Abundance of Indian Peafowl (Pavp Cristatus)In the Oveli

FINAL TECHNICAL REPORT FOR MINOR RESEARCH PROJECT (for the Teachers of Government Arts and Science Colleges) Project entitled ABUNDANCE OF INDIAN PEAFOWL (PAVO CRISTATUS) IN THE OVELI FOREST AREA, THE NILGIRIS, WESTERN GHATS OF SOUTH INDIA” Submitted To TAMIL NADU STATE COUNCIL FOR HIGHER EDUCATION CHENNAI (TANSCHE) (Ref: D.O.Rc.No. 1418/2014 A, dt 25-8-2014)

Submitted By Dr. C.SUBRAMANIAN, M.Sc.,(Z) M.Sc.(W),Ph.D. ASSISTANT PROFESSOR OF WILDLIFE BIOLOGY DEPT. OF ZOOLOGY & WILDLIFE BIOLOGY GOVERNMENT ARTS COLLEGE, UDGAHAMANDALAM THE NILGIRIS-643 002, TAMIL NADU 2

Project Title : “ABUNDANCE OF INDIAN PEAFOWL (PAVO CRISTATUS) IN THE OVELI FOREST AREA, THE NILGIRIS, WESTERN GHATS OF SOUTH INDIA”

Introduction The Peacocks are large, colorful pheasants (typically blue and green) known for their iridescent tails. These tail feathers, or coverts, spread out in a distinctive train that is more than 60 percent of the bird’s total body length and boast colorful "eye" markings of blue, gold, red, and other hues. The large train is used in mating rituals and courtship displays. It can be arched into a magnificent fan that reaches across the bird's back and touches the ground on either side. Females are believed to choose their mates according to the size, color, and quality of these outrageous feather trains. The pheasants are group of birds belong to the family Phasianidae of the Order Galliformes that includes pheasants, partridges and quails, commonly known as ‘game birds’ (Delacour, 1977). The Order Galliformes has small to large terrestrial birds, the presence of the lateral foramen marked out by fused manubrial spines of sternum is the only taxonomic character that this order is monophyletic and are related to Anseriformes (Urban et al 1986). The family Phasianidae is the largest and the most diverse assemblage (Johnsgard, 1986) and comprises of 38 genera, 155 species and 399 taxa distributed throughout the Old World. Out of 51 species of world’s pheasants, 17 species occur in India with very little ecological information. McGowan and Garson (1995) considered the pheasants as forest biodiversity indicators. Birds are widely recognized as good bio-indicators of the quality of the ecosystems and health of the environment (Gill, 1994). They are being used as tools for conservation and environmental impact assessment. Galliformes species are useful indicators of environmental quality and the assessment of their status is essential for management purposes (Fuller and Garson, 2000). The Indian Peafowl (Pavo cristatus) also known as the Blue Peafowl was declared as the national bird of India during 1963 due to its ‘flagship’ value found on its glorious position in mythology and its widespread distribution and grandeur and comes in Schedule-I of the Indian Wildlife (Protection)

Act, 1972. This bird is listed as of (LC) by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN). The Indian Peafowl is more commonly known as the peacock (male) or the peahen (female). The peacock is found to be an Indian origin where it is designated as National Bird and now it is lives in wild of many parts of the country. These birds are commonly known as game fowl or game birds, land fowl, gallinaceous birds or Galliformes. The family Phasianidae, being of the largest families of Galliformes, including the largest size peafowl’s (Hoya et al., 1994). The genus has its origins in Asia and can be found in India, Burma, Java and the Malay Peninsula. The Peafowl is a resident breeder across the Indian subcontinent and found mainly on the ground in dry, semi-desert areas, grasslands, scrublands, open and deciduous forest, roost in trees or other high places at night. Peafowl are omnivorous and eat seeds, insects, fruits, small mammals and reptiles. They feed on small snakes but keep their distance from larger ones (Johnsing, 1976). In Gir forest of Gujarat, a large percentage of their food is made up of the fallen berries of zizipus (Trivedi and Johnsing, 1995). Around cultivated areas, peafowl feed on wide range of crops such as groundnut, tomato, paddy, chilly and even bananas (Johnsing and Murali, 1978). Around human habitations, they feed on variety of food scraps and even human excreta (Ali and Repley, 1980). In the countryside, it is particularly partial to crops and garden plants. The male shows the characteristic colour tail feathers or train during breeding season. Its train makes the male peafowl one of the largest flying birds in the world. The Indian Peafowl are terrestrial birds, their loud calls make them easy to detect, and in forest birds, their loud calls make them easy to detect, and in forest areas often indicate the presence of a predator such as tiger. The species of peafowl found in the world are Pavo cristatus (blue peafowl), Pavo mudicus (Green peafowl) and Afropavo cogenesis (Congo peafowl). Blue peafowl is a native breed of India, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Srilanka, commonly called as Mayil in Tamil language. Peafowl breeds from April through October to October (Mushtaq-ul-Hassan et al., 2012). Indian Peafowls are polygamous and generally has to three breeding peahens in its harem

(Roberts,1992). Clutch is usually 4 to 9 eggs in natural condition and the incubation period is about 28-30 days (Anon, 2002). Peacock are large in body size, brilliant ornamented plumage and long train feather are surely attractive to public. When the length of the tail is included, female Indian peafowl have a body length of about three feet, while males can attain length of up 7 feet. Female Indian peafowl weigh about 7 Ibs. While males weigh about 11 Ibs. Like other pheasants, peafowl are adopted to a life of walking and foraging on the ground as they search for the seeds, plants, insects and reptiles for its diet. Peafowl fly when pressed by a predator or when retreating to their evening roosts. The elaborate train and its display of the male Indian peafowl (Pavo cristatus), which is a visual signal directed at female, has long been a subject of fascination and debate in the scientific world (Harikrishnan et al 2010). Peafowl roost in groups during the night on tall trees but may sometimes make use of rocks, buildings or pylons. A 2013 study that tracked the eye movements of peahens responding to male displays found that they looked in the direction of the upper train of feathers only when at long distances and that they looked only at the lower feathers when males displayed close to them. Peacocks are polygamous, and the breeding season is spread out but appears to be dependent on the rains. Peafowls usually reach sexual maturity at the age of 2 to 3 years old. Peafowl are omnivorous and eat seeds, insects, fruits, small mammals and reptiles. They feed on small snakes but keep their distance from larger ones (Johnsingh, 1976). Foraging in groups provides some safety as there are more eyes to look out for predators.

Peafowl Male-Female Description The term "peacock" is commonly used to refer to birds of both sexes. Technically, only males are peacocks. Females are peahens, and together, they are called peafowl. Suitable males may gather harems of several females, each of which will lay three to five eggs. In fact, wild peafowl often roost in forest trees and gather in groups called parties.

