate of Land

Reclamation Punjab Canal Bank Moghalpura, Lahore.: Government of Punjab.

Bartram J, Ballance R. 1996. Water quality monitoring: a practical guide to the design and

implementation of freshwater quality studies and monitoring programmes. CRC Press.

Dudgeon D. 1992. Endangered ecosystems: a review of the conservation status of tropical Asian

rivers. Hydrobiologia.248:167-191.

Gleick PH, Burns W, Chalecki E, Cohen M, Cushing K, Mann A, Reyer R, Wolff G, Wong A.

2002. The World’s Water 2002-2003. The biennial report on freshwater resources. Island

Press, Washington.

Gupta S, Gupta P. 2006. General and applied ichthyology:(fish and fisheries). S. Chand.

Hammert Q, D. A. T. Harper & P. D., Ryan, 2001 2001. Past paleontol. PE.4:9.

Helfman G, Collette BB, Facey DE, Bowen BW. 2009. The diversity of fishes: Biology,

Evolution, and Ecology. John Wiley & Sons.

IUCN. 1989. Pakistan Fact Sheet Water. Journalist Resource Centre for the Environment.

IUCN Pakistan.

Experiment 4

Khan A, Ali Z, Shelly S, Ahmad Z, Mirza M. 2011. Aliens; a catastrophe for native freshwater

fish diversity in Pakistan. J Anim Plant Sci.21:435-440.

Khan A, Shakir H, Khan M, Abid M, Mirza M. 2008. Ichthyofaunal survey of some fresh water

reservoirs in Punjab. J. Anim. Pl. Sci.18:151.

Magurran AE. 2004. Measuring biological diversity.

Majagi S, Vijaykumar K, Rajshekhar M, Vasanthkumar B. 2008. Chemistry of groundwater in

Gulbarga district, Karnataka, India. Environ Monit Assess.136:347-354.

Mirza MR. 2004. Freshwater Fishes of Pakistan. Urdu Science Board.1:256.

Mirza Z, Javed M, Mirza M. 2006. Fishes of the River Jhelum from Mangla to Jalalpur Near

Head Rasool. Biologia (Pak).52 215-227.

Mirza ZS, Mirza MR, Mirza M, Sulehria A. 2011. Ichthyofaunal diversity of the River Jhelum,

Pakistan. Biologia (Pak).57:23-32.

Nelson JS. 2006. Fishes of the World. John Wiley & Sons.

Peter T. 1999. Coldwater fish and fisheries in Pakistan. FAO, Rome. Fish Tech Paper.385:122-

137.

Qadir A. 2010. Effect of anthropogenic activities on water quality and fish fauna of Nullah Aik

and Nullah Palkhu tributaries of River Chenab, Pakistan. Ph.D. Thesis. Quad-I-Azam

University, Islamabad.:262.

Rafique M, Khan N. 2012. Distribution and status of significant freshwater fishes of Pakistan.

Rec. Zool. Surv. Pak.21:90-95.

Schüürmann G, Markert B. 1998. Ecotoxicology. Ecological fundamentals, chemical exposure

and biological effects, Co-publication John Wiley and Sons and Spektrum Akademischer

Verlag, New York.900.

Experiment 4

Singh RK, Chavan SL, Sapkale PH. 2007. Heavy metal concentrations in water, sediments and

body tissues of red worm (Tubifex spp.) collected from natural habitats in Mumbai, India.

Environ Monit Assess.129:471-481.

Taylor BW, Flecker AS, Hall RO. 2006. Loss of a harvested fish species disrupts carbon flow in

a diverse tropical river. Science.313:833-836.

Taylor CM. 1997. Fish species richness and incidence patterns in isolated and connected stream

pools: effects of pool volume and spatial position. Oecologia.110:560-566.

Thorp JH, Thoms MC, Delong MD. 2008. The riverine ecosystem synthesis. Towards

conceptual.

Welcomme RL. 1979. Fisheries ecology of floodplain rivers. Longman London.

Winemiller KO. 1989. Ontogenetic diet shifts and resource partitioning among piscivorous fishes

in the Venezuelan ilanos. Environ Biol Fish.26:177-199.

CHAPTER 3 EXPERIMENT 5

Title: CULTURAL AND MEDICINAL SIGNIFICANCE OF AVIAN SPECIES ALONG RIVER CHENAB, PUNJAB, PAKISTAN

M. Altaf1*, A. Javid1, M. Ashraf2, A. M. Khan3, M. Umair4, Irfan1, SM Hussian6 and Z. Ali3

1Department of Wildlife and Ecology, University of the Veterinary and Animal Sciences, Lahore, Pakistan

2Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture, University of the Veterinary and Animal Sciences, Lahore, Pakistan 3Department of Zoology, University of the Punjab, Lahore, Pakistan

4School of Agriculture and Biology, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai

5Department of Zoology, Government College University, Faislabad, Pakistan

*Corresponding auther: [email protected]

This paper is submitted in Journal of Ethnopharmacology

Submitted date: January 2016

Impact factor: 2.998

Abstract The medicinal and cultural significance of avian species along the River Chenab were assessed through Relative Popularity Level (RPL) and Rank Order Priority (ROP). One hundred and nine persons were interviewed and data obtained regarding socio-economic status of the respondents, qualitative data on cultural significance from three selected districts along the River Chenab.

The compiled data are analyzed using different quantitative tools, such as relative frequency of mention (RFM), fidelity level (FL), relative popularity level RPL and rank order priority (ROP).

Out of a total 155 avian species recorded from the study area, 28 have medical importance while

Experiment 5 local people were using feathers of almost all the bird species for making different toys. Ten species were most popular and highest RFM values (0.58) were recorded for house sparrow

(Passer domesticus). Similarly, highest FL values (100%) were recorded for house sparrow (P. domesticus) and domestic chicken (Gallus gallus). These studies indicated that the area is rich in avian diversity and many of these species have medical and cultural significance for the locales.

Key words: Pakistan, relative popularity level, rank order priority, traditional uses.

1. Introduction

Ethno-ornithology is the study of people’s awareness about birds but this field has remained neglected as most of the times only the conservation aspect was preferred (Grimmet 1998; Brook and McLachlan 2005) and participation of local people was not encourged (Hunn et al. 2003;

Gilchristet al. 2005). However, it was later realized that without the help of the local community the conservation goal is difficult to achieve (Brook and McLachlan 2005; Gilchrist and Mallory

2007; Brook and McLachlan 2008; Ahmed et al. 2014, 2015). It is therefore necessary to relate traditional as well as modern ecological knowledge; so as to enhance local ownership (Hunnet al.

2003; Gilchristet al. 2005). This aspect was focused by few researchers during the 1st decade of

21st century (Berkes et al. 2000; Gilchrist et al. 2005; Gilchrist and Mallory 2007).

Besides indirect use values, the birds are a source of food, recreation and their parts are used in preparation of human medicines (Anderson 2010; Alves et al. 2012a). To involve local people in conservation planning it is mandatory to enlist species used by local people for manufacturing of traditional medicines, cultural, social, ecological significance of species (Alves and Rosa 2007; Alonso-Castro et al. 2011; Alves et al. 2012b; Arshad et al. 2014). Some ethno- ornithological surveys have been conducted in rural areas (Waldram et al. 2000; Aikins 2005;

Experiment 5

Smitherman et al. 2005) while there is paucity of such studies in urban areas (Alves and Rosa

2007; Alves et al. 2007; Arshad et al. 2014).

Avian diversity of Pakistan is unique and is represented by 668 species (Mirza and Wasiq

2007). People of the country are mostly poor and dependent on natural resources for their livelihood and many wild species are utilized for the treatment of diseases and there is a dire need to conduct ethno-ornithological studies in the area. The present study was therefore designed to detemine the importance of native avian species in the livelihood of local people of three districts viz. Sialkot, Gujrat and Gujranwala in the Punjab province of Pakistan.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study area

The present survey was conducted in three districts viz. Silakot, Gujrat and Gujranwala in

Punjab, Pakistan from May 2014 through April 2015. All the three districts are famous for quality rice production and natural tropical thorn forest has been largely changed in to agroecosystem. All the districts are densely populated having a population of 9.95 million; 52% are males and 48% females; 73% people live in villages and 27% in cities. Prominent vegetations are are jand (Prosopis cineraria), kans grass (Saccharum spontaneurn), goose grass (Eleusine compressa), shisham (Dalbergia sissoo), Indian plum (Zizyphus mauritiana), kikar (Acacia nilotica), cockle-bur (Xanthium strumarium), burra gokharu (Tribulus terrestris L.) and marijuana (Cannabis sativa) (Roberts 1997; Umair et al. 2013). Coordinates and sampling sites in all the three districts i.e. Silakot, Gujrat and Gujranwala are mentioned in table 1

(Anonymous, 2007; Sheikh 2012 a,b,c).

1.1.Data collection

Experiment 5

People awareness about avian species of the study area and their significance for locales was assessed through a questionnaire. The questionnaire contained information regarding profile of the respondents, local names of birds, cultural and medical significance of birds (Appendix 1).

Published literature (Roberts 1991,1992; Grimmett, 1998; Mirza and Wasiq 2007) was consulted for the correct identification of birds of the area.

Table 1. GPS coordinates of sampling sites in the study area.

Sampling station Type Location Elevation (ft) District Sialkot Head Marala Forest Habitat (FH-1) 32o39'59 N, 74o28'05 E 811 Motra agriculture Agriculture Habitat (AH-1) 32o24'40 N, 74o24'47 E 840 Bahlolpur Rural Forest Habitat (RFH-1) 32o34'55 N, 74o25'41 E 840 Motra Agri-Rural Habitat (ARH-1) 32o23'07 N, 74o25'18 E 777 Latifa bad Urban Non Vegetative Habitat (UNVH-1) 32o29'42 N, 74o32'05 E 840 Murad Pur Urban Vegetative Habitat (UVH-1) 32o31'09 N, 74o30'05 E 808 District Gujrat Head Khanki Forest Habitat (FH-2) 32о28'32 N, 73о03'39 E 712 Kunjah agriculture Agriculture Habitat (AH-2) 32о30'57 N, 73о57'22 E 734 Ghazi Chak Rural Forest Habitat (RFH-2) 32о30'00 N, 73о05'39 E 739 Kunjah Agri-Rural Habitat (ARH-2) 32о31'52 N, 73о58'29 E 735 Walled city Urban Non Vegetative Habitat (UNVH-2) 32о34'26 N, 74о04'39 E 802 Green town Urban Vegetative Habitat (UVH-2) 32о33'27 N, 74о04'39 E 756 District Gujranwala Head Qadirabad Forest Habitat (FH-3) 32о19'06 N, 073о41'36E 683 Verpal agriculture Agriculture Habitat (AH-3) 32о14'38 N, 073о53'04E 701 Kot hara Rural Forest Habitat (RFH-3) 32о16'06 N, 073о42'22E 695 Varpal Chattha Agri-Rural Habitat (ARH-3) 32о13'02 N, 073о54'26E 704 Noor bawa Urban Non Vegetative Habitat (UNVH-3) 32о09'44 N, 074о10'56E 758 Qila sundar singh Urban Vegetative Habitat (UVH-3) 32о08'33 N, 074о10'00E 731

1.2.Data analysis

Collected data was analyzed through different quantitative indices.

2.3.1. Relative frequency of mention (RFM)

RFM represents local importance of species in study area (Ilker et al. 2009; Vitalini et al. 2013).

Values of RFM ranges between 0 and 1 and it can be calculated by dividing the number of

Experiment 5 informants mentioning a useful species (FM) by total number of informants in the survey (N)

(Tardío and Pardo-de-Santayana 2008).

RFM= FM/N

2.3.2. Fidelity level (FL)

The fidelity level (FL) indicates medicinal importance of a species for local people. It can be calculated using following formula as described by Friedman et al. (1986) and Alexiades and

Sheldon (1996).

FL (%) = Np/N × 100

Where

Np = numbers of informants for particular types of medicinal use of avian species

N = total number of informants that cited the species for any use.

2.3.3. Relative popularity level (RPL)

RPL can be calculated by dividing total number of informants with the mean value of FM. The avian species encountered were divided into popular and unpopular species. The relative popularity level (RPL) ranges between 0 and 1. Maximum value 1 means complete popularity of a species for usage against major ailments while 0 value means no medicinal significance

(Friedman et al., 1986; Ali-Shtayeh et al., 2000).

2.3.4. Rank order priority (ROP)

ROP is used to properly rank the birds and can be calculated by multiplying RPL values by FL values (Friedman et al. 1986; Ali-Shtayeh et al. 2000).

ROP = FL × RPL

2. Results and Discussion

2.1. Respondents’ characteristics

Experiment 5

During present survey, 155 avian species were recorded from all the sampling sites in three districts viz. Sialkot, Gujrat and Gujranwala. Ethno-ornithology data was collected from 109 respondents. Ages of these respondents were between 20 to 70 years, 35% were illiterate non- educated, were from different professions viz. health practitioners (18%), farmers (39%), teachers (21%), herdsmen (14%) and hunters (8%).

2.2. Local name of avian species

Local people recognized most of the avian species (96.2%) and called them with local names

(table 2) with the exception of water rail, temminck's stint, marsh sandpiper, green sandpiper, wood sandpiper and Indian silverbill. It was noted that few species have more than one local name while resembling species have same local names e.g. little green bee-eater and blue cheeked bee- eater; Isabelline wheatear and Eastern wheatear, Kashmir roller and Indian roller, and Sind babbler and common babbler have same local names.

Local peole named few birds (16.8%) on the basis of their voices e.g. little cormorant,

Eurasian wigeon. black kite, black winged kite, black partridge, common quail, common crane, pied avocet, red wattled lapwing, dunlin, greenshank, gull billed tern, whiskered tern, Oriental turtle dove, large Indian parakeet, rose ringed parakeet, pied crested cuckoo, koel, small pied kingfisher, common hoopoe, Indian roller, common swallow, tawny pipit, house crow, common rosefinch and spotted owlet. Similar studies were conducted from Phillipines (Van der Ploeg and

Van Weerd 2010) and Brazil (Alves et al. 2013; Licariao et al. 2013; Teixeira et al. 2014; Loss et al. 2014).

2.3. Hunting methods

Out of total 155 species recorded from the study area, 27 served as food source. Hunters used different strategies to capture these birds. They used to emit voice calls resembling natural calls

Experiment 5 of birds, kept birds in cages to attract other birds, shooting through guns, traps and mist nets.

Similar results have been documented from India (Jaroli et al. 2010; Chinlampianga et al. 2013),

Pakistan (Arshad et al. 2014), Philippines (Van der Ploeg and Van Weerd 2010) and Brazil

(Alveset al. 2013; Teixeira et al. 2014).

