Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 116

ISSN 0974-7907 (Online)

ISSN 0974-7893 (Print)


Date of Publication:
26 January 2016
(Online & Print)

Taxa

Journal of
Threatened

OPEN ACCESS

www.threatenedtaxa.org
January 2015 | Vol. 8 | No. 1 | Pages: 83098420
DOI: 10.11609/jott.2016.8.1.8309-8420

ISSN 0974-7907 (Online); ISSN 0974-7893 (Print)


Published by
Wildlife Information Liaison Development Society

Typeset and printed at


Zoo Outreach Organization

96, Kumudham Nagar, Vilankurichi Road, Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu 641035, India
Ph: +91 422 2665298, 2665101, 2665450; Fax: +91 422 2665472
Email: threatenedtaxa@gmail.com, articlesubmission@threatenedtaxa.org
www.threatenedtaxa.org
EDITORS
Founder & Chief Editor
Dr. Sanjay Molur, Coimbatore, India
Managing Editor
Mr. B. Ravichandran, Coimbatore, India
Associate Editors
Dr. B.A. Daniel, Coimbatore, India
Dr. Ulrike Streicher, Wildlife Veterinarian, Danang, Vietnam
Ms. Priyanka Iyer, Coimbatore, India
Dr. Manju Siliwal, Dehra Dun, India
Dr. Meena Venkataraman, Mumbai, India
Editorial Advisors
Ms. Sally Walker, Coimbatore, India
Dr. Robert C. Lacy, Minnesota, USA
Dr. Russel Mittermeier, Virginia, USA
Dr. Thomas Husband, Rhode Island, USA
Dr. Jacob V. Cheeran, Thrissur, India
Prof. Dr. Mewa Singh, Mysuru, India
Mr. Stephen D. Nash, Stony Brook, USA
Dr. Fred Pluthero, Toronto, Canada
Dr. Martin Fisher, Cambridge, UK
Dr. Ulf Grdenfors, Uppsala, Sweden
Dr. John Fellowes, Hong Kong
Dr. Philip S. Miller, Minnesota, USA
Prof. Dr. Mirco Sol, Brazil
Editorial Board
Subject Editors 20142015
A. Biju Kumar, University of Kerala, Thiruvananthapuram, India
A.J. Solomon Raju, Andhra University, Visakhapatnam, India
Albert G. Orr, Griffith University, Nathan, Australia
Alessandre Pereira Colavite, Universidade Federal da Paraba, Brazil
Alexi Popov, National Museum of Natural History, Sofia, Bulgaria
Alexander Ereskovsky, IMBE, Marseille, France
Andreas Khler, Universidade de Santa Cruz do, Brazil
Angela R. Glatston, Rotterdam Zoo, The Netherlands.
Anjana Silva, Rajarata University of Sri Lanka, Saliyapura, Sri Lanka
Annemarie Ohler, Musum national dHistoire naturelle, Paris, France
Ansie Dippenaar-Schoeman, University of Pretoria, Queenswood, South Africa
Antonio D. Brescovit, Instituto Butantan, Brasil
Antonio A. Mignucci-Giannoni, Universidad Interamericana de Puerto Rico,
Puerto Rico
Anwaruddin Chowdhury, Guwahati, India
Aparna Watve, Pune, Maharashtra, India
Arthur Y.C. Chung, Sabah Forestry Department, Sandakan, Sabah, Malaysia
B.C. Choudhury (Retd.), Wildlife Institute of India, Dehradun, India.
B. Ravi Prasad Rao, Sri Krishnadevaraya University, Anantpur, India
B. Shivaraju, Bengaluru, Karnataka, India
B.A. Daniel, Zoo Outreach Organization, Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu, India
B.S. Kholia, Botanical Survey of India, Gangtok, Sikkim, India
Bolvar R. Garcete-Barrett, FACEN, Universidad Nacional de Asuncin, Paraguay
Brett C. Ratcliffe, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, USA
Brian Fisher, California Academy of Sciences, USA
C. Raghunathan, Zoological Survey of India, Andaman and Nicobar Islands
C. Srinivasulu, Osmania University, Hyderabad, India
Carl Ferraris, Smithsonian Institution, Portland, USA

Ceclia Kierulff, Victorville , California


Cecilia Volkmer Ribeiro, Porto Alegre, Brazil.
Chris Bowden, Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, Sandy, UK
Christoph Kueffer, Institute of Integrative Biology, Zrich, Switzerland
Christoph Schwitzer, University of the West of England, Clifton, Bristol, BS8 3HA
Christopher L. Jenkins, The Orianne Society, Athens, Georgia
Cleofas Cervancia, Univ. of Philippines Los Baos College Laguna, Philippines
Colin Groves, Australian National University, Canberra, Australia
Crawford Prentice, Nature Management Services, Jalan, Malaysia
C.T. Achuthankutty, Scientist-G (Retd.), CSIR-National Institute of Oceanography,
Goa D.B. Bastawade, Maharashtra, India
D.J. Bhat, Retd. Professor, Goa University, Goa, India
Dale R. Calder, Royal Ontaro Museum, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Daniel Brito, Federal University of Gois, Goinia, Brazil
David Mallon, Zoological Society of London, UK
Davor Zanella, University of Zagreb, Zagreb, Croatia
Deepak Apte, Bombay Natural Hisotry Society, Mumbai, India
Diana Doan-Crider, Texas A&M University, Texas, USA

Dietmar Zinner, German Primate Center, Gttingen, Germany


Dunston P.Ambrose, St. Xaviers College, Palayamkottai, India
E. Vivekanandan, Central Marine Fisheries Research Institute, Kochi, India
Eduard Vives, Museu de Cincies Naturals de Barcelona, Terrassa, Spain
Eric Smith, University of Texas, Arlington, USA
Erin Wessling, Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, Germany
F.B. Vincent Florens, University of Mauritius, Mauritius
Ferdinando Boero, Universit del Salento, Lecce, Italy
Francesco Dal Grande, Senckenberg Gesellschaft fr Naturforschung, Frankfurt
George Mathew, Kerala Forest Research Institute, Peechi, India
Gernot Vogel, Heidelberg, Germany
Giovanni Amori, CNR - Institute of Ecosystem Studies, Rome, Italy
Gombobaatar Sundev, Professor of Ornithology, Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia
G.P. Sinha, Botanical Survey of India, Allahabad, India
Hari Balasubramanian, EcoAdvisors, Nova Scotia, Canada
Hayrnisa Ba Sermenli, Mula University, Ktekli, Turkey
H.C. Nagaveni, Institute of Wood Science and Technology, Bengaluru, India
H.C. Paulo Corgosinho, Bairro Universitrio, Frutal, Brazil
H. Raghuram, The American College, Madurai, India
Heidi S. Riddle, Riddles Elephant and Wildlife Sanctuary, Arkansas, USA
Hem Sagar Baral, Charles Sturt University, NSW Australia
Hemant V. Ghate, Modern College, Pune, India
Heok Hee Ng, National University of Singapore, Science Drive, Singapore
Hui Xiao, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Chaoyang, China
Ian J. Kitching, Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, UK
Ian Redmond, UNEP Convention on Migratory Species, Lansdown, UK
Indraneil Das, Sarawak, Malaysia
Ivana Karanovic, Hanyang University, Seoul, Korea
J. Jerald Wilson, King Abdulaziz University, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia
J.W. Duckworth, IUCN SSC, Bath, UK
Jack Tordoff, Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund, Arlington, USA
James Young, Hong Kong Lepidopterists Society, Hong Kong
Jeff McNeely, IUCN, Gland, Switzerland
Jesse Leland, Southern Cross University, New South Wales, Australia
Jill Pruetz, Iowa State University, Ames, USA
Jim Sanderson, Small Wild Cat Conservation Foundation, Hartford, USA
Jodi L. Sedlock, Lawrence University, Appleton, USA
John C. Morse, Clemson University, Long Hall, Clemson, USA
John Huber, Canadian National Collection of Insects, Ontario, Canada.
John Noyes, Natural History Museum, London, UK
John Veron, Coral Reef Foundation, Townsville, Australia

continued on the back inside cover


Front cover: Water colour and ink rendering of Fishing Cat Prionailurus viverrinus by G. Moorthy, Pitchandikulam Forest, Auroville.

Habitat quantity of Red-cockaded Woodpecker


Picoides borealis (Aves: Piciformes: Picidae) in its former
historic landscape near the Big Thicket National Preserve,
Texas, USA

Article

Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | 26 January 2016 | 8(1): 83098322

ISSN 0974-7907 (Online)


ISSN 0974-7893 (Print)

OPEN ACCESS

Vivek Thapa 1 & Miguel F. Acevedo 2


313 Throckmorton Street, Gainesville, TX 76240, USA
Department of Electrical Engineering and Institute of Applied Sciences, University of North Texas, 3940 North
Elm Street, Denton, TX, USA
1
thapaviv@yahoo.com (corresponding author), 2 miguel.acevedo@unt.edu
1
2

Abstract: We quantified pine-forested habitat suitable for Red-cockaded Woodpecker Picoides borealis in the former historic range of the
species to assess the potential for possible re-colonization. We used a remotely-sensed image and geographic information systems (GIS) to
create a land-use/land (LU/LC) binary cover map, from which we calculated the habitat suitability index (HSI) based on an estimated home
range of 50ha. A sensitivity analysis revealed the necessity for more data to make an accurate estimate, but our analysis of landscape
metrics indicates more than 930ha of suitable habitat patches. These patches are heavily fragmented and mostly located on private lands.
They can be assessed for understory and herbaceous vegetation and can be restored for possible re-establishment of approximately 18
groups/colonies of Red-cockaded Woodpeckers.
Keywords: Accuracy assessment, Big Thicket National Preserve, global positioning system, habitat fragmentation, habitat suitability,
landsat image, metrics, patches.

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.11609/jott.1735.8.1.8309-8322
Editor: K.A. Subramanian, Zoological Survey of India, Kolkata, India.

Date of publication: 26 January 2016 (online & print)

Manuscript details: Ms # 1735 | Received 31 December 2014 | Final received 10 January 2016 | Finally accepted 11 January 2016
Citation: Thapa V. & M.F. Acevedo (2016). Habitat quantity of Red-cockaded Woodpecker Picoides borealis (Aves: Piciformes: Picidae) in its former historic landscape
near the Big Thicket National Preserve, Texas, USA. Journal of Threatened Taxa 8(1): 83098322; http://dx.doi.org/10.11609/jott.1735.8.1.8309-8322
Copyright: Thapa & Acevedo 2016. Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. JoTT allows unrestricted use of this article in any medium, reproduction and distribution by providing adequate credit to the authors and the source of publication.
Funding: U.S. National Science Foundation (NSF) for partial funding for this study under the grant CNH BCS-0216722.
Conflict of Interest: The authors declare no competing interests.
Author contribution: VT conducted all field work, performed GIS and remote sensing analysis, and wrote the manuscript. MFA was graduate professor for VT at
the University of North Texas. He supervised all work of the study and the paper and performed sensitivity analysis.
Author Details: Vivek Thapa - Currently, he is working as a GIS Manager/CAD Drafter in a land surveying company called All American Surveying, located in North
Central Texas, USA. He uses GIS, remote sensing, AutoCAD, to create maps for clients. Miguel F. Acevedo - in addition to his departmental affiliations he is Faculty
in the Graduate Program in Environmental Sciences, University of North Texas. His work integrates environmental monitoring and modeling to understand the
dynamics of environmental and ecological systems, and to provide socially relevant results concerning pollutants, land use change and climate variability.
Acknowledgments: We thank U.S. National Science Foundation (NSF) for partial funding for this study under the grant CNH BCS-0216722. We acknowledge
the feedback and help from several University of North Texas faculty members during the project: Drs. Pete A.Y. Gunter, and J. Baird Callicott, Department of
Philosophy and Religion Studies, and Dr. Pinliang Dong, Department of Geography.

8309

Habitat quantity of Picoides borealis

Thapa & Acevedo

INTRODUCTION
Red-cockaded Woodpecker Picoides borealis is Near
Threatened (BirdLife International 2013) and nationally
an endangered species (USFWS 2014). The bird is
endemic to mature pine forests of the southeastern
United States, which once extended from Florida to
New Jersey and as far west as Texas, reaching inland to
Oklahoma, Missouri, Kentucky and Tennessee (Ligon
1970; Jackson 1971; Ferral 1998; USFWS 2005). During
the early 19th century the wide spread of agriculture and
timber harvesting led to severe habitat degradation and
substantially reduced the woodpecker habitat range,
which is currently scattered north from Florida to Virginia
and west to southeast Oklahoma and southeastern
Texas. The species is no longer found in New Jersey,
Maryland, Tennessee, Missouri and Kentucky, while in
southeastern Texas birds are mostly found in national
forests of Angelina, David Crockett, Sabine and Sam
Houston, but not in Big Thicket National Preserve (Conner
& Rudolph 1995). The drastic reduction of mature pine
forests coupled with modern forestry practices such as
a reduced timber-rotation period and fire suppression
proved detrimental to woodpecker populations, and
the species was listed as endangered in 1973 (Hooper
et al. 1980; Conner & Rudolph 1989, 1991, 1995; Costa
& Walker 1995).
Red-cockaded Woodpeckers are habitat specialists
that require large, old and living species of Longleaf
Pinus palustris, Shortleaf P. echinata, Loblolly P. taeda,
Pond P. serotina and Slash P. elliotii pine, preferring
Longleaf Pine for nesting and foraging (Hooper et al.
1980; Jackson 1994; Hedrick et al. 1998; Conner et al.
2004). The optimal tree age varies with species, i.e., 80
100 years for loblolly and shortleaf pine and 100120
years for Longleaf Pine with enough heartwood space
to support cavity chambers and little or no mid-story
hardwood vegetation (Hooper et al. 1980; Conner et al.
1994; Hedrick et al. 1998). Natural or prescribed fires
controlled the mid-story overgrowth for decades and
the result was open, park-like mature pine woodlands
and savannahs with abundant herbaceous ground cover
that provided an ideal habitat for these birds. Besides
age, the potential cavity tree has high rates of Redheart Fungal Phellinus pini infection that softens the
heartwood and facilitates cavity excavation (Conner
et al. 1976, 1994, 2004; Conner & Locke 1982; Hooper
1988; Walters 1990).
A colony or cluster is a collection of two to >12 cavity
trees in 510 acres (approximately 24 ha) of land, and
the cavity trees are normally located within a one-mile
8310

radius from each other (USFWS 2005). A single colony


has two to nine birds, with one breeding pair and the
rest helpers. A suitable foraging habitat or territory
surrounds a colony and covers an area of 30 to 81
contiguous hectares (75200 acres) of park-like mature
pine stands (Hooper et al. 1982; Jackson 1994). Thus
only contiguous open stands of mature longleaf and
other pine species with herbaceous ground cover offer
high quality habitats for Red-cockaded Woodpeckers
(Conner & Rudolph 1991).
Few studies exist on the use of geographic
information systems (GIS) and remote sensing to study
the habitat of Red-cockaded Woodpeckers. Thomlinson
(1993) used GIS, remote sensing and landscape ecology
to study ecological characters of suitable pine stands
in southeastern Texas. Cox et al. (2001) evaluated
GIS methods that were used to assess Red-cockaded
Woodpecker habitat and cluster characteristics. Ertep
& Lee (1994) used GRASS to facilitate Red-cockaded
Woodpecker management at Fort Benning Military
Reservation. Another recent study by Santos et al.
(2010) reports the use of remote sensing based on
hyperspectral imagery to study tree senescence in Redcockaded Woodpecker habitats. They used reflectance
properties of the bands to detect senesced pine trees
and found Red-cockaded Woodpeckers did not inhabit
such trees. We utilized GIS and remote sensing
techniques to study the spatial distribution of pine forest
in one of the former historical ranges of Red-cockaded
Woodpeckers (southeastern Texas) and to assess
suitable habitats. We also used habitat suitability index
(HSI) models and FRASGSTATS to evaluate or quantify
species-habitat relationships. HSI models provide a
quantitative measure of the quality of wildlife habitats
and can integrate our understanding of wildlife-habitat
relationships especially at landscape scales (Larson et al.
2003). In addition, process-oriented and empirical HSI
models are commonly used to assess wildlife-habitat
relationships (Dettki et al. 2003). Process-oriented
models assess plausible causal relationships to provide
a general conceptual framework; whereas empirical
models analyze data on habitat characteristics collected
at specific sites (Thapa et al. 2014).
For this paper we adopted a process-oriented
approach to develop a heuristic HSI model for the
Red-cockaded Woodpecker. This approach is based
on a literature review (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services
HSI models), field observations (ground-truth) and
geographic data obtained from topographic maps (scale
1:24000, USGS). An HSI is based on a set of functional
relationships between habitat suitability (expressed as a

Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | 26 January 2016 | 8(1): 83098322

Habitat quantity of Picoides borealis

dimensionless index or score) and habitat requirements


(variables). These variables are selected according to
their relevance to the organism; for example herbaceous
canopy cover, tree canopy cover, tree height, tree age
and proximity to water. There is a partial suitability for
each variable, which scales from 0 (unsuitable habitat)
to 1 (optimum habitat). The overall HSI, which also
scales from 0 to 1, is calculated with a formula that
represents hypothetical relationships between partial
suitability indices. GIS provides a tool to synthesize
habitat data derived from remotely sensed sources
together with databases of elevation, soil types, land
use, and land cover. Thus GIS can be coupled with
remote sensing to calculate HSI over relatively large
geographic areas, and incorporate landscape variables
at multiple spatial scales. We also demonstrate the
use of GIS and remote sensing to collect or prepare
data for habitat fragmentation study by using software
called FRAGSTATS, which is a computational program
designed to calculate a wide array of landscape metrics
from categorical maps (McGarigal & Marks 1994, 1995;
McGarigal 2002). Some of the metrics are commonly
used to measure and quantify spatial patchiness in
terms of composition (patch types and abundance) and
configuration (shape and juxtaposition). These metrics
represent the percentage of fragmented habitats, area
of largest patch, andmost importantlythe area of
remaining potentially suitable habitat (Girvetz et al.
2007).
In this paper, we used aforementioned habitat
characteristics and applied remote sensing, GIS
and FRAGSTATS techniques to examine abundance,
distribution and fragmentation of available pine forest
and provide a possible scenario for re-colonization by
Red-cockaded Woodpeckers. We have four scientific
objectives: (1) to use a Landsat Enhanced Thematic
Mapper Plus (ETM+) image to develop a land-use/
land-cover map (Laperriere et al. 1980); (2) to develop
an heuristic GIS-based HSI model and a map for the
woodpecker; (3) to determine the spatial distribution
of current potentially suitable habitats; and, (4) to
illustrate a general methodology for conservation
cartography and spatial analysis that can be adapted to
other interior-forest-dwelling avifauna of conservation
interest. In addition, we have two policy-oriented
objectives: (1) to provide a map of potentially suitable
Red-cockaded Woodpecker habitat that may be
preserved for (a) existing populations in the region or (b)
that may serve as sites for establishing new populations
in the region; and (2) to indicate the most important
habitat characteristics, such as shape, size, and habitat

Thapa & Acevedo

composition for purposes of proactive Red-cockaded


Woodpecker habitat management in the region.