Peacocks are a larger sized bird with a length from bill to tail of 110 to 115 cm and to the end of a fully grown train as much as 195 to 225 cm and weigh 4-6 kg. The female or peahens are among the largest and heaviest representatives of the living birds. Their size, colour and shape of crest make them unmistakable within their native distribution range. The male is metallic blue on the crown, the feathers of the head being short and curled (Blanford, 1898). The fan-shaped crest on the head is made of feathers with bare black shafts and tipped with bluish-green webbing. A white stripe above the eye and a crescent white patch below the eye are formed by bare white skin. The sides of the head have iridescent greenish blue feathers. The back has scaly bronze-feathers with black and copper markings. The scapular and the wings are buff and barred in black, the primaries are chestnut and the secondaries are black. The tail is dark brown and the “train” is made up of elongated upper tail coverts (more than 200 feathers, the actual tail has only 20 feathers) and nearly all of these feathers end with an elaborate eye-spot. A few of the outer feathers lack the spot and end in a crescent shaped black tip. The underside is dark glossy green shading into blackish under the tail. The thighs are buff coloured. The male has a spur on the leg above the hind toe (Whistler and Hugh, 1949; Blanford, 1898). The adult peahen has a rufous-brown head with a crest as in the male but the tips are chestnut edged with green. The upper body is brownish with pale mottling. The primaries, secondaries and tail are dark brown. The lower neck is metallic green and the breast feathers are dark brown glossed with green. The remaining under parts are whitish (Whistler and Hugh, 1949). Downy young are pale buff with a brown mark on the nape that connects with the eyes (Baker,1928). Young males look like females but the wings are chestnut coloured (Baker,1928; Ali and Ripley, 1980). The most common calls are a loud pia-ow or may-awe. The frequency of calling increases before the season and may be delivered in alarm or when disturbed by loud noises. In forests, their calls often indicate the presence of predators such as the tiger (Whistler and Hugh, 1949; Ali and Repley, 1980). They also make many other calls such as a rapid series of ka-aan...ka-aan or rapid Kok-kok (Ali and Repley, 1980; Johnsingh and Murali, 1978).

Population Ecology Peacocks are ground-feeders that eat insects, plants, and small creatures. There are two familiar peacock species. The blue peacock lives in India and Sri Lanka, while the green peacock is found in Java and Myanmar (Burma). A more distinct and little-known species, the Congo peacock, inhabits African rain forests. Peafowl such as the blue peacock have been admired by humans and kept as pets for thousands of years. Selective breeding has created some unusual color combinations, but wild birds are themselves bursting with vibrant hues. They can be testy and do not mix well with other domestic birds. The peacock (also known as peafowl) is a medium sized bird most closely related to the pheasant. Unlike it's common pheasant cousin that inhabits areas of the Northern Hemisphere, the peacock is found in warmer climate of the Southern Hemisphere, with the peacock being most commonly found in India. There are three main types of peacock, the African Congo peacock, the Indian peacock and the Green peacock all of which are thought to have originated in Asia but are today found in Africa and parts of Australia. All of the three different species of peacock are known for their elaborate male peacocks and dull, brown female peacocks (in comparison to the males). The male peacock is most well known for it's enormous tail feathers that fan out behind the peacock and can be nearly two meters in length. This colourful display of the peacock is thought to be used for both mating and defence purposes. The male peacock attracts a female to mate with by showing off his array of elaborate feathers, and when the male peacock feels threatened, he will fan his tail out in order to make himself look bigger and therefore try to intimidate approaching predators. The peacock is an omnivorous bird and feeds on insects, plants, seeds, and flower heads. Peacocks have also been known to munch on small mammals and reptiles in order to supplement their diet, which ensures that they are getting the right nutrients. Peacocks have a number of natural predators in the wild that include wild

dogs and cats, medium sized mammals such as raccoons and even tigers have been known to hunt peacocks. Peacocks commonly get to about 20 years old, although some peacock individuals have been known to get to older ages particularly those peacock individuals that are in captivity. Generally, the peacock populations are not under great threat although the green peacock, is listed as being vulnerable to extinction mainly due to hunting and habitat loss. Male peacocks are known as peacocks and female peacocks are known as peahens (in a similar way to chickens and pheasants). The male is peacock is generally about twice the size of the female peahen, and even larger when the male peacock is displaying his plumage (feathers). When the male peacock does not have his brightly coloured and very elaborate tail feathers on display, they drag behind him. This is known as a tail or a train. During the mating season, the male peacock may mate with up to six different female peahens. The female peahen lays between 4 and 8 brown coloured eggs. The female peahen incubates her eggs by sitting on them, and the peacock chicks hatch after an incubation period of about a month. The female peacock, looks after and rears her peacock chicks on her own without any help from the male peacock. Peacocks are most commonly found in deserts and dry savanna areas. Peacocks are also found in forests and dense foliage particularly during the breeding season when the female peacocks are trying to incubate their eggs and rear their chicks without any unwelcome predators spotting them. Conservation status of peafowl in India Indian peafowl are widely distributed in the wild across the south Asia and protected both culturally in any areas and by law in India. Conservative estimates of the population put them at more than 100,000 (Modge and McGowan, 2002). Illegal poaching for meat however continues and declines have been noted in parts of India (Ramesh and McGowan, 2009). Peafowls breeds readily in captivity an as free-ranging ornamental fowl. Zoos, parks, bird-fanciers and dealers across the world maintain breeding populations that do not need to be augmented by the capture of the wild birds. Poaching of peacocks for

their meat and feathers and accidental poisoning by feeding on pesticide treated seeds are known threats to wild birds (Alexander,1983). Methods to identify if feathers have been plucked or shed naturally have been developed as Indian law allows only the collection of fathers that shed (Sahajpal and Goyal, 2008). In parts of India, the birds can be a nuisance to agriculture as they damage crops (Ali and Ripley,1980). Its adverse effects on crops, however, seem to be offset by the beneficial role it plays by consuming prodigious quantities of pests such as grasshoppers. They can also be a problem in garden and homes where they damage plants, attack their reflections breaking glass and mirrors, perch and scratch scars or leave their droppings. Many cities where they have been introduced and gone feral have peafowl management programmers. These include educating citizens on how to prevent the birds from causing damage while treating the birds humanely. In Tamil Nadu the peafowls can be seen in many parts both in wild and semi-wild condition. The present investigation is indent to study on Peafowl with the following objectives in the Oveli Forest Areas, in Western Ghats of Nilgiris, South India. OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY (As per Proposal)  To describe the habitat of the Indian peafowl (Pavo cristatus) in the Oveli Forest area, Nilgiris, Western Ghats  To document the abundance, distribution and habitat use of Indian peafowl in different seasons in the study area and;  To study the threats to the population of Indian peafowl in the study area. COMPLETED OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY 1. Preliminary studies (Pilot study) carried out, Direct and indirect evidences (Primary and secondary information) collected. Different habitats were identified. 2. Peafowl Distribution spots were identified, Transects laid in different direction and different habitats. 3. A total of twenty Line transects were laid and peafowls abundance recorded. 4. The Data collected for peafowl abundance and documented. 5. The data on peafowl distribution, habitat use, in different seasons were obtained. 6. The data on the threats to the population of Indian Peafowl were collected.

STUDY AREA The Western Ghats is a mountain chain parallel to the western coast, about 1,600 km long. It is separated into three zoogeographic zones (a) northern (southern Gujarat up to Kali river in northern Karnataka), (b) central (south of Kali river to Palghat Gap) and (c) southern (Palghat Gap southward). The Western Ghats, also known as the Sahyadri Hill, are well known for their rich and unique assemblage of floraand fauna. Norman Myers included the Western Ghats amongst the 25 biodiversity hot-spots identified in the world. The area is one of the world's ten "Hottest biodiversity hotspots" and has over 7,402 species of flowering plants, 1814 species of non-flowering plants, 139 mammal species, 508 bird species, 179 amphibian species, 6000 insects species and 290 freshwater fish species; it is likely that many undiscovered species live in the Western Ghats. At least 325 globally threatened species occur in the Western Ghats (Plate 1 & 2). The Nilgiri (11°22′30″N 76°45′30″E), are a range of mountains forming a part of the Western Ghats situated in the western part of Tamil Nadu state at the junction of Karnataka and Kerala states in Southern India. The present intensive study was carried out at O’valley Forest Range (500 sqm) located (11º 27’17 ’’N, 76º 28’43’’ E) in southern Western Ghats of Gudalur Forest Division (11600 sq(ft)), Nilgiri district, Tamilnadu, south India. The Gudalur Forest Division is located 51 Km west of Udhagamandalam City and is on the boundary of Tamilnadu, Kerala and Karnataka State. It comprises of O’valley ranges. Gudalur Forest Division was formed in 1969. Topography of the area is mostly flat except for a few knolls. The open forest patches were summer cattle camps in the past. The altitude ranges from 200 to 1,117 m (3,517 ft) above mean sea level (msl) and density is 200/km/2 in the forest. Some perennial and seasonal rivers and seasonal streams drain the O’valley Range. Location of Study Area The present study was carried out at O’valley Range (500 km²). It is a protected Area under (Section 17) 1976. These forest blocks were further demarked as different beats. The O’valley Range includes 20 beats viz., Kamaraj Nagar, Mullai nagar,