2.4. Medicinal and cultural values of avian species

It was observed that six (3.9%) species were regarded as symbols of good or bad omen. Crows are considred as indication of arrival of guests, owls as bad omen while doves are linked with prosperity. Religious magicians used owlet blood for different purposes. Eight species were commercially important while 24 were game birds. In addition, people of the study area were using feathers of almost all the species to decorate their mud toys. Farooq and Kayani (2012) also reported the superstitions about the animals from Punjab, Pakistan.

Local medical practitioners ‗Hakeems’ were using blood, fat and flesh of 28 bird species for medical treatment of paralysis, dysentery, weakness, early maturity, asthma, gastric and kidney problem problems (table 2). Use of wild birds in preparation of medicines has been reported from Brazil (Oliveira et al. 2010; Alveset al. 2012a; Bezerra et al. 2013; Licariao et al.

2013; Teixeira et al. 2014), Nepal (Acharya et al. 2009; Lohani 2011), Pakistan (Arshad et al.

2014), Philippines (Van der Ploeg and Van Weerd 2010), Korea (Kim and Song 2013), México

(Alonso-Castroet al. 2011), Nigeria (Soewu et al. 2012), Ethiopia (Haileselasie 2012) Africa

(Djagoun et al. 2013) and India (Chinlampiangaet al. 2013; Sarkar et al. 2014; Vijayakumar et al.

2015).

2.5. Relative frequency of mention (RFM)

Higher values of relative frequency of mention (RFM) were observed for Passer domesticus

(0.587), Gallus gallus (0.569) and Columba livia (0.550) indicating greater values for the local

100

Experiment 5 people. Mahmood et al. (2013) applied similar methods to know the values of plants in peoples’ life.

2.6. Relative popularity level (RPL)

Findings of the survey indicated that out of 28 medically important species, 10 species were commonly used by the local medical practitioners (table 3, figure 1). Species with 1.0 RPL include Passer domesticus, Gallus gallus, Columba livia, Coturnix coturnix, Francolinus francolinus, Anas platyrhynchos domesticus, Streptopelia tranquebarica, Streptopelia decaocta,

Streptopelia orientalis and Streptopelia senegalensis. Our results are in line with the findings of

Friedman et al. (1986) and Ali-Shtayeh et al. (2000).

2.7. Fidelity level (FL)

Fidelity level (FL) of 28 avian species was recorded against a given ailment category. 100% FL values were calculated for Passer domesticus, Gallus gallus and Anas platyrhynchos domesticus.

(table 3, figure 1 and 2). Srithi et al. (2009) and Bibi et al. (2014) reported that high FL values indicate greater use of species.

2.8. Rank order priority (ROP)

Out of the 28 medicinally important species, only 4 species attained rank order priority (ROP) values above 50. It was also observed that people from rural areas have more interaction with the birds as compared to the people from cities. Similar studies have been conducted at Negev district (Friedmanet al. 1986) and Palestine (Ali-Shtayehet al. 2000).

Conclusion

It can be concluded from present survey that local people use many species for treatment of diseases. Traditional ethnomedicinal knowledge confirmed the need of cautiously studying zootherapeutic practices to better understand human, environmental and cultural interactions.

101

Experiment 5

Our results indicated that inhabitants of the studied area keep substantial information about the local fauna to treat various diseases. Potential of these species should be explored and if suitable should be incorporated in new medicines.

Author’s contribution

MA design study and conducted ethno-mammalogical survey; AJ supervised the project; MA,

ZA, AMK helped in data analysis. All the authors critically read this article and approved as the final manuscript.

References

Acharya R, Ghimirey Y, Gautam B, Karki K, Ghimire B, Thapa S, Mantovani L, De Gioia A,

Lama R, Mela Aryal SG. 2009. Assessment of status, threats and the ethno-ornithological

relationship and its extension for the conservation of Owl in Nepal.Nepal.

Ahmed N, Mahmood A, Mahmood A, Sadeghi Z, Farman M. 2015. Ethnopharmacological

importance of medicinal flora from the district of Vehari, Punjab province, Pakistan. J.

Ethnopharmacol. 168: 66-78.

Ahmed N, Mahmood A, Tahir SS, Bano A, Malik RN, Hassan S, Ashraf A. 2014.

Ethnomedicinal knowledge and relative importance of indigenous medicinal plants of

Cholistan desert, Punjab Province, Pakistan. J. Ethnopharmacol. 155: 1263-1275.

Aikins Ad-G. 2005. Healer shopping in Africa: new evidence from rural-urban qualitative study

of Ghanaian diabetes experiences. BMJ.331:737.

Alexiades MN, Sheldon JW. 1996. Selected guidelines for ethnobotanical research: A Field

Manual. Boranx, NY: The New York Botanical Garden.

Ali-Shtayeh MS, Yaniv Z, Mahajna J. 2000. Ethnobotanical survey in the Palestinian area: a

classification of the healing potential of medicinal plants. J Ethnopharmacol.73:221-232.

102

Experiment 5

Alonso-Castro AJ, Carranza-Álvarez C, Maldonado-Miranda JJ, del Rosario Jacobo-Salcedo M,

Quezada-Rivera DA, Lorenzo-Márquez H, Figueroa-Zúñiga LA, Fernández-Galicia C,

Ríos-Reyes NA, de León-Rubio MÁ. 2011. Zootherapeutic practices in Aquismón, San

Luis Potosí, México. J Ethnopharmacol.138:233-237.

Alves RR, Rosa IL. 2007. Zootherapy goes to town: The use of animal-based remedies in urban

areas of NE and N Brazil. J Ethnopharmacol.113:541-555.

Alves RR, Rosa IL, Santana GG. 2007. The role of animal-derived remedies as complementary

medicine in Brazil. BioScience. 57: 949-955.

Alves RR, Rosa IL, Neto NAL, Voeks R. 2012a. Animals for the gods: magical and religious

faunal use and trade in Brazil. Human Ecol.40:751-780.

Alves RR, Rosa IL, Santana GG. 2007. The role of animal-derived remedies as complementary

medicine in Brazil. BioScience.57:949-955.

Alves RRN, Leite RCL, Souto WMS, Bezerra DM, Loures-Ribeiro A. 2013. Ethno-ornithology

and conservation of wild birds in the semi-arid Caatinga of northeastern Brazil. J

Ethnobiol Ethnomed.9:1-12.

Alves RRN, Neta ROS, Trovão D, Barbosa J, Barros AT, Dias TLP. 2012b. Traditional uses of

medicinal animals in the semi-arid region of northeastern Brazil. J Ethnobiol

Ethnomed.8:4269-4268.

Anderson PK. 2010. Human–Bird Interactions. In: The Welfare of Domestic Fowl and Other

Captive Birds. Springer. p. 17-51.

Anonymous. 2007. Surface water quality monitoring in Punjab. In: Directorate of Land

Reclamation Punjab Canal Bank Moghalpura, Lahore. Government of Punjab.

103

Experiment 5

Arshad M, Ahmad M, Ahmed E, Saboor A, Abbas A, Sadiq S. 2014. An ethnobiological study in

Kala Chitta hills of Pothwar region, Pakistan: multinomial logit specification. J Ethnobiol

Ethnomed.10:13.

Berkes F, Colding J, Folke C. 2000. Rediscovery of traditional ecological knowledge as adaptive

management. Ecol appl.10:1251-1262.

Bezerra DMM, Araújo H, Alves A, Alves RRN. 2013. Birds and people in semiarid northeastern

Brazil: symbolic and medicinal relationships. J Ethnobiol Ethnomed.9:1-12.

Bibi T, Ahmad M, Tareen RB, Tareen NM, Jabeen R, Rehman S-U, Sultana S, Zafar M, Yaseen

G. 2014. Ethnobotany of medicinal plants in district Mastung of Balochistan province-

Pakistan. J Ethnopharmacol.157:79-89.

Brook RK, McLachlan SM. 2005. On using expert-based science to ―test‖ local ecological

knowledge. Ecol Society.10:r3.

Brook RK, McLachlan SM. 2008. Trends and prospects for local knowledge in ecological and

conservation research and monitoring. Biodiver Conserv.17:3501-3512.

Chinlampianga M, Singh RK, Shukla AC. 2013. Ethnozoological diversity of Northeast India:

Empirical learning with traditional knowledge holders of Mizoram and Arunachal

Pradesh. Indian J. Tradit. Knowl.12:18-30.

Choudhary MA. 2010. Religious Practices at Sufi Shrines in the Punjab. Pakistan. J Hist

Cult.31:1-30.

Djagoun CA, Akpona HA, Mensah GA, Nuttman C, Sinsin B. 2013. Wild mammals trade for

zootherapeutic and mythic purposes in Benin (West Africa): Capitalizing species

involved, provision sources, and implications for conservation. In: Anim Trad Folk Med.

Springer. p. 367-381.

104

Experiment 5

Farooq A, Kayani AK. 2012. Prevalence of Superstitions and other Supernaturals in Rural

Punjab: A Sociological Perspective. J S Asia Stud. 27: 335-344.

Friedman J, Yaniv Z, Dafni A, Palewitch D. 1986. A preliminary classification of the healing

potential of medicinal plants, based on a rational analysis of an ethnopharmacological

field survey among Bedouins in the Negev Desert, Israel. J Ethnopharmacol.16:275-287.

Gadgil M, Berkes F, Folke C. 1993. Indigenous knowledge for biodiversity conservation.

Ambio.22:151-156.

Gilchrist G, Mallory M, Merkel F. 2005. Can local ecological knowledge contribute to wildlife

management? Case studies of migratory birds. Ecol Society.10:20.

Gilchrist G, Mallory ML. 2007. Comparing expert-based science with local ecological

knowledge: what are we afraid of. Ecol Society.12:r1.

Grimmett R, Inskipp, C. & Inskip, T. 1998. Birds of the Indian subcontinent.: Christopher

Helm an imprint of A and C Black (Publisher) Ltd, 35 Bedford Row, London

WCIR 4JH.

Haileselasie TH. 2012. Traditional zootherapeutic studies in Degu’a Tembien, Northern

Ethiopia. Current Res J Biol Sci.4:563-569.

Hunn E, Johnson D, Russell P, Thornton T. 2003. Huna Tlingit Traditional Environmental

Knowledge, Conservation, and the Management of a ―Wilderness‖ Park1. Current

Anthropol.44:S79-S103.

Ilker U, Suleyman B, Nurettin Y, Yunus D. 2009. The investigation and quantitative

ethnobotanical evaluation of medicinal plants used around Izmir province, Turkey. J Med

Plant Res.3:345-367.

105

Experiment 5

Jaroli D, Mahawar MM, Vyas N. 2010. An ethnozoological study in the adjoining areas of

Mount Abu wildlife sanctuary, India. J Ethnobiol Ethnomed.6:6.

Kim H, Song M-J. 2013. Ethnozoological study of medicinal animals on Jeju Island, Korea. J

Ethnopharmacol.146:75-82.

Licariao MR, Bezerra DM, Alves R. 2013. Wild birds as pets in Campina Grande, Paraíba State,

Brazil: An Ethnozoological Approach. Acad Brasil Cie.85:201-213.

Lohani U. 2011. Traditional uses of animals among jirels of Central Nepal. Ethno Med.5:115-

124.

Loss ATG, Neto EMC, Machado CG, Flores FM. 2014. Ethnotaxonomy of birds by the

inhabitants of Pedra Branca Village, Santa Teresinha municipality, Bahia state, Brazil. J

Ethnobiol Ethnomed.10:55.

Mahmood A, Mahmood A, Malik RN, Shinwari ZK. 2013. Indigenous knowledge of medicinal

plants from Gujranwala district, Pakistan. J. Ethnopharmacol.148:714-723.

Mirza ZB, Wasiq H. 2007. A field guide to birds of Pakistan Bookland, Lahore.

Oliveira ES, Torres DF, Brooks SE, Alves RR. 2010. The medicinal animal markets in the

metropolitan region of Natal City, Northeastern Brazil. J Ethnopharmacol.130:54-60.

Roberts TJ. 1991. The Birds of Pakistan Karachi Oxford University Press.

Roberts TJ. 1992. The Birds of Pakistan. Karachi: Oxford University Press.

Roberts TJ. 1997. The Mammals of Pakistan. New Yark: Oxford University Press

Sarkar A, Biswa R, Das A. 2014. Zootherapeutic uses of animals by Mech tribe living in Duars

of West Bengal, India. Ind J Trad Knowl.13:557-563.

Sheikh MS. 2012a. District Pre-Investment Study – 2012, Gujranwala. In. p. 1-376.

Sheikh MS. 2012b. District Pre-Investment Study – 2012, Gujrat. In. p. 1-28.

106

Experiment 5

Sheikh MS. 2012c. District Pre-Investment Study – 2012, Sialkot. In. p. 1-31.

Smitherman LC, Janisse J, Mathur A. 2005. The use of folk remedies among children in an urban

black community: remedies for fever, colic, and teething. Pediatrics.115:e297-e304.

Soewu DA, Bakare OK, Ayodele IA. 2012. Trade in wild Mammalian species for traditional

medicine in Ogun State, Nigeria. Global J Med Res.12.

Srithi K, Balslev H, Wangpakapattanawong P, Srisanga P, Trisonthi C. 2009. Medicinal plant

knowledge and its erosion among the Mien (Yao) in northern Thailand. J

Ethnopharmacol.123:335-342.

Tardío J, Pardo-de-Santayana M. 2008. Cultural importance indices: a comparative analysis

based on the useful wild plants of Southern Cantabria (Northern Spain) 1. Economic

Bot.62:24-39.

Teixeira PHR, Thel T, Ferreira J, Júnior S, Júnior W, Neves R. 2014. Local knowledge and

exploitation of the avian fauna by a rural community in the semi-arid zone of

northeastern Brazil. J Ethnobiol Ethnomed.10:81.

Umair M, Ilyas U, Altaf M. 2013. Diversity and Ecology of Parthenium weeds ar head khanki,

Pakistan. Lambert Academic Publishing.

Van der Ploeg J, Van Weerd M. 2010. Agta bird names: an ethno-ornithological survey in the

Northern Sierra Madre Natural Park, Philippines. Forktail.127-131.

Vijayakumar S, Yabesh JM, Prabhu S, Ayyanar M, Damodaran R. 2015. Ethnozoological study

of animals used by traditional healers in Silent Valley of Kerala, India. J

Ethnopharmacol.162:296-305.

107

Experiment 5

Vitalini S, Iriti M, Puricelli C, Ciuchi D, Segale A, Fico G. 2013. Traditional knowledge on

medicinal and food plants used in Val San Giacomo (Sondrio, Italy)—An alpine

ethnobotanical study. J Ethnopharmacol.145:517-529.