METHODS
Study Area
The study area is located near the Gulf coastal plains
of southeastern Texas between the Trinity River to the
west and the Neches River to the east, around the small
towns of Kountze, Silsbee, Lumberton and suburbs
north of Beaumont that adjoins the 39,338ha Big Thicket
National Preserve (BTNP) (3031 0N to 9495 0W) (Fig. 1).
Over the last five decades the landscape surrounding the
BTNP has been converted from continuous pine forest
to a matrix dominated by agriculture, pasture, timber
plantations and exurban and suburban development
(Wilcove et al. 1986). As a result the pine forests were
converted into small patches isolated by a matrix of
agricultural or other developed lands (Callicott et al.
2007). The study area was further subjected to intense
oil and gas exploration that continues today. While such
activities seem to have minimal effects on breeding,
proximity to roads and vehicular movement does
affect foraging activities of Red-cockaded Woodpeckers
(Charles & Howard 1996). Annual precipitation averages
1350mm (Marks & Harcombe 1981; Callicott et al.
2007) and is uniformly distributed throughout the year,
but because of its proximity to the Gulf of Mexico the
Big Thicket study area experiences a high frequency
of devastating tropical storms and hurricanes. Since
1900, 40 tropical storms and hurricanes have struck
the Gulf coast, with Rita in 2005 and Ike in 2008 being
the most recent big storms to hit Texas (NOAA 2008).
However, these hurricanes did not cause damage in the
study area as they did in the surrounding counties and
areas especially near Galveston Bay, Harris and Angelina
(NOAA 2005; Bainbridge et al. 2011). Nevertheless,
hurricanes and other extreme natural disturbances such
as severe winter can damage large portions of cavity and
foraging trees, thereby affecting breeding populations of
Red-cockaded Woodpeckers, which in turn leads to loss
of genetic diversity (Reed et al. 1988, Bainbridge et al.
2011).
The vegetation types of the study area can be
characterized by both community physiognomy and
physiographic position. Forests, savannas, and shrub
thickets are normally combined with important trees
such as pine, oak, and other hardwoods to characterize
community physiognomy while upland, slope, floodplain
and flatland indicates the physiographic position of the

Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | 26 January 2016 | 8(1): 83098322

8311

Habitat quantity of Picoides borealis

Thapa & Acevedo

Figure 1. Study site - Portion of former historic habitat range of Red-cockaded woodpecker.

vegetation (Marks & Harcombe 1981). Thus, according


to community physiognomy and physiographic position,
four broad types of vegetation characterize the Big
Thicket region. The upland forest community consists
of dominant longleaf pine forest or mixed with a smalltree layer of Bluejack Oak Quercus incana. The slope
community includes dominant species of shortleaf and
loblolly pines with overstory hardwoods of Southern
Red Oak Quercus flacata, White Oak Q. alba, Magnolia
Magnolia grandiflora, and American Beech Fagus
grandifolia. The floodplain vegetation consists of
hardwood forests of European Hornbeams Caprinus sp.,
Sweetgum Liquidambar styraciflua and Water Oak Q.
nigra mixed with Bald Cypress Taxodium distichum and
Water Tupelo Nyssa aquatica and very few loblolly pines.
And the flatlands include dominant species of Basket
Oak Q. michauxii, Willow Oak Q. phellos, Laurel Oak Q.
lauriflora, P. taeda and Red Ash Fraxinus pensylvanica.
Data Acquisition and Image Processing
We selected a cloud-free Landsat ETM+ scene of
March 2003 for analysis because the spring season
was considered optimal for achieving the highest
reflectance for floodplain hardwood forests and pine
trees (Thomlinson 1993). The image was geographically
referenced using ground control points (GCPs) created
in ERDAS IMAGINE (a suite of software tools by Leica
Geosystems Geospatial Imaging). The GCPs should be
uniformly distributed over the image with good coverage
8312

near the edges. At least, 16 GCPs are considered


reasonable if each GCP can be located with an accuracy
of one-third of a pixel size (Bernstein 1983). This number
may not be sufficient, however, if the GCPs are poorly
distributed or if the nature of the landscape prevents
accurate placement (Campbell 1996). Following these
guidelines, we extracted 19 GCPs from topographic maps
to georectify the image. In addition, the coordinate
system was modified into the Universal Transverse
Mercator coordinate system (zone 15) and newly revised
datum of the 1984 world geodetic system to correlate
with the image. Landsat TM data were acquired from six
spectral bands: TM1 (0.450.52 m), TM 2 (0.520.60
m), TM3 (0.630.69 m), TM4 (0.760.90 m), TM5
(1.551.75 m) and TM7 (2.082.35 m) (Luiz & Garcia
1997). Other data include topographic maps at a scale
of 1:24,000; GIS files of roads and streets; polygons of
towns; and aerial reconnaissance of 41 sections of the
study area. More detailed data on vegetation were
obtained by ground-truth (GPS points) visits to 287 sites.
Individual global positioning system (GPS) points were
accompanied with notes of soil texture, soil moisture
regime, land use, plant composition, and elevation
data. Digital cameras were used to take photographs
of each site visited. ArcMap, a suite of GIS tools by
Environmental Research Systems Inc. (ESRI), was used
for GIS processing. A file with GPS points was imported
to ArcMap as a shape file.

Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | 26 January 2016 | 8(1): 83098322

Habitat quantity of Picoides borealis

Thapa & Acevedo

Field Data Collection and Vegetation Classification


We collected a total of 287 vegetation GPS points in
MayJune of 2007. We used a cloud-free Landsat image
of 2003 to perform supervised classification procedures
to derive final land use and land cover (LU/LC) categories.
Supervised methods require the user to define the
spectral characteristics of known areas of land-use
types and develop training sites (Thapa et al. 2014).
The training sites or signature is employed to verify and
define distinct classes (Jenson 1996). This is achieved
either by users prior knowledge of the geographic
features of an area of interest such as identification of
distinct, homogenous regions that represent each class
(e.g., water or grass) or by ground-truth data such as
GPS points, which refers to the acquisition of knowledge
about the study area from field work, analysis of aerial
photography, and from personal experience (Conner et
al. 1975). Ground-truth data are considered to be the
most accurate (true) data available about the area of
study. They should be collected at the same time as
the remotely sensed data, so the data corresponds as
much as possible (Stars & Estes 1990). Furthermore,
elements of visual interpretations such as color, shape,
texture and pattern on aerial photos are commonly
used that provides valuable clue during supervised
classification. For example, we employed a texture and
pattern analysis technique on aerial photos and selected
pixels in such areas. With texture and pattern it is easy
to differentiate naturally growing trees and human
managed plantations, e.g., coconut and pine plantations.
We derived seven LU/LC categories (water, urban areas,
pine forest, pine plantation, mixed forest, grass, and
cypress forest on floodplain) from the Landsat image
(Fig. 2). We classified entire pixels into their designated
classes according to the vegetation categories found in
the study area. For example areas with tall pine trees
were classified as pine trees, areas with mixed pine
and oak trees were labeled as mixed forest, areas of
floodplain were labeled as cypress trees on sloughs and
so on. GPS locations of each category accompanied with
aerial and field photos were extensively used during
classification process.

the quality and accuracy of data used for classification


(Congalton & Green 1999). The classification or errors
are analyzed by a confusion or error matrix, which is also
called accuracy assessment (Congalton & Green 1999).
An error matrix or accuracy assessment cell array is a
table with entries representing the number of sample
units; i.e., pixels, clusters of pixels, or polygons assigned
to a specified class relative to the actual class found on
the ground (Congalton 1991). Rows contain a list of
class values for the pixels in the classified image file and
columns represent class values for the corresponding
reference pixels, determined by input from the user
collected from sources such as aerial photographs,
GPS points, previously tested maps or other data. The
reference class values are compared with the classified
image class values to assess the accuracy of an image
classification. According to Anderson et al. (1976),
classification accuracy close to 85% is acceptable for a
LU/LC study.
Several statistical measures of a classified LU/LC
map can be derived from an error matrix, including
overall classification accuracy (sum of the diagonal
elements divided by the total number of sample points),
categorical omission and commission errors, and the
KHAT coefficient (an index that measures the agreement
between reference and classified data i.e., KHAT=1
when the agreement between reference and classified
data reach 100%). A minimum of 204 reference points
are required to achieve 85% accuracy with an allowable
error of 5% (Jensen 1996). First we generated about
300 random (reference) points, and with help of aerial
photos and with prior knowledge of geographic features
we assigned values for each random point. Then
we compared these reference class values with the
classified image class values, which gave us an overall
accuracy of 77.33% with KHAT = 0.7277. Then we used
GPS locations as reference points and compared them
with the class values of image files, which produced an
overall accuracy of 81.48% with KHAT = 0.7449 (Table
1). The latter accuracy was deemed acceptable for this
study because it was within the 5% allowable margin of
error and was closer to 85%.

Accuracy Assessment
It is necessary to assess the accuracy of any thematic
classification to evaluate its intended application, and
high accuracy assures consistency and reliability of
derived landscape metrics (Xulong et al. 2005; Shao &
Wu 2008). Several factors related to the sensors as well
as to the classification process contribute to classification
errors (Lunetta et al. 1991). It is also critical to measure

Habitat Suitability Index Models


We computed the HSI value for each pixel of the
resultant classified image according to the following
procedure. We selected the pine trees class because this
habitat is required for successful breeding and foraging.
We assigned a value of 1 to this class and set all others to
0, producing a binary map showing pine trees only. We
ran neighborhood analysis in ArcGIS, which is a statistic

Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | 26 January 2016 | 8(1): 83098322

8313

Habitat quantity of Picoides borealis

Thapa & Acevedo

Figure 2. Seven land-use categories derived from supervised classification.

that uses surrounding pixels in a defined neighborhood


to assign a value to a target pixel. It is commonly used
to find the most dominant land-cover category in a
neighborhood or to find the number of certain LU/LC
categories within a specified neighborhood. We selected
neighborhood size based on the annual home range size
of the Red-cockaded Woodpeckers as reported by several
studies and determined using a variety of methodologies
including 100%, 95%, 50% minimum convex polygons
and 95% fixed kernel estimator (DeLotelle et al. 1987;
Engstrom & Sanders 1997; Doster & James 1998; Walters
et al. 2002; Douglas et al. 2008). According to Franzreb
(2006), the minimum convex polygon estimator includes
outliers or areas that are not used by the animals (birds
in this case), and provides an overestimate of the
home-range size making it less suitable as a descriptive
statistic in terms of the biology of the species. On the
other hand, the fixed kernel estimator is relatively
insensitive to the presence of outliers and is less biased
and produces more consistent results. Thus we selected
the home-range size that was produced by fixed kernel
estimator, i.e., ~50ha. To implement this, we selected
a neighborhood size of 2323 pixels, i.e., 529 pixels of
900m2 each (3030 m), which yields a slightly lower value
8314

of 476,100m2 or 47.61ha or 117.6 acres. A suitability


index S for a pixel was determined as the proportion of
pixels in pine tree cover in the neighborhood around the
target pixel. Once all pixels are evaluated, we have an
HSI map (Fig. 3).
Habitat Fragmentation and FRAGSTATS
FRAGSTATS accepts Arc/Info (a GIS ESRI tool) polygon
files (vector) or raster (a matrix or grid of pixels) images
in a variety of formats (McGarigal & Marks 1994). For
our study we adopted the raster version of FRAGSTATS
and used the HSI map as input data. Prior to this, the HSI
map was reclassified into three discrete classes using an
equal interval method, one of the several classification
methods available in ArcMap. We selected this method
because it groups the pixels according to their values and
allowed us to maximize the difference amongst classes.
A pixel was assigned a value of 1, 2, or 3, according to its
index value. The index value for 1 was 0.000 to 0.333,
0.333 to 0.666 for 2 and 0.666 to 1 for 3. These three
classes represent very unsuitable (1), unsuitable (2), and
(3) potentially suitable habitat (Fig. 3). A suite of metrics
was selected and computed at patch, class and landscape
levels (Table 2). The resultant metrics reflected various

Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | 26 January 2016 | 8(1): 83098322

Habitat quantity of Picoides borealis

Thapa & Acevedo

Table 1. Combination of GPS and random points to assess classification accuracy


Class Name

Reference
Totals

Classified
Totals

Number
Correct

Producers
Accuracy, %

Users
Accuracy, %

1. Grass

60.00

75.00

2. Pine plantation

13

11

10

76.92

90.91

3. Pine trees

53

59

44

83.02

74.58

4. Urban area

59

58

52

88.14

89.66

5. Cypress trees on sloughs

12

13

10

83.33

76.92

6. Water

100.00

100

7. Mixed forest

19

17

13

68.42

76.47

Totals

162

163

133

Overall Kappa Statistics

0.7449

Overall Accuracy, %

81.48

configurations and compositions of a landscape (Doster


et al. 1998; Thapa et al. 2014).

RESULTS
Image Processing
From a total of 287 GPS points, we used 162 points
for classification accuracy. The rest (125) were used
to classify the image. Use of GPS points and visual
interpretation of aerial photos proved effective in
Landsat ETM+ classification and facilitated the process.
Our results show pine trees and grass have the lowest
classification accuracy with 74.58% and 75% respectively.
For pine trees this might be due to insufficient GPS
points, because we could not gather data from private
land containing pure stands of old pine trees. For grass
it is possible to include agricultural lands, a common
problem with landsat images having 30m resolution.
In addition, short-grass areas (grazed pastures or
manicured lawns) and dirt roads had overlapping values
with other urban areas such as patches of bare soil
and asphalt roads. We classified pine plantations with
90.91% accuracy because they were easily identified
based on texture and pattern on aerial photos and GPS
data collected from within plantation areas. Similarly,
we classified urban areas with 89.66% accuracy as they
are also easily identifiable on aerial photos and GPS
data. Water pixels were classified with 100% accuracy.
And it is one of the geographic features that a user can
accurately classify in remote sensing applications as
water pixels exhibits the lowest reflectance property
when examined in a spectral profile. Profile Tools of
ERDAS allow the users to examine spectral behavior of
pixels of different features. Cypress trees on sloughs

Table 2. Two selected FRAGSTATS metrics


Area/Density/Edge Metrics
CA/TA = Total Class Area (ha)
PLAND = Percentage of Landscape (%)
NP = Number of patches
LPI = Largest Patch Index (%)

Connectivity Metrics
COHESION = Patch
Cohesion Index

class was classified with 76.92% accuracy. Cypress trees


occur mostly in sloughs of floodplains mixed with oak
species and several factors such as topographic shadows
and deep water contributed to the low accuracy of
this class. Similar to water, wet sandy banks of creeks,
streams, rivers, and sloughs have a lower reflectance
in most bands and they became a source of confusion.
Statistical analysis of spectral responses or profile from
training samples, as well as ellipse and dendrogram plots,
showed a similar reflectance with dark pixels (wet soils,
black soil, and topographic shadows). Furthermore,
vegetated (forest, urban, grass) and non-vegetated
(water) were spectrally distinct. In order to redefine,
refine and improve accuracy, we constantly reduced,
merged and masked the confused classes.
Metrics at Patch, Class, and Landscape Levels
We calculated two metrics i.e. area/density/edge
and connectivity of three different patch types (class)
or habitat types: very unsuitable, unsuitable and
potentially suitable (Table 2). These metrics were used
to examine composition and configuration of patches
in the study area (McGarigal et al. 2002). FRAGSTATS
provides individual patch properties at three levels:
patch, class and landscape, but we quantified patch
properties at class level only because most metrics
are redundant and provide similar values at patch and
landscape levels. For example, total core area (TCA) at

Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | 26 January 2016 | 8(1): 83098322

8315

Habitat quantity of Picoides borealis

Thapa & Acevedo

Figure 3. Habitat suitability index(HSI) map with three habitat types - very unsuitable, unsuitable, and potentially suitable.

class and landscape levels is defined the same as core


area at patch level except the core area is aggregated
over all patches of the corresponding patch type at the
class and landscape levels. Since the selection of class
breaks 0.333 and 0.666 was arbitrary, we performed
sensitivity analysis by perturbing these nominal break
values by 10% to examine the effect on the resultant
habitat suitability indices (Table 3). We then used the
manual classification method in ArcMap to create maps
for visual inspection (Figs. 46). We used a total of nine
break selections including the nominal values (Table 4).
The perturbations above and below the nominal values
effected the value of HSI as shown in Table 5.
Total (Class) Area (CA/TA) and Percentage of landscape
(PLAND) metrics measure landscape composition
(Table 5). CA measures how much of the landscape is
occupied by a particular patch type. CA approaches 0
when a landscape consists of a single patch type, i.e.
the landscape is not fragmented and CA > 1 indicates
fragmentation of the landscape. For potentially suitable
habitat patch, the value of CA/TA falls in three distinct
classes, i.e., 0.5991, 0.6661 and 0.7331 for nine break
selections and the amount of land occupied decreases
with decreasing range of pixel values. For example, in
8316

the total study area of 52,371.90ha, potentially suitable


habitat reach 2,177.10ha when the break is 0.599 (Fig.
4), decreases to 933.48ha when the break is 0.666 (Fig.
5), and further decreases to 344.61ha when the break is
0.733 (Fig. 6) (Table 5). PLAND quantifies the proportional
abundance of patch type in a landscape, i.e., similar to
CA, PLAND approaches 0 when a landscape consists of
single patch type. In other words, PLAND metrics largely
mirror the patterns of CA. The PLAND metric revealed
that potentially suitable habitat occupies 4.16% when
the break is 0.599, decreases to 1.78% when the break
is 0.666, and further decreases to 0.66% when the break
is 0.733. Thus the amount of potentially suitable habitat
area decreases with increasing break values and vice
versa. Number of patches (NP) is a simple measure of
the extent of subdivision or fragmentation of a patch
type. NP = 1 when the landscape contains only a single
patch type and NP > 1 indicates degree of fragmentation.
NP for potentially suitable habitat varies from 28 to 67
and 72 as the break value changes from 0.599, 0.666
and 0.733, indicating that this habitat type is more
fragmented than the unsuitable and very unsuitable
types (Table 5). Largest Patch Index (LPI) is a simple
measure of dominance as it quantifies the percentage

Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | 26 January 2016 | 8(1): 83098322

Habitat quantity of Picoides borealis

Thapa & Acevedo

Table 3. Perturbation above and below the nominal break values


Breaks

-10%

Nominal

+10%

0.3

0.333

0.366

0.599

0.666

0.733

Unsuitable Breaks (UB)


Suitable Breaks (SB)

Table 4. Nine break selections


Breaks
Selection

of total landscape occupied by the largest patch. LPI


= 0 when the largest patch of the corresponding patch
type is small and 100 when the largest patch occupies
the entire landscape. The largest patch of potentially
suitable habitat occupies only 0.10.42 % of the
landscape as compared to 3060 % and 1840 % for very
unsuitable and unsuitable habitat types respectively.
This corroborates the results of CA/TA and PLAND that
showed presence of small amount of potentially habitat
types as compared to the other two.
Connectivity is considered a vital element of
landscape structure, and we used a single connectivity
metric, COHESION, to observe physical connection
between patches. COHESION = 0 when patches are less
connected and approaches 100 when they are more
connected. Our analysis showed the potential suitable
habitat patch type is physically disconnected as indicated
by 9396 as compared to the other two habitat types
with sometimes approaching almost 100 showing they
are more connected and contiguous.

Habitat Type
1

0-0.3

0.3-0.599

0.599-1

0-0.333

0.333-0.599

0.599-1

0-0.366

0.366-0.599

0.599-1

0-0.3

0.3-0.666

0.666-1

0-0.333

0.333-0.666

0.666-1

0-0.366

0.366-0.666

0.666-1

0-0.3

0.3-0.733

0.733-1

0-0.333

0.333-0.733

0.733-1

0-0.366

0.366-0.733

0.733-1

The resultant map was refined with spatial masking


and recoding to achieve acceptable accuracy. Use of
aerial photographs and GPS points proved effective
in improving classification accuracy. The contrasting
reflectance of bare areas and vegetation in the visible
and infrared bands facilitated accurate identification.
However, accurate delineation of grass from crops and
shrubs represented a challenge (as in many remote
sensing studies). Visual examination of the satellite
imagery of the study area and field work revealed
numerous dirt roads crisscrossing the entire landscape.
Our study area once contained booming oil towns and
clearly shows signs of human-induced fragmentation.
Several pipelines, power lines and railroads cut through
the study area, dissecting the landscape into smaller
fragments.
GPS locations of different categories or classes proved
to be the most critical data during LU/LC classification
of the landsat image in facilitating and enhancing

DISCUSSION
Image Processing
Overall, the LU/LC map derived from satellite imagery
was satisfactory because categories were adequately
mapped and resulted only in minor misclassifications.