Barham-1, Barham-2, Anna Nagar-1, Anna Nagar-2, Periya Choondi, Chinna choondi, Aathur, Guind, Gandhi Nagar, Darmagiri, bharwood, Yellan, Kilanvance, Mulakkadau, Pulikuntha, periyasolai, Bharathinager and Arottubarai (Plate 1 to 3). During summer, the graziers deliberately burn the understorey to get fresh grass during monsoon. Occasionally, poachers and villagers also burn grasslands in the higher altitudes. Hence these areas are frequently facing forest fires.

Climate and Rainfall O’valley Range experienced extreme climatic conditions during the study period. The temperature ranged from 29.0º C to 35.0º C in summer and 14º C to 19º C in winter. The temperature showed seasonal fluctuation during the study period. The rainfall varied between 1300 mm and 1700 mm during 2014 and 2015. Hydrology The Emerald Dam, Avalanchee Dam, Kamaraj Dam, Singara Dam, Moyar Dam and river, Ooty lake and Pykara lake are the important water reservoirs in the Nilgiris. In which, the parts of Chinnampu palam River, Mulakadu River, Aathur River and etc. were covered for the present study. Flora The O’valley Forest Area consisting of four different habitat types viz., Southern Dry Deciduous Forest (SDDF), Evergreen Forest (EF), Grassland Forest (GF) and Plantation (PL) (Tea, Coffee, Cardamom, Arecanut, Cocount, Clove). The vegetation types in surrounding of the study area as, Southern Tropical Moist Deciduous Forest, Sholas Forest, Dry Deciduous Forest and Grassland Forest. However, the O’valley Range do not comes under this category and this area is pleasant always except during summer in foot hills. The dominant tree species viz., Cassia fisluta, Grevillea robusta, Mangifera olifera, Moringferan indica Tectona grandis, Tamarindus indica, Salmaliamalabarica, Bauhinia racemosa, memecylon malabaricum, and ficus sp the shrub species such as Lantana camara,Abutilon indicum and Cytisus scoparius were recorded. In addition to these natural forests there are plantations of Tea – Camellia sinensis,Cardamom – Elettai cardamomum, Coffee – cofeeia india, Clove - Syzgium

aromaticum, Cocount – Cocos nucifera and Arecanut – Areca catechu in different blocks and beats. The O’valley Area almost situated of the Reserve Forest. Fauna In the O’valley Range the mammals were represented by Common langur (Trachypithecus entellus), Nilgiri langur (T.johnii), Leopard (Panthera pardus), Sloth bear (Melursus ursinus), Asian elephant (Elephas maximus), Gaur (Bos gaurus) and Tiger (Panthera tigeris) were also encountered. Sambar deer (Cervus unicolor), Barking deer (Muntiacusmuntjak), Mouse deer (Tragulus meminna) and Indian wild boar (Sus scrofa) were frequently sighted. Some of the interesting birds seen during the study were the, Malabar Grey Hornbill (Tockus griseus), Red spurfowl (Galloperdix spadicea), Indian Peafowl (Gallus sonneratii),Greater Racket- Tailed Drongo (Dicrurus paradiseus), Nigliri Laughingthrush (Garrulax cachinnans), Nigliri Flycatcher (Eumyias albicaudata), Asian fairy-blue bird (Irena puella), Oriental white-eye (Zossterops palpebrosus), Great Tit (Parus major) (Annexure). Important reptiles such as Indian Southern Green Calotes (C. calotes), Fan-throated lizard (Sitana ponticeriana), Chameleon (Chamaeleo zeylanicus), Common Indian Monitor lizard (Varanus bengalensis), and Indian cobra (Naja naja) and King cobra (Ophiphagus Hannah) were distributed in the O’valley Area. These habitats supported a rich diversity of insects also many Butterfly and Moths. Anthropogenic pressures In this Study Area, the total human population is around 21.500. In this O’valley forest area there are approximately cattle 800 to 1000 and 1000 to 1400 goats. A temple situated in the culture of the O’valley forest area. It is called ‘Santhanamalai Murukan Temple’ at the hill top (1,050 m) in the area. It attracts several hundreds of pilgrims per year on the day of full moon of April. There are 70 families of kurumbas and 65 families of paniyas tribals residing their huts. These people defends forest for day by day live hood and cattle grazing, fire wood collection, and Non Timber Forest Produces (NTFP) collection ect. The cultivation and livestock rearing are the main occupation of the villagers who use the forests area for grazing.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The study for abundance and population of Indian Peafowl was carried out in and around the O’valley Forest Area in the Nilgiris. To study the abundance and population of Indian Peafowl the following methods were adopted and describe below.

Systematic Position of Indian Blue Peafowl (Pavo cristatus)

Kingdom: Animalia Phylum: Chordata Class: Aves Order: Galliformes Family: Phasianidae Sub Family: Phasianinae Genes: Pavo

Species: cristatus Encounter Rates of Indian Peafowl The population of the Indian Peafowl were estimated by the line transect method using Distance Sampling (Burnham et al 1980; Buckland et al 1993 and 2001).The Field sampling was carried out from March 2015 to February 2016. During this period the population of Indian Peafowl was monitored in five different habitat viz., Southern Dry Deciduous Forest (SDDF), Evergreen Forest (EF), Grassland Forest (GF) and Plantation of Tea, Coffee, Cardamom, Clove (Agricultural). The abundance of Indian Peafowl was estimated by adopting Line Transect Sampling method. The abundance was expressed in terms of Encounter Rate. The transects were positioned randomly with respect to the available habitat (Buckland et al 2001). The total number (n = 20) and length of transects (each transect = 1 km) was a compromise between the area of available habitat (e.g. number and size of habitat patches), journey time between transects (i.e. sampling effort) and the

number of transects necessary to obtain a sufficient sample of records for estimating the Indian Peafowl abundance (Plate 2 & 3). Methods for Indian Peafowl Abundance and Population The line transects that were laid in different direction in the study areas. In which, the data on Indian Peafowl sightings and individuals were collected while sighting on the transects. The line transects were also laid in the different altitudinal gradient, available habitats and directions. A total number of transect was Twenty. The samplings were done monthly once. Each transect was measured and sampled for 1km length. The intensive study was conducted in 20 location from March 2015 to February 2016 (12 months). During the walk of a transect the data were collected based on the visual Encounter Rate on a Indian Peafowl sighting. The counting unit for Indian Peafowl was the group of individuals. For each bird group the date, time of day, number of individuals, and where possible, the age and sex of the individuals were recorded. The perpendicular distance also measured between the geometric centre of the bird group contact and the line transect. Among the 20 transect walks the habitat such as SDDF, EF, GL and PL were carried out equally. The seasons were categorized as follows: The Winter season (November-February), Summer season (March-January), and Rainy season (July-October). The data obtained was extrapolated to estimate as encounter rates (birds / km walk) by using DISTANCE 5.0 beta version (Thomas et al 1998) software programme. The Indian Peafowl abundance estimates along with co-efficient of variation (CV) lower confidence interval and upper confidence interval were obtained. Extensive Study Areas: (Spots) The preliminary study was conducted in the beginning of intensive filed work for identify the study areas. During the preliminary study, the following locations along with the intensive study spots were (26 spots) surveyed. The following areas were not studied due to the rejection or not suitable for intensive field work. The following spots were not included in the intensive areas (Plate 3).