Waldram J, Whiting J, Kornder N, Habbick B. 2000. Cultural understandings and the use of

traditional medicine among urban Aboriginal people with diabetes in Saskatoon, Canada.

Can J Diabetes Care.24:31-38.

108

Experiment 5

Table 2. Avian species recorded from the study area and their significance in the life of the local people.

Scientific name Common name Local name Family Order Uses CU FM RFM Food Tachybaptus ruficollis Little Grebe Dubkian Podicipedidae Podicipediformes Wi, Or 2 5 0.046 Piscivore Phalacrocorax niger Little Cormorant Jal kaan Phalacrocoracidae Suliformes Wi, Or 2 3 0.028 Piscivore Anhinga melanogaster Snake Bird Bhujanga Anhingidae Suliformes Wi, Or 2 6 0.055 Piscivore Exobrychus sinensis Yellow Bittern Bora bagla Ardeidae Pelecaniformes Wi, Or 2 4 0.037 Piscivores Nycticorax nycticorax Night Heron Chor bagla Ardeidae Pelecaniformes Wi, Or 2 7 0.064 Piscivore Ardeola grayii Indian Pond Heron Chhappari bagla Ardeidae Pelecaniformes Wi, Or 2 2 0.018 Piscivore Bubulcus ibis Cattle Egret Badami bagla Ardeidae Pelecaniformes Wi, Me, Or 3 6 0.055 Piscivore Egretta garzetta Little Egret Bauna bagla Ardeidae Pelecaniformes Wi, Me, Or 3 8 0.073 Piscivore Egretta alba Large Egret Wadda bagla Ardeidae Pelecaniformes Wi, Me, Or 3 10 0.092 Piscivore Ardea cinerea Grey Heron Nari Ardeidae Pelecaniformes Wi, Or 2 15 0.138 Piscivore Egretta intermedia Intermediate Egret Gabhla bagla Ardeidae Pelecaniformes Wi, Me, Or 3 12 0.110 Piscivore Ardea cinerea Purple Heron Kirmachi nari Ardeidae Pelecaniformes Wi, Or 2 17 0.156 Piscivore Mycteria leucocephala Painted Stork Chitra lamdhing Ciconiidae Ciconiiformes Wi, Or 2 11 0.101 Piscivore Anser indicus Bar-headed Goose Sawa magh Anserinae Anseriformes Wi, Fo, En, Or 4 22 0.202 Herbivore Tadorna ferruginea Common Shelduck Surkhab Anatidae Anseriformes Wi, Or 2 3 0.028 Carnivore Tadorna tadorna Ruddy Shelduck Surmai Anatidae Anseriformes Wi, Or 2 6 0.055 Carnivore Anas platyrhynchos Mallard Nilsir Anatidae Anseriformes Wi, Me, Or 3 11 0.101 Omnivore Anas crecca Common Teal Til Anatidae Anseriformes Wi, Or 2 3 0.028 Carnivore Anas strepera Gadwall Gaidwal Anatidae Anseriformes Wi, Or 2 4 0.037 Insectivore Anas Penelope Eurasian Wigeon Wijan Anatidae Anseriformes Wi, Fo, En, Or 4 5 0.046 Granivore Anas querquedula Garganey Nili til Anatidae Anseriformes Wi, Fo, Or 3 22 0.202 Omnivore Anas clypeata Shoveler Balchi Anatidae Anseriformes Wi, Or 2 9 0.083 Carnivore Aythya fuligula Tufted Duck Bodal murgabi Anatidae Anseriformes Wi, Fo, En, Or 4 34 0.312 Omnivore Aythya ferina Common Pochard Pochad Anatidae Anseriformes Wi, Fo, En, Or 4 35 0.321 Omnivore Anus actus Pintail Duck Sinkhpur Anatidae Anseriformes Wi, Fo, En, Or 4 38 0.349 Herbivore Pernis ptilorhynchus Crested Honey Buzzard Makhi tissa Accipitridae Accipitriformes Wi, Or 2 4 0.037 Carnivore Milvus migrans migrans Indian Kite Cheil, Ail Accipitridae Accipitriformes Wi, Or 2 8 0.073 Omnivore Elanus caeruleus Black Winged Kite Chiti ail Accipitridae Accipitriformes Wi, Or 2 10 0.092 Carnivore Buteo buteo Common Buzzard Tisa Accipitridae Accipitriformes Wi, Or 2 2 0.018 Carnivore Buteo rufinos Long-legged Buzzard Chuhamar tisa Accipitridae Accipitriformes Wi, Or 2 3 0.028 Carnivore Aquila rapax nipalensis Tawny Eagle Chhota baaz Accipitridae Accipitriformes Wi, Me, Or 3 9 0.083 Carnivore Hieraetus fasciatus Bonnelli's Eagle Baaz Accipitridae Accipitriformes Wi, Me, Or 3 14 0.128 Carnivore Falco tinnunculus Eurasian Kestrel Lal shikra Accipitridae Accipitriformes Wi, Or 2 11 0.101 Carnivore

Falco chicquera Red Necked Falcon Lal-gardan baaz Falconidae Falconiformes Wi, Or 2 10 0.092 Carnivore Francolinus francolinus Black partridge Kala tittar Phasianidae Accipitriformes Wi, Fo, Ma, Me, En, Or 6 56 0.514 Herbivore Francolinus pondicerianus Indian Grey Partridge Bhura tittar Phasianidae Accipitriformes Wi, Fo, Ma, En, Or 5 23 0.211 Herbivore Coturnix coturnix Common Quail Batera Phasianidae Accipitriformes Wi, Fo, Me, Co, En, Or 6 58 0.532 Herbivore Rallus aquaticus Water Rail ? Rallidae Gruiformes Wi, Or 2 13 0.119 Omnivore Porzana parva Little Crake Jal bater Rallidae Gruiformes Wi, Or 2 15 0.138 Omnivore Amaurornis phoenicurus White-breasted Waterhen Chitthikki jal kukri Rallidae Gruiformes Wi, Fo, En, Or 4 25 0.229 Omnivore Gallinula chloropus Common Moorhen Jal kukri Rallidae Gruiformes Wi, Fo, En, Or 4 34 0.312 Omnivore 109

Experiment 5

Gallicrex cinerea Watercock Jal murgha Rallidae Gruiformes Wi, Or 2 13 0.119 Omnivore Fulica atra Eurasian Coot Koot Rallidae Gruiformes Wi, Or 2 11 0.101 Omnivore Grus grus Common Crane Waddi kunj Gruidae Gruiformes Wi, Or 2 9 0.083 Omnivore Himantopus himantopus Black-winged Stilt Lam latta Recurvirostridae Charadriiformes Wi, Or 2 15 0.138 Carnivore Recurvirostra avosetta Pied Avocet Chaha Recurvirostridae Charadriiformes Wi, Or 2 3 0.028 Carnivore Cursorius coromandelicus Indian Courser Nukri Glareolidae Charadriiformes Wi, Or 2 4 0.037 Insectivore Charadrius alexandrines Snowy Plover Kalarwala marwa Charadrius Charadriiformes Wi, Me, Or 3 17 0.156 Carnivore Hoplopterus indicus Red-wattled Lapwing Tatihri Charadrius Charadriiformes Wi, Or 2 13 0.119 Insectivore Vanellus vanellus Great Plover Waddi karvank Charadrius Charadriiformes Wi, Or 2 4 0.037 Carnivore Calidris minuta Little Stint Panlawa Scolopacidae Charadriiformes Wi, Or 2 5 0.046 Insectivore Calidris temminckii Temminck's Stint ? Scolopacidae Charadriiformes Wi, Or 2 5 0.046 Insectivore Calidris alpine Dunlin Tateri Scolopacidae Charadriiformes Wi, Or 2 5 0.046 Carnivore Lymnocryptes minimus Jack Snipe Rangla chaha Scolopacidae Charadriiformes Wi, Or 2 6 0.055 Omnivore Tringa stagnatilis Marsh Sandpiper ? Scolopacidae Charadriiformes Wi, Or 2 5 0.046 Carnivore Tringa nebularia Greenshank Hara chaha Scolopacidae Charadriiformes Wi, Or 2 4 0.037 Carnivore Tringa ochropus Green Sandpiper ? Scolopacidae Charadriiformes Wi, Or 2 6 0.055 Carnivore Tringa glareola Wood Sandpiper ? Scolopacidae Charadriiformes Wi, Or 2 5 0.046 Carnivore Larus fuscus Lesser Black-headed Gull Chhota damra Laridae Charadriiformes Wi, Or 2 4 0.037 Carnivore Gelochelidon nilotica Gull-billed Tern Bularh taheri Sternidae Charadriiformes Wi, Or 2 5 0.046 Piscivore Sterna aurantia Indian River Tern Dariai taheri Sternidae Charadriiformes Wi, Or 2 4 0.037 Piscivore Sterna acuticauda Black-bellied Tern Kali chonge taheri Sternidae Charadriiformes Wi, Or 2 5 0.046 Piscivore Sterna albifrons Little Tern Choti taheri Sternidae Charadriiformes Wi, Or 2 6 0.055 Piscivore Chlidonias hybridus Whiskered Tern Taheri Sternidae Charadriiformes Wi, Or 2 4 0.037 Piscivore Rynchops albicollis Indian Skimmer Pancheera Rynchopidae Charadriiformes Wi, Or 2 4 0.037 Piscivore Streptopelia orientalis Oriental turtle Dove Totru Columbidae Columbiformes Wi, Fo, Na, Me, En, Or 6 44 0.404 Granivore Columba livia Blue Rock Pigeon Jangli kabotar Columbidae Columbiformes Wi, Fo, Me, Co, En, Or 6 60 0.550 Granivore Streptopelia decaocta Indian Ring Dove Kogi, Ghogi Columbidae Columbiformes Wi, Fo, Na, Me, En, Or 6 45 0.413 Granivore Streptopelia tranquebarica Red Turtle Dove Lal totru Columbidae Columbiformes Wi, Fo, Na, Me, En, Or 6 47 0.431 Granivore Streptopelia senegalensis Little Brown Dove Chhoti tutru, Chhoti Columbidae Columbiformes Wi, Fo, Na, En, Or, Me 6 36 0.330 Granivore kogi Psittacula eupatria Large Indian Parakeet Wada tota Psittacidae Psittaciformes Wi, Pt, Or, Co 4 50 0.459 Omnivore Psitta krameri Rose-ringed Parakeet Gani wala Tota Psittacidae Psittaciformes Wi, Pt, Or, Co 5 50 0.459 Omnivore Clamator jacobinus Pied Crested Cuckoo Koail Cuculidae Cuculiformes Wi, Or 2 14 0.128 Insectivore Eudynamys scolopacea Koel Koal Cuculidae Cuculiformes Wi, Fo, En, Or 4 24 0.220 Frugivore Centropus sinensis Common Crow Pheasant Jal Kukar Cuculidae Cuculiformes Wi, Me, Or 3 18 0.165 Omnivore Caprimulgus europaeus European Nightjar Chapaki Caprimulgidae Caprimulgiformes Wi, Or 2 27 0.248 Insectivore Apus affinis Little Swift Chhoti ateran Apodidae Apodiformes Wi, Or 2 11 0.101 Insectivore Halcyon smyrnensis White-throated Wadda machhera Alcedinidae Coraciiformes Wi, Or 2 14 0.128 Piscivore Kingfisher Alcedo atthis Common Kingfisher Chhota machhera Alcedinidae Coraciiformes Wi, Or 2 12 0.110 Piscivore Ceryle rudis Small Pied kingfisher Kilkila Alcedinidae Coraciiformes Wi, Or 2 9 0.083 Piscivore Merops orientalis Little Green Bee-eater Chhota path ranga Meropidae Coraciiformes Wi, Or 2 7 0.064 Insectivore Merops supercilliosus Blue-cheeked Bee-eater Chhota path ranga Meropidae Coraciiformes Wi, Me, Or 3 5 0.046 Insectivore Upupa epops Common Hoopoe Hud-hud Upupidae Coraciiformes Wi, Or 2 4 0.037 Carnivore Coracias garrulous Kashmir Roller Nil Kanth Coracidae Coraciiformes Wi, Or 2 8 0.073 Carnivore