Table 5. Class metric results


Breaks
Selection

CA/TA (ha)

PLAND (%)

NP

LPI

COHESION

Habitat Type

Habitat Type

Habitat Type

Habitat Type

Habitat Type

23275.08

26919.72

2177.1

44.44

51.40

4.16

261

201

72

29.39

32.26

0.42

99.69

99.82

96.43

28629.81

21562.99

2177.1

54.67

41.18

4.16

192

232

72

38.27

22.65

0.42

99.79

99.7

96.43

33379.29

16815.51

2177.1

63.73

32.11

4.16

158

247

72

57.24

16.05

0.42

99.91

99.56

96.43

23275.08

28163.34

933.48

44.44

53.77

1.78

261

197

67

29.39

34.49

0.17

99.69

99.82

94.18

28629.81

22808.61

933.48

54.67

43.55

1.78

192

229

67

38.27

24.78

0.17

99.79

99.70

94.18

33379.29

18059.13

933.48

63.73

34.48

1.78

158

243

67

57.24

17.94

0.17

99.91

99.57

94.18

23275.08

28752.21

344.61

44.44

54.90

0.66

261

196

28

29.39

35.55

0.1

99.69

99.82

93.07

28629.81

23397.48

344.61

54.67

44.67

0.66

192

228

28

38.27

25.76

0.1

99.79

99.70

93.07

33379.29

18648

344.61

63.73

35.61

0.66

158

242

28

57.24

18.74

0.1

99.91

99.56

93.07

Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | 26 January 2016 | 8(1): 83098322

8317

Habitat quantity of Picoides borealis

Thapa & Acevedo

Figure 4. 10% perturbation below nominal value.

Figure 5. No perturbation.

classification accuracy. Composition metrics such as CA/


TA, NP and PLAND revealed heterogeneous structure
of the landscape especially the number of patches. NP
ranged from 400550 patches depending on the break
selections. For example, NP for first break value is 534
with 261 patches belonging to very unsuitable, 201 for
unsuitable and 72 for potentially suitable habitats. The
NP for potentially suitable habitat patches decreases with
decreasing pixel values from 0.733 to 1 for which NP is
only 28 (Table 5). Similarly, CA/TA and PLAND indicated
low amount of land occupied by potentially suitable
habitat patches (PLAND = 0.664.16 %) as compared to
8318

4060 % of land occupied by the other two habitat types


respectively. On the other hand, configuration metrics
such as LPI and COHESION produced expected results.
LPI for potentially suitable habitat ranged from 0.10.42
% for the nine break values indicating even the largest
patch occupies only 2,177.10ha of the total 52,371.90ha
landscape (for first break value) (Fig. 4).
The composition metrics showed that about 1860
% of the study area is composed of unsuitable habitats
for the birds that included floodplain areas near major
rivers and streams, pine plantations, areas around small
towns and mixed forests. The metrics further indicated

Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | 26 January 2016 | 8(1): 83098322

Habitat quantity of Picoides borealis

Thapa & Acevedo

Figure 6. 10% perturbation above nominal value.

only about 0.664.16 % of the study area is composed of


potentially suitable habitat and included areas located
away from urban areas and major roads. NP and
COHESION exhibited severe fragmentation of potentially
suitable patches in the west, central and northeast
portion of study area (Fig. 7). This suggests that the
isolation and size of smaller fragments might be the
cause of decline of clans from those patches, because a
territorial species with restrictive habitat requirements
and limited gap-crossing ability will likely be sensitive
to isolation effects (Conner & Rudolph 1991; Dale et al.
1994; With & Christ 1995; Pearson et al. 1996).
The connectivity metrics (COHESION) provided
vital information about the structure of landscape,
i.e., the patches of potentially suitable habitat patches
are more physically disconnected than the other two
unsuitable habitat patches. Thus we were able to show
composition, configuration and connectedness of the
three habitat patches that formed a heterogeneous
habitat across the study area.

CONCLUSION
We presented a method of quantifying composition
and configuration of possible habitats for the Redcockaded Woodpecker using GIS, remote sensing and
FRAGSTATS. We did not include other variables which
may impact habitat quality and HSI such as tree age, tree
diameter and tree species because these are difficult to
assess from a Landsat image and measure within private

lands. Hyperspectral images can provide these variables


as reported in a recent study by Santos et al. (2010). Data
collected from inside the private properties would aid in
validation and increase of HSI. Thus our methods could
be coupled with variables obtained from hyperspectral
images for better understanding of the current potential
suitable habitat available in the study region. Using
sensitivity analysis we were able to show that only few
areas contain adequate amount of pine trees that could
sustain a group of woodpeckers. However, to assess the
full quality of the habitat we would require inclusion
of other variables as noted above and as indicated by
results from sensitivity analysis.
The results revealed a highly fragmented nature
of available habitats in public and private rural lands
especially near the towns of Kountze, Silsbee, and
Lumberton. Most of the potentially suitable habitats
were found well away from the towns, especially on the
west side of the study area near Highways 326 and 421,
and private lands in between them (Fig. 7). FRAGSTAT
analysis revealed 344ha to 2,177ha of available
potentially suitable habitat; visual inspection of the
habitat suitability map shows that these habitats are
highly fragmented near the towns and on private rural
lands.
We assume that Red-cockaded Woodpeckers are
absent near towns due to small fragments of possible
habitats and lack of foraging habitat, traffic activity and
patch isolation. Of 2872 suitable habitat patches, some
could be more than 50 ha and are located on public and
private rural lands (Fig. 7). These areas could hold some

Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | 26 January 2016 | 8(1): 83098322

8319

Habitat quantity of Picoides borealis

Thapa & Acevedo

Figure 7. Distances amongst and acreages of potentially suitable habitat patches in hectares.

clans of Red-cockaded Woodpeckers because of the


presence of massive pockets of pure pine stands. Previous
studies determined that areas larger than 50ha are able
to sustain a group of Red-cockaded Woodpeckers given
that they contain old, red heart fungus infected cavity
trees with little or no mid-story. Landowners who have
a Red-cockaded Woodpecker group or groups can do
much to enhance survival regardless of the size of their
property by controlling mid-stories and building artificial
cavities. USFWS assists landowners to manage habitat
and even provides incentives and grants to promote
Red-cockaded Woodpecker conservation.
This study is confined to determining the quantity
of potentially suitable Red-cockaded Woodpecker
habitat in the current landscape near and around the
Big Thicket National Preserve. We conclude that there
are very few large patches (the largest one is 47.47ha)
that can sustain a clan or populations of Red-cockaded
Woodpeckers under ideal habitat conditions. Most of
the patches are located within a distance of one mile
8320

and they may be targeted for restoration and expansion


efforts. Other factors such as encroaching mid-story
and suppressed fire should also be assessed. To
further assess the quality of these patches a thorough
study of mid-story vegetation, pine tree age, diameter
and species is strongly recommended in the potential
suitable habitat patches. In addition, our study reveals
that a woodpecker census in the region might be fruitful
and that with proper management practices to preserve
red-cockaded-woodpecker habitat both in private and
federal lands, existing populations (if any) might be
conserved and new populations might be established
there.

REFERENCES
Anderson, J.R., E.E. Hardy, J.T. Roach & R.E. Witmer (1976). A land
use and land cover classification system for use with remote sensor
data. U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 964, U.S. Geologic
Survey, Washington, DC, 28pp.

Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | 26 January 2016 | 8(1): 83098322

Habitat quantity of Picoides borealis

Baker, W.W. (1971). Progress report on life history studies of the Redcockaded Woodpecker at Tall Timbers Research Station. Progress
report on life history studies of the Red-cockaded Woodpecker at
Tall Timbers Research Station, pp. 4459. In: Thompson, R.L. (ed.).
The ecology and management of the Red-cockaded Woodpecker,
May 26, 1971 - May 27, 1971, Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge,
Folkston, GA. U.S. Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife and Tall
Timbers Research Station, [Washington, DC].
Bernstein, R. (1983). Image geometry and rectification, pp. 873922.
In: Colwell, R.N. (ed.). Manual of Remote Sensing (2nd Edition).
American Society of Photogrammetry.
BirdLife International (2013). Leuconotopicus borealis. The IUCN
Red List of Threatened Species 2013: e.T22681158A49307003.
Downloaded on 09 January 2016; http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.
UK.2013-2.RLTS.T22681158A49307003.en
Callicott, J.B., R. Rozzi, L. Delgado, M. Monticino, M. Acevedo & P.
Harcombe (2007). Biocomplexity and conservation of biodiversity
hotspots: three case studies from the Americas. Philosophical
Transactions of the Royal Society B 362: 321333.
Campbell, J.B. (1996). Introduction to Remote Sensing. 2nd Edition. The
Guilford Press, 622pp.
Charles, J.M. & H.E. Howard (1996). Foraging habitat of the Redcockaded Woodpecker on the DArbonne National Wildlife Refuge,
Louisiana. Journal of Ornithology 67: 511518.
Congalton, G.R. (1991). A review of assessing the accuracy of remotely
sensed data. Remote Sensing of the Environment 37: 3546.
Congalton, G.R. & K. Green (1999). Assessing the Accuracy of
Remotely Sensed Data: Principles and Practices. CRC Press, Boca
Raton, Florida, 137pp.
Conner, R.N. & D.C. Rudolph (1989). Red-cockaded Woodpecker
colony status and trends on the Angelina, Davy Crockett, and Sabine
National Forests. Res. Pap. SO-250, U.S.D.A. Forest Service, 15pp.
Conner, R.N. & D.C. Rudolph (1991). Forest habitat loss, fragmentation,
and Red-cockaded Woodpecker population. Wilson Bulletin 103:
446457.
Conner, R.N., D. Saenz & D. C. Rudolph (2004). The Red-cockaded
Woodpecker: Interactions with fire, snags, fungi, rat snakes and
Pileated awoodpeckers. Texas Journal of Science 56: 415426.
Conner, R.N. (1981). Fire and cavity nesters, pp. 6165. In: Wood,
G.W. (ed.). Prescribed Fire and Wildlife in Southern Forests. Belle W.
Baruch Forest Science Institute of Clemson University, Georgetown,
South Carolina, USA.
Conner, R.N., R.G. Hooper, H.S. Crawford & H.S. Mosby (1975).
Woodpecker nestling habitat in cut and uncut woodlands in Virginia.
Journal of Wildlife Management 39: 144150.
Conner, R.N. & B.A. Locke (1982). Fungi and Red-cockaded
Woodpecker cavity trees. Wildlife Society Bulletin 94: 6470.
Conner, R.N., O.K. Miller & C.S. Adkisson (1976). Woodpecker
dependence on trees infected by fungal heart rots. Wildlife Society
Bulletin 88: 575581.
Conner, R.N. & D.C. Rudolph (1991). Effects of midstory reduction and
thinning in Red-cockaded Woodpecker cavity tree clusters. Wildlife
Society Bulletin 19: 6366.
Conner, R.N. & D.C. Rudolph (1995). Red-Cockaded Woodpecker
population trends and management on Texas National Forests.
Journal of Field Ornithology 66(1): 140151.
Conner, R.N., D.C. Rudolph, D. Saenz & R.R. Schaefer (1994).
Heartwood, sapwood, and fungal decay associated with Redcockaded Woodpecker cavity trees. Journal of Wildlife Management
58: 728734.
Dale, V.H., S.M. Pearson, H.L. Oferman & R.V. ONeill (1994). Relating
patterns of land-use change to faunal biodiversity in the central
Amazon. Conservation Biology 8: 10271036.
Dettki, H., R. Lofstran & L. Edenius (2003). Modeling habitat suitability
for Moose in coastal northern Sweden: Empirical vs. Processoriented Approaches. Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences. Ambio
8(32): 549556.
DeLotelle, R.S., R.J. Epting & R.J. Newman (1987). Habitat use and
territory characteristics of Red-cockaded Woodpeckers in Central

Thapa & Acevedo

Florida. Wilson Bulletin 99: 201217.


Dickman, C.R. (1987). Habitat fragmentation and vertebrate species
richness in an urban environment. Journal of Applied Ecology 24:
337351.
Doster, R.H. & D.A. James (1998). Home-range size and foraging
habitat of Red-cockaded Woodpeckers in the Ouachita Mountains
in Arkansas. Wilson Bulletin 110: 110117.
Engstrom, R.T. & F.J. Sanders (1997). Red-cockaded Woodpecker
foraging ecology in an old-growth longleaf pine forest. Wilson
Bulletin 109: 203217.
Ertep, S.A. & G.W. Lee (1994). Use of GRASS to facilitate Red-cockaded
Woodpecker management at Fort Benning Military Reservation,
pp. 628633. In: 1994 Annual Conference Proceedings, Urban and
Regional Information Systems Association, Washington, D.C., USA.
Ferrel, D.P. (1998). Habitat quality and the performance of Redcockaded Woodpecker groups in the South Carolina Sand Hills. MS
Thesis. Department of Forest Resources. Clemson University, 86pp.
Franzreb, K.E. (2006). Implications of home-range estimation in the
management of Red-cockaded Woodpeckers in South Carolina.
Forest Ecology and Management 228: 274284.
Girvetz, E.H. & S.E. Greco (2007). How to define a patch: a spatial
model for hierarchically delineating organism-specific patches.
Landscape Ecology 22: 11311142.
Hedrick, L.D., R.G. Hooper, D.L. Krusac & J.M. Dabney (1998).
Silvicultural systems and Red-cockaded Woodpecker management:
another perspective. Wildlife Society Bulletin 26: 138147.
Hooper, R.G., A.F. Robinson & J.A. Jackson (1980). The Red-cockaded
Woodpecker: Notes on life history and management. USDA Forest
Service, General Report SA-GR 9.
Hooper, R.G., L.J. Niles, R.F. Harlow & G.W. Wood (1982). Home
ranges of Red-cockaded Woodpeckers in coastal South Carolina. The
Auk 99: 675682.
Hooper, R.G. (1988). Longleaf pines used for cavities by Red-cockaded
Woodpeckers. Journal of Wildlife Management 52: 392398.
Jackson, J.A. (1994). Red-cockaded Woodpecker. Birds of North
America 85: 120.
Jensen, J. (1996). Introductory Digital Image Processing: A Remote
Sensing Perspective. Prentice-Hall, New Jersey.
Kotliar, N.B. & J.A. Weins (1990). Multiple scales of patchiness
and patch structure - a hierarchical framework for the study of
heterogeneity. Oikos 59: 253260.
Laperriere, J.A., P.C. Lent, W.C. Gassaway & F.A. Nodler (1980). Use
of Landsat data for moose-habitat analysis in Alaska. Journal of
Wildlife Management 44: 881887.
Larson, M.A., D.D. William, F.R. Thompson & J.J. Millspaugh (2003).
Landscape-level habitat suitability models for twelve wildlife
species in southern Missouri. Forest Service U. S. Department of
Agriculture.
Lunetta, R.S., R.G. Congalton, L.K. Fenstermaker, J.R. Jensen, K.C.
McGwire & L.R. Tinney (1991). Remote sensing and geographic
information system data integration: Error sources and research
issues. Photogrammetric Engineering & Remote Sensing 57: 677
687.
Luiz, A.B.J. & G.J. Garcia (1997). A study of habitat fragmentation
in southeastern Brazil using remote sensing and geographic
information systems (GIS). Forest Ecology and Management 98:
3547.
Marks, P.L. & P.A. Harcombe (1981). Forest vegetation of the Big
Thicket, southeast Texas. Ecological Monographs 51: 287305.
McGarigal, K. & B.J. Marks (1994). FRAGSTATS: spatial pattern
analysis program for quantifying landscape structure. United States
Department of Agriculture.
McGarigal, K. & B.J. Marks (1995). FRAGSTATS: spatial pattern analysis
program for quantifying landscape structure. USDA Forest Service
Technical Reports. PNW-351.
McGarigal, K. (2002). Landscape pattern metrics. Enclyopedia of
Environmetrics 2: 11351142.
McGarigal, K., S.A. Cushman, M.C. Neel & E. Ene (2002). FRAGSTATS:
Spatial Pattern Analysis Program for Categorical Maps. Department

Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | 26 January 2016 | 8(1): 83098322

8321

Habitat quantity of Picoides borealis

Thapa & Acevedo

of Natural Resources Conservation, University of Massachusetts,


304 Holdsworth Natural resources Center, Box 34210, Amherst, MA
01003. Available from http://www.umass.edu/laneco/research/
fragstats_documents.html (accessed March 2007).
NOAA (2008). National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research (assessed January
2009).
Pearson, S.M., M.G. Turner, R.H. Gardner & R.V. ONeill (1996). An
organism-based perspective of habitat fragmentation, pp. 7795.
In: Szaro, R.C. & D.W. Johnston (eds.). Biodiversity in Managed
Landscapes: Theory and Practice. Oxford University Press, New York.
Reed, J.M., P.D. Doerr & J.R. Walters (1988). Minimum Viable
Population Size of Red-cockaded Woodpecker. The Journal of
Wildlife Management 52: 385391.
Santos, M.J., J.A. Greenberg & S.L. Ustin (2010). Using hyperspectral
remote sensing to detect and quantify southeastern pine
senescence effects in Red-cockaded Woodpecker (Picoides borealis)
habitat. Remote Sensing of Environment 114: 12421250.
Shao, G. & J. Wu (2008). On the accuracy of landscape pattern analysis
using remote sensing data. Landscape Ecology 23: 505511.
Star, J. & J. Estes (1990). Geographic Information Systems: An
Introduction. Englewood Cliffs, Prentice-Hall, New Jersey.
Thapa, V. (2014). An analysis of One-horned Rhinoceros (Rhinoceros
unicornis) habitat at the Chitwan National Park, Nepal. Journal of
Threatened Taxa 6(10): 63136325; http://dx.doi.org/10.11609/
JoTT.o3698.6313-25
Thomlinson, J.R. (1993). Landscape ecological characteristics of habitat
of the Red-cockaded Woodpecker (Picoides borealis). Dissertation,
University of North Texas, Denton.

USFWS (2005). United States Fish and Wildlife Services. Red-cockaded


Woodpecker (Picoides borealis). Northeast Region, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, 300 Westgate Center Drive, Hadley, MA 01035.
Available from http://www.northeast.fws.org (accessed December
2007).
USFWS (2010). United States Fish and Wildlife Services. Red-cockaded
Woodpecker recovery. Available from http://www.fws.gov/
rcwrecovery/rcw.html (accessed June 2010).
Walters, J.R., S.J. Daniels, J.H. Carter & P.D. Doerr (2002). Defining
quality of Red-cockaded Woodpecker foraging habitat based on
habitat use and fitness. Journal of Wildlife Management 66: 1064
1082.
Wilcove, D.S., C.H. McClellan & A.P. Dobson (1986). Habitat
fragmentation in the temperate zone. Conservation Biology: the
science of scarcity and diversity. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland,
MA, pp.237256.
With, K.A. & T.O. Christ (1995). Critical thresholds in species responses
to landscape structure. Ecology 76: 24462459.
Wood, D.R., F.J. Villela & L.W. Burger Jr. (2008). Red-cockaded
Woodpecker home range use and microhabitat selection in a
loblolly-shortleaf pine forest. The Wilson Journal of Ornithology
120(4): 793800; http://dx.doi.org/10.1676/04-068.1
Xulong, L., H. Chunyang, P. Yaozhong, Y. Mingchaun & Z. Jinshui (2005).
Accuracy Assessment of Thematic Classification based on Point and
Polygon Sampling Units, Key laboratory of Environmental Change
and Natural Disaster of Ministry of Education of China. College of
Resources Science & Technology, Beijing Normal University, Beijing,
China, 100875.

Threatened Taxa

8322

Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | 26 January 2016 | 8(1): 83098322

The conservation status of the Fishing Cat


Prionailurus viverrinus Bennett, 1833 (Carnivora: Felidae)
In Koshi Tappu Wildlife Reserve, Nepal
Iain Rothie Taylor 1, Hem Sagar Baral 2, Prava Pandey 3 & Prativa Kaspal 4
Institute of Land, Water and Society, Charles Sturt University, PO Box 789, Albury NSW 2640, Australia
School of Environmental Sciences, Charles Sturt University, PO Box 789, Albury NSW 2640, Australia
2
Present address: Zoological Society of London (ZSL), Nepal Office, PO Box 5867, Kathmandu, Nepal
2,3,4
Himalayan Nature, PO Box 10918, Lazimpat, Kathmandu, Nepal
3
Present address: Department of Environmental Science, Amrit Campus, Tribhuvan University, PO Box 102,
Kathmandu, Nepal
1
itaylor@csu.edu.au (corresponding author), 2 hem.baral@gmail.com, 3 pravapandey@yahoo.com,
4
prativa_kaspal@yahoo.com
1

Communication

Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | 26 January 2016 | 8(1): 83238332

ISSN 0974-7907 (Online)


ISSN 0974-7893 (Print)

OPEN ACCESS

Abstract: The status of the Fishing Cat Prionailurus viverrinus in Koshi Tappu Wildlife Reserve, Nepal was assessed by camera trapping
and pugmark searches from 2011 to 2014. The reserve is a highly dynamic and unstable snow-fed braided river system with many
anabranches and islands. Evidence of Fishing Cats was found throughout most of the reserve. They were probably more abundant on the
eastern side, among the islands of the main river channel, and in the adjacent buffer zone where there was a chain of fishponds and marsh
areas fed by seepage from the main river channel. Evidence of Fishing Cats was found up to 6km north of the reserve on the Koshi River
but not beyond this. The population is probably small and may be isolated but given the endangered status of the species, is significant.
The main likely threats identified are wetland and riparian habitat deterioration caused by over exploitation and illegal grazing by villagers,
overfishing of wetlands and rivers within the reserve, and direct persecution arising from perceived conflicts with fish farming and poultry
husbandry. Required conservation actions are discussed.
Keywords: Conservation strategy, Fishing Cat, Koshi Tappu Wildlife Reserve, survey, threats.