Based on the pilot survey, the following intensive (20) study spots were selected as intensive study areas and discussed below. Methods of vegetation Analysis The method for vegetation quantification the standard quadrate was adopted. At every 100m along the transect the permanent plots (10m × 10m) were laid and marked. In these plots, all the trees (>25cm gbh), shrub and grass species were identified. The availability of microhabitat variables viz., Canopy Cover (%), Shrub Cover (%), Grass Cover (%), Litter Cover (%), Litter Depth (cm), and Tree number (N) were also recorded in all these plots. In the Sub plots (5 × 5) were marked to quantity Shrub Cover (%), followed by laying of smaller quadrates (1m × 1m) to estimate the Grass Cover (%), Litter Cover (%) and Litter Depth (cm). In all the plots the percentage of Canopy Cover, Shrub Cover, Grass Cover and Litter cover were visually estimate. The tree numbers in these plots were quantified by counting the individual trees. The average Litter Depth was measured by using a measuring scale. The repeated surveys was carried out in all the line transects in different Forest types such as Southern Dry Deciduous Forest (SDDF), Evergreen Forest (EF), Grassland Forest (GF) and Plantation (PL Tea, Coffee, Cardamom and clove).

STATISTICAL ANALYSIS  To estimate the population (ER) of Indian Peafowls, the DISTANCE (Version 5.0) software was used.  The mean and standard deviation were calculated for the abundance of Indian Peafowls in the study area.  The different seasons and habitats were estimated by correlation analysis.

RESULTS Habitat availability Peafowl: There are four different habitats are available in the Oveli forest area. The habitats Southern Deciduous Dry Forest (SDDF), Evergreen forest, Grassland Habitat (GF) and Agricultural Habitat (AH) which includes the crops such Tea, coffee, Cardamom and Clove). These habitats provide the shelter, feeding, protections from predators for the Peafowl population in the study area. Population of Indian Peafowl (Encounter Rate/km walked): The Indian Peafowl population was obtained and expressed in the unit of Encounter Rate (ER/km walked). The overall population of Indian Peafowl in the study area was obtained a total of 159 individuals throughout the study period. The sex ratio in the study area was 0.73 Peahen:1 Peacock (male = 78 and Female = 57). The Encounter Rate was 13.25/km walked (n=159). The abundance of Indian Peafowl were studied sex wise and represented below (Table 4 to 5 & Fig1-5). Sex-wise abundance of Peafowls The Peacock The overall population of Cock individuals (Cock) in the study area was 78 and the Encounter Rate (Table 4 & 5) was 6.5 /km walked (n=78). The Peahen The overall population of Hen individuals (Hen) in the study area was 57 and the Encounter Rate (Table 4 & 5: Fig: 1-5) was 4.75/km walked (n=57). The Chick The population of Chick in the study area was 55 individuals only and the Encounter Rate (Table 4 & 5) was 2/km walked (n=24). Abundance of Peafowls in different Seasons (Seasonal Variation) The seasonal variations for Indian Peafowl population were studied in different seasons such as winter, summer and rainy season (Table 6). In general, the Indian Peafowl population was high (n=64; ER 16/km walked) in the Summer season when compared to other seasons (Winter n=49 ; ER 12.25/km walked and Rainy=46 ; ER 0.75/km walked).

Abundance of Peafowl in the Winter Season The seasons were categorized as follows: The Winter season (November-February), Summer season (March-January), and Rainy season (July-October). In the winter season, there were observed 49 individuals Indian Peafowl were recorded (ER=12.25/km walked). In the winter season (Table 6), the Cock population was 26 (8/Km walked) and the Hen population 16 (4.75/Km walked) and the Chick population was observed 7 (3.25/Km walked). Abundance of Peafowl in the Summer Season During the summer season, a total of 64 individuals of Indian Peafowl were recorded (Table 6) and the Encounter Rate was 16/km walked during the study period. In summer season, the Cock population was 32 (5/km walked)) and the Hen population 19 (5.5/Km walked). The Chick population observed 13 (1/km walked). Abundance of Peafowl in the Rainy Season A total of 46 individuals of Indian Peafowl were recorded and the Encounter Rate was 0.75/Km walked during the rainy season. The Indian Peafowl Cock population was 20 (0.38/km walked) and the Hen population 22 (0.31/ km walked). The Chick population observed was 4 (0.06/ km walked) in the rainy season (Table 6). Peafowl Abundance versus Seasons The correlation analyses were done for various seasons in the study area. The population of Indian Peafowl between winter and summer shows (γ =0.17) very low degree of correlation. Similarly, winter and rainy season (γ =0.06); and the summer and rainy season also (γ =0.23) showed low degree of correlation. Abundance of Peafowl in different months (Monthly variations) The Indian Peafowl population was high (n=17) in the month of February 2015. The lowest sightings was in the month of November (n=6). The other months were moderately obtained (Table 5). The Cock population was high (n=9) in the month of March, May, and January. The lowest sightings (n=3) was obtained in September. The hen population was maximum (n=8) in August and the minimum sighting was obtained (n=2) in the December. The chick population was high in the March (n=5) and low in the July,

September and December (n=1) and no sightings were recorded in the month of October and November (Table 5). Peafowl Abundance in different Habitats (Habitat- wise variations) There were observed the differences in the seasons for peafowl sightings. The highest sightings were obtained (Table 7) in SDDF habitat (n=49; ER=12.25/Km walked) and the lowest sightings was recorded in the EF habitat (n=34; n=34; ER=8.5/Km walked). The Peacock was high in the SDDF (n=25; ER=6.25/Km walked) and low in EF and GF habitats (n=17;ER=4.25/Km walked). The Peahen was maximum in SDDF habitat (n=16;ER=4/Km walked) and the minimum in the EF and Agricultural habitats (n=13;ER=3.25/Km walked). The Chick sightings were observed (Table 7) in the habitat of EF (n=4; ER=1/Km walked). Peafowl Abundance versus Habitats The habitats between Tea plantation and Dry deciduous Forest showed (0.61) fairly high degree of correlation. The habitat of grassland and the Dry Deciduous forest reveals (γ =0.35) low degree of correlation while other habitats such as Tea Plantation and Grassland (γ =0.07); Tea Plantation and Coffee plantation (γ = 0.18); Coffee plantation and Dry Deciduous Forest (γ =0.21) habitats are correlated as very low degree of correlation. The threats to the Indian Peafowl Based on the data (direct and indirect) there was no major threats in the study area. Poaching not observed but the egg depredation (collection of peafowl’s eggs) occasionally recorded. The sightings of peafowls were low in Agricultural habitat. This includes Tea, Coffee, cardamom and clove plantation. Due to agricultural practices in the study sites, there may be anthropogenic pressures and leads lower encounter was occurred.