110

Experiment 5

Coracias benghalensis Indian Roller Nil kanth Coracidae Coraciiformes Wi, Or 2 3 0.028 Carnivore Eremopterix grisea Ashy Crowned Finch lark Saleti sir chandol Alaudidae Passeriformes Wi, Fo, En, Or 4 35 0.321 Granivore Calandrella brachydoctyla Greater Short-toed Lark Chandol Alaudidae Passeriformes Wi, Fo, En, Or 4 35 0.321 Granivore Alauda gulgula Small Skylark Chhota chandol Alaudidae Passeriformes Wi, Fo, En, Or 4 35 0.321 Granivore Alauda arvensis Eurasian Lark Chandol Alaudidae Passeriformes Wi, Fo, En, Or 4 35 0.321 Granivore Riparia paludicola Indian Sindh Martin Martin Hirundinidae Passeriformes Wi, Or 2 35 0.321 Insectivore Riparia riparia Collard Sand Martin Martin ababil Hirundinidae Passeriformes Wi, Or 2 4 0.037 Insectivore Hirundo rustica Barn or Common Ababil Hirundinidae Passeriformes Wi, Or 2 5 0.046 Granivore Swallow Hirundo smithii Wire-tailed Swallow Tar punjha Hirundinidae Passeriformes Wi, Or 2 4 0.037 Granivore Anthus novaeseelandiae Richard Pipit Charchari Motacillidae Passeriformes Wi, Or 2 2 0.018 Insectivore Anthus campestris Tawny Pipit Baggi charchari Motacillidae Passeriformes Wi, Or 2 4 0.037 Insectivore Anthus trivialis Tree Pipit Rukh charchari Motacillidae Passeriformes Wi, Or 2 6 0.055 Insectivore Motacilla citreola werae Yellow-headed Grey- Pila si mamaloa Motacillidae Passeriformes Wi, Or 2 4 0.037 Insectivore backed Wagtail Motacilla alba dukhunensis Siberian Pied Wagtail Wadda mamola Motacillidae Passeriformes Wi, Or 2 3 0.028 Insectivore Motacilla alba alboides Hodgeson's Pied Wagtail Wadda mamola Motacillidae Passeriformes Wi, Or 2 3 0.028 Insectivore Motacilla citreola citreola Yellow-Headed Black- Pila Mamola Motacillidae Passeriformes Wi, Or 2 4 0.037 Insectivore Collared Wagtail Motacilla citreola calcarata Yellow-headed Black- Pila kala Mamola Motacillidae Passeriformes Wi, Or 2 6 0.055 Insectivore backed Wagtail Motacilla cinerea Grey Wagtail Slati mamola Motacillidae Passeriformes Wi, Or 2 4 0.037 Insectivore Motacilla maderaspatensis Large Pied Wagtail Wada mamola Motacillidae Passeriformes Wi, Or 2 3 0.028 Insectivore Tephrodornis pondicerian Common Wood Shrike Latora Campephagidae Passeriformes Wi, Or 2 6 0.055 Carnivore Pericrocotus ethologus Long-tailed Minivet Lam punjhi saheli Campephagidae Passeriformes Wi, Or 2 7 0.064 Insectivore Pycnonotus leucogenys White-cheeked Bulbul Bulbul Pycnonotidae Passeriformes Wi, Or 2 2 0.018 Omnivore Pycnonotus cafer Red-vented Bulbul Pahari bulbul Pycnonotidae Passeriformes Wi, Or 2 2 0.018 Omnivore Phoenicurus ochruros Black Redstart Kala thirthara Turdidae Passeriformes Wi, Or 2 4 0.037 Insectivore Saxicola leucura White-tailed Bushchat Galri Turdidae Passeriformes Wi, Or 2 5 0.046 Insectivore Cercomela fusca Common Rock chat Lal galri Turdidae Passeriformes Wi, Or 2 3 0.028 Insectivore Oenanthe isabellina Isabelline Wheatear Kali akha wheater Turdidae Passeriformes Wi, Me, Or 3 15 0.138 Insectivore Oenanthe picata Eastern Wheatear Kali cheeti Turdidae Passeriformes Wi, Me, Or 3 20 0.183 Insectivore wheatear Saxicoloides fulicata Indian Robin Kalla Peedda Turdidae Passeriformes Wi, Or 2 3 0.028 Insectivore Cisticola juncidis Fan-tailed Warbler Phanka Peeddi Turdidae Passeriformes Wi, Or 2 4 0.037 Carnivore Prinia gracilis Streaked Long-tailed Lumbi push Peeddi Turdidae Passeriformes Wi, Or 2 5 0.046 Carnivore Warbler Prinia inornata Tawny Prinia Chhoti bori Peeddi Turdidae Passeriformes Wi, Fo, En, Or 4 27 0.248 Herbivore Prinia burnesii Long-tailed Grass Bori Peeddi Turdidae Passeriformes Wi, Or 2 3 0.028 Carnivore Warbler Orthotomus sutorius Tailor Bird Derzi Turdidae Passeriformes Wi, Or 2 3 0.028 Carnivore Acrocephalus melanopogan Moustached Sedge Chhoti Peeddi Turdidae Passeriformes Wi, Or 2 4 0.037 Carnivore Warbler Acrocephalus dumetorum Blyth's Reed Warbler Dabh peeddi Turdidae Passeriformes Wi, Or 2 6 0.055 Carnivore Hippolais caligara Booted Warbler Chita gala Peeddi Turdidae Passeriformes Wi, Or 2 7 0.064 Carnivore Prinia socialis Ashy long-tailed Warbler Uchi push Peeddi Turdidae Passeriformes Wi, Or 2 3 0.028 Carnivore

111

Experiment 5

Sylvia curruca Lesser Whitetheoat Chitt kanthi peeddi Turdidae Passeriformes Wi, Or 2 4 0.037 Omnivore Phylloscopus subviridis Brooks's Leaf Warbler Hari peeli Peeddi Turdidae Passeriformes Wi, Or 2 4 0.037 Carnivore Ploceus philippinus Baya Weaver Bijra Ploceidae Passeriformes Wi, Or 2 3 0.028 Carnivore Ficedula parva Red-breasted Flycatcher Lal gala Tik tiki Muscicapidae Passeriformes Wi, Or 2 4 0.037 Insectivore Rhipidura aureola White-browned Fantail Phanka Tik tiki Muscicapidae Passeriformes Wi, Or 2 3 0.028 Insectivore Flycatcher Chrysomma altirostre Sind Babbler Serhari Timaliidae Passeriformes Wi, Or 2 2 0.018 Insectivore Turdoides caudatus Common Babbler Serhari Timaliidae Passeriformes Wi, Or 2 4 0.037 Insectivore Turdoides earlei Striated Babbler Dharidar serhari Timaliidae Passeriformes Wi, Or 2 7 0.064 Insectivore Turdoides striatus Jungle Babbler Jangli serhari Timaliidae Passeriformes Wi, Or 2 9 0.083 Insectivore Remiz pendulinus Penduline Tit Tit Remizidae Passeriformes Wi, Or 2 6 0.055 Insectivore Parvus major Great Tit Wadda tit Paridae Passeriformes Wi, Or 2 8 0.073 Insectivore Nectarinia asiatica Purple Sunbird Kala pidda, Shakar Nectariniidae Passeriformes Wi, Or 2 7 0.064 Omnivore khora Dicrurus macrocercus Black Drongo Japal kalchit, Chepu Dicruridae Passeriformes Wi, Or 2 5 0.046 Insectivore Sturnus vulgaris Common Starling Tilyar, Maina Sturnidae Passeriformes Wi, Or 2 5 0.046 Omnivore Sturnus roseus Rosy Starling Gulabi tilyar, Sturnidae Passeriformes Wi, Or 2 4 0.037 Omnivore Gulabi maina Acridothere tristis Common Myna Lali Sturnidae Passeriformes Wi, Or 2 3 0.028 Omnivore Acridothere ginginianus Bank Myna Shark Sturnidae Passeriformes Wi, Me, Or 3 21 0.193 Omnivore Dendocitta vagabunda Indian Tree Pie Chhota kaan, Corvidae Passeriformes Wi, Or 2 5 0.046 Frugivore Lagoja Corvus splendens House Crow Kaan Corvidae Passeriformes Wi, Na, Me, Or 4 28 0.257 Omnivore Passer hispaniolensis Willow Sparrow Chini chiri Passeridae Passeriformes Wi, Or 2 15 0.138 Omnivore Passer domesticus House Sparrow Chiri Passeridae Passeriformes Wi, Fo, Me, Co, En, Or 6 64 0.587 Omnivore Estrilda amandava Red Munia Lal moonia Estrildidae Passeriformes Wi, Or 2 11 0.101 Insectivore Caprodacus erythrinus Common Rosefinch Lal tooti Fringillidae Passeriformes Wi, Fo, En, Or 4 15 0.138 Granivore Lonchura malabarica Indian Silverbill ? Estrildidae Passeriformes Wi, Fo, En, Or 4 17 0.156 Granivore Oriolus oriolus Golden Oriole Pilak Oriolidae Passeriformes Wi, Or 2 13 0.119 Insectivore Emberiza schoeniclus Reed Bunting Booli Emberizidae Passeriformes Wi, Or 2 14 0.128 Insectivore Emberiza bruniceps Red-headed Bunting Lal sir booli Emberizidae Passeriformes Wi, Or 2 25 0.229 Insectivore Athene brama Spotted Little Owlet Ullo Strigidae Strigiformes Wi, Na, Ma, Me, Or 5 31 0.284 Carnivore

Gallus gallus Domestic chicken Murghi Anatidae Anseriformes Do, Fo, Me, Co, Or 5 62 0.569 Omnivore

Anas platyrhynchos Dmestic Duck Batakh Psittacidae Psittaciformes Do, Fo, Me, Co, Or 5 55 0.505 Omnivore domesticus Ara macao Macaw Macaw Arinae Psittaciformes Do, Me, Or 3 24 0.220 Herbivore

Pavo cristatus Peacock Moor Phasianidae Galliformes Do, Me, Or 3 25 0.229 Omnivore

Meleagris gallopavo Turkey Turkey Phasianidae Galliformes Do, Fo, Me, Or, Co 5 30 0.275 Omnivore Note: Do = Domestic, Or = ornamental, Me = medicine, Co = commercial, Ma = Magic, Na = Narrative, En = Entartainment, Fo = Food Table 3. Medicinal use of avian species by the local health practitioners. Sr. Scientific name Common name CUN FM Body part use Ailment IMA FL RPL ROP

112

Experiment 5

1 Passer domesticus House Sparrow 6 64 Flesh Weakness, fever 64 100 1.00 100 2 Gallus gallus Domestic chicken 5 62 Egg, flesh Fever, weakness, low blood pressure 62 100 1.00 100 3 Columba livia Blue Rock Pigeon 6 60 Flesh, Feather Paralysis 53 88.33 1.00 88 4 Coturnix coturnix Common Quail 6 58 Head of the bird, flesh Enhance memory, improve sexual power 30 51.72 1.00 52 5 Francolinus francolinus Black partridge 6 56 Flesh and Bone soup Treat bronchitis 24 42.86 1.00 43 6 Anas platyrhynchos domesticus Domestic Duck 5 55 Egg Weak eye-side 55 100. 1.00 100 7 Streptopelia tranquebarica Red Turtle Dove 6 47 Flesh For early maturity of girls 13 27.66 1.00 28 8 Streptopelia decaocta Indian Ring Dove 6 45 Flesh For early maturity of girls 13 28.89 1.00 29 9 Streptopelia orientalis Oriental turtle Dove 6 44 Flesh For early maturity of girls 13 29.55 1.00 30 10 Streptopelia senegalensis Little Brown Dove 6 36 Flesh For early maturity of girls 13 36.11 1.00 36 11 Athene brama Spotted Little Owlet 5 31 Blood Sexual weakness 18 58.06 0.97 56 12 Meleagris gallopavo Turkey 5 30 Flesh Asthma 10 33.33 0.94 31 13 Corvus splendens House Crow 4 28 Bone For ear infection 4 14.29 0.88 13 14 Pavo cristatus Peacock 3 25 Bone Wound, pus 7 28.00 0.78 22 15 Ara macao Macaw 3 24 Fat Pneumonia 9 37.50 0.75 28 16 Acridothere ginginianus Bank Myna 3 21 Flesh Whooping cough 15 71.43 0.66 47 17 Oenanthe picata Eastern Wheatear 3 20 Fat Gastric problems in infants 2 10 0.63 6 18 Centropus sinensis Common Crow Pheasant 3 18 Flesh Body-ache 5 27.78 0.56 16 19 Charadrius alexandrines Snowy Plover 3 17 Egg Typhoid 6 35.29 0.53 19 20 Oenanthe isabellina Isabelline Wheatear 3 15 Fat Gastric problems in infants 8 53.33 0.47 25 21 Hieraetus fasciatus Bonnelli's Eagle 3 14 Fat Breast swelling 3 21.43 0.44 9 22 Egretta intermedia Intermediate Egret 3 12 Blood, Flesh Dysentery 7 58.33 0.38 22 23 Anas platyrhynchos Mallard 3 11 Flesh, egg Paralysis 10 90.91 0.34 31 24 Egretta alba Large Egret 3 10 Blood, Flesh Dysentery 5 50.00 0.31 16 25 Aquila rapax nipalensis Tawny Eagle 3 9 Fat Breast swelling 4 44.44 0.28 13 26 Egretta garzetta Little Egret 3 8 Blood, Flesh Dysentery 2 25.00 0.25 6 27 Bubulcus ibis Cattle Egret 3 6 Blood, Flesh Dysentery 1 16.67 0.19 3 28 Upupa epops Common Hoopoe 2 4 Flesh Kidney problems 1 25.00 0.13 3 Note: IMA = Informant of major ailment; FM = Frequency of mention; FL = Fedility level; RPL = Relative popularity level; ROP = Rank order priority

113

Experiment 5

Figure 1. Showing relative priority level (RPL) indicating relative priority of various species in the life of local communities (Numbers in figure represent sr. number of the species as mentioned in table 3).

Figure 2. Showing frequency of mention (FM) (Numbers in figure represent sr. number of the species as mentioned in table 3).

114

3CHAPTER 3 EXPERIMENT 6

Title: CULTURAL AND MEDICINAL SIGNIFICANCE OF MAMMALIAN FAUNA OF RIVER

CHENAB, PUNJAB, PAKISTAN

Muhammad Altaf1, Arshad Javid1, Arshad Mehmood Abbasi2, Muhammad Ashraf3, Abdul Majid

Khan4, Zulfiqar Ali4, Irfan1, Khalid Javed Iqbal5, Sayed Mukkhdoom Hussain6 and Muhammad

Umair7

1Department of Wildlife and Ecology, University of the Veterinary and Animal Sciences, Lahore

2Department of Environment Sciences, CIIM, Abbottabad

3Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture, University of the Veterinary and Animal Sciences, Lahore

4Department of Zoology, University of Punjab, Lahore

5Department of Life Sciences, Islamia University Bahawalpur, Bahawalpur

6Department of Zoology, GC University, Faisalabad

7chool of Agriculture and Biology, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai

This paper is submitted in Journal of Ethnopharmacology

Submitted date: January 2016

Impact factor: 2.998

115

Experiment 6

Abstract

Mammals are source of food and medication for humans from ancient times. A survey was

conducted along river Chenab, Punjab, Pakistan and 109 persons were interviewed to know

extent of human dependency on mammalian species of the area. A total of 30 mammalian

species were recorded from the study area. Highest relatively frequency of mention (RFM)

values (0.5) were observed for desert hare, Lepus migricollis dayanus while maximum (100%)

fidelity level (FL) was recorded for cow Bos gaurus, sheep Ovis aries and cat Felis domesticus.

Seven species were most popular. It can be concluded from present survey that local people

have strong association with mammalian species of the study area and dependent for food and

medicines on these species. In depth studies are recommended to explore medicinal importance

of the species.

Keywords: Mammalian species, relative popularity level, rank order priority, traditional uses,

Pakistan.

1. Introduction

The importance of mammalian species in the livelihood of human communities cannot be denied

(Alves and Rosa 2007; Alves et al. 2007; Alves et al. 2009). These species have ecological, cultural, religious, medicinal, economic and food values and worldwide trade of many of the species is major cause of extinction (Alves et al., 2010a). The markets, where these animals are sold provide valuable information about the significance of local and exotic fauna and flora

(Kang et al. 2003; Whiting et al. 2013; Ahmed et al. 2014, 2015). In addition, ethno-mammalogy studies involving surveys for documenting traditional use of mammalian species in livelihood of

116

Experiment 6

local communities (Alves and Rosa 2007) and these studies help to devise conservation

strategies (Alveset al. (2007).

Medicinal uses of many animals have been already documented from rural areas

(Waldram et al. 2000; Aikins 2005; Smitherman et al. 2005), however, little is known on traditional medicinal applications of animals in urban communities (Alves and Rosa 2007;

Alveset al. 2007; Arshad et al. 2014).

Mammalian diversity in Pakistan is represented by 195 species (Robert, 1997) and body

parts of many of these species are utilized for cure of diseases. Need of the time is to record

significance of mammalian species in the livelihood of local masses so as to devise appropriate

conservation strategies for declining species. Present survey was therefore planned to understand

extent of human dependency on mammalian species in three districts i.e. Sialkot, Gujrat and

Gujranwala in Punjab province, Pakistan.