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.11609/jott.2034.8.1.8323-8332 | ZooBank: urn:lsid:zoobank.org:pub:8BFB7F65-0508-47CD-87A6-6F7B2953C5BC


Editor: Jim Sanderson, Small Wild Cat Conservation Foundation, Hartford, USA.

Date of publication: 26 January 2016 (online & print)

Manuscript details: Ms # 2034 | Received 04 June 2015 | Final received 10 August 2015 | Finally accepted 05 January 2016
Citation: Taylor, I.R., H.S. Baral, P. Pandey & P. Kaspal (2016). The conservation status of the Fishing Cat Prionailurus viverrinus Bennett, 1833 (Carnivora: Felidae)
In Koshi Tappu Wildlife Reserve, Nepal. Journal of Threatened Taxa 8(1): 83238332; http://dx.doi.org/10.11609/jott.2034.8.1.8323-8332
Copyright: Taylor et al. 2016. Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. JoTT allows unrestricted use of this article in any medium, reproduction
and distribution by providing adequate credit to the authors and the source of publication.
Funding: This project was funded primarily by the Taronga Foundation, Australia, Charles Sturt University, Australia and Chicago Zoological Society, USA.
Conflict of Interest: The authors declare no competing interests.
Author Details: See end of this article.
Author Contribution: All authors participated in field work. Prava Pandey and Prativa Kaspal were responsible for all aspects of the initial year of study. Iain Taylor
and Hem Baral were responsible for project planning and management. Iain Taylor was responsible for the analysis of data and writing the paper.
Acknowledgements: This project is funded by the Taronga Foundation, Charles Sturt University and Chicago Zoological Society. We would like to thank Rebecca
Spindler, Monique Van Sluys and Jo Wiszniewski of Taronga for their tremendous support and encouragement. Monique Van Sluys provided valuable and
constructive comments on the draft. From 2012 this was a joint project of Charles Sturt University, Australia and Himalayan Nature, Nepal. We thank the many
staff from both organisations who helped in various ways. Ashok Kumar Ram and Ganga Ram Singh of the Department of National Parks and Wildlife Conservation,
Nepal provided assistance at Koshi Tappu. The Department also provided research permits. Camera traps were provided in the initial study period by Friends of
Nature, IdeaWild and Dr. Jim Sanderson. We also thank Suman Acharya, Neerej Rai, Sunita Phuyal, Shambhu Ghimire and Yadav Ghimirey for their assistance in
the field and Simon Macdonald of the Spatial Data Analysis Unit of Charles Sturt University for preparing the maps.

8323

Status of Fishing Cat In Koshi Tappu Wildlife Reserve, Nepal

INTRODUCTION
The wetland dependent endangered Fishing
Cat Prionailurus viverrinus (Bennett, 1833), once
widespread throughout Southeast and southern Asia,
now has a discontinuous distribution in Java, Thailand,
Cambodia, Sri Lanka, India, Pakistan, Bangladesh and
Nepal (Pocock 1939; Cutter & Cutter 2010; Duckworth
et al. 2010; Mukherjee et al. 2010, 2012; Royan 2010).
Available evidence suggests a recent widespread and
continuing decrease in range and abundance, with
loss of wetland area and quality, overfishing and direct
human persecution most often cited as causes (Nowell
& Jackson 1996; Mukherjee et al. 2010, 2012).
In India the species distribution includes the
eastern states of West Bengal, Assam, Odisha, Andhra
Pradesh and the northern Terai wetlands bordering
Nepal (Sunquist & Sunquist 2002; Mukherjee et al.
2012; Sadhu & Reddy 2013; Janardhanan et al. 2014).
Information is absent for most other areas but recent
research failed to find any evidence of the species in
coastal Kerala in southwestern India where it had been
believed to occur (Janardhanan et al. 2014). Within
Nepal, although the Fishing Cat is known to occur within
all the protected areas of the Terai (Dahal & Dahal 2011;
Jnawali et al. 2011; Mishra 2013), there have been
no systematic surveys to assess abundance. There is
no quantitative information on population trends or
threatening processes in either India or Nepal.
The objective of this study was to assess the current
status of the species in Koshi Tappu Wildlife Reserve,
Nepal and by conducting an intensive standardised
sampling programme, an attempt to establish a baseline
against which future changes may be assessed. The
species habitat was examined to determine likely
threatening processes or factors that may determine
future population viability. In addition, information was
gathered on local villagers knowledge and perceptions
of Fishing Cats, particularly those aspects that might
relate to the species population viability.

STUDY AREA
Koshi Tappu Wildlife Reserve, established in 1976,
extends between 8605587005E & 2603426045N on
the flood plain of the Koshi River in the Terai of southeast
Nepal and consists of a core area of 175km with an
additional buffer zone of 173km. Between 1958 and
1964, a barrage was constructed across the Koshi River
at the Indian/ Nepal border 5km south of the reserve and
8324

Taylor et al.

embankments were constructed on both sides upstream


of the barrage to contain and channel floodwater
through the barrage. The current core area of the
reserve, about 17km long and 9km wide now lies within
these embankments. The rise in elevation between the
most southerly and northerly edges of the reserve is
only 20m. The entire area is a highly active snow-fed
braided river system, comprising mostly river and stream
courses, sandbanks, grasslands, swamps, and some areas
of forest, representing newly colonising woodland and
eroding old established forest. In the 1960s the main
channel was on the western side of the reserve but this
shifted and now lies at the extreme eastern edge. This
shift has been associated with profound habitat changes
across most of the reserve; between 1976 and 2010 the
total area comprising wetland habitats declined by 17%
whereas grassland increased by 45%. In 2010, 10% of
the reserve core area was rivers and streams and only
6% swamps and marshland, whereas 56% was grassland
and the remainder mainly sandbanks and forest (Chettri
et al. 2013; Fig. 1).
Prior to its establishment as a reserve, Koshi Tappu
was used extensively by local villagers for livestock
grazing, fishing and collection of grasses and firewood.
This use has continued and has resulted in severe habitat
degradation including a loss of riparian vegetation.
Although there has been no objective assessment of
fish stocks local fishermen are clear from their catch in
relation to effort that stocks have declined considerably
(CSUWN 2009; DNPWC 2009).
At the time of the present study the eastern side of the
reserve was least affected by overgrazing. Immediately
to the west of the main river channel a series of islands
were in an essentially natural condition with intact
vegetation of long grasslands, swampland and forest
offering cover for Fishing Cats. To the west of this, there
was a zone of braided river channels most of which had
either lightly or non-vegetated sand banks and islands
among them offering little cover. West of this there was
a mixed habitat of short and long grassland and open
woodland. Much of the western side of the reserve was
easily accessible to villages and overgrazing by domestic
livestock was intense.
The buffer zone includes areas of the river course to
the north and south of the reserve core area and areas
beyond the embankments on the east and west banks
sides, which are now mostly settled and cultivated.
On the east side many areas of wetland that resulted
from seepage through the embankment during the
monsoon floods have progressively been replaced by
fishponds since the 1990s (CSUWN 2009). There is a

Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | 26 January 2016 | 8(1): 83238332

Status of Fishing Cat In Koshi Tappu Wildlife Reserve, Nepal

Taylor et al.

Prakashpur

Madhuban

Figure 1. Map of Koshi Tappu Wildlife Reserve and buffer zone showing habitats and sampling sites for Fishing Cat surveys. Red spots show
camera trapping sample sites and green spots show pugmark sample sites.

semi-continuous chain of fishponds along this edge from


about the level of Kushaha (the reserve headquarters)
northwards. The ponds are mostly small (about 1,000
2,000 m) and have been dug into the substrate, with
earth banks and no fencing. Some are no longer in use
and are being colonised by wetland vegetation, and
there remain many small areas of swampland among
the ponds that support populations of small fish,
amphibians, molluscs and crustaceans, but they are
intensively harvested by villagers for all of these species,
regardless of size. On the western side of the reserve
there are only minor anabranches of the Koshi River
and small tributaries such as the Trijuga River, which are
insufficient to maintain fishponds or significant areas of
swampland. Potential habitat for Fishing Cats is more
restricted.
In 2008 an exceptionally large flood broke through the
embankment in the south eastern sector of the reserve,
depositing large amounts of sand over wetlands, fish
ponds and villages and farmland about 1 km south of
Kushaha (Khatri et al. 2013). Consequently, the habitat
for Fishing Cat in this area has been reduced.
During the 1950s, prior to the establishment of
the barrage, the area around Koshi Tappu retained

original forest and grassland supporting populations


of large predators such as Tiger Panthera tigris and
Leopard P. pardus. However, following a programme
of resettlement of people from the mid hill areas to the
north starting in the 1950s, these large carnivores were
exterminated. The exact dates are unrecorded (Chhetri
& Pal 2010).

METHODS
Camera trapping
During 2011 an initial study was conducted to
gain general information on the species distribution
along the eastern side of the reserve, within the buffer
zone (Image 1). Camera traps were set up in wetland
habitats between 19 April 2011 and 19 June 2011 in
the Prakashpur, Madhuban, Kushaha and Jabdi areas,
covering all of the eastern side of the reserve from north
to south. Six cameras were used over 1012 nights in
each area.
From February to December 2013 an intensive
programme of camera trapping was undertaken at 12
wetland sites in the eastern and western sectors of the

Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | 26 January 2016 | 8(1): 83238332

8325

Status of Fishing Cat In Koshi Tappu Wildlife Reserve, Nepal

Taylor et al.

Table 1. Location and habitat characteristics of camera trap sampling sites


Site

Grid reference of centre point

Main wetland type

Habitat

26041.4N & 87004.6E

Active fish ponds

Farmland with active fish ponds, patches of scrub and marsh, clumps of
bamboo and banana, scattered trees

26041.4N & 87004.8E

Active fish pond & remnant marshland

Farmland with active and abandoned and overgrown fishponds, clumps


of bamboo and banana, scattered trees.

26041.2N & 87004.5E

Abandoned fish ponds, & marshland,

Active and overgrown abandoned fish ponds, marshland, clumps of


bamboo and banana and trees

26041.1N & 87003.4E

Active fish ponds

Active and overgrown abandoned fish ponds, clumps of bamboo and


banana and trees

26040.4N & 87003.5E

Active & abandoned fish ponds

Active and overgrown abandoned fish ponds, clumps of bamboo and


banana and trees

26040.2N & 87004.2E

Active and abandoned fish ponds

Active and overgrown abandoned fish ponds, clumps of bamboo and


banana, scrub and trees

26039.3N & 87003.4E

Abandoned fish ponds & marsh

Riverine forest with adjacent abandoned fishponds and marshland. No


cultivated land

26039.1N & 87003.3E

Active fish ponds

Farmland with active fish ponds and a few scattered trees

26039.1N & 87003.4E

Swampland and abandoned fish ponds

Riverine forest with abandoned fish ponds and swampland

26 37.3N & 87 01.7E

Koshi River

Scrubland with scattered trees and extensive areas of bare sand

26038.4N & 86056.7E

Trijuga River

Open grazed land with scattered bushes, sandbanks and river

26 43.5N & 87 00.2E

Overgrown oxbow lake

Open grazed land with oxbow lake overgrown with Ipomea carnea

Prava Pandey/Prativa Kaspal/Himalayan Nature

Image 1. Fishing Cat Prionailurus viverrinus captured by camera trap


in the buffer zone of Koshi Tappu Wildlife Reserve, Nepal - 2011

buffer zone. On the eastern side ten sample sites were


spaced approximately evenly throughout its length from
Kushaha northwards (Fig. 1). Wetland areas were more
restricted on the western side and cameras were sited
at the two largest wetland areas. In addition, cameras
were placed at the Koshi Tappu Bird Observatory 12km
north of the reserve; an area that retained undisturbed
scrub vegetation within 300m of wetland habitat and
potentially a refuge for Fishing Cats. At each site cameras
were placed 50100 m apart along the edges of wetland
habitats and the trails connecting them. The number of
cameras deployed at each site ranged from five to 13,
depending on the extent of potentially suitable habitat.
The grid references of each site, to enable precise future
8326

comparisons, and their habitat characteristics are given


in Table 1.
Searches were also made for evidence of Fishing Cats
using pugmarks. All of the camera-trapping sample areas
were searched for pugmarks on areas of soft substrate
around wetlands or fish ponds on the days when the
cameras were in operation. Within the reserve during
February 2014, searches were made on the islands on
the western bank of the main branch of the Koshi River.
At approximately 1km intervals southwards from the
northern edge of the reserve, sample stretches of 100m
of extensive exposed soft mud on the riverbank were
searched. In the central area of the reserve a similar
procedure was used on one of the main anabranches
wherever access was possible from a track. Pugmarks
were also used to search for evidence of the presence
of the cats northwards from the reserve boundary.
On the eastern bank of the main river, for a total of
12km northwards, at 2km intervals, sample lengths of
300m of soft substrate were searched. A sample area
immediately north of the Koshi barrage, to the south of
the reserve, and another area 2km south of Kushaha in
the buffer zone were also searched.
Diurnal activity patterns
Data on activity patterns were taken from the
programme of camera trapping described above, but to
increase sample size, camera trapping was extended by
a further 330 camera trap nights at 46 stations during
November and December of 2013. This gave a total
effort of 808 camera trap nights. As all areas were

Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | 26 January 2016 | 8(1): 83238332

Status of Fishing Cat In Koshi Tappu Wildlife Reserve, Nepal

Taylor et al.

utilised by the local human population there was a


problem of camera theft, which required cameras to be
set up each day one hour before sunset and retrieved
one hour after sunrise.
Villagers perceptions of Fishing Cats
To assess local knowledge and perceptions of the
species a sample of 208 adult villagers living within the
buffer zones were interviewed in 2011. They were asked
if they had seen Fishing Cats, where and when, what
the species habitat and diet were, and also what their
attitudes were towards conserving the species. Attitudes
towards Fishing Cats and fishpond production were also
explored by interviewing the owners or managers of a
sample of 55 fish farms.

RESULTS
Distribution of Fishing Cats
Camera trapping: The presence of Fishing Cats was
confirmed by camera trapping along all of the eastern
buffer zone, from Kushaha northwards, and across the
western buffer zone (Fig. 2). Variations in the intricate
pelage patterns of Fishing Cats were used to identify
individuals from the photographs where possible,
but most of the images obtained were of cats moving
quickly and their patterns were not adequately clear for
identification. In the 2011 survey, nine separate Fishing
Cats were recognised, three in the Prakashpur area,
three in Madhuban, one in Kushaha and none in Jadbi. In
the latter case, no images of Fishing Cats were captured.

Figure 2. Map of Koshi Tappu Wildlife Reserve and Buffer Zone


showing positive sites at which evidence of Fishing Cats were found.
Red spots show sites for camera trapping evidence and green spots
show pugmark evidence.

In the intensive study of 2013/14, images of Fishing Cats


were captured at nine (75%) of the 12 sites sampled
(Table 2). In the majority of cases (80.4%) where Fishing
Cats were photographed at a camera station only a single
image was obtained per night. In three cases (5.9%)
two images were obtained of cats travelling in opposite
directions within 10 minutes. Although it was not know

Table 2. Camera trapping effort at each sample site and numbers of independent Fishing Cat images obtained, 2013.
Site

Month

N Cameras

N
Nights

N Camera/
Nights

Fishing Cat
images

Images/10
camera nights

Pug marks
found

November

40

0.5

Yes

November

13

10

100

0.1

Yes

March

25

0.8

Yes

March

35

0.57

Yes

March

24

Yes

December

36

1.94

Yes

February

41

1.95

Yes

December

13

52

11

2.12

Yes

February

45

Yes

March

25

No

March

25

0.8

No

March

30

13

4.33

Yes

Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | 26 January 2016 | 8(1): 83238332

8327

Status of Fishing Cat In Koshi Tappu Wildlife Reserve, Nepal

Taylor et al.

Table 3. The total numbers of all other predatory mammals


photographed in camera traps

30
N = 96

Small Indian Civet

Jackal

Indian Fox

23

20

sunrise

Jungle Cat

48

sunset

Fishing Cat

Percentage of images

25

15
10
5

for certain that these represented the same individual it


was assumed they did and these cases recorded as only
a single event. The remainder of cases (13.7%) involved
apparently independent events, with more than a single
individual. The number of images captured ranged from
zero to 18 at different sites but there was no significant
correlation between the number of images captured
per 10 camera trap nights and the total number of trap
nights at each site (r = -0.14, P = 0.66). Thus the number
of images obtained was not related to trapping effort. In
total, 10 different cats were identified but most images
were too blurred for individual identification so it is not
known how this number relates to the true number of
individuals. The cameras captured images of all other
mammals that used the tracks. Other predatory species
this included the Jungle Cat Felis chaus, Small Indian
Civet Viverricula indica, Jackal Canis aureus, and the
Indian Fox Vulpes bengalensis (Table 3).
Pug marks: Fishing Cat pug marks were found
around all camera trapping sites where photographs
were obtained but were also found at one site where
no photographs were obtained. At the remaining two
sites where no photographs of the cats were obtained
there were also no pugmarks (Table 2). Pugmarks were
found at all of the sample sites within the reserve (Fig
2). On the eastern side of the reserve along the western
bank of the main river course, the density of prints at all
sites was exceptionally high suggesting frequent use, but
elsewhere only a few prints were found in each sample
suggesting much lower use. Pugmarks were found north
of the reserve on the main river bank at sites 2, 4 and 6
km beyond the reserve boundary but not at sites farther
north. In all cases they were single tracks with a much
lower density of prints than farther south within the
reserve. Pugmarks were also found at the sample site
just north of the Koshi barrage, but none were found at
the site 2km south of Kushaha.
Diurnal activity patterns
Cameras could not be left in position during daylight
hours because of the threat of theft so the information
obtained relates to the period from one hour before
sunset to one hour after sunrise. Only two images (4.2%
8328

0
-2-0

0-2

2-4

4-6

6-8

8-10

10-12 12-14 14-16

Hours before and after sunset

Figure 3. Activity pattern of Fishing Cats at Koshi Tappu Wildlife


Reserve from one hour before sunset to one hour after sunrise. Data
from camera trapping in 2013.

of the total) were obtained in the short period of low


light of dawn immediately after sunrise and none in
the hour before sunset. At these times on all cameras
images of villagers were captured on all the trails as
they returned home or started their daily activity. In the
intervening period of darkness, there was little evidence
of any pattern: the cats seemed to be equally active
throughout the entire night with perhaps slightly lower
activity immediately before sunrise (Fig. 3).
Villagers knowledge of Fishing Cats
Seventy eight percent (78%) of the 208 villagers
interviewed stated they had seen Fishing Cats, and 66%
stated they had seen them around their farms, either at
fishponds or at poultry cages. Of those that reported
seeing the cats, 83% stated they had seen them in the
first light of morning and 17% during darkness. No one
reported seeing the cats during daylight hours. All of
those interviewed stated that Fishing Cats feed on
fish, crustaceans and snails and all of them also stated
that their habitat was wetlands. Half (50%) of those
interviewed believed that the Fishing Cat population in
the area was declining, 16.5% believed the population
to be increasing, 16.5% suggested no recent change
and the remainder had no opinion. Sixty-seven percent
(67%) were in favour of conserving the species and 33%
wanted them killed because of perceived problems as
predators of fish in ponds or of poultry. Only 8% knew
that the Fishing Cat was an endangered species. Some
suggested that Fishing Cats were already persecuted in
retaliation for taking chickens and fish and that attempts
were made by some to kill them by either electrocution
or poisoning around fish ponds. Two authenticated
cases of this were established during the course of
the 2013/14 study period, one of which involved a cat

Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | 26 January 2016 | 8(1): 83238332

Status of Fishing Cat In Koshi Tappu Wildlife Reserve, Nepal

Taylor et al.

intercepted while trying to raid a poultry house.