DISCUSSION The Indian Peafowl Pavo cristatus also known as the Blue Peafowl was declared as the National bird of India during 1963 due to its ‘flagship’ value found on its glorious position in mythology and its widespread distribution and grandeur and comes in Schedule-I of the Indian Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972. Poaching of peacocks for their meat and feathers and accidental poisoning by feeding on pesticide treated seeds are known threats to wild birds. In Tamil Nadu the peafowls can be seen in many parts both in wild and semi-wild condition. The present investigation is indent to study on Indian Peafowl abundance in the Oveli forest and its adjoining areas of Tamil Nadu. The study was carried out from March 2015 to February 2016 in several spots in Oveli forest areas, the Nilgiris district of Tamil Nadu state. Details on abundance estimation, seasonal variations, Monthly variations, habitat availability, habitat-wise variations were studied in the study area. The habitat use is a critical facet in the management of wildlife species. Habitat provides food and cover essential for the population to survive. Central to the study of animal ecology is the usage an animal makes of its environment: specifically, the kinds of food it consumes and the varieties of habitats it occupies. Many analytic procedures have been devised to treat data on the usage of such resources, particularly in relation to information on their availability to the animal, for the purpose of determining “preference”. Attempts always go beyond simple documentation of habitat use to determine if specific habitats are selected; i.e., used more or less than availability. The importance of knowing the detailed habitat requirements if want to develop an effective conservation strategy for protecting a wild game bird species. A total of 159 Peafowl sightings were obtained in the study area. A total of 78 adult male (Peacock) and 57 adult female (Peahen) was recorded in all the twenty spots wich includes four different habitats. The peafowl density estimated for Chilla Range of Rajaji National Park during the study was 88.24 birds per sq.km (Veeramani, 1990) sighted in Mudumalai Wildlife Sanctuary with the density of 2.86 birds per sq.km in scrub jungle forests where as it was 20.64 birds per sq.km. in dry deciduous habitat.

The present investigation In Oveli forest reports the Encounter Rate was 13.25/km walked (n=159). The population of Cock individuals was 78 and the Hen individuals in the study area were 57. The Chick in the study area was 55 individuals only. The present study in Oveli shows that the sex ratio was 0.73 Peahen:1 Peacock. Das and Sivakumar, (2009) estimated the male to female sex ratio of peafowl was estimated at 1: 1.44, which is not similar sex ratio. The other works showed the sex ratio reported from other parts of Northern India 1: 1.24 (Sharma, 1978). In the polygynous peafowl harem-mating system was noticed as reported by Ali and Repley (1989) but not by all adult males. Johnsingh and Murali (1980) noted a sex ratio favouring apparent females, but admitted that, they may have mistaken immature females as males, which probably affected their estimates. Rajadurai (1988) reported the sex ratio of Adult male and adult female peafowls in Viralimalai areas of Tamil Nadu is 1: 1.4. In general, the Indian Peafowl population was high in the Summer season when compared to other seasons such winter, and Rainy. In the winter season, there were observed 49 individuals Indian Peafowl were recorded (ER=12.25/km walked). In the winter season (Table 6), the Cock population was 26 (8/Km walked) and the Hen population 16 (4.75/Km walked) and the Chick population was observed 7 (3.25/Km walked). The population of Indian Peafowl between winter and summer shows very low degree of correlation. Similarly, winter and rainy season and the summer and rainy season also showed low degree of correlation in the current study in Oveli Forest area. The present works reveals that the Indian Peafowl population was high (n=17) in the month of February. The lowest sightings was in the month of November (n=6). The other months were moderately obtained in the Oveli study area . According to Dalson (2015), in Annur and Avinasi areas with semi wild condition in Tiruppur district of Tamil Nadu, the roosting tree species selection by the peafowls mostly prefer Coconut tree (Cocos nusifer) (67.74%) for roosting and it was rarely roost in other trees such as Borasus fabelliformes (12.9%) followed by Acacia nilotica,

Tamarindus indica and Azadiracta indica (6.45%). Ward and Zahavi (1973), Dodia (2011) has reported that among 14 trees species (Azadiracta indica, Ficus bengalensis, Eucalyptus, Cocos nucifera, Prosopsis juliflora, Mangifera indica, Ziziphus mauritina, Syzium cumini, Ficus teseila, Manikara haexandra, Terminalia catappa, Casuariana equisetafolia, Samanaea saman, Adansonnia digitate) the peafowl roosted mainly on Azadiracta indica, Ficus bengalensis, Eucalyptus and Cocos nucifera in Gujarat state of India. In Mudumala Wildlife Sanctuary peafowls preferred eight types of tree species for roosting such as Acacia sundra, Cordia oblique, Bombax malabaricum, Zizyphus jujube, Eleodendron glaucum, Odina wodier, Tamarindus indica and Dalbergia latifolia.

Dalson (2016) reported the roosting tree selection by peafowl shows that most of the birds select Cocos nucsifer tree followed by Borasus fabelliformes , Acacia nilotica, Tamarindus indica and Azadiracta indica. Ali and Ripley (1983) have reported that large birds need tall trees and small birds need small trees for roosting. In the present study, peafowl, being the large bird, was found to prefer large trees for roosting. According to Bergmann (1980) and Johansgaurd (1986), blue peafowl (Pavo cristatus) has been observed on the tall trees for roosting, and nesting under dense bushes with open areas having feeding grounds. In the present study also, peafowls were observed on most dominant species of the trees in all the three selected study areas. Roosting of the peafowls was very closely related with the sunset but temperature had no relation with roosting (Navaneethakannan 1984).

Normally Pavo cristatus are both communal and solitary roosters (Trivedi, 1993). The present study also showed the same result. One probable reason for the communal roosting habit of peacocks at may be their vulnerability for predation by feral dogs in that area. Communal roosting facilitate the birds to detect the predators easily. On trees with dense foliage, they preferred to roost on the highest branches. These observations resemble the findings of Yasmin (1994). Hence, it could be attributed that the selection of roosting branch by peafowl depends on the clarity of vision it provides of the surroundings. Johnsingh and Murali (1978) opined that some of the roost trees were

traditional sites to which peafowl return every night. This coincided with the present findings, where in one adult peacock was observed to roost regularly on a coconut and palmyra tree throughout the study period. Similar observation were made in the Viralimalai region by Rathinasabapathy (1987) and Rajadurai (1988). Dalson (2015) studied the preliminary survey on the species in Annur area,Tiruppur Dt and Indira (2016) conducted the survey work Indian peafowl in selected spots in urban area of Coimbatore. The Greyjunglefowl showed a preference for areas with a mix of slopes, hilly, plains as well as the less forested areas and open grassland patches (Subramanian et al 2008).

The activity budget of peafowl of the present study shows that the peafowls mostly spent their time for feeding followed by Resting, Walking, Preening and Display and call. The behavior of Indian peafowl was strongly influenced by age and sex. Adult males spent only about half as much time as females in feeding. This could be attributed to greater amount of time spent standing, displaying and preening by adult males than by females. Adult males spent significantly more time in preening than sub- adult males and females suggesting they incurred a ‘high maintenance handicap’ because of the elaborate ornamentation (Walther and Clayto, 2005). Sub adult males, which lack the long train but possess the iridescent plumage similar to that of the adult males, were observed to spend about half the time spent by the adult males in preening (Galusha and Redd, 1992). Galliformes are diverse groups of Birds which is often considered among the more threatened of avian orders and globally 300 species are red listed. Birds are widely recognized as good bioindicators of the quality of the ecosystems and the health of the environment (Gill 1994). They are responsive to change; their diversity and abundance can reflect ecological trends in other biodiversities. Because of their highly specific habitat requirements, birds are increasingly intolerant of even slight ecosystem disturbances (Schwartz 1951). The work forest bird communities have been done in other parts of the country from time to time (Johnsingh et al 1987 and 1994).

The people living in the study sites, does not have much impact due to peafowl in the area. They are not doing any harm to the peafowl because they are worshipping the peacock as vehicle of Lord Subramania. Only very few incidents of poisoning happened in the recent past otherwise the peafowls are the pet of the people living around.