2. Materials and Methods

Survey was conducted in three districts viz. Sialkot, Gujrat and Gujranwala along river Chenab.

Total area of these districts is 9830 Km2 and human population 9.95 million (Sheikh 2012a,b,c).

Spring, summer, autumn and winter are the seasons around the year (Anonymous 2007; Umair et

al. 2013; Altaf et al, 2014).

The ethno-mammalogical data was collected through questionnaires from May 2014

through April 2015 and in this regard 109 persons were interviewed (Appendix 1). To

understand local and scientific names of the species (Roberts 1997; Roberts 2005a,b) were used.

Information regarding local name of the species, its medicinal and cultural significance were

collected.

117

Experiment 6

2.1.Quantitative analysis

Different quantitative indices were used to assess the mammalian species:

2.1.1. Relative frequency of mention (RFM)

Relative frequency of mention was calculated following (Ilker et al. 2009; Vitalini et al. 2013).

FM RFM = N

FM = Number of informants, N = Total number of informant

2.1.2. Fidelity level (FL)

Fidelity level (FL) was calculated following (Friedman et al. 1986; Alexiades and Sheldon

1996).

FL (%) = Np/N × 100

Np = numbers of informants for particular types of medicinal use

N = total number of informants

2.1.3. Relative popularity level (RPL)

Relative popularity level (RPL) was calculated by dividing total number of informants with mean value of FM (Friedmanet al. 1986; Ali-Shtayeh et al. 2000). RPL indicates popularity of a species among local community.

2.1.4. Rank order priority (ROP)

Rank order priority (ROP) was calculated following (Friedmanet al. 1986; Ali-Shtayehet al.

2000).

118

Experiment 6

ROP = FL × RPL

2.1.5. Similarity index (SI)

Similarity index was calculated by following method.

SI = Ds/Dt

Ds =Disease treatment in a similar way

Dt = Total disease treatment (present research and previous record)

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Profile of the informants

A total of 109 respondents were interviewed, out of them 43 were farmers, 23 school teachers

23, 20 local health practitioners, 15 herdsmen and 9 were professional hunters. All these

informants were familiar with local names of mammalian species recorded from the study area.

Ages of the interviewee were between 20 to 70 years, 38 (35%) respondents were illiterate.

3.2. Cultural and Medicinal aspects

A total of 30 mammalian species were recorded from the study area. Scientific, common and

local names of each species are mentioned in table 1. However, variations in the local names of

the species were observed. Different superstitious were associated with many of the mammalian

species of the area while people were using many of the species in black magic, as source of

food, entertainment and medicines (table 2). Similarly, people of the study area were applying

various methods to hunt and capture the species. Similar studies have been conducted in various

countries (Marques 2002; Barrera-Bassols and Toledo 2005; del Valle et al. 2015).

119

Experiment 6

Superstitious were associated with some mammalian species (10%). For example if a black cat (Felis domesticus) crosses way of any person it is considered as bad omen. Similarly, few people think that naming wild boar (Sus scrofa) and presence of dog (Canis lupus familiaris)

may stop blessings of Allah (God). Spines of Indian crested porcupine (Hystrix cristatus) are

used in black magic and putting in spines of porcupine in house may create hates among the

residents of that house. It is (Farooq and Kayani 2012) also reported superstitions among local

people about animals from Punjab, Pakistan.

Majority of the respondents were Muslims (99%) and scavengers, carnivores and

omnivores are not eaten by the local people as they are prohibited in Islam. Major sources of

milk and meat are buffaloes, cows, goats, sheep, camels, hare and domestic rabbit. Cow and

buffalo dung was also used as fuel to heat rooms and cook food. Hunters capture hares and wild

boars with the help of trained dogs. del Valle et al. (2015) reported 33.4%, 18%, 35% and 33%

edible mammalian species from Playon de la Gloria, Reforma Agraria, Naha and Metzabok,

respectively in Mexico. Similarly, long eared hedgehog is commonly consumed as food in many

countries (Nijman and Bergin 2015). Skin of buffalo, cow, goat, sheep and donkey is sold for

making leather products. Two species i.e. cats (Felis domesticus) and dogs (Canis lupus

familiaris) are kept as pet animal for defense. These findings were in agreement to del Valleet al.

(2015).

Six mammalian species (20%) are harmful or dangerous for livestock and humans (table

1). del Valle et al. (2015) reported 79% harmful species from Playon de la Gloria, 50% from

Reforma Agraria, 47% from Naha and 42% from Metzabok, Mexico.

120

Experiment 6

All the mammalian species recorded from the study area had medicinal values for the local communities and people were using body parts of these animals to treat different ailments

(table 1). Mammalian body fat was amongst most commonly used part for preparation of local medicines (21 preparations), followed by flesh (8), milk (6) and blood (4) (figure 1). Most of these medicines were considered effective against antirheumatic pain, skin infections, body pain, sexual disorders, burning sensation, paralysis, wound healing and weakness (table 2). Highest

8similarity index (1.0) was recorded for Funnambulus pennanti . Use of mammalian body parts in preparation of local medicines has been reported by Padmanabhan and Sujana (2008), Lohani

(2010), Dixit et al. (2010), Mishra et al. (2011), Lohani (2011a), Lohani (2011b) and Bagde and

Jain (2015).

Saliva

Tail

Bones

Scale

Blood Body partsBody Milk

Flesh

Fat

0 5 10 15 20 25 Number of application Figure 1. Showing applications of animals’ body secretions and parts in treatment of different ailments.

Thirty animal species have been reported to be used for preparation of traditional medicines in Ogun State, Nigeria (Soewu et al. 2012), 87 species in Benin (Djagoun et al. 2013).

121

Experiment 6

(Alves et al. 2013) documented use of 10 aquatic animals people in Northeast of Brazil were using 8 mammalian species in preparation of medicines (Melo et al. 2014).

3.3.Quantitative assessment

Different ethno-biological tools such as relative frequency of mention (RFM), relative popularity level (RPL), fidelity level (FL), and rank order priority (ROP) were applied to assess the extent of human association with other mammalian species in the study area.

3.3.1. Relative frequency of mention (RFM)

In the present study highest RFM values were recorded for Lepus migricollis dayanus (0.50), followed by Hystrix cristatus (0.48) and Felis domesticus (0.42) indicating importance of these species in peoples’ life (table 2). Local medical practitioners were using flesh, spines or body fats of these animals in cure of diseases. Similar studies have been conducted in Pothwar region,

Pakistan to know importance of plant species in the life of local people (Mahmood et al. 2013).

3.3.2. Relative popularity level (RPL)

All the mammalian species recorded from the study area have direct or indirect use values for local communities. However, 7 species were more popular (RPL value = 1), these include Lepus migricollis dayanus (desert hare), Hystrix cristatus (Indian crested porcupine), Felis domesticus

(cat), Bubalus bubalis (buffalo), Bos gaurus (cow), Capra aegagrus hircus (goat) and Equs caballus (horse). Our findings are in line with the results of Ali-Shtayeh et al. (2000) and

Friedman et al. (1986).

3.3.3. Fidelity level (FL)

Animal or plant species with high medicinal uses in a particular area have maximum FL (Srithi et al. 2009; Bibi et al. 2014). On the whole fidelity level of reported species varied from 27 to

122

Experiment 6

100% (Figure 3). Felis domesticus (desert hare), Bos gaurus (cow), Ovis aries (sheep) and

Oryctolagus cuniculus (domestic rabbit) species showed 100% FL (table 2).

3.3.4. Rank order priority (ROP)

Out of total 30 species recorded from the study area, only 4 species attained ROP values above

50 during present survey. Similar studies have been conducted at Negev district, Israel

(Friedmanet al. 1986) and Palestine (Ali-Shtayehet al. 2000).

Conclusion

Traditional ethnomedicinal knowledge confirmed the need of cautiously studying zootherapeutic practices to better understand human, environmental and cultural interactions. Our results indicated that inhabitants of the studied area keep substantial information about the local fauna to treat various diseases. We report ethnomedicinal and cultural uses of 30 mammalian species.

This verifies that medicinal uses of mammals are a part of traditional knowledge that not only signifies ethnozoological relations of pertinent cultural value, but also gradually becoming more applicable to public health policies, conservation and sustainable management of natural resources. Additionally, investigation concerning the conservation and management of the medicinal animals and exploration of pharmacological active substances in animal based remedies are required.

Authors’ contributions

MA design study and conducted ethno-mammalogical survey; AJ supervised the project; AMA,

MA, ZA, AMK helped in data analysis and write up; I, KJI, SMH, MU involved in sampling, field survey and data collection. All the authors critically read this article and approved as the final manuscript.

123

Experiment 6

References

Altaf M, Javid A, Irfan, Munir MA, Ashraf S, Umair M, Iqbal KJ, Khan AM, Ali Z. 2014.

Diversity of Wild Mammalian Fauna of Chenab Riverine Forest, Punjab, Pakistan. J

Anim Plant Sci. 24:1342-1347.

Ahmed N, Mahmood A, Mahmood A, Sadeghi Z, Farman M. 2015. Ethnopharmacological

importance of medicinal flora from the district of Vehari, Punjab province, Pakistan. J.

Ethnopharmacol. 168: 66-78.

Ahmed N, Mahmood A, Tahir SS, Bano A, Malik RN, Hassan S, Ashraf A. 2014.

Ethnomedicinal knowledge and relative importance of indigenous medicinal plants of

Cholistan desert, Punjab Province, Pakistan. J. Ethnopharmacol. 155: 1263-1275.

Aikins Ad-G. 2005. Healer shopping in Africa: new evidence from rural-urban qualitative study

of Ghanaian diabetes experiences. Bmj.331:737.

Alexiades MN, Sheldon JW. 1996. Selected guidelines for ethnobotanical research: A Field

Manual. Boranx, NY: The New York Botanical Garden.

Ali-Shtayeh MS, Yaniv Z, Mahajna J. 2000. Ethnobotanical survey in the Palestinian area: a

classification of the healing potential of medicinal plants. J Ethnopharmacol.73:221-232.

Alonso-Castro AJ, Carranza-Álvarez C, Maldonado-Miranda JJ, del Rosario Jacobo-Salcedo M,

Quezada-Rivera DA, Lorenzo-Márquez H, Figueroa-Zúñiga LA, Fernández-Galicia C,

Ríos-Reyes NA, de León-Rubio MÁ. 2011. Zootherapeutic practices in Aquismón, San

Luis Potosí, México. J Ethnopharmacol.138:233-237.

124

Experiment 6

Alves RR, Neto NAL, Brooks SE, Albuquerque UP. 2009. Commercialization of animal-derived

remedies as complementary medicine in the semi-arid region of Northeastern Brazil. J

Ethnopharmacol.124:600-608.

Alves RR, Rosa IL. 2007. Zootherapy goes to town: The use of animal-based remedies in urban

areas of NE and N Brazil. J Ethnopharmacol.113:541-555.

Alves RR, Rosa IL, Santana GG. 2007. The role of animal-derived remedies as complementary

medicine in Brazil. BioScience.57:949-955.

Alves RRN, Neta ROS, Trovão D, Barbosa J, Barros AT, Dias TLP. 2012. Traditional uses of

medicinal animals in the semi-arid region of northeastern Brazil. J Ethnobiol

Ethnomed.8:4269-4268.

Alves RRN, Souto WMS, Oliveira REMCC, Barboza RRD, Rosa IL. 2013. Aquatic mammals

used in traditional folk medicine: a global analysis. In: Anim Trad Folk Med. Springer. p.

241-261.

Anonymous. 2007. Surface water quality monitoring in Punjab. In: Directorate of Land

Reclamation Punjab Canal Bank Moghalpura, Lahore.: Government of Punjab.

Arshad M, Ahmad M, Ahmed E, Saboor A, Abbas A, Sadiq S. 2014. An ethnobiological study in

Kala Chitta hills of Pothwar region, Pakistan: multinomial logit specification. J Ethnobiol

Ethnomed.10:13.

Bagde N, Jain S. 2015. Study of Traditional Man-Animal Relationship in Chhindwara District Of

Madhya Pradesh, India. J Glob Biosci.4:1456-1463.

125

Experiment 6

Barrera-Bassols N, Toledo VM. 2005. Ethnoecology of the Yucatec Maya: symbolism,

knowledge and management of natural resources. J Lat Am Geograph.4:9-41.

Barros FB, Varela SA, Pereira HM, Vicente L. 2012. Medicinal use of fauna by a traditional

community in the Brazilian Amazonia. J Ethnobiol Ethnomed.8:37.

Benarjee G, Srikanth K, Ramu G, Ramulua K. 2010. Ethnozoological study in a tropical wildlife

sanctuary of Eturunagaram in the Warangal district, Andhra Pradesh. Ind J Trad

Knowledge.9:701-704.

Benítez G. 2011. Animals used for medicinal and magico-religious purposes in western Granada

Province, Andalusia (Spain). J Ethnopharmacol.137:1113-1123.

Bibi T, Ahmad M, Tareen RB, Tareen NM, Jabeen R, Rehman S-U, Sultana S, Zafar M, Yaseen

G. 2014. Ethnobotany of medicinal plants in district Mastung of Balochistan province-

Pakistan. J Ethnopharmacol.157:79-89.

Chellappandian M, Pandikumar P, Mutheeswaran S, Paulraj MG, Prabakaran S, Duraipandiyan

V, Ignacimuthu S, Al-Dhabi N. 2014. Documentation and quantitative analysis of local

ethnozoological knowledge among traditional healers of Theni district, Tamil Nadu,

India. J Ethnopharmacol.154:116-130.

del Valle YG, Naranjo EJ, Caballero J, Martorell C, Ruan-Soto F, Enríquez PL. 2015. Cultural

significance of wild mammals in mayan and mestizo communities of the Lacandon

Rainforest, Chiapas, Mexico. J Ethnobiol Ethnomed.11:36.

Dixit A, Kadavul K, Rajalakshmi S, Shekhawat M. 2010. Ethno-medico-biological studies of

South India. Ind J Trad Knowl.9:116-118.

126

Experiment 6

Djagoun CA, Akpona HA, Mensah GA, Nuttman C, Sinsin B. 2013. Wild mammals trade for

zootherapeutic and mythic purposes in Benin (West Africa): Capitalizing species

involved, provision sources, and implications for conservation. In: Animals in Traditional

Folk Medicine. Springer. p. 367-381.

Farooq A, Kayani A. 2012. Prevalence of Superstitions and other Supernaturals in Rural Punjab:

A Sociological Perspective. J S Asia Stud.27:335-344.

Friedman J, Yaniv Z, Dafni A, Palewitch D. 1986. A preliminary classification of the healing

potential of medicinal plants, based on a rational analysis of an ethnopharmacological

field survey among Bedouins in the Negev Desert, Israel. J Ethnopharmacol.16:275-287.