DISCUSSION

Aquaculture methods and interactions of Fishing Cats


with fish farms
All fishpond owners reared a mixture of species of
Carp (Family Cyprinidae), including Rohu Labeo spp.,
Naini Cirrhinus mrigala, Bighead Carp (Thul Tauke)
Aristichthys nobilis, Commom Carp Cyprinus carpio,
Grass Carp (Ghase Machha) Ctenopharyngodon idellus
and Silver Carp (Chade Machha) Hypophthalmichthys
molitrix. The ponds were stocked with fry each year,
usually from April to May but sometimes also in March
depending on the amount of water in the ponds and
temperatures. Fry were purchased either from a local
hatchery or from dealers from India. The price of local
fry in 2014 was 300500 Nepali rupees per kilo for locally
produced fry and 500 Nepali rupees for Indian fry. Fish
were fed mainly with pellets made by the owners from
local produce, mostly cornflour, ground cereal husks and
mustard oil. The growth period before harvesting was
68 months with harvesting mainly during December
and February when the fish were from 0.51.0 kg in
weight. Selling prices in 2014 were between 150 and
250 Nepali rupees per kg depending on the species.
Common Carp, Rohu and Nairi fetched the highest
prices. Fish were harvested by netting progressively
during the harvesting period whenever dealers arrived
to purchase the fish.
Of 55 fish pond owners or managers interviewed,
nine (16.4%) stated they believed Fishing Cats to take
fish from their ponds, while only three (5.5%) reported
they had actually seen the cats doing so. Fifteen (27.3%)
stated they believed Jungle Cats took fish and 12 (21.8%)
stated they had seen them eating their fish. Forty (72.7%)
reported they thought Otters (the Smooth-coated
Otter Lutra perspicillata) took fish from ponds and 37
(67.3%) stated they had actually seen otters doing so.
Other species were reported taking fish including Jackal
(9.1%), Monitor Lizard Varanus bengalensis (7.3%), and
Mugger Crocodile Crocodylus palustris (20%). Asked if
Fishing Cats should be conserved, 40 fish farm owners
(72.7%) declined to express an opinion, Seven (12.7%)
stated they were in favour of conservation while five
(9.1%) gave negative responses. Three believed Fishing
Cats to have a significantly adverse effect on their
business and one of these stated that he knew other
pond owners who had killed Fishing Cats in retaliation
for taking fish. In comparison, 67.3% of owners believed
that otters reduced their profits and wanted action taken
to protect their ponds from them.

Status of the Fishing Cat


From a combination of camera trapping and
pugmarks, Fishing Cats were shown to occur across most
of Koshi Tappu Wildlife Reserve and buffer zones. They
seemed to be more concentrated in the eastern edge
and buffer zone than in the drier western side. Pugmarks
were found along the stream in the centre of the reserve
but much of this central area was mostly shallow river
channels with sandbanks offering no cover for Fishing
Cats and may have had a lower carrying capacity for the
cats. The southern part of the buffer zone on the eastern
side south of Kushaha may also have a lower density of
the cats: neither the camera trapping nor searches for
pug marks in this area succeeded in finding evidence of
them.
Although it is not possible to estimate total population
size from this preliminary study the indications were of
a significant population, given the globally endangered
status of the species. The habitats in Koshi Tappu
Reserve are highly modified but it is possible the density
of Fishing Cats might actually be higher there than
in more natural habitats. In the eastern buffer zone,
in an area of only about 24km, a minimum of nine
individual adults was identified in 2011. By comparison,
an intensive camera trapping study in the more natural
Chitwan National Park (CNP) wetlands, involving 868
camera trap days over an area of 160km identified
only five individual Fishing Cats with an estimated
density of 4.4 cats per 100km (Mishra 2013). The
study area in CNP retained all potential predators and
competitors of the Fishing Cats, whereas in Koshi Tappu,
both tigers and leopards were absent and the range
of potentially competing smaller carnivores was much
less. It is possible that the apparently higher density
in Koshi Tappu may have been an example of mesopredator release in the absence of the larger predators.
There is growing evidence that larger predatory species
prey on and compete with smaller species and that in
their absence changes can occur in the trophic niches,
numbers and distribution of the smaller species (Ritchie
& Johnson 2009; Brashares et al. 2010; Ripple et al.
2013; LaPoint et al. 2014). However, at Koshi Tappu it
is also possible the high density of fishponds may have
supported higher populations of Fishing Cats.
The number of separate images obtained per 10
camera nights effort varied greatly among the sites
sampled from zero to 18 but it would be imprudent
to assume that these represented real differences in
either abundance or intensity of use of different areas.

Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | 26 January 2016 | 8(1): 83238332

8329

Status of Fishing Cat In Koshi Tappu Wildlife Reserve, Nepal

Without detailed knowledge of range use there was


probably a considerable level of chance in the siting of
cameras in relation to the animals activity.
Diurnal activity patterns
There is limited information on the diurnal activity
patterns of wild cats. Lynam et al. (2013), using
camera trapping in several protected areas in Thailand,
found that small to medium-sized species were highly
variable: species such as the Leopard Cat Prionailurus
bengalensis and Clouded Leopard Neofelis nebulosa
were mostly nocturnal whereas the Asiatic Golden
Cat Catopuma temminckii was mostly diurnal and the
Marbled Cat Pardofelis marmorata, completely diurnal.
They secured only six images of Fishing Cat and all
were nocturnal. Other than this there is no published
information for Fishing Cats. At Koshi Tappu, because of
the threat of theft, the cameras were in the field only
for one hour before sunset and one hour after dawn
so even though almost all the images obtained were in
hours of darkness, it cannot be stated for certain that
the species was entirely nocturnal. Nevertheless, the
lack of records for the two hours of daylight before
sunset and after sunrise that the cameras were in
position suggests that they probably were, and this was
supported by the observations of the villagers. It is not
known if the pattern at Koshi Tappu was typical of the
species or to what extent it was an adaptation to prey
availability or a response to the high human use of the
area. Most of the Fishing Cats prey species are probably
more available at night: most amphibians are more
active at night and many freshwater fish tend to undergo
diel vertical migration (DVM), occurring more commonly
near the water surface at night (Mehner 2012). Most
rodents such as members of the family Muridae tend to
be nocturnal (Roll et al. 2006).
Threats and conservation strategy
From this study it is possible to identify only
potential threats rather than known, established threats
and to suggest elements of a provisional conservation
strategy. Within the core area of the reserve, the main
threats were probably depletion of fish stocks through
overharvesting by villagers and removal of vegetation,
especially riparian vegetation, by the large numbers
of livestock grazed within the reserve. Removal of
vegetation could have severe effects on fish populations,
potential alternative prey species such as rodents, birds
and reptiles, and also on cover for denning sites. The
use, legal or otherwise, of the reserve by local villagers to
extract a wide range of resources and to graze livestock
8330

Taylor et al.

is intensive (CSUWN 2009); reducing the extent of illegal


grazing should be a priority.
The demographic viability of this population is
unknown. It is likely the population is small and may
be isolated. Outside the reserve and buffer zone there
is limited potential habitat. Upstream, the river quickly
moves into steep sided and deep upland valleys and our
pug mark survey suggested no animals farther north than
about 6km. Downstream, the river immediately passes
into India and into very intensively farmed and heavily
populated areas. On the western side of the reserve
there is some limited potential habitat in the tributaries
of the Koshi River such as the Tijuga River but on the
eastern side most land is intensively farmed. Added
to the limited extent of suitable habitat the current
carrying capacity of the reserve is probably well below
its potential because of the human overexploitation of
resources. In this context, the only feasible conservation
strategy may be to ensure that the reserve and buffer
zone achieved their maximum carrying capacity by
reducing the level of overexploitation.
Local villagers around Koshi Tappu clearly knew
Fishing Cats well. Most had seen them and knew, in
general terms, the food and habitat of the species.
However, few were aware that the Fishing Cat is
endangered and even though the majority stated
they were in favour of conserving the species, a third
considered they should be killed. It seems clear that
ignorance of the species status may also be a threat
and that an important preliminary conservation action
should be to improve the villagers appreciation of the
species conservation status.
The desire among the general community to have
Fishing Cats killed was a consequence of their perceived
or known knowledge of the cats predation on poultry
and fish. Most fishpond owners refused to comment
on this point so their general attitude cannot be gauged
but some also stated that they wanted Fishing Cats
to be killed. Two instances of retaliatory killing were
confirmed during the study. Only a minority of fishpond
owners stated that they believed Fishing Cats took fish
from their ponds. The results of interviews always need
to be interpreted with caution as, without testing, the
motives and accuracy of the respondents are unknown.
It is possible there may have been some confused
identification as a much higher percentage of owners
also stated they had seen Jungle Cats taking fish from
ponds. Images of Jungle Cats were captured by the
camera traps only nine times at three of the camera
trapping sample sites compared with 48 images of
Fishing Cats at nine of the sites, suggesting they were

Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | 26 January 2016 | 8(1): 83238332

Status of Fishing Cat In Koshi Tappu Wildlife Reserve, Nepal

much scarcer than Fishing Cats. Also Jungle Cats are


not generally known to catch fish (Sunquist & Sunquist
2002; Mukherjee et al. 2004; Majumder et al. 2011).
Most probably they would have been seen under low
light conditions and it is possible that Fishing Cats were
misidentified as Jungle Cats so that the occurrence of
Fishing Cats at fish ponds may have been higher than
suggested by the owners. Also the nocturnal activity
of the Fishing Cats would have reduced the fish pond
owners ability to detect them.
The effect of mortality from retaliatory killing on the
population of Fishing Cats depends on the extent of the
mortality, the size and productivity of their population
and whether the mortality is additive or compensatory
in overall population limitation. If mortality from
humans merely replaces density-dependent mortality
that would occur for other reasons (compensatory) the
effect could be minimal (see Newton 1998). At present
the total population size of Fishing Cats in Koshi Tappu
is unknown and also nothing is known of the dynamics
or regulation of the population so the effect of human
persecution cannot be assessed and it would take many
years of research before this could be achieved. Thus
it is wise to assume at present that human predation
is a threat and act to accordingly. Human persecution
of Fishing Cats seems to be widespread throughout the
Fishing Cats range and conflict with fisheries and poultry
husbandry seems a common cause. In some areas of
India, villagers believe they may have exterminated the
species by such action (Mukherjee et al. 2012).
It is clear that the perceived direct conflict between
Fishing Cats and humans around Koshi Tappu, especially
relating to predation at fish ponds, needs to be resolved
as part of the overall conservation strategy. However,
the situation is likely to be complex. In addition to
quantifying the possible pest status of Fishing Cats at
fishponds it is important to understand the extent to
which Fishing Cats currently depend on fishponds for
food. For most of the year the fishponds are probably
the main concentration of medium-sized fish in the area,
and being Cyprinids, would be relatively easy for the cats
to catch. Any actions to exclude Fishing Cats from ponds
could remove an essential food source and hence be
a significant threat to them. Although most fishpond
owners did not identify Fishing Cats as a major problem,
the great majority believed the Smooth-coated Otters
to be serious pests and wanted to exclude them from
fish ponds by fencing, an action that would also exclude
Fishing Cats.
Should fishponds prove to be a significant food
source for the Fishing Cats, as seems likely, there would

Taylor et al.

be important seasonal changes in the profitability of the


ponds as a feeding habitat for the cats. By March most
of the fish are harvested from the ponds and restocking
with fry occurs mainly during April to May. There would
thus be a period of several months in spring, before the
monsoon, when the ponds are less profitable as feeding
sites and the cats would have to rely on other sources.
The extent to which Fishing Cats depend on food
other than fish at Koshi Tappu is unknown but could
have a significant effect on the populations survival.
In addition to fish, the species is known to prey upon
birds, small mammals, amphibians, reptiles, molluscs,
crustacea and insects (Haque & Vijayan 1993) as well as
scavenging livestock carcasses (Nowell & Kackson 1996).
In Koshi Tappu the Fishing Cats may have be able to
compensate partially for reduced fish stocks generally in
the rivers and wetlands and seasonally in the fish ponds
by diversifying their diet. This may have been facilitated
by reduced competition in the absence of Leopards
and several other small carnivores in Koshi Tappu.
Competitive release of this kind has been suggested
for other similar systems (Moreno et al. 2006). From
the limited information collected at Koshi Tappu,
Fishing Cats seemed able to associate with human
environments, taking poultry from farms. The cultivated
environment in the buffer zones had high populations
of commensal rodents, especially around farm buildings
and storage areas (Authors pers. obs. 2013) that could
provide an alternative food source. If Fishing Cats could
be perceived as important agents of rodent pest control,
human perceptions might become more favourable.
There is a strong argument for an in-depth investigation
of all aspects of the Fishing Cats trophic relations at
Koshi Tappu to be included as a priority in a conservation
strategy.
In the longer term, the Fishing Cat population will be
susceptible to any change in the main river course. In a
short period of time after the 1960s the main course of
the river shifted from the western edge of the reserve
to the eastern edge and presumably similar changes
could happen again. At present all of the fishponds
and marshland in the eastern buffer zone rely on water
seepage through the embankment from the immediately
adjacent river as well as an irrigation canal that takes
water from above the reserve. The fishponds might
survive with the canal water but most of the remnant
wetlands would dry out if the river channel moved
westwards. New wetland habitats would form but the
time taken for these to become productive feeding
habitats for the cats would be crucial.

Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | 26 January 2016 | 8(1): 83238332

8331

Status of Fishing Cat In Koshi Tappu Wildlife Reserve, Nepal

REFERENCES
Brashares, J.S., L.R. Prugh, C.J. Stoner & C.W. Epps (2010). Ecological
and conservation implications of mesopredator release, pp. 221240.
In: Terborough, J. & J.A. Estes (eds.). Trophic Cascades: Predators, Prey
and the Changing Dynamics of Nature. Washington, Island Press.
Chhetri, D.T. & J. Pal (2010). Diversity of mammals in and around Koshi
Tappu Wildlife Reserve. Our Nature 8: 254257.
Chettri, N.K., U.S. Chaudhary & E. Sharma (2013). Linking spatiotemporal land cover change to biodiversity conservation in the Koshi
Tappu Wildlife Reserve, Nepal. Diversity 5: 335351.
Cutter, P & P. Cutter (2010). Recent sightings of fishing cats in Thailand.
Cat News 51: 1213.
CSUWN (2009). Baseline Survey, Koshi Tappu Wildlife Reserve.
Kathmandu, Nepal.
Dahal, S. & D.R. Dahal (2011). Trapping of Fishing Cat in Chitwan
National park, Nepal. Cat News 55: 1011.
DNPWC. (2009). Koshi Tappu Wildlife Reserve and Buffer Zone
management Plan 20092013. Government of Nepal, Ministry of
Forests and Soil Conservation, Department of National parks and
Wildlife Conservation, Kathmandu, Nepal.
Duckworth, J.W., T. Stones, R. Tizard, S. Watson & J. Wolstencroft
(2010). Does the fishing cat inhabit Laos? Cat News 52: 47.
Haque, N.M. & V. Vijayan (1993). Food habits of the Fishing Cat Felis
viveririna in Keoladeo national park, Bharatpur, Rajastan. Journal of
the Bombay Natural History Society 90: 498500.
Janardhanan, R., S. Mukherjee, P.V. Karunakaran & R. Athreya
(2014). On the occurrence of the Fishing Cat Prionailurus viverrinus
Bennet, 1833 (Carnivora: Felidae) in coastal Kerala, India. Journal of
Threatened Taxa 6(3): 55695573; http://dx.doi.org/10.11609/JoTT.
o3780.5569-73
Jnawali, S.R., H.S. Baral, S. Lee, K.P. Acharya, G.P. Upadhyay, M. Pandey,
R. Shrestha, D. Joshi, B.R. Laminchhane, J. Griffiths, A.P. Khatiwada,
N. Subedi, & R. Amin (2011). The Status of Nepal Mammals: The
National Red List Series, Department of National Parks and Wildlife
Conservation Kathmandu, Nepal.
Karki, J.B. (2011). Distribution of some small cats in Chitwan National
Park, pp. 1015. In. Dahal, S. & S. Thapa (eds.). Proceedings of Second
Seminar on Small Mammals Issues. Small Mammals Conservation and
Research Foundation, New Baneshwor, Kathmandu, Nepal, 85pp.
Khatri, T.B., D.N. Shah, R.D.T. Shah & N. Mishra (2013). Biodiversity of
Koshi Tappu Wildlife Reserve: A post flood assessment. Journal of
Wetlands Ecology 4: 6982.
LaPoint, S.D., J.L. Belant & R.W. Kays (2014). Mesopredator release
facilitates range expansion in fisher. Animal Conservation 18: 5061.
Lynam, A.J., K.E. Jenks, N. Tantipisanuh, W. chutipong, D. Ngoprasert,
G.A. Gale, R. Steinmetz, R. Sukmasuang, N. Bhumpakphan, L.I.
Grassman, P. Cutter, S. Kitamura, D.H. Reed, M.C. Baker, W. McShea
N. Songsasen & P. Leimgruber (2013). Terrestrial activity patterns of
wild cats from camera-trapping. The Raffles Bulletin of Zoology 61(1):
407415.
Majumder, A., K. Sankar, Q. Qureshi & S. Basu (2011). Food habits and
temporal activity patterns of the Golden Jackal Canis aureus and
the Jungle Cat Felis chaus in Pench Tiger Reserve, Madhya Pradesh,
India. Journal of Threatened Taxa 3(11): 2221-2225; http://dx.doi.
org/10.11609/JoTT.o2713.22215
Melisch, R., P.B. Asmoro, I.R. Lubis & L. Kusumawardhani (1996).
Distribution and status of the Fishing Cat (Prionailurus viverrinus
rhizophoreus Sody, 1936) in West Java, Indonesia (Mammalia:
Carnivora: felidae). Faunistische Abhandlungen. Staatliches Museum
fur Tierkunde Dresden 20(17): 311319.
Mehner, T. (2012). Diel vertical migration of freshwater fishes-proximate
triggers, ultimate cuases and research perspectives. Freshwater
Biology 57: 13421359.
Mishra, R. (2013). Conservation status of the Fishing Cat in Chitwan
National Park, Nepal. MSc. Thesis, Tribhuvan University, Nepal.
Moreno, R.S., R.W. Kays & R. Samudio (2006). Competitive release in
the diets of Ocelot (Leopardus pardalis) and Puma (Puma concolor)
8332

Taylor et al.

after Jaguar (Panthero onca) decline. Journal of Mammalogy 87:


808816.
Mukherjee, S., S.P. Goyal, A.J.T. Johnsingh & M.R.P.L. Pitman (2004).
The importance of rodents in the diet of Jungle Cat (Felis chaus),
Caracal (Caracal caracal) and Golden Jackal (Canis aureus) in Sariska
Tiger Reserve, India. Journal of the Zoological Society of London 262:
405411.
Mukherjee, S., J. Sanderson, W. Duckworth, R. Melisch, J. Khan, A.
Wilting, S. Sunarto & J.G. Howard (2010). Prionailurus viverrinus.
The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2010: e.T18150A7673993.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2008.RLTS.T18150A7673993.en.
Downloaded on 05 January 2016.
Mukherjee, S., T. Adhya, P. Thatte & U. Ramakrishnan (2012). Survey
of the Fishing Cat prionailurus viverrinus Bennett, 1983 (Carnivore:
Felidae) and some aspects impacting its conservation in India. Journal
of Threatened Taxa 4(10): 33553361; http://dx.doi.org/10.11609/
JoTT.o3199.3355-61
Newton, I. (1998). Population Limitation in Birds. Academic Press,
London.
Nowell K. & P. Jackson (1996). Fishing Cat Prionailurus viverrinus. In:
Wild Cats: status survey and conservation Action Plan. IUCN/SSC Cat
Specialist Group, Gland, Switzerland.
Pocock, R.I. (1939).Prionailurus viverrinus, pp. 259264. In:The Fauna
of British India, including Ceylon and Burma. Mammalia - Volume 1.
Taylor and Francis, Ltd., London
Rainy, H.K. & K. Kong (2010). A fishing cat observation from northern
Cambodia. Cat News 52: 89.
Ripple, W.J., A.J. Wirsing, C.C. Wilmers & M. Lentic (2013). Widespread
mesopredator effects aftwer wolf extirpation. Biological Conservation
160: 7079.
Ritchie, E.G. & C.N. Johnson (2009). Predator interactions, mesopredator
release and biodiversity conservation. Ecological Letters 12: 982998.
Roll, U., T. Dayan & N. Kronfeld-Schor (2006). On the role of phylogeny
in determining activity patterns of rodents. Evolutionary Ecology 20:
479490.
Royan, A. (2010). Confirmation of the endangered Fishing Cat in BolumSakar National Park, Cambodia. Cat News 51: 1011.
Sadhu, A. & G.V. Reddy (2013). First evidence of Fishing Cat in the
Ranthambhore Tiger Reserve, Rajasthan, India. Cat News 58: 3637
Sunquist, M. & F. Sunquist (2002). Wild Cats of the World. Chicago,
Chicago University Press.
Sah, J.P. (1997). Koshi Tappu Wetlands: Nepals Ramsar Site. IUCN,
Bangkok.