OUTCOME AND SUMMARY OF THE PROJECT

COMPLETED OBJECTIVES OF THE PROJECT:  Preliminary studies (Pilot study) carried out, Direct and indirect evidences (Primary and secondary information) collected. Different habitats were identified.  Peafowl Distribution spots were identified, Transects laid in different direction and different habitats.  A total of twenty Line transects were laid and peafowls abundance recorded.  The Data collected for peafowl abundance and documented.  The data on peafowl distribution, habitat use, in different seasons were obtained.  The data on the threats to the population of Indian Peafowl were collected.

There are four different habitats are available in the Oveli forest area. The habitats Southern Deciduous Dry Forest (SDDF), Evergreen forest, Grassland Habitat (GF) and Agricultural Habitat (AH) which includes the crops such Tea, coffee, Cardamom and Clove). These habitats provide the shelter, feeding, protections from predators for the Peafowl population in the study area. The Indian Peafowl population was obtained and expressed in the unit of Encounter Rate (ER/km walked). The overall population of Indian Peafowl in the study area was obtained a total of 159 individuals throughout the study period. The sex ratio in the study area was 0.73 Peahen:1 Peacock (male = 78 and Female = 57). The Encounter Rate was 13.25/km walked (n=159). The abundance of Indian Peafowl were studied sex wise and represented below. The overall population of Cock individuals (Cock) in the study area was 78 and the Encounter Rate was 6.5 /km walked (n=78). The overall population of Hen individuals (Hen) in the study area was 57 and the Encounter Rate was 4.75/km walked (n=57). The population of Chick in the study area was 55 individuals only and the Encounter Rate was 2/km walked (n=24).

The seasonal variations for Indian Peafowl population were studied in different seasons such as winter, summer and rainy season. In general, the Indian Peafowl population was high (n=64; ER 16/km walked) in the Summer season when compared to other seasons (Winter n=49 ; ER 12.25/km walked and Rainy=46 ; ER 0.75/km walked). The seasons were categorized as follows: The Winter season (November- February), Summer season (March-January), and Rainy season (July-October). In the winter season, there were observed 49 individuals Indian Peafowl were recorded (ER=12.25/km walked). In the winter season, the Cock population was 26 (8/Km walked) and the Hen population 16 (4.75/Km walked) and the Chick population was observed 7 (3.25/Km walked). During the summer season, a total of 64 individuals of Indian Peafowl were recorded and the Encounter Rate was 16/km walked during the study period. In summer season, the Cock population was 32 (5/km walked)) and the Hen population 19 (5.5/Km walked). The Chick population observed 13 (1/km walked). A total of 46 individuals of Indian Peafowl were recorded and the Encounter Rate was 0.75/Km walked during the rainy season. The Indian Peafowl Cock population was 20 (0.38/km walked) and the Hen population 22 (0.31/ km walked). The Chick population observed was 4 (0.06/ km walked) in the rainy season. The correlation analyses were done for various seasons in the study area. The population of Indian Peafowl between winter and summer shows (γ =0.17) very low degree of correlation. Similarly, winter and rainy season (γ =0.06); and the summer and rainy season also (γ =0.23) showed low degree of correlation. The Indian Peafowl population was high (n=17) in the month of February 2015. The lowest sightings was in the month of November (n=6). The other months were moderately obtained. The Cock population was high (n=9) in the month of March, May, and January. The lowest sightings (n=3) was obtained in September. The hen population was maximum (n=8) in August and the minimum sighting was obtained (n=2) in the December. The chick population was high in the March (n=5) and low in the July, September and December (n=1) and no sightings were recorded in the month of October and November.

There were observed the differences in the seasons for peafowl sightings. The highest sightings were obtained in SDDF habitat (n=49; ER=12.25/Km walked) and the lowest sightings was recorded in the EF habitat (n=34; n=34; ER=8.5/Km walked). The Peacock was high in the SDDF (n=25; ER=6.25/Km walked) and low in EF and GF habitats (n=17;ER=4.25/Km walked). The Peahen was maximum in SDDF habitat (n=16;ER=4/Km walked) and the minimum in the EF and Agricultural habitats (n=13;ER=3.25/Km walked). The Chick sightings were observed in the habitat of EF (n=4; ER=1/Km walked). The habitats between Tea plantation and Dry deciduous Forest showed (0.61) fairly high degree of correlation. The habitat of grassland and the Dry Deciduous forest reveals (γ =0.35) low degree of correlation while other habitats such as Tea Plantation and Grassland (γ =0.07); Tea Plantation and Coffee plantation (γ = 0.18); Coffee plantation and Dry Deciduous Forest (γ =0.21) habitats are correlated as very low degree of correlation. Based on the data there was no major threats in the study area. Poaching not observed but the egg depredation occasionally recorded. The sightings of peafowls were low in Agricultural habitat. This includes Tea, Coffee, cardamom and clove plantation. Due to agricultural practices in the study sites, there may be anthropogenic pressures and leads lower encounter was occurred. The people living in the study sites, does not have much impact due to peafowl in the area. They are not doing any harm to the peafowl because they are worshipping the peacock as vehicle of Lord Subramania. Only very few incidents of poisoning happened in the recent past otherwise the peafowls are the pet of the people living around. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I thankful to the Tamil Nadu State Council For Higher Education Chennai (TANSCHE-Ref: D.O.Rc.No. 1418/2014 A, dt 25-8-2014) for awarded this Minor Research Project. I greatly indebted to the Member Secretary, Tamil Nadu State Council For Higher Education Chennai to do the Research work with his constant encouragements. I Express my sincere thanks to the Director, Collegiate Education, Chennai, the Principal, Government Arts College, Udhagamandalam- 643 002, the

Head of the Department of Zoology & Wildlife Biology, for their constant encouragements and facilities to carry out the Research work successfully. I express my thanks to the Field Assistant and to the Tamil Nadu Forest Department (Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, District Forest Officer-The Nillgiris Forest Division for the permission and supports in the field to carry out the work to do successfully.

REFERENCES Alexander JP (1983). "Probable diazinon poisoning in peafowl: a clinical description". Vet Rec. 113 (20): 470. Ali, S. & S. D. Ripley (1980). Handbook of The Birds of Magapodes to Crob Plover. Oxford University Press, New Delhi, 347pp. Ali, S. and Ripley, S.D. (1983). Handbook of the birds of India and Pakisthan. Compact Edition, Oxford University Press, Mumbai. Ali, S and S.D. Ripley. (1989). The compact handbook of the birds of India and Pakisthan. Oxford University Press,Bombay. Anon. (2002). Wildlife of the Punjab. Punjab Wildlife and Parks Department. PP: 13-14, 25. Baker, ECS (1928). The Fauna of British Indian, Including Ceylon and Burma, Birds. Volume 5 (2 ed.). Taylor and Francis, London. pp. 282–284. Bergmann, J. (1980). The peafowl of the world, Saiga Publ. Co.Ltd. Blanford, WT (1898). The Fauna of British Indian, Including Ceylon and Burma. Birds 4. Taylor and Francis, London. Buckland, S.T., Anderson, D.R., Burnham, K.P., Laake, J. L., Borchers, D.L. and Thomas, L. 2001.Introduction to Distance Sampling: Estimating Abundance of Biological Populations. Oxford University Press, Oxford, U.K. Burnham, K.P., Anderson, D.R. and J.L. Laake. 1980. Estimation of density from line transects sampling of biological populations. Wildl. Monograph. 72 : 1 – 292. Delacour, J. 1977. The Pheasants of the World. Spur Publications. Pp 395. Dolson, J. (2015). A Preliminary survey Peafowl in Annur area, Tiruppur District, M.Sc., Unpublished Dissertation submitted to Bharathiar University-Coimbatore. Hoyo, J., A. Elliot & J. Sargatal. (1994). Handbook of the Birds. Of the The world. New World Vultures to Guineafowl- Volume 2 Lynx Edicions, Barelona, pp 434- 552. Johnsgard, P.A. (1986). The Pheasants of The World. Oxford Publication.