Haileselasie TH. 2012. Traditional zootherapeutic studies in Degu’a Tembien, Northern

Ethiopia. J Biol Sci.4:563-569.

Ilker U, Suleyman B, Nurettin Y, Yunus D. 2009. The investigation and quantitative

ethnobotanical evaluation of medicinal plants used around Izmir province, Turkey. J Med

Plant Res.3:345-367.

Jaroli D, Mahawar MM, Vyas N. 2010. An ethnozoological study in the adjoining areas of

Mount Abu wildlife sanctuary, India. J Ethnobiol Ethnomed.6:6.

Kang S, Phipps MJ, Asia TE. 2003. A question of attitude: south korea's traditional medicine practitioners

and wildlife conservation. TRAFFIC East Asia.

Kim H, Song M-J. 2013. Ethnozoological study of medicinal animals on Jeju Island, Korea. J

Ethnopharmacol.146:75-82.

127

Experiment 6

Kim H, Song M-J. 2014. Analysis of ethnomedicinal practices for treating skin diseases in communities

on Jeju Island (Korea). Ind J Trad Knowl.13:673-680.

Kim H, Li S, Shin Hk. 2014. Therapeutic effect of Soshiho-tang, a traditional herbal formula, on

liverfibrosis or cirrhosis in animal models: A systematic review. and meta-analysis. J

Ethnopharmacol. 13: 1-16.

Kulkarni B, adwait D. 2011. Folk therapies of Katkaries from maharashtra. Ind J Trad

Knowl.10:554-558.

Lohani U. 2010. Man-animal relationships in Central Nepal. J Ethnobiol Ethnomed.6:1-11.

Lohani U. 2011a. Eroding ethnozoological knowledge among Magars in Central Nepal. Ind J

Trad Knowl.10:466-473.

Lohani U. 2011b. Traditional uses of animals among jirels of Central Nepal. Ethno Med.5:115-

124.

Marques J. 2002. O sinal das aves. Uma tipologia sugestiva para uma etnoecologia com bases

semióticas. Atualidades em Etnobiologia e Etnoecologia. Volume.1.

Melo R, Silva O, Souto A, Alves RRN, Schiel N. 2014. The role of mammals in local

communities living in conservation areas in the Northeast of Brazil: an ethnozoological

approach. Trop Conserv Sci.7:423-439.

Mishra N, Rout S, Panda T. 2011. Ethno-zoological studies and medicinal values of Similipal

Biosphere Reserve, Orissa, India. African J Pharm Pharmacol.5:6-11.

128

Experiment 6

Mootoosamy A, Mahomoodally MF. 2014. A quantitative ethnozoological assessment of

traditionally used animal-based therapies in the tropical island of Mauritius. J

Ethnopharmacology.154:847-857.

Nijman V, Bergin D. 2015. Trade in hedgehogs (Mammalia: Erinaceidae) in Morocco, with an

overview of their trade for medicinal purposes throughout Africa and Eurasia. J Threat

Taxa.7:7131-7137.

Oliveira ES, Torres DF, Brooks SE, Alves RR. 2010. The medicinal animal markets in the

metropolitan region of Natal City, Northeastern Brazil. J Ethnopharmacol.130:54-60.

Padmanabhan P, Sujana K. 2008. Animal products in traditional medicine from Attappady hills

of Western Ghats. Ind J Trad Knowl.7:326-329.

Roberts TJ. 1997. The Mammals of Pakistan. New Yark: Oxford University Press

Roberts TJ. 2005a. Field guide to the large and medium-sized mammals of Pakistan. Oxford

University Press.

Roberts TJ. 2005b. Field guide to the small mammals of Pakistan. Oxford University Press.

Sheikh MS. 2012a. District Pre-Investment Study – 2012, Gujranwala. In. p. 1-376.

Sheikh MS. 2012b. District Pre-Investment Study – 2012, Gujrat. In. p. 1-28.

Sheikh MS. 2012c. District Pre-Investment Study – 2012, Sialkot. In. p. 1-31.

Smitherman LC, Janisse J, Mathur A. 2005. The use of folk remedies among children in an urban

black community: remedies for fever, colic, and teething. Pediatrics.115:e297-e304.

129

Experiment 6

Soewu DA, Bakare OK, Ayodele IA. 2012. Trade in wild Mammalian species for traditional

medicine in Ogun State, Nigeria. Glob J Med Res.12.

Srithi K, Balslev H, Wangpakapattanawong P, Srisanga P, Trisonthi C. 2009. Medicinal plant

knowledge and its erosion among the Mien (Yao) in northern Thailand. J

Ethnopharmacol.123:335-342.

Umair M, Ilyas U, Altaf M. 2013. Diversity and Ecology of Parthenium weeds ar head khanki,

Pakistan. Lambert Academic Publishing.

Vijayakumar S, Prabhu S, Yabesh JM, Prakashraj R. 2015a. A quantitative ethnozoological

study of traditionally used animals in Pachamalai hills of Tamil Nadu, India. J

Ethnopharmacol.

Vijayakumar S, Yabesh JM, Prabhu S, Ayyanar M, Damodaran R. 2015b. Ethnozoological study

of animals used by traditional healers in Silent Valley of Kerala, India. J

Ethnopharmacol.162:296-305.

Vitalini S, Iriti M, Puricelli C, Ciuchi D, Segale A, Fico G. 2013. Traditional knowledge on

medicinal and food plants used in Val San Giacomo (Sondrio, Italy). An alpine

ethnobotanical study. J Ethnopharmacol.145:517-529.

Waldram J, Whiting J, Kornder N, Habbick B. 2000. Cultural understandings and the use of

traditional medicine among urban Aboriginal people with diabetes in Saskatoon, Canada.

Can J Diabet Care.24:31-38.

130

Experiment 6

Whiting MJ, Williams VL, Hibbitts TJ. 2013. Animals traded for traditional medicine at the

Faraday market in South Africa: species diversity and conservation implications. In:

Anim Tradit Folk Med. Springer. p. 421-473.

131

Experiment 6

Table 1. Medicinal uses of mammalian species recorded from the study area. Scientific name Common name Local name Part used Application Diseases cured IMA Reported uses Reference SI Lepnigricollis dus ayanus Desert hare Jungli saya, Flesh liver O Asthma 27 1 Tonic, chicken pox 1 Dixitet al. (2010), Padmanabhan and 0.1 Jungli Blood T Burning sensation Sujana (2008)2 Chellappandian et al. khargush T Paralysis 2 Anabolic, wheezing (2014) 3 Wheezing trouble, 3 Vijayakumar et al. (2015a)

Stomach and joint pain Vijayakumar et al. (2015b) 4 High Blood pressure 4 Lohani (2010) 5. Asthma 5 Lohani (2011a), Lohani (2011b) Hystrix cristatus Indian crested Kanday wali Fat T Skin infection, 26 0 porcupine say Rheumatic pain Felis domesticus Cat Billi Fat T Joint pain, 46 1 Fever 1 Haileselasie (2012) 0.25 Skin infections 2 Arthritis 2 Benarjee et al. (2010)

Bubalus bubalis Buffalo Mujh Fat T Feet wound 16 1 Pain, wound 1 Dixitet al. (2010), Padmanabhan and 0.17 Milk, Flesh O Body pain, fever, Sujana (2008) poison effect 2 Jaundice, Ascites 2 Chellappandianet al. (2014) 3 Rheumatic pain 3 Dixitet al. (2010), 4 Weakness 4 Benarjeeet al. (2010) 5 Jaundice, Ascites 5 Vijayakumaret al. (2015a); Vijayakumaret al. (2015b) 6 Rheumatism, 6 Alves and Rosa (2007), Alveset al. osteoporosis, and (2007) thrombosis Bos gaurus Cow Gay Fat T Feet wound 36 1 Fever, bone fever, 1 Dixitet al. (2010) 0.08 Milk, Flesh O memory loss Body pain, fever, 2 Paralysis 2 Padmanabhan and Sujana (2008) poison effect 3 Asthma 3 Mishraet al. (2011)

4 Stomach ache, gastritis, 4 Lohani (2010) diarrhea 5 Eye Infection 5 Bagde and Jain (2015) 6 TB patients, Pesticide 6 Lohani (2011a), Lohani (2011b) Capra aegagrus hircus Goat Bakri Milk O Increase sexual 13 1 Fever, Eye tonic, 1 Dixitet al. (2010) 0 efficiency tonsillitis, asthma 2 TB, irregular menustral 2 Haileselasie (2012), Bagde and Jain cycle (2015) 3 Toothache, Anemia, 3 Chellappandianet al. (2014) Dysentery, bronchitis, tuberculosi, Jaundice, Diarrhea 4 Anemia 4 Vijayakumaret al. (2015a) 5 Blindnes 5 Jaroli et al. (2010)

132

Experiment 6

Equus caballus Horse Kurrha Fat T Skin infection 11 1 Rabies 1 Vijayakumar et al. (2015a), 0.09 Vijayakumaret al. (2015b) 2 Skin diseases, Burn, 2 Kim and Song (2013), Kim et wal, allergy, Arthritis, Bone 2014 diseases, eyesight, pains, Neuralgia, Arthritis, Osteoporosis

Ursus thibetanus Bear Richh Fat T Sexual power 7 0 Camelus dromedaries Camel Ount Milk T, O Muscular pain, 10 1 Acidity 1 Jaroliet al. (2010) 0 weakness 2 Hepatitis B and C 2 Arshadet al. (2014) Blood O Arthritis Ovis aries Sheep Bairh Fat T Skin burn, crack 23 1 Edema, fractures, joint 1 Alveset al. (2009), Alves et al. (2012), 0.36 Skin, pain Oliveira et al. (2010) Milk, flesh O Weakness, Joint 2 Skin burn and crack skin 2 Lohani (2011b) pain 3 Muscular pain, sterility, 3 Vijayakumar et al. (2015b) crack skin, swellings, weakness 4 Excipient 4 Benítez (2011) 5 Flu 5 Meloet al. (2014)

Equus africanus Donkey Gadha Milk , blood T Abdominal 9 1 Abdominal dropsy, TB, 1 Haileselasie (2012) 0.5 dropsy, Arthritis arthritis 2 Madness 2 Chellappandianet al. (2014), Vijayakumaret al. (2015a) Canis lupus familiaris Dog Kuta Fat, flesh T Sexual power 8 1 Weakness, poison 1 Padmanabhan and Sujana (2008) 0 2 Fever 2 Haileselasie (2012)

Sus scrofa Indian wild boar Baarla, Soor Fat T Paralysis, Burn 10 1 Inflammatory, joint pain 1 Mishraet al. (2011) 0.11 2 Fracture, pain, paralysis, 2 Dixitet al. (2010), Lohani (2011a), burn, snake bite Lohani (2011b), Bagde and Jain (2015), Jaroliet al. (2010) 3 Fever, piles, cough, Cold 3 Vijayakumaret al. (2015a) 4 Paralysis, burn, fracture Vijayakumaret al. (2015b) 5 Anti-haemorrhoidal, 4 Padmanabhan and Sujana (2008) warts 5 Benítez (2011) 6 Earache 6 Chellappandianet al. (2014), Kim and 7 Ear pain, angina Song (2013) 7 Alonso-Castro et al. (2011) Oryctolagus cuniculus Domestic rabbit Khargush, Tail, blood T Burning sensation, 14 1 bronchial diseases 1 Arshadet al. (2014) 0 Saya weakness 2 Stomachache 2 Alonso-Castroet al. (2011) Felis chaus Jungle Cat Jungli billi Fat T Joint Pain 10 1 Leucoderma 1 Vijayakumaret al. (2015a) 0 Vijayakumaret al. (2015b) Canis aureus Asiatic jackal Gidar Flesh, bones T Skin diseases 11 2 Asthma, sciatica, 2 Lohani (2010) 0.09 arthritis, body pain 3 Lohani (2011a), Lohani (2011b) 3 Gout, joint pain, arthritis 4 Chinlaampianga et al. (2013) 4 Skin diseases 5 Benarjeeet al. (2010) 5 Paralysis, asthma, arthritis

133

Experiment 6

Vulpes bengalensis Indian/Bengal Lomri Fat T Epilepsy 9 0 fox Herpestes javanicus Small Indian Neola Fat T Sexual power 8 0 mongoose Hemiechinus collaris Long eared Chotay Fat T Rheumatic pain, 7 0 desert hedgehog kanday ali body ache say Pteropus giganteus Indian flying fox Chamgadar Fat T Body and 5 Asthma, bronchitis Vijayakumaret al. (2015a), 0 bat backbone pain, Vijayakumaret al. (2015b), Sexual power Padmanabhan and Sujana (2008) , Chellappandianet al. (2014) Homo sapiens Human Insan Saliva T Herpes 6 1 Eye injuries and wound, 1 Haileselasie (2012), Padmanabhan and 0 Urine T Ear pain eye-ache, hiccup, eye Sujana (2008), Chellappandianet al. inflammation (2014), Kim and Song (2013), Kim and Song (2014), Benítez (2011) 2 Hiccup 2 Barros et al. (2012) Manis crassicaudata Indian Pangolin Pangolin Scale, flesh T Feet swelling, 3 1 Feet swelling, piles 1 Dixitet al. (2010), Mishraet al. (2011) 0.11 Sexual power 2.Blood pressure, head 2 Vijayakumaret al. (2015a) ach, asthma Vijayakumaret al. (2015b), Chellappandianet al. (2014) 3 Armpit 3 Kulkarni and adwait (2011) Funnambulus pennanti Northern palm Gulahri Flesh T, O Epilepsy 4 1 Epilepsy 1 Dixitet al. (2010) 1 squirrel Millardia meltada Soft-furred field Fasli Choha Fat T Joint pain 3 0 rat Rattus rattus House rat Wada Choha Fat T Joint pain 3 1 Wound 1 Vijayakumaret al. (2015b), 0 Mootoosamy and Mahomoodally (2014) 2 Convulsions 2 Chellappandianet al. (2014) 3 Semen enhancement 3 Benarjeeet al. (2010) Mus musculus House mouse Chota Choha Fat T Enhancement of 2 1 Analgesic 1 Benítez (2011) 0 semen 2 Arthritis 2 Jaroliet al. (2010) Tatera indica Indian gerbil Jungli Choha Fat T Lumbago 1 0 Nesokia indica Short tailed mole Chhoti push Fat T Joint pain 2 0 rat wala choha Suncus murinus House shrew Chachondar Fat T Scrotal infection 1 Snake bite, Scrotal Chellappandianet al. (2014), 0.5 swelling Vijayakumar et al. (2015b) Suncus etruscus Mediterranean Choti Fat Scrotal swelling 1 0 pygmy shrew chachondar Note: T = Topical; O = Oral; IMA = Informants of major ailment; SI = Similarity index