Threatened Taxa

Author details: Iain R. Taylor, PhD, BSc, has more than 40 years research
experience, mostly at the University of Edinburgh, Scotland. His interests are
in the ecology and behaviour of predator-prey interactions, the conservation of
predators and also in wetland ecology and management. He has been involved
in projects in Nepal for the past 36 years. Hem Sagar Baral has a PhD in Ecology
from the University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands. He has been involved
in wildlife research and conservation for nearly three decades primarily birds
and mammals. In the past he has worked as CEO for BirdLife Nepal, founded
charities like Himalayan Nature and Nepalese Ornithological Union and
supported running of them for a number of years, and very recently appointed
as Country Manager for Zoological Society of London - Nepal Office. Prava
Pandey has MSc in Environmental Science from Tribhuvan University. She has
been involved in wildlife research and conservation for about six years especially
in endangered species of Nepal. In the past she has worked as research officer
for Himalayan Nature. Currently she has been worked as part-time teaching
assistant in Department of Environmental Science, Tribhuvan Univeristy as well
as consultant for other wildlife organization of Nepal. Mrs. Prativa Kaspal has
completed Masters Degree in Environmental Science from Tribhuwan University.
She has been involved in biodiversity conservation especially in wildlife research
and conservation education on the globally threatened species of mammals
and birds of Nepal for more than eight years. She worked as a conservation
officer in a nonprofit organization, Himalayan Nature for more than six years.
Currently together with the team members, she is publishing the first book on
the globally threatened and Critically Endangered Pangolins in Nepal. Besides,
she is working as a part time assistant lecturer in Bhaktapur Multiple Campus,
Tribhuwan University.

Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | 26 January 2016 | 8(1): 83238332

Avifauna of Chamba District, Himachal Pradesh, India with


emphasis on Kalatop-Khajjiar Wildlife Sanctuary and its
surroundings
Tariq Ahmed Shah 1, Vishal Ahuja 2, Martina Anandam 3 & Chelmala Srinivasulu 4
Field Research Division, Wildlife Information Liaison Development (WILD) Society, 96 Kumudham Nagar,
Vilankurichi Road, Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu 641035, India
1,4
Natural History Museum and Wildlife Biology & Taxonomy Lab, Department of Zoology, University College of
Science, Osmania University, Hyderabad, Telangana State 500007, India
4
Systematics, Ecology & Conservation Laboratory, Zoo Outreach Organization (ZOO), 96 Kumudham Nagar, Vilankurichi
Road, Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu 641035, India
1
tariqahmed143@gmail.com, 2 vishal@zooreach.org, 3 martina@zooreach.org,
4
hyd2masawa@gmail.com (corresponding author),
1,2,3

Communication

Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | 26 January 2016 | 8(1): 83338357

ISSN 0974-7907 (Online)


ISSN 0974-7893 (Print)

OPEN ACCESS

Abstract: The avifaunal diversity of Chamba District of Himachal Pradesh with emphasis on Kalatop-Khajjiar Wildlife Sanctuary and its
surrounding was observed for a period of one year between 2012 and 2013. We observed 95 species of birds belonging to 12 orders and
40 families. Of this diversity, 41 species were abundant to common, 34 occasional and 20 rare. Most species were resident (83 species,
including two species whose population increased during winters) and the rest were migrants (including nine winter migrating species and
three summer migrating species). A total of 302 species of birds have been reported from Chamba District between 1884 and present.
Analysis of recent published literature in conjunction with the present study reveals that 178 species of birds have been reported from
Chamba District since 2000. The present study reports 11 new records for the district.
Keywords: Avifauna, Chamba District, checklist, Kalatop-Khajjiar Wildlife Sanctuary, new records.

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.11609/jott.1774.8.1.8333-8357 | ZooBank: urn:lsid:zoobank.org:pub:04535031-8C1A-46A3-B704-237E80666929


Editor: Rajiv S. Kalsi, Department of Zoology, M.L.N. College, Haryana, India.

Date of publication: 26 January 2016 (online & print)

Manuscript details: Ms # 1774 | Received 19 January 2015 | Final received 15 January 2016 | Finally accepted 19 January 2016
Citation: Shah, T.A., V. Ahuja, M. Anandam & C. Srinivasulu (2016). Avifauna of Chamba District, Himachal Pradesh, India with emphasis on Kalatop-Khajjiar Wildlife
Sanctuary and its surroundings. Journal of Threatened Taxa 8(1): 83338357; http://dx.doi.org/10.11609/jott.1774.8.1.8333-8357
Copyright: Shah et al. 2016. Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. JoTT allows unrestricted use of this article in any medium, reproduction
and distribution by providing adequate credit to the authors and the source of publication.
Funding: This study is an offshoot of the Himalayan Langur Project funded by CLP, MBZ and RSG.
Conflict of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest. Funding sources had no role in study design, data collection, results interpretation and manuscript
writing.
Author Details: Tariq A. Shah worked as a researcher in the Himalayan Langur Project funded by CLP, MBZ and RSG and is presently a doctoral student working
on the molecular phylogeny of Rhinopomatids of India at Department of Zoology, Osmania University. Vishal Ahuja worked as a researcher in the Himalayan
Langur Project funded by CLP, MBZ and RSG and is presently working as a Researcher in the conserving livelihood and Semnopithecus ajax project funded by
CLP. Martina Anandam was a researcher with WILD and worked with the Himalayan Langur Project. Her work centers primarily on langurs and community
conservation in the Himalayan biosphere. C. Srinivasulu heads the Wildlife Biology and Taxonomy Lab at Department of Zoology, Osmania University works on
molecular phylogenetics, taxonomy, ecology and biogeography of tetrapods of South Asia.
Author Contribution: CS conceived the study; TAS, VA, MA conducted the field work; CS and TAS identified the birds and wrote the paper.
Acknowledgements: The authors would like to thank Dr. Sanjay Molur, Zoo Outreach Organization and WILD Society, Coimbatore, India for encouragement. We
also thank the PCCF (Wildlife), Himachal Pradesh for study permit. The study is an offshoot of the Conservation Leadership Programme Grant on Himalayan Gray
Langur Project. We also acknowledge the funding received through Ruffords Small Grant Programme and Mohamad Bin Zayed Species Conservation Fund. TAS
and CS thank the Head, Department of Zoology, Osmania University, Hyderabad, Telangana State for facilities.

8333

Birds of Chamba

Shah et al.

INTRODUCTION
Birds play vital roles in an ecosystem as they control
pest populations through predation and scavenging,
pollinate, and disperse seeds, leading to increase in plant
coverage, and are also recognized as biological indicators
(Gregory et al. 2003). Of the 9026 species of birds
distributed across the world, India harbours about 1300
species, belonging to 88 families (Manakadan & Pittie
2001; Rasmussen & Anderton 2005). From the 1900s,
detailed surveys of the Himalayan foothills cataloguing
the birdlife were conducted. The oldest avifaunal surveys
in Chamba District of Himachal Pradesh were conducted
by Marshal (1884) and Littledale (1898), reporting a
number of game birds, like the Cheer Pheasant, Western
Tragopan, Himalayan Monal, Khalij Pheasant and the
Chukor Partridge. The most recent studies of this area
include that of Singh (2011) and Singh & Banyal (2013).
Tak (1987), Mahabal (1992), Thakur et al. (2002), Pandey
(1993) and Thakur (2008) also published notes on bird
diversity in some selected areas of the Chamba District.
The present study deals with the distribution and
status of avifauna of Kalatop-Khajjiar Wildlife Sanctuary
and its surroundings, with observation on birds from
other areas of Chamba District, Himachal Pradesh.

STUDY AREA AND METHODS


The Chamba District (3201130330136N &
75 49077o330E), Himachal Pradesh, India is nestled
in the foothills of the Himalaya, with many rural
settlements distributed sparsely along the hills. Five
wildlife sanctuaries, the Gamgul-Siyabehi Sanctuary
(108.40km2), Kalatop-Khajjiar Sanctuary (17.17km2),
Kugti Sanctuary (379km2), Sechu-Tuan Nalla Sanctuary
(320.29km2) and Tundah Sanctuary are present in
Chamba District (WII 2015).
The present study was conducted in Kalatop-Khajjiar
Wildlife Sanctuary (3203156.4N & 7600218.9E) and
its surroundings including Chamba (3203310.5N &
7600732.6E), Gajnui (3203148.7N & 7600455.1E),
Gate (3203035.9N & 7600412.2E), Talai (3203051.2N
& 7600326.8E) and Jot (3202914.4N & 7600335.4E).
We also made occasional opportunistic surveys in
other parts of Chamba District to document avifaunal
diversity. These areas are located at altitudes ranging
from 1,1852,768 m. The climate is mainly sub-tropical
or temperate, with some areas being sub-arctic. The
mean annual rainfall is about 800mm, mainly during
the monsoon period. During the winter most of the
0

8334

areas remain covered under snow. Temperatures range


from -100C to 350C. The Kalatop-Khajjiar Sanctuary
(notified in 1958) (WII 2015) is located in the west of
Chamba District and is one the oldest preserved forest
of the Himachal Pradesh. The vegetation is mainly moist
Deodar forest and western mixed coniferous forest with
alpine pastures at certain higher elevations (Champion
& Seth 1968). The dominating tree species are Deodar
Cedrus deodara and Blue Pine Pinus wallichiana. Other
common tree species inhabiting the place are Horse
Chestnut Aesculus indica, Rhododendron Rhododendron
arboreum, Oak Quercus ilex and Walnut Juglans regia.
The shrubs comprise of Berberis sp., Prinsepia utilis, Rosa
moschata, Rubus sp., Daphne sp. and Cannabis sativa.
At higher elevations, Himalayan Silver Fir Abies pindrow
and Yew Taxus baccata trees are more common.
The study was conducted from 05 May 2012 to 30
April 2013 and summarizes all the birds sighted. Streams,
forests, grasslands and various potential bird habitats
were explored to study the bird diversity. Surveys were
carried out in early mornings and late evening hours
(as the peak activity of birds lasts 1 or 2 hours after
sunrise and before sunset) (Thakur 2010). Birds were
sighted with the help of field binoculars (Olympus 8x40
magnification) and were photographed with Nikon
D70s and Sony Camera with 70300 mm zoom. Calls
of some birds were also recorded. Identification was
carried out with the help of various field guides like
Ali (1949), Ali & Ripley (1983a,b), and Grimmett et al.
(1999). The nomenclature is after Manakadan & Pittie
(2004), and taxonomic arrangement is following Gill &
Donsker (2014). The data recorded in each survey was
kept separate and thus analyzed for relative abundance
on the basis of frequency of sightings, as per MacKinnon
& Phillips (1993) and Thakur (2008). The birds are
categorized as A - Abundant (sighted more than 50 times),
C - Common (sighted up to ten times), O - Occasional
(sighted five times) and R - Rare (sighted once). Based
on the presence/absence method, residential status
of birds has been computed and different categories
like resident, winter visitor and summer visitor were
assigned.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION


During the year-long study, a total of 95 avian species
belonging to 12 orders and 40 families were recorded
(Table I, Images 195). Of the total species recorded, 19
species have been found to be abundant, 22 common, 34
occasional and 20 rare in occurrence. Eighty-one species

Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | 26 January 2016 | 8(1): 83338357

Birds of Chamba
16
14
No. of species

of birds were resident species, nine species winter


visitors, three species summer visitors and two species
were residents whose population swelled during the
winter season. Only two species of the total belonged
to threatened category of IUCN with most being Least
Concern.
Order-wise analysis showed that Passeriformes (69
species) dominated the avifaunal diversity, followed by
Falconiformes (6 species), Galliformes and Coraciiformes
(4 species each), Piciformes and Columbiformes (3
species each), and Pelecaniformes, Anseriformes,
Charadriiformes, Psittaciformes, Strigiformes and
Apodiformes (1 species each). Family-wise analysis
showed Muscicapidae (15 species) were most
abundant, followed by Corvidae (6 species), Accipitridae
and Motacillidae (5 species each), Phasianidae,
Leiothricidae, Turdidae and Passeridae (4 species each),
Columbidae, Pycnonotidae, Phylloscopidae, Paridae
and Nectariniidae (3 species), Alcedinidae, Picidae,
Campephagidae, Cisticolidae, Sturnidae and Fringillidae
(2 species each), and Phalacrocoracidae, Anatidae,
Falconidae, Scolopacidae, Psittacidae, Strigidae,
Apodidae, Coraciidae, Upupidae, Megalaimidae,
Hirundinidae, Monarchidae, Cinclidae, Prunellidae,
Aegitalidae, Tichodromidae, Certhiidae, Dicaeidae,
Zosteropidae, Emberizidae and Dicruridae represented
by 1 species each (Fig. 1).
An earlier study of birds in Chamba District by Saikia
et al. (2008) in Pangi Valley reports the presence of 62
species belonging to 19 families. Another study on the
avifauna of south-eastern region of the district by Singh
(2011) revealed the presence of 103 species recorded
from Kuther-Batola-Holi-Deol-Nayagaon areas in 2008
2009. A later study of avifauna of Khajjiar Lake by Singh
& Banyal (2013) reported the presence of 77 species of
birds belonging to 31 families. The region from where
Singh (2011) reported bird diversity forms the upper
catchment area of the Ravi River in Chamba District. As
our study pertains to the lower catchment area of the
Ravi River, it is important to compare species sighted
during our study with that of Singh (2011) to understand
the altitudinal variations. As many as 40 species are such
that were reported by Singh (2011) but not sighted by
us (Table 1).
Taking into account the historic records and earlier
studies (see Table 1), a total of 302 species have been
recorded so far from Chamba District, of which 178
species have recorded from 2000 onwards and the rest
(124 species) that have been reported earlier but have
not been observed in the recent years (Table 1). Our
study reports 11 new records for the district: Anser

Shah et al.

12
10
8
6
4
2
0

4
5
Family/Families

Figure 1. Family-wise of birds of Kalatop-Khajjiar Wildlife Sanctuary


and its surroundings in Himachal Pradesh, India.
Key: 1 - Muscicapidae; 2 - Corvidae; 3 - Accipitridae and Motacillidae; 4
- Phasianidae, Leiothricidae, Turdidae and Passeridae; 5 - Columbidae,
Pycnonotidae, Phylloscopidae, Paridae and Nectariniidae; 6
-Alcedinidae, Picidae, Campephagidae, Cisticolidae, Sturnidae
and Fringillidae; and 7 - Phalacrocoracidae, Anatidae, Falconidae,
Scolopacidae, Psittacidae, Strigidae, Apodidae, Coraciidae, Upupidae,
Megalaimidae, Hirundinidae, Monarchidae, Cinclidae, Prunellidae,
Aegitalidae, Tichodromidae, Certhiidae, Dicaeidae, Zosteropidae,
Emberizidae and Dicruridae.

indicus Bar-headed Goose, Streptopelia turtur European


Turtle Dove, Coracias garrulus European Roller, Anthus
hodgsoni Oriental Tree Pipit, Turdus rubrocanus Chestnut
Thrush, Pheonicurus frontalis Blue-fronted Redstart,
Saxicola maurus Asian Stone Chat, Phylloscopus griseolus
Olivaceous Leaf-Warbler, Phylloscopus subviridis Brooks
Leaf Warbler, Dicaeum agile Thick-billed Flowerpecker,
and Passer pyrrhonotus Sind Sparrow.
The important orders with more than five species
recorded during the present study are (i) Passeriformes:
This order is represented by 69 species belonging to 25
families and important among them are Muscicapidae
(15 species), Corvidae (6 species), Motacillidae (5
species), Leiothrichidae, Turdididae, and Passeridae (4
species each), Pycnonotidae, Paridae, Phylloscopidae
and Nectariniidae (3 species each), and Campephagidae,
Cisticolidae, Sturnidae, Fringillidae (2 species each), and
(ii) Falconiformes (this order is represented by six species
belonging to two families, 5 species in Accipitiridae and
1 species in Falconidae).
The annotated checklist of avifauna of Chamba
District with those sighted in Kalatop-Khajjiar Wildlife
Sanctuary and its adjoining areas is provided below:
1. Great Cormorant Phalacrocorax carbo (Linnaeus,
1758)
Occasional. Resident. Two records, one at Khajjiar
Lake and another in Kuranh, near Jamwal Villa in Ravi
River. This species has not been reported by recent
workers in Chamba District. There is a historic record of
this species by Marshal (1884).
2. Bar-headed Goose Anser indicus (Latham, 1790)

Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | 26 January 2016 | 8(1): 83338357

8335

Birds of Chamba

Shah et al.