Indira.S (2016). A survey Peafowl in the selected area of Coimbatore, M.Sc., Unpublished Dissertation submitted to Bharathiar University-Coimbatore. Dodia, P.P. (2011). Roost tree selection by the common Peafowl (Pavo cristatus) at Bhavnagar District, Gujarat (India), Life Science Leaflets. 11: 346-354. Galusha JG, Redd JM. (1992). Population structure and daytime behavior of indian peafowl (Pavo cristatus) on protection island, Jefferson County, Washington. Pavo 1992; 30: 75-86. Gill, F.B. (1994).Ornithology—2nd Edition. Oxford University Press, New York, 117pp Harikrishnan, S.; Vasudevan, K.; Sivakumar, K. (2010). "Behavior of Indian Peafowl Pavo cristatus Linn. 1758 During the Mating Period in a Natural Population". The Open Ornithology Journal 3: 13–19. Johnsgard, P.A. (1986). The Pheasants of The World. Oxford Publication. Johnsingh, AJT (1976). "Peacocks and cobra". J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc. 73 (1): 214. Johnsingh, AJT; Murali, S (1978). "The ecology and behaviour of the Indian Peafowl (Pavo cristatus) Linn. of Injar". J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc. 75 (4): 1069–1079. Madge , S. & P. McGowan (2002). Pheasants, Partridges and Grouse, Including Buttonquails, and Allies. Helm Identification Guides, Christopher Helm, London, 488pp. Mushtaq-ul-Hassan, M. Ali, Z, Arshad, M.I, Mahmood, S and Mahmood-ul-Hassan, M. 2012. Effect of matting sex ratios in Indian peafowl (Pavo cristatus) on production performance at Wildlife Research Institute, Faisalabad (Pakistan). Iranian J. Vet. Res. Vol. 13(2): 143-146. Navaneethakanana, K. (1984). Activity patterns in a colony of peafowls (Pavo cristatus) in nature. J. BNHS. 81: 387-393. Rajadurai. T. (1988). Present distribution and status of Indian Peafowl (Pavo cristatus) in Viralimalai area, Tamil Nadu, South India. M.Sc., dissertation. Ramesh, K. & Mcgowan, P. (2009) On the current status of Indian Peafowl Pavo cristatus Aves: Galliformes: Phasianidae): keeping the common species common. Journal of Threatened Taxa, 1, 106-108.

Rathinasabapathy. B. (1987). Activity pattern with special reference to food and feeding habits of the Indian Peafowl (Pavo cristatus) in Viralimalai area, Tamil Nadu. South India. M.Sc., dissertation. Roberts, TJ (1992). The birds of Pakistan. Vol. 1, Nonpasseri formes. Karachi, Pakistan, Oxford University Press. Elite Publications limited. P: 617. Sahajpal, V., Goyal, S.P. (2008). "Identification of shed or plucked origin of Indian Peafowl (Pavo cristatus) tail feathers: Preliminary findings". Science and Justice 48 (2): 76–78. Sharma, I.K. (1979).Ecological aspects of the peafowl Pavo cristatus at Jothpur. J. Eco.Pavo Vol 17(1&2): 50-53. Subramanian, C. Ramesh Kumar, C. and Sathyanarayana, M. C. 2008. Microhabitat use by Grey Junglefowl (Gallus sonneratii) at Theni Forest Division, Westren Ghats of Tamilnadu, Sonth India. Applied Ecology and Environmental Research 6(4): 61-68. Trivedi, P. (1993). Habitat selection by Indian peafowl in Gir Forest.M. Sc., Dissertation, Saurashtra University (Unpublished) pp.36. Trivedi, P and Johnsingh, AJT (1996). "Diet of Indian Peafowl Pavo cristatus Linn. in Gir Forest, Gujarat". J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc. 92 (2): 262–263. Veeramani. A. (1990). Studies on ecological and behavioural aspects of Indian Peafowl Pavo cristatus in Mudumalai Wildlife Sanctuary, Tamil Nadu, South India. M.Sc., Dissertation submitted to Bharathidasan University, Tamil Nadu. Ward, P. and Zahavi, A. (1973). The importance of certain assemblages of birds as :information centers” for food findings. Ibis. 115:517-534. Walther B., and Clayto, A.2005. Do peacocks devote maintenance time to their ornamental plumage? time budgets of male blue peafowl. Pavo cristatus Lundiana 2003; 4: 149-54. Whistler, Hugh (1949).Popular handbook of Indian birds (4 ed.). Gurney and Jackson, London. pp. 401–410. Yasmin, S. (1994). Characteristics of trees used for roosting by blue peafowl in Aligarh district, India. Annual Review of the World Pheasant Association 49: 57-63.

STUDY AREA MAP

Plate: 1. Map showing the Nilgiri District

Map showing study sites in Nilgiri

Plate: 2. Map showing the location of study spots in O’valley Forest Area

The Labeled Study spots

1.Kamaraj Nagar Area 11.Gandhi Nagar Area 2.MullaiNagar Area 12.Dagmagiri Area 3.Barham-1 Area 13.Bharwood Area 4.Barham-2 Area 14.Yellan Area 5.Anna nagar-1 Area 15.Killanvance Area 6.Anna Nagar-2 Area 16.Mulakkadu Area 7.Periya Choondi Area 17.Pulikuntha Area 8.Chinna Choondi Area 18.Periyasola Area 9.Aathur Area 19.Bharathi Nagar Area 10.Guind Area 20.Arottubarai Area

Plate: 3 . The study spot (1)- Dharmagiri

Study Spot (2) - Mulakkadu

Plate: 4. Study spot (3) - Periya Choondi

Study spot (4)- Aathur

Plate: 5. Study spot (5)- Yellan

Study spot (6)- Arattubarai

Plate: 6. Study spot (7)- Ghandhi nagar

Study spot (8)- Pulikuntha

The Extensive study spots in the study area

The Extensive study Spots 1. Salivayal Area 2. Chinna Choondi Area

3. Larasdan Area 4. Aathur Area

5. Ampulimala Area 6. Guind Area

7. Marapalam Area 8. Gandhi Nagar Area

9. Balvadi Area 10. Dagmagiri Area

11. Kamaraj Nagar Area 12. Bharwood Area

13. Mullai Nagar Area 14. Yellan Area

15. Barham-1 Area 16. Killanvance Area

17. Barham-2 Area 18. Mulakkadu Area

19. Anna nagar-1 Area 20. Pulikuntha Area

21. Anna Nagar-2 Area 22. Periyasola Area

23. Periya Choondi Area 24. Bharathi Nagar Area

……………… 25. Arottubarai Area

Table : 3.Overall sightings of Indian Peafowl in the Oveli Forest Areas during the study period Transect Name of Areas Presence Presence of Presence Altitude Number (Pilot study conducted) of Cock Hen(N) Chick(N) (ft) (N) T1 Kamaraj Nagar Area 4 3 1 2035

T2 Mullai Nagar Area 1 0 0 2045

T3 Baram Area 2 3 3 2421

T4 Annanagar Area 0 1 0 3057

T5 Aathur Area 4 4 3 3153

T6 Guind Area 2 4 0 3221

T7 Ghhandhi nagar Area 4 3 3 2940

T8 Periya choondi Area 6 5 0 2940

T9 Chinna choondi Area 3 2 4 2343

T10 Bharoad Area 5 1 3 3149

T11 Sandes Area 6 2 1 3349

T12 Neehope Area 4 2 0 2345

T13 Kelanvace Area 5 4 0 3325

T14 Mullakkad Area 5 4 0 3345

T15 Ampulimula Area 4 3 1 3306

T16 Pulikuntha Area 4 3 1 3442

T17 Periya solai Area 3 2 0 3595

T18 Cheppuram Area 3 4 1 3387

T19 Yellamalai Area 7 3 2 2940

T20 Aarolluparai Area 6 4 1 2470

Total 78 57 24

Table: 5. Seasonal variations in the Peafowl sightings in the Study Area (ER/km Walked)