134

Experiment 6

Table 2. Significance of mammalian species in the livelihood of local communities. S. No. Mammalian Ethno-cultural uses FM CU RFM IMA FL RPL ROP species Med Mag Entt Do To Cc Pt Or Fo Ss Ha

1 Desert hare Y x Y x X X x Y Y x X 54 4 0.5 27 50 1 50 2 Indian crested Y Y X x Y X x Y x x X 52 4 0.48 26 50 1 50 porcupine 3 Cat Y x X x X X Y X x Y X 46 3 0.42 46 100 1 100 4 Buffalo Y x X Y X Y x Y Y x X 40 5 0.37 16 40 1 40 5 Cow Y x X Y X Y x Y Y x X 36 5 0.33 36 100 1 100 6 Goat Y x X Y X Y x Y Y x X 32 5 0.29 13 41 1 41 7 Horse Y x Y Y X Y x Y x x X 28 5 0.26 11 39 1 39 8 Bear Y Y Y x Y Y x Y x x Y 26 7 0.24 7 27 0.96 26 9 Camel Y Y X Y X Y x X Y x X 24 5 0.22 10 42 0.89 37 10 Sheep Y x X Y X Y x Y Y x X 23 5 0.21 23 100 0.85 85 11 Donkey Y x Y Y X Y x Y x x X 22 5 0.2 9 41 0.81 33 12 Dog Y x Y x X X Y X x Y Y 19 5 0.17 8 42 0.7 30 13 Indian wild boar Y x Y x X X x X x Y Y 20 4 0.18 10 50 0.74 37 14 Domestic rabbit Y x X Y X X x Y Y x X 14 4 0.13 14 100 0.52 52 15 Jungle Cat Y x X x X X x Y x x Y 15 3 0.14 10 67 0.56 37 16 Asiatic jackal Y x X x X X x Y x x Y 17 3 0.16 11 65 0.63 41 17 Indian/Bengal fox Y x X x X X x Y x x Y 13 3 0.12 9 69 0.48 33 18 Small Indian Y x Y x X X x Y x x X 12 3 0.11 8 67 0.44 30 mongoose 19 Long eared desert Y x X x Y X x X x x X 11 2 0.1 7 64 0.41 26 hedgehog 20 Indian flying fox Y x X x X X x X x x X 10 1 0.09 5 50 0.37 19 bat 21 Human Y x - x X X x X x x X 9 1 0.08 6 67 0.33 22 22 Indian Pangolin Y x X x X X x X x x X 8 1 0.07 3 38 0.3 11 23 Northern palm Y x X x X X x X x x X 7 1 0.06 4 57 0.26 15 squirrel

135

Experiment 6

24 Soft-furred field Y x X x X X x X x x X 6 1 0.06 3 50 0.22 11 rat 25 House rat Y x X x X X x X x x X 5 1 0.05 3 60 0.19 11 26 House mouse Y x X x X X x X x x X 4 1 0.04 2 50 0.15 7 27 Indian gerbil Y x X x X X x X x x X 3 1 0.03 1 33 0.11 4 28 Short tailed mole Y x X x X X x X x x X 3 1 0.03 2 67 0.11 7 rat 29 House shrew Y x X x X X x X x x X 2 1 0.02 1 50 0.07 4 30 Mediterranean Y x X x X X x X x x X 2 1 0.02 1 50 0.07 4 pygmy shrew Note: CU = Cultural Use; IMA = Informant of Major Ailment; FM = Frequency of mention; FL = Fedility level; RPL = Relative popularity level; ROP = Rank order priority; Med = Medicinal; Mag = Magic; Entt = Entertainment; Do = Domestic; To = Tool; Cc = Commercial; Pt = Pet; Or = Ornamental; Fo = Food; Ss = Superstitions; Ha =Harmful.

136

Experiment 6

Figure 2. Showing relative priority level (RPL) indicating relative priority of various mammalian species in the life of local communities (Numbers in figure represent sr. number of the species as mentioned in table 2).

Figure 4. Showing frequency of mention (FM) for various mammalian species recorded from the study area (Numbers in figure represent sr. number of the species as mentioned in table 2).

137

CHAPTER 3 EXPERIMENT 7

Title: ASSESSMENT OF HUMAN-WILDLIFE CONFLICT ALONG THE RIVER CHENAB, PAKISTAN

M. Altaf1*, A. Javid1, M. Ashraf2, A. M. Khan3, M. Umair4, MSH khan5, Irfan1, SM Hussian6

and Z. Ali3

1Department of Wildlife and Ecology, University of the Veterinary and Animal Sciences,

Lahore, Pakistan

2Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture, University of the Veterinary and Animal Sciences,

Lahore, Pakistan

3Department of Zoology, University of the Punjab, Lahore, Pakistan

4School of Agriculture and Biology, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai

5Department of Wildlife, Ministry of Climate Change, Islamabad, Pakistan

6Department of Zoology, Government College University, Faislabad, Pakistan

*Corresponding auther: [email protected]

This paper is submitted in the Pakistan Journal of Zoology

Submitted date: March 2016

Abstract

Selected sites in three districts i.e. Sialkot, Gujrat and Gujranwala along the River Chenab,

Pakistan were surveyed to assess the extent of human-wildlife conflict in these areas. The study

138

Experiment 7

area was part of tropical thorn forest but a larger portion has been changed into agricultural land or human habitations. Data regarding socio-economic value of area, financial losses to crops and

livestock, peoples’ attitude and tolerance towards wildlife, protection methods for livestock and

crops from predators and profile of 150 respondents were collected through a questionnaire. The age of the respondents was between 20 to 65 years, out of them 54% were literate, 99% were

Muslims and all these respondents were from different professions viz. farmers (32%), livestock

managers (37%) and others (31%). Most of the respondents (52%) were unaware about the role

of wild species in ecosystem, certain respondents (28%) disliked wild species in their areas and

20% respondents had positive view about wildlife in the area. The collected data revealed that

crops are mostly damaged by the Indian wild boar (42%), Asiatic jackal (34%), diseases (11%),

Indian crested porcupine (6%) and others (7%) including rats, squirrels, crows and sparrows.

Similarly, the livestock animals are affected mostly by diseases (36%), Asiatic jackal (34%),

jungle cat (10%), Indian fox and others (6%) including raptor birds. Most of the respondents

were of the view that wildlife is declining in the area.

Key words: Diversity, Predation, Crops, Livestock, Wetland

1. Introduction

Many humans dislike animals that compete with them for resources and these conflicts are amongst major challenges for wildlife conservation (Woodroffe et al. 2005). These conflicts are not easy to resolve because a number of factors including religious values, the cultural and economic significance of animals and their body parts, and the economic losses imposed by wild animals especially carnivores (Dickman, 2010). It is therefore mandatory to identify and assess the extent of human-wildlife conflict as a pre-requisite for wildlife conservation.

139

Experiment 7

Human-wildlife association is very long and both interact with each other in a number of ways.

However, increases in human population and demand for more resources has resulted in human- wildlife conflict (Inskip and Zimmermann 2009; Barua et al. 2013). This is because the humans and wildlife share the same resources and humans destroyed most of the natural habitats and hence natural food of the wild animals (Schwerdtner and Gruber 2007). The wild animals therefore reach urbanized areas and predate on livestock creating and enhancing human-wildlife conflict (Woodroffe et al. 2005). In turn, humans have adopted different measures to protect their domestic animals and crops from wild species (Bulte and Rondeau 2005; Ogra 2008). They also trap and kill wild animals (Linkie et al. 2007) and this human-wildlife conflict has resulted in eradication of many wild species (Nyhus and Tilson 2004). The conflict is also related with the size of the wild area and increases with decrease in size of wild habitat (Graham 2003).

Carnivores are more affected by this conflict than omnivores and herbivores because of a largerr home range (Macdonald and Sillero-Zubiri 2002). Human-wildlife is a problem of serious concern all around the globe (Dar et al. 2009; Hemson et al. 2009; Inskip and Zimmermann

2009).

It is difficult to reduce the conflict between humans and wildlife, however, strategies like provision of incentives (Madhusudan 2003) and trophy hunting (Lamarque 2008), construction of new towns away from species rich areas (Treves and Karanth 2003), involvement and participation of local communities and awareness campaigns (Van Bommel and Johnson 2012) about significance of wildlife can play vital role in the conservation of wildlife (Sekhar 1998;

Treves and Karanth 2003; Weladji and Tchamba 2003; Lamarque 2008).

In Pakistan, there is scanty literature and very few researchers woked for the assessment of human-wildlife conflict. The present survey was therefore planned to evaluate the extent of

140

Experiment 7

human-wildlife conflict at selected sites along the River Chenab as these areas are rich in avian

and mammalian diversity.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study area

District Gujranwala is 8th most populated city of Pakistan with a population of 4.48 million and

covers an area of 3,622 Km2. District Gujrat has a population of 2.44 million and covers area of

3,192 Km2. District Sialkot covers an area of 3,016 Km2 and a population is 3.303 million

(Sheikh 2012 a,b,c). Weather of the study area remains hot during summers and cold during

winters. The aarmest month is June, with an average temperature of 34.1 °C while January is the

coldest month with temperatures averaging 12.2 °C. Annual rainfall ranges from 50 to 70 mm

and relative humidity from 25 to 85% per annum (Anonymous 2007).

2.2. Methodology and documentation

Three sites were selected in each district namely Bahlolpur village (32o34'55 N, 74o25'41 E),

head Marala (32o39'59 N, 74o28'05 E) and Motra (32o23'07 N, 74o25'18 E) in district Sialkot;

о о о о Ghazi Chak village (32 30'00 N, 73 05'39 E), head Khanki (32 28'32 N, 73 03'39 E), Kunjah

о о о о (32 30'57 N, 73 57'22 E) in district Gujrat; and Kot Hara village (32 16'06 N, 073 42'22E), head

о о о о Qadirabad (32 19'06 N, 073 41'36E) and Verpal Chattha (32 13'02 N, 073 54'26E) from

Gujranwala districts (figure 1). Data regarding human-wildlife conflict was collected from May

2014 to April 2015 through questionnaire.

The questionnaire contained information about the profile of the respondents viz. name, gender,

age, education and occupation, about area viz. socio-economic values i.e. income from livestock

and or crops), and about human-wildlife interaction viz. financial loss to crops and livestock by

141

Experiment 7

the wildlife, peoples’ perception and knowledge about wildlife, their attitude towards wildlife in

the area and protection measures of crops and livestock from wildlife.

Figure 1. Map of the study area showing sites of data collection.

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Respondents’ profiles

During present survey, 150 respondents were interviewed to assess human-wildlife conflict in the area. The ages of the respondents were between 20-30 years (5%), 31 to 40 years (18%), 41 to 50 years (40%), 51 to 60 years (28%) and above 60 years (9%). 46% of the respondents were non-educated (46%), 32% primary, 15% SSC and 7% were graduates. The occupations of the

respondents were agriculture (32%), livestock (37%) and others (31%) including government

employees, laborer, businessmen etc. In most of the cases only one person was earning and

142

Experiment 7

running entire family (51%) while the monthly income of most of the families (88%) was

between Rs. 10,000 to 20,000 (95$ to 190$). Small livestock farms having 1 to 5 buffalos/cows

(72%); 6 to 10 buffalos/cows (8%), more than 10 buffalos/cows (11%) were the income source

for most of the families. Similarly, the respondents also have small goat and sheep farms having

animals between; 1 to 5 (53%); 6 to 10 goats (6%) and more than 10 goats (3%). 78%

respondents used to raise indigenous chicken in their houses having birds between 1 to 5 while only 4% also raised ducks for eggs and meat purposes. Findings of the survey are in line with

Choudhary (2010), who documented that most of the people (70%) in central and northern

Punjab live in villages; their earning source is mainly agriculture while few are laborer or

government employees.

3.2. Damage to crops and livestock

The results of present survey indicated that crops are mostly affected by Indian wild boar (42%),

Asiatic Jackal (34%), diseases (11%), Indian crested porcupine (6%) and others (7%) including

rats, squirrels, crows and sparrows (figure 2).

Figure 2. Damage to crops by wild animals. Figure 3. Damage to livestock by wild animals.

143

Experiment 7

Madhusudan (2003) reported that herbivore and omnivore mammalian species are the main agents that affect crops and livestock, furthermore, birds also affect croplands (Studsrod and Wegge 1995). However, mammals usually damage the crops during night while birds mostly during dawn and dusk. Crop damage to wheat (Triticum aestivum) and maize (Zea mays) by the wild animals has been reported as 14% and 24% per hectare per annum, respectively (Sekhar

1998).

Damage to livestock by Asiatic jackal during present survey was observed as 34%, jungle cat 10%, Indian fox 25% and others including raptor birds 6% (figure 3). Graham et al. (2005) and Thirgood et al. (2005) documented that leopard, wolf, lynx and brown bear are the major predators of livestock animals. Madhusudan (2003) also reported tiger predation incidences from

Karnataka, India while cases of damage to crops by elephants have been documented by Joshi and Singh (2008), Boundja and Midgley (2010), Chen et al. (2013) and Karanth et al. (2013).

3.3. Perception and attitude of local people about wildlife

Compiled data revealed that most of the respondents (57%) were of the view that wild species are declining in the area day by day while only few (13%) reported increase in wild species

diversity. Roberts (1997) reported Indian otter (Lutrogale perspicillata), nilegai (Boselaphus

tragocamelus) and grey wolf (Canis lupus) from the study area however these species became

extinct (Altaf et al. 2014). Similarly, many species such as Indian pangolin (Manis

crassicaudata) and black bellied tern (Sterna acuticauda) have been included in Red list of

Threatened species (IUCN 2015) indicating decrease in diversity of the area. This is because

larger part of natural habitat has been converted into agricultural, industrial and urbanized

landscapes. Li et al. (2013) conducted similar survey in Sanjiangyuan Region of the Tibetan

144

Experiment 7

Plateau, China to investigate human-snow leopard conflicts. Local people were interviewed and

collected data regarding traditional use of snow leopard parts, livestock depredation, and overall attitudes towards snow leopards indicated that most of the respondents (58%) were aware that snow leopard parts had been used for traditional customs in the past. Total livestock damages

were US$ 6193 per household per year; however snow leopards were blamed by herders for only

a small proportion of those losses (10%).

Most of the respondents (52%) showed no concern with increase or decrease of wild animals, 28% respondent dislike wild animals in their area while 20% people like wild animals.