Occasional. Winter visitor. Recorded near Khajjiar


Lake. This is the first report of this species from Chamba
District.
3. Black Kite Milvus migrans (Boddaert, 1783)
Abundant. Resident/Winter visitor. Recorded in
various places like Gajnui, Chamba, Jot, Talai, Dugli,
Khajjiar, Saun, Chanadu and Miyari. Seen throughout
the year, local populations increase during winter
months. Earlier reported by many, conspicuously absent
from Singh (2011).
4. Shikra Accipiter badius (Gmelin, 1788)
Occasional. Resident. Recorded in Gajnui, Saun and
Gate. This species has not been reported by recent
workers in Chamba District. There is a historic record of
this species by Marshal (1884).
5. Himalayan Griffon Gyps himalayensis (Hume,
1869)
Occasional. Resident. Recorded in Jot, Talai, Dugli
and Mortu. This species has been reported by Saikia et
al. (2008), Singh (2011), Singh & Banyal (2013), but does
not appear in earlier lists.
6. Egyptian Vulture Neophron percnopterus
(Linnaeus, 1758)
Rare. Resident. Recorded near Gajnui. IUCN status Endangered. This species has been reported by Saikia et
al. (2008), Singh (2011), Singh & Banyal (2013), and also
by Thakur et al. (2002).
7. Bearded Vulture Gypaetus barbatus (Linnaeus,
1758)
Rare. Resident. Recorded in Jot. This species has
been reported Saikia et al. (2009) and Singh & Banyal
(2013), but not by Singh (2011) and any of the earlier
workers.
8. Common Kestrel Falco tinnunculus (Linnaeus,
1758)
Occasional. Resident. Recorded in Talai and Mortu.
This species has not been reported by Singh & Banyal
(2013) at Khajjiar Lake, while Saikia et al. (2008) and
Singh (2011) reported its occurrence in Chamba District.
9. Chukor Alectoris chukar (J.E. Gray, 1830)
Rare. Resident. Recorded in Saun. This species has
been earlier reported only by Saikia et al. (2008).
10. Impeyan Monal Lophophorus impejanus
(Latham, 1790)
Occasional. Resident. Recorded in dense forests of
Sallun Dhar at an altitude of 3200 m asl. This species has
been earlier reported only by Singh & Banyal (2013).
11. Kaleej Pheasant Lophura leucomelanos (Latham,
1790)
Common. Resident. Recorded in dense forests of
Gajnui, Saun, Talai, Jot, Miyari, Chamba, Kalatop-Khajjiar
8336

Wildlife Sanctuary and Dugli. This species was also


commonly sighted in forested tracts of Chamba District.
This species has not been reported by Saikia et al. (2008)
and other earlier workers.
12. Koklass Pheasant Pucrasia macrolopha (Lesson,
1829)
Rare. Resident. Recorded in Kalatop-Khajjiar Wildlife
Sanctuary. This species has been earlier reported only
by Singh (2011) and Singh & Banyal (2013).
13. Temmincks Stint Calidris temminckii (Leisler,
1812)
Rare. Summer Visitor. Recorded on the Ravi river bed
in Chamba. This species has been earlier reported only
by Singh (2011).
14. Blue Rock Pigeon Columba livia (Gmelin, 1789)
Abundant. Resident. Present almost everywhere
except in very high altitudes. This species has been
earlier reported only by Saikia et al. (2008) and Singh &
Banyal (2013).
15. European Turtle Dove Streptopelia turtur
(Linnaeus, 1758)
Occasional. Winter Visitor. Recorded in Talai in
pine forests. This is the first report of this species from
Chamba District.
16. Spotted Dove Streptopelia chinensis (Scopoli,
1786)
Common. Resident. Recorded in Gajnui, Saun, Talai,
Dugli and Kalatop-Khajjiar Wildlife Sanctuary. This
species has been historically reported only by Marshal
(1884), missing from all recent checklists.
17. Slaty-headed Parakeet Psittacula himalayana
(Lesson, 1832)
Abundant. Resident. Recorded in Gajnui, Talai,
Kalatop-Khajjiar Wildlife Sanctuary, Saun, Dugli, Jot
and Chamba. This species is common in all the forested
tracts of Chamba District. This species has been earlier
reported only by Singh & Banyal (2013).
18. Asian Barred Owlet Glaucidium cuculoides
(Vigors, 1831)
Occasional. Resident. Recorded near Saun and
Chamba bus stand. This species has been earlier
reported by all workers except Saikia et al. (2008), and
also historically reported by Marshal (1884).
19. House Swift Apus affinis (J.E. Gray, 1830)
Common. Resident. Recorded in plenty in Chamba
township and its surroundings. This species has been
reported by all earlier workers except Saikia et al. (2008)
and Singh (2011).
20. Greater Pied Kingfisher Megaceryle lugubris
(Temminck, 1834)
Occasional. Resident. Recorded in Kiri, Lagga and

Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | 26 January 2016 | 8(1): 83338357

Birds of Chamba

Chamba. This species has been earlier reported by Singh


(2011), and Singh & Banyal (2013).
21. White-breasted Kingfisher Halcyon smyrnensis
(Linnaeus, 1758)
Occasional. Resident. Recorded in Chamba. This
species has not been reported by recent workers, except
Mahabal (1993). Historically, Marshal (1884) reported its
occurrence in the Chamba region.
22. European Roller Coracias garrulus (Linnaeus,
1758)
Rare. Winter Visitor. Recorded in Gajnui. This is the
first report of this species from Chamba District.
23. Common Hoopoe Upupa epops (Linnaeus, 1758)
Occasional, Summer Visitor. Recorded in Gajnui
and Talai. This species has been reported by all recent
workers, except Thakur et al. (2002).
24. Great Barbet Megalaima virens (Boddaert,
1783)
Abundant. Resident. Widely distributed in almost
all forested regions of Chamba District. Calls were also
frequently recorded. This species has been earlier
reported only by Singh & Banyal (2013).
25. Large Scaly-bellied Green Woodpecker Picus
squamatus (Vigors, 1831)
Abundant. Resident. Recorded in Kalatop-Khajjiar
Wildlife Sanctuary, Gajnui, Saun, Talai and Jot. This
species was also observed in other forested tracts of
Chamba District. This species has been reported by all
earlier workers including Mahabal (1993) and Thakur et
al. (2002).
26. Brown-fronted Pied Woodpecker Dendrocopos
auriceps (Vigors, 1831)
Common. Resident. Recorded in Kalatop-Khajjiar
Wildlife Sanctuary, Gajnui, Saun, Talai, Jot and Miyari.
Potential habitat of the bird is pine and quercus forests.
This species has been earlier reported by Mahabal
(1993) and all recent checklists except Singh & Banyal
(2013).
27. Red-rumped Swallow Hirundo daurica
(Linnaeus, 1771)
Abundant. Resident. Recorded in Gajnui, Talai, Saun,
Jot and Chamba township. This species has been earlier
reported only by Singh & Banyal (2013).
28. White Wagtail Motacilla alba (Linnaeus, 1758)
Occasional. Winter Visitor. Recorded in Khajjiar and
Jot. This species was earlier reported by Singh (2011).
29. Large Pied Wagtail Motacilla maderaspatensis
(Gmelin, 1789)
Occasional. Resident. Recorded on the Ravi river
bed in Chamba. This species has been earlier reported
by Singh & Banyal (2013). Historically, Marshal (1884)

Shah et al.

reported its presence in Chamba region.


30. Grey Wagtail Motacilla cinerea (Tunstall, 1771)
Occasional. Winter Visitor. Recorded on the Ravi river
bed in Chamba. This species has been earlier reported
only by Singh (2011).
31. Oriental Tree Pipit Anthus hodgsoni (Richmond,
1907)
Occasional. Resident/Winter visitor. Recorded in
Bhaloli near Chamba township. Seen throughout the
year, local populations increase during winter months.
This species is the first record for the Chamba District.
32. Upland Pipit Anthus sylvanus (Blyth, 1845)
Rare. Resident. Recorded in dry grasslands covered
with stones in Gajnui and Jot areas of Chamba. This
species has been earlier reported only by Singh (2011).
33. Long-tailed Minivet Pericrocotus ethologus
(Bangs & Phillips, 1914)
Rare. Resident. Recorded in Gajnui and Talai area in
pine forests. This species has been earlier reported by
all except Saikia et al. (2008).
34. Scarlet Minivet Pericrocotus flammeus (Forster,
1781)
Rare. Resident. Recorded in Bhaloli near Chamba
township. This species has been earlier reported by
Mahabal (1993) and Saikia et al. (2008).
35. Himalayan Bulbul Pycnonotus leucogenys (Gray,
183)
Abundant. Resident. Recorded in Kalatop-Khajjiar
Wildlife Sanctuary, Jot, Talai, Gate, Saun, Gajnui and
Chamba. This species was also commonly observed in
other parts of Chamba District. This species has been
earlier reported by all except Saikia et al. (2008).
36. Red-vented Bulbul Pycnonotus cafer (Linnaeus,
1766)
Common. Resident. Recorded in Gajnui, Jot, Talai,
Gate, Saun, Dugli and Khajjiar-Kalatop Wildlife Sanctuary.
This species has been earlier reported by Mahabal
(1993), and historically by Marshal (1884).
37. Asian Black Bulbul Hypsipetes leucocephalus
(P.L.S. Muller, 1776)
Abundant. Resident. Recorded in almost all the
forests of Chamba. This species has been earlier reported
only by Singh & Banyal (2013).
38. Brown Dipper Cinclus pallasii (Temminck, 1820)
Occasional, Resident. Recorded in Karpok near a hill
stream. This species has been earlier reported by all
except Singh & Banyal (2013).
39. Rufous-breasted Accentor Prunella strophiata
(Blyth, 1843)
Occasional, Resident. Recorded in Gajnui, Talai,
Saun, Gate, Miyari and Jot. After Marshal (1884), this

Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | 26 January 2016 | 8(1): 83338357

8337

Birds of Chamba

Shah et al.

constitutes the first report of this from Chamba District.


40. Scaly Thrush Zoothera dauma (Latham, 1790)
Rare. Resident. Recorded in pine forests of Talai. This
species has been earlier reported by Mahabal (1993)
and Singh (2011).
41. Chestnut Thrush Turdus rubrocanus (Hodgson,
1846)
Rare. Resident. Recorded in thick mixed forests
of Kaithali. This is the first report of this species from
Chamba District.
42. Dark-throated Thrush Turdus ruficollis (Pallas,
1776)
Rare. Winter Visitor. Recorded near Chanadu. This
species has been earlier reported by Singh (2011).
43. Purple Cochoa purpurea (Hodgson, 1836)
Occasional. Resident. Recorded in Gajnui, Jot,
Khajjiar and Talai. This species has been earlier reported
only by Singh (2011).
44.
Blue-headed
Rock-Thrush
Monticola
cinclorhynchus (Vigors, 1832)
Resident. Summer Visitor. Recorded in Gajnui, Gate
and Saun. This species has been earlier reported only by
Singh & Banyal (2013).
45. Chestnut-bellied Rock-Thrush Monticola
rufiventris (Jardine & Selby, 1833)
Rare. Resident. Recorded in Bandhal. This species
has been earlier reported only by Thakur et al. (2002)
and, Singh & Banyal (2013).
46. Blue Whistling-Thrush Myiophonus caeruleus
(Scopoli, 1786)
Abundant. Resident. Recorded in Gajnui, Talai, Saun,
Gate, Miyari, Jot and Chamba. This species was also
found in other forested tracts of Chamba District. This
species has been earlier reported by all.
47. Oriental Magpie-Robin Copsychus saularis
(Linnaeus, 1758)
Occasional. Resident. Recorded in Gajnui, Jot, Talai
and Chamba. This species has been earlier reported
only by Mahabal (1993).
48.
Blue-capped
Redstart
Phoenicurus
coeruleocephala (Vigors, 1831)
Occasional. Winter Visitor. Recorded in Gajnui, Saun,
Talai, Gate and Kalatop-Khajjiar Wildlife Sanctuary. This
species has been earlier recorded by Singh (2011).
49. Blue-fronted Redstart Phoenicurus frontalis
(Vigors, 1832)
Occasional. Resident. Recorded in Miyari, Saun,
Gajnui and Jot. This is the first report of this species
from Chamba District.
50.
White-capped
Redstart
Phoenicurus
leucocephalus (Vigors, 1831)
8338

Common. Resident. Recorded on the river bed of


Ravi in Chamba, Kuranh, Rathiyar, Jot and Mortu. This
species has been earlier reported by all except Singh
(2011).
51. Plumbeous Redstart Phoenicurus fuliginosus
(Vigors, 1831)
Common. Resident. Recorded near on the river bed
of Ravi in Chamba, Kuranh, Rathiyar, Jot and Mortu. This
species has been earlier reported by all except Singh
(2011).
52. Little Forktail Enicurus scouleri (Vigors, 1832)
Common. Resident. Recorded near streams and
rivers in Gajnui, Rathiyar, Saun, Jot, Bamouth and
Karpok. This species shows affinity to water body. This
species has been earlier reported by all except Singh &
Banyal (2013).
53. Spotted Forktail Enicurus maculatus (Vigors,
1831)
Common. Resident. Recorded in Gajnui, Saun,
Bamouth, and Dugli near streams. This species has been
earlier reported by all except Saikia et al. (2008).
54. Grey Bushchat Saxicola ferrea (Gray, 1846)
Abundant. Resident. Recorded in Gajnui, Talai, Saun,
Gate, Miyari, Dugli, Jot and Kalatop-Khajjiar Wildlife
Sanctuary. This species has been earlier reported by all,
except Saikia et al. (2008).
55. Asian Stonechat Saxicola maurus (Pallas, 1773)
Common. Resident. Recorded in Gajnui, Saun, Gate,
Jot and Kalatop-Khajjiar Wildlife Sanctuary. This is the
first report of this species in Chamba District.
56. Desert Wheatear Oenanthe deserti (Temminck,
1825)
Rare. Winter visitor. Recorded once only in Talai. This
species has been earlier reported by Singh (2011).
57. Ultramarine Flycatcher Ficedula superciliaris
(Jerdon, 1840)
Rare. Resident. Recorded in Gajnui and Bandhal. This
species has been earlier reported by all recent workers
except Singh (2011).
58. Verditer Flycatcher Eumyias thalassina
(Swainson, 1838)
Common. Resident. Recorded in Gajnui, Jot, Khajjiar,
Talai, Miyari and Chanadu. This species was observed
in agriculture fields, orchards and quercus forests. This
species has been earlier reported by all recent workers
except Thakur et al. (2002) and Saikia et al. (2008).
59. Asian Paradise-Flycatcher Terpsiphone paradisi
(Linnaeus, 1758)
Rare. Resident. Recorded in Bandhal. This species
has been earlier reported only by Singh (2011).

Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | 26 January 2016 | 8(1): 83338357

Birds of Chamba

60. Streaked Laughingthrush Garrulax lineatus


(Vigors, 1831)
Abundant. Resident. Recorded in thick shrubrey of
almost all parts of Chamba. This species has been earlier
reported by all recent workers.
61. Variegated Laughingthrush Garrulax variegatus
(Vigors, 1831)
Occasional. Resident. Recorded in Jasorgad and
Gajnui. This species has been earlier reported by all
recent workers except Thakur et al. (2002) and Saikia et
al. (2008).
62. Bar-throated Minla Minla strigula (Hodgson,
1838)
Common. Resident. Recorded in Gajnui, Talai, Jot,
Miyari and Kalatop-Khajjiar Wildlife Sanctuary. This has
been earlier reported by Singh (2011).
63. Rufous Sibia Heterophasia capistrata (Vigors,
1831)
Occasional. Resident. Recorded in Gajnui and
Chanadu. This species has been earlier reported only by
Singh & Banyal (2013).
64. Brown Prinia Prinia crinigera (Hodgson, 1836)
Occasional. Resident. Recorded in meadows of
Gajnui. This species has been earlier been reported by
Singh (2011).
65. Graceful Prinia Prinia gracilis (Lichtenstein,
1823)
Occasional. Resident. Recorded in Gajnui. This
species has not been reported by any recent workers
except historically by Marshal (1884).
66. Olivaceous Leaf-Warbler Phylloscopus griseolus
(Blyth, 1847)
Common. Resident. Recorded in Gajnui, Jot, Talai,
Miyari and Kalatop-Khajjiar Wildlife Sanctuary. This
species was mostly found on Berberis sp. This is the first
report of this species from Chamba District.
67. Brooks Leaf-Warbler Phylloscopus subviridis
(Brooks, 1872)
Abundant. Winter visitor. Recorded in Gajnui, Jot,
Kalatop-Khajjiar Wildlife Sanctuary and Chamba. This
species is commonly found in dense shrubs throughout
Chamba District. This is the first report of this species
from Chamba District.
68. Grey-headed Flycatcher-Warbler Seicercus
xanthoschistos (G.R. Gray & J.E. Gray, 1846)
Common. Resident. Recorded in Gajnui, Jot, Talai,
Miyari and Kalatop-Khajjiar Wildlife Sanctuary. This
species was mostly found on Berberis sp. This species
has been earlier reported only by Singh (2011).
69. Black-throated Tit Aegithalos concinnus (Gould,
1855)

Shah et al.

Abundant. Resident. Recorded throughout the


Chamba District. This species has been earlier reported
by all recent workers, except Saikia et al. (2008).
70. Spot-winged Crested Tit Parus melanolophus
(Vigors, 1831)
Occasional. Resident. Recorded in Dugli, Talai and
Jot. This species has been earlier reported by all recent
workers.
71. Great Tit Parus major (Linnaeus, 1758)
Common. Resident. Recorded in Gajnui, Jot, Talai
and in almost all parts of Chamba. This species has been
earlier reported by all recent workers including Thakur
et al. (2002).
72. Green-backed Tit Parus monticolus (Vigors,
1831)
Common. Resident. Recorded in Gajnui, Jot, Talai,
Dugli, Miyari, Chanadu and Kalatop-Khajjiar Wildlife
Sanctuary. Found in shrubs near hill streams. This
species has been earlier reported by all recent workers.
73. Wallcreeper Tichodroma muraria (Linnaeus,
1766)
Occasional. Resident. Recorded in Mortu and Kodul.
This species has been earlier reported only by Saikia et
al. (2008).
74. Bar-tailed Tree-Creeper Certhia himalayana
(Vigors, 1831)
Occasional. Resident. Recorded in Gajnui, Dugli, Gate
and Khajjiar. This species has been earlier reported only
by Singh & Banyal (2013).
75. Thick-billed Flowerpecker Dicaeum agile
(Tickell, 1833)
Occasional. Resident. Recorded in Gajnui, Gate,
Chanadu, Miyari and Jot. This is the first report of this
species from Chamba District.
76. Purple Sunbird Nectarinia asiatica (Latham,
1790)
Occasional. Resident. Recorded in Bhandal. This
species has been earlier reported only by Mahabal
(1993), and historically by Marshal (1884).
77. Crimson sunbird Aethopyga siparaja (Raffles,
1822)
Occasional. Resident. Recorded in Gajnui and
Bhandal. This species has been earlier reported by
Mahabal (1993), Singh (2011), and historically by
Marshal (1884).
78. Fire-tailed Sunbird Aethopyga ignicauda
(Hodgson, 1836)
Rare. Resident. Recorded in Bhandal. This species
has been earlier reported only by Singh (2011), and
historically by Marshal (1884).
79. Oriental White-eye Zosterops palpebrosus

Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | 26 January 2016 | 8(1): 83338357

8339

Birds of Chamba

Shah et al.

(Temminck, 1824)
Common. Resident. Recorded in Gajnui, Gate, Talai
and Jot. This species has been earlier reported by all
recent workers, except Saikia et al. (2008).
80. Rock Bunting Emberiza cia (Linnaeus, 1766)
Occasional. Resident. Recorded in Gajnui, Talai and
Jot. This species has been earlier reported by all recent
workers.
81. Scarlet Rosefinch Carpodacus erythrinus (Pallas,
1770)
Occasional. Resident. Recorded in Gajnui, Jot,
Rathiyar and Talai. This species has been earlier reported
by all recent workers except Singh & Banyal (2013).
82. Pink-browed Rosefinch Carpodacus rhodochroa
(Vigors, 1831)
Occasional. Resident. Recorded in Gajnui, Talai,
Rathiyar and Jot. This species has been earlier reported
only by Singh (2011).
83. House Sparrow Passer domesticus (Linnaeus,
1758)
Abundant. Resident. Recorded in Gajnui, Gate, Talai,
Dugli and Saun. This species has been earlier reported
by all recent workers.
84. Sind Sparrow Passer pyrrhonotus (Blyth, 1844)
Common. Resident. Recorded in Chalei, Gajnui, Saun
and Gate. This is the first report of this species from
Chamba District.
85. Russet Sparrow Passer rutilans Temminck,
(1835)
Abundant. Resident. Recorded in Gajnui, Saun, Talai,
Dugli, Gate and Kalatop-Khajjiar Wildlife Sanctuary. This
species has been earlier reported by all recent workers
except Singh (2011).
86. Eurasian Tree Sparrow Passer montanus
(Linnaeus, 1758)
Abundant. Resident. Recorded in Gajnui, Jot, Talai,
Saun, Gate, Dugli and Jot. Saun has good population of
this species. This species has not been earlier reported
by any recent workers. Historically, Marshal (1884)
reported its occurrence in Chamba region.
87. Common Myna Acridotheres tristis (Linnaeus,
1766)
Abundant. Resident. Recorded in many areas of the
Chamba District. This species has been earlier reported
by all workers except Saikia et al. (2008).
88. Jungle Myna Acridotheres fuscus (Wagler, 1827)
Rare. Resident. Recorded in Chamba. This species
has been earlier reported by all recent workers except
Saikia et al. (2008).
89. Bronzed Drongo Dicrurus aeneus (Vieillot, 1817)
Common. Resident. Recorded in Gajnui, Rathiyar,
8340

Chamba, Saun and Jot. This species has been earlier


reported only by Singh (2011).
90. Black-headed Jay Garrulus lanceolatus (Vigors,
1831)
Common. Resident. Recorded in Kalatop-Khajjiar
Wildlife Sanctuary, Gajnui, Saun, Talai, Gate and Tissa.
This species has been earlier reported by all recent
workers.
91. Yellow-billed Blue Magpie Urocissa flavirostris
(Blyth, 1846)
Abundant. Resident. Recorded in Kalatop-Khajjiar
Wildlife Sanctuary, Gajnui, Saun, Talai, Dugli, Gate,
Miyari, Chanadu and Bhandal. This species has been
earlier reported only by Singh & Banyal (2013).
92. Indian Treepie Dendrocitta vagabunda (Latham,
1790)
Common. Resident. Recorded in Chamba and Gajnui.
This species has been earlier reported by Mahabal
(1993) and Singh (2011).
93. Grey Treepie Dendrocitta formosae (Swinhoe,
1863)
Common. Resident. Recorded in Daresh, Chiplodu
and Gajnui. This species has been earlier reported only
by Singh & Banyal (2013).
94. Spotted Nutcracker Nucifraga caryocatactes
(Linnaeus, 1758)
Rare. Resident. Recorded in Bairagad. This species
has been earlier reported only by Singh (2011).
95. Jungle Crow Corvus macrorhynchos (Wagler,
1827)
Abundant, Resident. Recorded in many areas of the
Chamba District. This species has been earlier reported
by all recent workers.
REFERENCES
Ali, S. & S.D. Ripley (1983a). Handbook of Birds of India and Pakistan.
2nd Edition. Vol. 1 to 10. Oxford University Press, New Delhi, 3121pp.
Ali, S. & S.D. Ripley (1983b). A Pictorial Guide to the Birds of the Indian
Sub-continent. Bombay Natural History Society & Oxford University
Press, Bombay, 183pp.
Ali, S. (1949). Indian Hill Birds. Oxford University Press, Bombay, 188pp.
Champion, H.G. & S.K. Seth (1968). A Revised Survey of the Forest
Types of India. Govt. of India Press, New Delhi, xxvii+404pp.
Gill, F. & D. Donsker (Eds) (2014). IOC World Bird List (v 4.1). doi:
10.14344/IOC.ML.4.1. Accessed in March 2014 at: http://www.
worldbirdnames.org/
Grimmett, R., C. Inskipp & T. Inskipp (1999). Pocket Guide to the Birds
of the Indian Subcontinent. Oxford University Press, New Delhi,
384pp.
Littledale, H. (1898). Camping in Chamba. Journal of the Bombay
Natural History Society 11(3): 482505.
Marshal, C.H.T. (1884). Notes on the Birds of Chamba, in the N.W
Himalayas. Ibis 26(4): 404425; http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1474919X.1884.tb01175.x

Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | 26 January 2016 | 8(1): 83338357

Birds of Chamba

Shah et al.