Sl.No Sex ER/Km WINTER ER/Km SUMMER RAINY ER/km (n) walked (n) walked (n) Walked

1 Male 26 8 32 5 20 0.38

2 Female 16 4.75 19 5.5 22 0.31

3 Chick 7 3.25 13 1 4 0.06

4 Overall 49 12.25 64 16 46 0.75

Table: 6. Habitat –wise variations in the Peafowl sightings in the Study Area (ER/km Walked) Sl.No Sex/Habitats SDDF ER/Km EF ER/Km GF ER/Km AGRI ER/Km (n) walked (n) walked (n) walked (n) walked

1 Male 25 6.25 17 4.25 17 4.25 19 4.75

2 Female 16 4 13 3.25 15 3.75 13 3.25

3 Chick 8 2 4 1 5 1.25 7 1.75

4 Overall 49 12.25 34 8.5 37 9.25 39 9.75

Table :7. Tree species recorded in the study area SL.NO. SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME LOCAL NAME 1 Albizia lebbeck Walnut tree Vagai 2 Albizia amara Usil tree Oosilai 3 Acacia nilotica Babul tree Karuvelam 4 Erythrina variegate Indian coral tree Mul murungai 5 Ficus religiosa Peepul tree Arasu 6 Azadiracta indica Neem Vembu 7 Moringa pterygosperma Drumstick Murungai 8 Melia dubia Hill neem Malai vembu 9 Mangifera indica Mango Mamaram 10 Salamalia malabarica Sponge Tree Ilavam 11 Syzygium cumini Roseberry Naval 12 Tectona grandis Teak Thekku 13 Tamarindus indica Tamarind tree Puliyamaram 14 Aropcarpus heerophylus Jack fruit tree Palamaram 15 Ziziphus jujube Jujube tree Ilanthai

Table :8. Tree species recorded in the study area SL.NO. SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME LOCAL NAME 1 Albizia lebbeck Walnut tree Vagai 2 Albizia amara Usil tree Oosilai 3 Acacia nilotica Babul tree Karuvelam 4 Erythrina variegate Indian coral tree Mul murungai 5 Ficus religiosa Peepul tree Arasu 6 Azadiracta indica Neem Vembu 7 Moringa pterygosperma Drumstick Murungai 8 Melia dubia Hill neem Malai vembu 9 Mangifera indica Mango Mamaram 10 Salamalia malabarica Sponge Tree Ilavam 11 Syzygium cumini Roseberry Naval 12 Tectona grandis Teak Thekku 13 Tamarindus indica Tamarind tree Puliyamaram 14 Aropcarpus heerophylus Jack fruit tree Palamaram 15 Ziziphus jujube Jujube tree Ilanthai 16 Dalbergia latifotia Rose wood Eati 17 Choroxylon swietenia Satin wood Sathinmaram 18 Acacia Sp Wattle Sp Wattle

ANNEXURE- I

The Checklist of other avifauna in the O’valley Forest Area during the study period.

S.No ORDER FAMILY COMMON NAME SPECIES NAME

1. Grey junglefowl Gallus sonneratii

Galloperdix 1 Galliformes PHASIANIDAE 2. Red spurfowl spadicea

2 Piciformes PICIDAE 3. Rufous woodpecker Celeus brachyurus

3 Bucerotiformes 4. Common Gloden- Dinopium Backed woodpecker javanense

LYBIIDAE 5. White-cheeked Megalaima viridis barbed

6. Malabar grey Anthracoceros BUCEROTIDAE hornlbill albirostris

7. White breasted Halcyon 4 Coraciiformes DACELONIDAE kingfisher smyrnensis

8. Rose ringed 7 Psittaciformes parakeet Psittacula krameri

PSITTACIDAE 9. Indian haning-parrot Streptopelia 8 Columbiformes 10.Spotted dove chinensis

11. Pompadour green- COLUMBIDAE pigeon Treron pompadora 9 Gruiformes 12. White breasted Amaurornis RALLIDAE Water hen phoenicurus

10 Ciconiiformes 13. Indian pond Heron Ardeola grayii

ARDEIDAE 14.Little egret Egretta garzetta

11 Passeriformes Dicrurus DICRURIDAE 15. Black drongo macrocercus

ORDER FAMILY COMMON NAME SPECIES NAME

16. Greater racket-tailed Dicrurus

drongo paradiseus

Corvas CORVIDAE 17. Jungle crow marorhynchis 18. Common crow Corval splendens

LANIDAE 19. Long tailed shrike Lanius schach

20. Great tit Parus major

PARIDAE 21. Black-lored yellow tit Parus xanthogenys

PYCNONOTIDAE 22. Red whiskered bulbul Pyconotus jocosus 23. Red vented bulbul Pyconptus cafer

SYILVIIDAE 24. Indian rufous Babbler Turdoides subrufus

Zosterops ZOSTEROPIDAE 25. Oriental white eye palpehrosus

26. Ashy prinia Prinia socialis

Orthotomus CISTICOLIDAE 27. Common tailorbired sutorius

28. Pied bush chat Saxicola capratos

29. Magpie robin Copsychus saularis Cyornis 30. Blue-throated flycatcher rubeculoides

Terpisphonne 31. Asian paradise- flycatcher paradise

Eumyias MUSCICAPIDAE 32. Nilgiri flycatcher albicaudata

STURNIDAE 33. Common myna Acridotheres juscus

NECTARINIDAE 34. Purple sunbird Nectarinia asiatica

PLOCEIDAE 35. Loten’s sunbird Nectarinia lotenia

36. Black throated munia Lonchura kelaarica

PASSERIDAE 37. House sparrow Passer domesticus

38. Grey wagtail Motacilla cinerea

Motacilla MOTTACILLIDAE 39. Large pied wagtail maderespatensis 40. Yellow wagtail Motacilla flava

Annexure-II

Vegetation surveyed in the Study Area during the study period

Abundance of Tree Species S. No Common Name Scientific Name Family 1 Bamboo Bambusa dendrocalmus Graminae 2 Rose wood Dalbergia latifotia Papilionaceae 3 Satin wood Choroxylon swietenia Rutaceae 4 Teak Tectona grandis Verbenaceae 5 Wattle Sp Acacia Sp Mimosoidaeae

Abundance of Shrubs S. No Common Name Scientific Name Family 1 Karikatta Eupotorium Sp Astracea 2 Unnichedi Lantana camera Evobenaceae 3 Tea chedi Camellia sinensis Teaceae 4 Naaiyuruvi Achyrathus aspera Amasanthaceae

Abundance of Grass S. No Common Name Scientific Name Family Pennisctum 1 Kikyu grass andensdinum Poaceae 2 Singal Grass Brachiaria villosa Poaceae 3 Arugam pillu Cynodon dactlyon Poaceae

Photo:1. The Peacock in the Grass land Habitat

Photo:2. The Peacock Near Village Area

Photo:3. The Peacock in the Plantation Habitat

Photo:4. The Peacock at the Protection Cover

Photo:5. The Peacock at Roosting Tree

Photo: 6.The Peacock in the Deciduous Ground

Photo:7. The Peacock in the Grass Land Habitat

Photo:8 The Peacock party at Resting

Photo:9. The Peacock near Human settlement Area

Photo:10. The Shola forest as Peafowl Habitat

Photo:11. The Evergreen Forest as Peafowl Habitat

Photo:12. The Abandoned Tea plantation as Peafowl Habitat