People of the study area have taken different measures to protect their crops from wild animals e.g. some people used to install sticks making human dummy (49%), plastic bags (24%) and biofences (12%) while 15% of the respondents replied that they have not adopted any method for the protection of their crops from wild animals (figure 4). Most of the respondents (82%) were of the view that wild animals predate on livestock animals during dawn and dusk and they spend these hours with their animals (figure 5). Li et al. (2013) used similar methods to assess peoples’ response towards snow leopard.

Figure 4. Protective measures for cropland. Figure 5. Potential times of livestock predation.

145

Experiment 7

4. Conclusion

It can be concluded from present survey that people of the study area are mostly poor and

dependent either on agriculture or domestic livestock. Wild species damage both these assets and

in turn humans try to eradicate wild animals from their areas. Due to these reasons the species

are declining and many have gone extinct viz. Indian otter (Lutrogale perspicillata), nilegai

(Boselaphus tragocamelus), grey wolf (Canis lupus) and vultures while Indian pangolin (Manis crassicaudata) and black bellied tern (Sterna acuticauda) have been enlisted in Red List of

Threatened Species. It seems that human-wildlife conflict is present in the study area and a multi dimensional conservation program that includes compensation of locales and awareness campaigns about wildlife is recommended.

References

Altaf M, Javid A, Irfan, Munir MA, Ashraf S, Umair M, Iqbal KJ, Khan AM, Ali Z. 2014.

Diversity of wild mammalian fauna of Chenab riverine forest, Punjab, Pakistan. J Anim

Plant Sci.24:1342-1347.

Anonymous. 2007. Surface water quality monitoring in Punjab. In: Directorate of Land

Reclamation Punjab Canal Bank Moghalpura, Lahore. Government of Punjab.

Barua M, Bhagwat SA, Jadhav S. 2013. The hidden dimensions of human–wildlife conflict:

Health impacts, opportunity and transaction costs. Biol Conserv.157:309-316.

Boundja RP, Midgley JJ. 2010. Patterns of elephant impact on woody plants in the

Hluhluwe‐Imfolozi park, Kwazulu‐Natal, South Africa. J Ecol.48:206-214.

Bulte EH, Rondeau D. 2005. Research and management viewpoint: why compensating wildlife

damages may be bad for conservation. J Wildl Manage.69:14-19.

146

Experiment 7

Chen S, Yi ZF, Campos-Arceiz A, Chen MY, Webb EL. 2013. Developing a spatially-explicit,

sustainable and risk-based insurance scheme to mitigate human–wildlife conflict. Biol

Conserve. 168: 31-39.

Choudhary MA. 2010. Religious Practices at Sufi Shrines in the Punjab. Pakistan J Hist

Cult.31:1-30.

Dar NI, Minhas RA, Zaman Q, Linkie M. 2009. Predicting the patterns, perceptions and causes

of human–carnivore conflict in and around Machiara National Park, Pakistan. Biol

Conserv.142:2076-2082.

Dickman, A., 2010. Complexities of conflict: the importance of considering social factors for

effectively resolving human–wildlife conflict. Anim Conserv. 13: 458–466.

Graham H. 2003. The Ecology and Conservation of Lions: Human-Wildlife Conflict in semi-arid

Botswana Lady Margaret Hall, University of Oxford.

Graham K, Beckerman AP, Thirgood S. 2005. Human–predator–prey conflicts: ecological

correlates, prey losses and patterns of management. Biol Conserv.122:159-171.

Hemson G, Maclennan S, Mills G, Johnson P, Macdonald D. 2009. Community, lions, livestock

and money: a spatial and social analysis of attitudes to wildlife and the conservation

value of tourism in a human–carnivore conflict in Botswana. Biol Conserv.142:2718-

2725.

Inskip C, Zimmermann A. 2009. Human-felid conflict: a review of patterns and priorities

worldwide. Oryx.43:18-34.

147

Experiment 7

Joshi R, Singh R. 2008. Feeding behaviour of wild Asian Elephants (Elephas maximus) in the

Rajaji National Park. J Am Sci.4:34-48.

Karanth KK, Naughton-Treves L, DeFries R, Gopalaswamy AM. 2013. Living with wildlife and

mitigating conflicts around three Indian protected areas. Environ Manage. 52(6): 1320-

1332.

Lamarque F. 2008. Human-wildlife conflict in Africa: An overview of causes, consequences and

management strategies. Food and agriculture organization of the United nations (FAO).

Li J, Yin H, Wang D, Jiagong Z, Lu Z. 2013. Human-snow leopard conflicts in the Sanjiangyuan

Region of the Tibetan Plateau. Biol Conserv. 166: 118-123.

Linkie M, Dinata Y, Nofrianto A, Leader‐Williams N. 2007. Patterns and perceptions of wildlife

crop raiding in and around Kerinci Seblat National Park, Sumatra. Anim Conserv.10:127-

135.

Macdonald DW, Sillero-Zubiri C. Large carnivores and conflict: lion conservation in context.

Proceedings of the Lion conservation research. Workshop; 2002.

Madhusudan M. 2003. Living amidst large wildlife: livestock and crop depredation by large

mammals in the interior villages of Bhadra Tiger Reserve, South India. Environ

Manage.31:0466-0475.

Nyhus PJ, Tilson R. 2004. Characterizing human-tiger conflict in Sumatra, Indonesia:

implications for conservation. Oryx.38:68-74.

148

Experiment 7

Ogra MV. 2008. Human–wildlife conflict and gender in protected area borderlands: a case study

of costs, perceptions, and vulnerabilities from Uttarakhand (Uttaranchal), India.

Geoforum.39:1408-1422.

Qadeer MA. 2006. Pakistan: Social and cultural transformations in a Muslim nation. 2 Park

Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, OX14 4RN USA and Canada: Routledge.

Roberts TJ. 1997. The Mammals of Pakistan. New Yark: Oxford University Press

Schwerdtner K, Gruber B. 2007. A conceptual framework for damage compensation schemes.

Biol Conserv.134:354-360.

Sekhar NU. 1998. Crop and livestock depredation caused by wild animals in protected areas: the

case of Sariska Tiger Reserve, Rajasthan, India. Environ Conserv.25:160-171.

Sheikh MS. 2012a. District Pre-Investment Study – 2012, Gujranwala. In. p. 1-376.

Sheikh MS. 2012b. District Pre-Investment Study – 2012, Gujrat. In. p. 1-28.

Sheikh MS. 2012c. District Pre-Investment Study – 2012, Sialkot. In. p. 1-31.

Studsrød JE, Wegge P. 1995. Park-people relationships: the case of damage caused by park

animals around the Royal Bardia National Park, Nepal. Environ Conserv.22:133-142.

Thirgood S, Woodroffe R, Rabinowitz A. 2005. The impact of human-wildlife conflict on human

lives and livelihoods. Conservation Biology Series-Cambridge-.9:13.

Treves A, Karanth KU. 2003. Human‐carnivore conflict and perspectives on carnivore

management worldwide. Conserv Biol.17:1491-1499.

149

Experiment 7

Van Bommel L, Johnson CN. 2012. Good dog! Using livestock guardian dogs to protect

livestock from predators in Australia's extensive grazing systems. Wildl Res.39:220-229.

Weladji RB, Tchamba MN. 2003. Conflict between people and protected areas within the

Bénoué Wildlife Conservation Area, North Cameroon. Oryx.37:72-79.

Woodroffe R, Thirgood S, Rabinowitz A. 2005. The impact of human-wildlife conflict on

natural systems. Conservation Biology Series-Cambridge.9:1.

150

CHAPTER 4 SUMMARY

The River Chenab is an important wetland of Punjab province and the tree plantations around the

river are the part of tropical thorn forest. But as a consequence of deforestation much of the

natural forested areas have been turned to agricultural land. The main objective of study was to assess the avian and mammalian diversity of the study area; to identify and assess anthropogenic

impacts on avian and mammalian diversity of the study area; and to explore the level of human-

wildlife conflict selected sites of river Chenab i.e. district Sialkot, district Gujrat and district

Gujranwala from May, 2013 through April. Surveys were made during dawn (5:00 am to 8:00

am) and dusk (4:00 pm to 7:00 pm).

During the waterfowl study recorded 51 species belonging to 33 genera, 16 families and 8 orders

were recorded from the study area. Throughout the year a total of 2531 birds from recorded from

head Marala, 2026 from the head Khanki and 2230 from head Qadirabad. Diversity indices were

analyzed through statistical software PAST version 2.17 C. The Shannon-Weiner diversity index

at head Marala was 2.62, at head Khanki it was 2.64 while at head Qadirabad it was 2.78. It can

be concluded from the present study that the River Chenab is waterfowl rich and should be

declared as protected site for waterfowls.

The study area was divided into different habitat types on the basis of vegetation and

urbanization and was designated as forest habitat (FH), wetland habitat (WLH), rural forest

habitat (RFH), agriculture habitat (AH), agriculture rural habitat (ARH), urban non vegetative

habitat (UNVH) and urban vegetative habitat (UVH). A linear count method was applied and

data was collected through direct and indirect observations. Habitat preference of the birds varied

f declined from forested habitats to the urban landscapes. It can be concluded from the study that

151

Summary many of the avian species are habitat specific and the connection/corridors between similar habitat types might be fruitful for the conservation of avian species.

The anthropogenic impacts and habitat preferences of mammalian species along river Chenab,

Pakistan was also assessed the mammalian diversity was recorded along forested landscapes, cultivated plantations, semi-urban and urban areas. The data on diversity and distribution of various mammalian species was collected through point count method viz. direct observation

(personal count and record voices) and indirect observation (presences of carcasses, fecal pellet, pug marks and meeting with local communities). The habitat preferences of large, medium and small mammals varied significantly. A decline in mammalian diversity was observed from forest habitat to urban landscapes. Indian wild boar, Asiatic jackal, Indian fox, jungle cat, Indian pangolin and long eared desert hedgehog preferred forested areas as well as slightly modified habitats while Northern palm squirrel, house mouse, house shrew and rat species preferred human habitations. Similarly, few species such as the small Indian mongoose, Soft-furred field rat, short tailed mole rat, Asiatic jackal and Indian gerbil preferred cultivated areas. It can be concluded that many of the mammalian species are habitat specific and corridors and connections between different landscapes are important for the conservation of mammalian diversity.

Medicinal and cultural significance of avian species along the River Chenab were assessed through Relative Popularity Level (RPL) and Rank Order Priority (ROP). One hundred and nine persons were interviewed and data regarding socio-economic status of the respondents, qualitative data on cultural significance from three selected districts. The compiled data are analyzed using different quantitative tools, such as relative frequency of mention (RFM), fidelity level (FL), relative popularity level RPL and rank order priority (ROP). Out of total 155

152

Summary

avian species recorded from the study area, 28 have medical importance while local people were

using feathers of almost all the bird species for making different toys. Ten species were most

popular and highest RFM values (0.58) were recorded for house sparrow (Passer domesticus).

Similarly, highest FL values (100%) were recorded for house sparrow (P. domesticus) and

domestic chicken (Gallus gallus). These studies indicated that the area is rich in avian diversity

and many of these species have medical and cultural significance for the locales.

Mammals are source of food and medication for humans from ancient times. A survey was

conducted along the Rver Chenab, Punjab, Pakistan and 109 persons were interviewed to

investigate the extent of human dependency on mammalian species of the area. A total of 30

mammalian species were recorded from the study area. Highest relatively frequency of mention

(RFM) values (0.5) were observed for desert hare, Lepus migricollis dayanus while maximum

(100%) fidelity level (FL) was recorded for cow Bos gaurus, sheep Ovis aries and cat Felis

domesticus. Seven species were most popular. It can be concluded from present survey that local

people have strong association with mammalian species of the study area and dependent for

food and medicines on these species. In depth studies are recommended to explore medicinal

importance of the species.

The study area was part of tropical thorn forest but a larger portion has been changed into

agricultural land or human habitations. Data regarding socio-economic value of area, financial losses to crops and livestock, peoples’ attitude and tolerance towards wildlife, protection

methods for livestock and crops from predators and profile of 150 respondents were collected

through a questionnaire. The age of the respondents was between 20 to 65 years, out of them

54% were literate, 99% were Muslims and all these respondents were from different professions

viz. farmers (32%), livestock managers (37%) and others (31%). Most of the respondents (52%)

153

Summary

were unaware about the role of wild species in ecosystem, certain respondents (28%) disliked

wild species in their areas and 20% respondents had positive view about wildlife in the area. The

collected data revealed that crops are mostly damaged by the Indian wild boar (42%), Asiatic

jackal (34%), diseases (11%), Indian crested porcupine (6%) and others (7%) including rats,

squirrels, crows and sparrows. Similarly, the livestock animals are affected mostly by diseases

(36%), Asiatic jackal (34%), jungle cat (10%), Indian fox and others (6%) including raptor birds.

Most of the respondents were of the view that wildlife is declining in the area.

The River Chenab is an important wetland of Punjab, Pakistan. Water of the river is becoming

pollutedt due to anthropogenic impact i.e. industrial waste, urbanization, agriculture

intensification. The main objectives of the study were to know the diversity and distribution of

fish species of river Chenab. Both, direct and indirect methods were applied to find out fish

diversity of the area. The diversity indices were analyzed through statistical software PAST

version 2.17 C. During the sampling 34 species was recorded from the river Chenab. The

diversity indices indicate that higher diversity is present at the head Qadirabad than head Khanki

and Marala. The reason is that there is present large number of natural and manmade ponds;

during the flood these pond fishes move to the river further eggs and fingerlings move to rivers

through birds and fisherman.

154

Appendix

Appendix 1 Ethno-zoology

Enumerator Respondent name

Village name Ethnic background

Occupation Age

How many species have you seen?

------

Local name of the species

------

Uses of species as food

------

Uses of species as medicine

------

Superstitious about species

------

Uses of species as other purposes

------

Important note

------

155

Appendix

Appendix 2 Human-wildlife conflict Questionnaire

1. Respondents characteristic Name Gender Age Education Occupation Religion Cast Family members Village

2. Socio-economic value Earning member/s Family income/month

3. Livestock own Buffalo Cow Goat

Sheep Ducks Hen

Others

4. Livestock Sold/year Buffalo Cow Goat

Sheep Ducks Hen

5. Financial loss of crops by wildlife/annum (Tick one) Indian wild boar Asiatic Jackal Indian crested porcupine Diseases Others

6. Financial loss of livestock by wildlife/annum(Tick one) Asiatic Jackal Jungle cat Bengal fox Diseases Others

7. Perception about the Wildlife (Increase/Decrease /Maintain) Indian wild boar Asiatic Jackal Jungle cat Bengal fox Others

8. Tolerance towards wildlife Negative attitude Positive attitude Neutral attitude

9. Did you stay with livestock (Tick one) Morning Noon Afternoon Evening Night Not

10. The most effective method used for the protection of crops (Tick one) Bio-fence Dummy Plastic bags Metallic-fence Others Not

156