Table 1 Birds of Chamba District, Himachal Pradesh, India


Species

Present
study

Singh & Banyal


(2013)

Singh
(2011)

Saikia et al.
(2008)

Thakur et al.
(2002)

Earlier reports

Marshal (1884)

Podicepidiformes: Podicepedidae
1

Tachybaptus ruficollis Little Grebe

Pelecaniformes: Phalacrocoracidae
2

Phalacrocorax carbo Great Cormorant

Marshal (1884)

Phalacrocorax niger Little Cormorant

Marshal (1884)

Ciconiiformes: Ardeidae
4

Ardea cinerea Grey Heron

Bubulcus ibis Cattle Egret

Botaurus stellaris Great Bittern

Marshal (1884)

Anseriformes: Anatidae
7

Anser indicus Bar-headed Goose

Anas crecca Common Teal

Marshal (1884)

Anas platyrhynchos Mallard

Marshal (1884)

10

Anas strepera Gadwall

Marshal (1884)

11

Anas penelope Eurasian Wigeon

Marshal (1884)

12

Anas clypeata Northern Shoveler

Marshal (1884)

13

Aythya nyroca Ferruginous Pochard

Marshal (1884)

Falconiformes: Accipitridae
14

Accipiter gentilis Northern Goshawk

Marshal (1884)

15

Milvus migrans Black Kite

Marshal (1884),
Mahabal (1992)

16

Accipiter badius Shikra

Marshal (1884)

17

Buteo rufinus Long-legged Buzzard

Marshal (1884)

18

Accipiter nisus Eurasian Sparrow-Hawk

Marshal (1884)

19

Buteo buteo Common Buzzard

20

Spizaetus nipalensis Mountain Hawk Eagle

Marshal (1884)

21

Hieraateus fasciatus Bonellis Eagle

Marshal (1884)

22

Aquila chrysaetos Golden Eagle

Marshal (1884)

23

Aquila heliaca Imperial Eagle

Marshal (1884)

24

Ictinaetus malayensis Black Eagle

25

Sarcogyps calvus Red-headed Vulture

Marshal (1884)

26

Aegypius monachus Cinereous Vulture

Marshal (1884)

27

Gyps fulvus Eurasian Griffon

28

Gyps himalayensis Himalayan Griffon

29

Gyps bengalensis White-rumped Vulture

Mahabal (1993)

30

Neophron percnopterus Egyptian Vulture

31

Gypaetus barbatus Bearded Vulture

32

Spilornis cheela Crested Serpent-Eagle

Marshal (1884)

Falconidae
33

Falco subbuteo Eurasian Hobby

Marshal (1884)

34

Falco tinnunculus Common Kestrel

Galliformes: Phasianidae
35

Tetraogallus himalayensis Himalayan


Snowcock

Marshal (1884)

36

Alectoris chukar Chukar

Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | 26 January 2016 | 8(1): 83338357

8341

Birds of Chamba

Shah et al.

Species

Present
study

Singh & Banyal


(2013)

Singh
(2011)

Saikia et al.
(2008)

Thakur et al.
(2002)

Earlier reports

37

Francolinus francolinus Black Francolin

Marshal (1884)

38

Perdicula asiatica Jungle Bush-Quail

Marshal (1884)

39

Arborophila torqueola Hill Partridge

40

Tragopan melanocephalus Western


Tragopan

Marshal (1884),
Littledale (1898),
Tak (1987), Katoch
et al. (1997)

41

Lophophorus impejanus Impeyan Monal

42

Lophura leucomelanos Kaleej Pheasant

43

Gallus gallus Red Junglefowl

Marshal (1884)

44

Pucrasia macrolopha Koklass Pheasant

45

Catreus wallichii Cheer Pheasant

Littledale (1898),
Ripley (1961)

Marshal (1884)

Turnicidae
46

Turnix sp. Buttonquail

Gruiiformes: Rallidae
47

Gallinula chloropus Common Moorhen

Marshal (1884)

48

Fulica atra Common Coot

Marshal (1884)

Marshal (1884)

Charadiriiformes: Jacanidae
49

Hydrophasianus chirurgus Pheasant-tailed


Jacana

Recurvirostridae
50

Himantopus himantopus Black-winged Stilt

Charadriidae
51

Vanellus indicus Red-wattled Lapwing

Marshal (1884)

52

Vanellus duvaucelii River Lapwing

Marshal (1884)

Scolopacidae
53

Tringa glareola Wood Sandpiper

Marshal (1884)

54

Actitis hypoleucos Common Sandpiper

Marshal (1884)

55

Gallinago solitaria Solitary Snipe

Marshal (1884)

56

Gallinago nemoricola Wood Snipe

Marshal (1884)

57

Gallinago gallinago Common Snipe

Marshal (1884)

58

Scolopax rusticola Eurasian Woodcock

Marshal (1884),
Littledale (1898)

59

Calidris temminckii Temmincks Stint

60

Chlidonias hybridus Whiskered Tern

Marshal (1884)

61

Sterna hirundo Common Tern

Marshal (1884)

Treron sphenura Wedge-tailed GreenPigeon

Marshal (1884)

63

Columba leuconota Snow Pigeon

64

Columba rupestris Hill Pigeon

Marshal (1884)

Laridae

Columbiformes: Columbidae
62

65

Columba livia Blue Rock Pigeon

66

Columba eversmanni Yellow-eyed Pigeon

Marshal (1884)

67

Columba palumbus Common Wood Pigeon

Marshal (1884)

68

Columba hodgsonii Speckled Wood Pigeon

69

Streptopelia turtur European Turtle-Dove

70

Streptopelia orientalis Oriental Turtle Dove

8342

Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | 26 January 2016 | 8(1): 83338357

Birds of Chamba

Shah et al.
Present
study

Singh & Banyal


(2013)

Singh
(2011)

Saikia et al.
(2008)

Thakur et al.
(2002)

Earlier reports

71

Streptopelia decaocto Eurasian Collared


Dove

Marshal (1884)

72

Streptopelia tranquebarica Red CollaredDove

Marshal (1884)

73

Streptopelia chinensis Spotted Dove

Marshal (1884)

Species

Psittaciformes: Psittacidae
74

Psittacula krameri Rose-ringed Parakeet

Mahabal (1992)

75

Psittacula cyanocephala Plum-headed


Parakeet

Mahabal (1993)

76

Psittacula himalayana Slaty-headed


Parakeet

Cuculiformes: Cuculidae
77

Hierococcyx sparverioides Large HawkCuckoo

Mahabal (1993)

78

Cuculus micropterus Indian Cuckoo

Marshal (1884)

79

Cuculus canorus Common Cuckoo

Marshal (1884)

80

Eudynamys scolopacea Indian Koel

Mahabal (1993)

81

Phaenicophaeus leschenaultii Sirkeer


Malkoha

Marshal (1884)

82

Centropus sinensis Greater Coucal

Marshal (1884)

Strigiformes: Strigidae
83

Otus spilocephalus Mountain Scops Owl

Marshal (1884)

84

Otus sunia Oriental Scops Owl

Marshal (1884)

85

Otus bakkamoena Collared Scops Owl

Marshal (1884)

86

Bubo coromandus Dusky Eagle-Owl

Marshal (1884)

87

Glaucidium brodiei Collared Owlet

Marshal (1884)

88

Glaucidium cuculoides Asian Barred Owlet

Marshal (1884)

89

Strix leptogrammica Brown Wood Owl

Marshal (1884)

90

Asio otus Long-eared Owl

Marshal (1884)

Caprimulgiformes: Caprimulgidae
91

Caprimulgus macrurus Large-tailed Nightjar

Marshal (1884)

92

Caprimulgus affinis Savannah Nightjar

Marshal (1884)

Apodiformes: Apodidae
93

Collocalia brevirostris Himalayan Swiftlet

94

Apus melba Alpine Swift

95

Apus apus Common swift

96

Apus pallidus Pallid Swift

Marshal (1884)

97

Apus pacificus Fork-tailed Swift

Marshal (1884)

98

Apus affinis House Swift

Marshal (1884)

Megaceryle lugubris Greater Pied


Kingfisher

Marshal (1884)

100

Alcedo atthis Common Kingfisher

Marshal (1884)

101

Halcyon smyrnensis White-breasted


Kingfisher

Marshal (1884),
Mahabal (1993)

Mahabal (1993)

Coraciiformes: Alcedinidae
99

Meropidae
102

Merops orientalis Little Green Bee-eater

Coraciidae
103

Coracias garrulous European Roller

Upupidae

Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | 26 January 2016 | 8(1): 83338357

8343

Birds of Chamba

Shah et al.

Species
104

Upupa epops Common Hoopoe

Present
study

Singh & Banyal


(2013)

Singh
(2011)

Saikia et al.
(2008)

Thakur et al.
(2002)

Earlier reports

Piciformes: Megalaimidae
105

Megalaima virens Great Barbet


Megalaima asiatica Blue-throated Barbet

Marshal (1884),
Mahabal (1993)

107

Jynx torquilla Eurasian Wryneck

Marshal (1884)

108

Picus squamatus Large Scaly-bellied Green


Woodpecker

Mahabal (1993)

109

Picus canus Black-naped Green


Woodpecker

Mahabal (1993)

110

Dinopium benghalense Black-rumped


Flameback

Marshal (1884)

111

Dendrocopos himalayensis Himalayan Pied


Woodpecker

112

Dendrocopos auriceps Brown-fronted Pied


Woodpecker

Mahabal (1993)

113

Dendrocopos macei Fulvous-breasted


Woodpecker

Marshal (1884)

114

Dendrocopos mahrattensis Yellow-crowned


Woodpecker

Marshal (1884)

Marshal (1884)

106
Picidae

Passeriformes: Alaudidae
115

Alauda gulgula Oriental Skylark

Hirundinidae
116

Hirundo rupestris Eurasian Crag Martin

Marshal (1884)

117

Hirundo rustica Barn Swallow

Mahabal (1993)

118

Hirundo smithii Wire-tailed Swallow

Marshal (1884)

119

Hirundo daurica Red-rumped Swallow

Marshal (1884)

120

Delichon nipalensis Northern House Martin

Marshal (1884)

Motacillidae
121

Motacilla alba White Wagtail

122

Motacilla maderaspatensis Large Pied


Wagtail

Marshal (1884)

123

Motacilla citreola Citrine Wagtail

Marshal (1884)

124

Motacilla flava Yellow Wagtail

125

Motacilla cinerea Grey Wagtail

126

Anthus rufulus Paddyfield Pipit

Marshal (1884)

127

Anthus campestris Tawny Pipit

Mahabal (1993)

128

Anthus trivialis Tree Pipit

Marshal (1884)

129

Anthus hodgsoni Oriental Tree Pipit

130

Anthus sylvanus Upland Pipit

Campephagidae
131

Coracina melaschistos Black-winged


Cuckooshrike

Marshal (1884)

132

Pericrocotus cinnamomeus Small Minivet

Mahabal (1993)

133

Pericrocotus ethologus Long-tailed Minivet

134

Pericrocotus flammeus Scarlet Minivet

Mahabal (1993)

Marshal (1884),
Mahabal (1993)

Pycnonotidae
135
136

8344

Pycnonotus leucogenys Himalayan Bulbul


Pycnonotus cafer Red-vented Bulbul

Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | 26 January 2016 | 8(1): 83338357

Birds of Chamba

Shah et al.
Present
study

Singh & Banyal


(2013)

Singh
(2011)

Saikia et al.
(2008)

Thakur et al.
(2002)

Hypsipetes leucocephalus Asian Black


Bulbul

Lanius vittatus Bay-backed Shrike

Marshal (1884)

Species
137

Earlier reports

Laniidae
138
139

Lanius tephronotus Grey-backed Shrike

Marshal (1884)

140

Lanius schach Long-tailed Shrike

141

Lanius meridionalis Southern Grey Shrike

Marshal (1884)

Cinclidae
142

Cinclus pallasii Brown Dipper

Troglodytidae
143

Troglodytes troglodytes Winter Wren

Prunellidae
144

Prunella collaris Alpine Accentor

145

Prunella himalayana Altai Accentor

Marshal (1884)

146

Prunella strophiata Rufous-breasted


Accentor

Marshal (1884)

Zoothera citrina Orange-headed Thrush

Marshal (1884)

Turdidae
147
148

Zoothera mollissima Plain-backed Thrush

Marshal (1884)

149

Zoothera dauma Scaly Thrush

Mahabal (1993)

150

Turdus unicolor Tickells Thrush

Marshal (1884)

151

Turdus albocinctus White-collared Blackbird

Marshal (1884)

152

Turdus boulboul Grey-winged Blackbird

Marshal (1884)

153

Turdus merula Eurasian Blackbird

Marshal (1884),
Mahabal (1993)

154

Turdus rubrocanus Chestnut Thrush

155

Turdus ruficollis Dark-throated Thrush

156

Turdus viscivorus Mistle Thrush

Marshal (1884)

157

Cochoa purpurea Purple Cochoa

Muscicapidae
158

Monticola cinclorhynchus Blue-headed


Rock-Thrush

159

Monticola rufiventris Chestnut-bellied


Rock-Thrush

160

Monticola solitarius Blue Rock Thrush

Marshal (1884)

161

Myophonus caeruleus Blue WhistlingThrush

162

Luscinia pectoralis White-tailed Rubythroat

163

Luscinia brunnea Indian Blue Robin

164

Tarsiger cyanurus Orange-flanked Bush


Robin

165

Tarsiger chrysaeus Golden Bush Robin

Marshal (1884)

166

Copsychus saularis Oriental Magpie-Robin

Mahabal (1993)

167

Saxicoloides fulicata Indian Robin

Mahabal (1993)

168

Phoenicurus coeruleocephala Blue-capped


Redstart

169

Phoenicurus ochruros Black Redstart

Mahabal (1993)

170

Phoenicurus erythrogaster White-winged


Redstart

Marshal (1884),
Mahabal (1993)

171

Phoenicurus frontalis Blue-fronted Redstart

Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | 26 January 2016 | 8(1): 83338357

8345

Birds of Chamba

Shah et al.
Present
study

Singh & Banyal


(2013)

Singh
(2011)

Saikia et al.
(2008)

Thakur et al.
(2002)

172

Phoenicurus leucocephalus White-capped


Redstart

173

Pheonicurus fuliginosus Plumbeous


Redstart

174

Enicurus scouleri Little Forktail

175

Enicurus maculatus Spotted Forktail

176

Saxicola torquata Common Stonechat

177

Saxicola caprata Pied Bushchat

178

Saxicola ferrea Grey Bushchat

179

Saxicola maurus Asian Stonechat

Species

Earlier reports

180

Oenanthe picata Variable Wheatear

Marshal (1884)

181

Oenanthe deserti Desert Wheatear

182

Muscicapa sibirica Dark-sided Flycatcher

183

Muscicapa latirostris Brown Flycatcher

Mahabal (1993)

184

Ficedula strophiata Rufous-gorgeted


Flycatcher

185

Ficedula westermanni Little Pied Flycatcher

186

Ficedula hyperythra Snowy-browed


Flycatcher

Marshal (1884)

187

Ficedula superciliaris Ultramarine


Flycatcher

188

Ficedula tricolor Slaty-blue Flycatcher

189

Eumyias thalassina Verditer Flycatcher

190

Niltava sundara Rufous-bellied Niltava

Marshal (1884)

191

Cyornis rubeculoides Blue-throated


Flycatcher

Marshal (1884)

Monarchidae
192

Terpsiphone paradisi Asian ParadiseFlycatcher

Rhipiduridae
193

Rhipidura hypoxantha Yellow-bellied Fantail

194

Rhipidura albicollis White-throated Fantail

Stenostiridae
195

Culicicapa ceylonensis Grey-headed Canary


Flycatcher

Timaliidae
196

Pomatorhinus erythrogenys Rusty-cheeked


Scimitar Babbler

Marshal (1884)

197

Stachyridopsis pyrrhops Black-chinned


Babbler

Leiothrichidae
198

Garrulax albogularis White-throated


Laughingthrush

Marshal (1884)

199

Garrulax leucolophus White-crested


Laughingthrush

Marshal (1884)

200

Garrulax rufogularis Rufous-chinned


Laughingthrush

Marshal (1884)

201

Garrulax lineatus Streaked Laughingthrush

202

Garrulax variegatus Variegated


Laughingthrush

203

Garrulax erythrocephalus Red-headed


Laughingthrush

Marshal (1884)

204

Minla strigula Bar-throated Minla

205

Heterophasia capistrata Rufous Sibia

8346

Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | 26 January 2016 | 8(1): 83338357

Birds of Chamba

Shah et al.

Species
206

Leiothrix lutea Red-billed Leiothrix

Present
study

Singh & Banyal


(2013)

Singh
(2011)

Saikia et al.
(2008)

Thakur et al.
(2002)

Earlier reports

Mahabal (1993)

Marshal (1884)

Pnoepygidae
207

Pnoepyga immaculata Nepal Wren Babbler

Cisticolidae
208

Prinia atrogularis Hill Prinia

209

Prinia buchanani Rufous-fronted Prinia

Marshal (1884)

210

Prinia crinigera Brown Prinia

211

Prinia gracilis Graceful Prinia

Marshal (1884)

212

Orthotomus sutorius Common Tailorbird

Marshal (1884),
Mahabal (1993)

Cettiidae
213

Tesia castaneocoronata Chestnut-headed


Tesia

214

Cettia pallidipes Pale-footed Bush Warbler

Marshal (1884)

215

Cettia fortipes Brownish Flanked Bush


Warbler

216

Cettia brunnifrons Grey-sided Bush warbler

Marshal (1884)

217

Abroscopus superciliaris Yellowish-bellied


Warbler

Marshal (1884)

Phylloscopidae
218

Phylloscopus collybita Common Chiffchaff

Mahabal (1993)

219

Phylloscopus affinis Tickells Leaf Warbler

220

Phylloscopus griseolus Olivaceous LeafWarbler

221

Phylloscopus maculipennis Ashy-throated


Warbler

222

Phylloscopus chloronotus Lemon-rumped


Warbler

223

Phylloscopus subviridis Brooks LeafWarbler

224

Phylloscopus inornatus Yellow-browed


Warbler

Marshal (1884)

225

Phylloscopus humei Humes Warbler

226

Phylloscopus trochiloides Greenish LeafWarbler

Marshal (1884)

227

Phylloscopus magnirostris Large-billed Leaf


Warbler

228

Phylloscopus occipitalis Western-crowned


Leaf Warbler

229

Phylloscopus reguloides Blyths Leaf


Warbler

Marshal (1884)

230

Seicercus burkii Gold-spectacled FlycatcherWarbler

231

Seicercus whistleri Whistlers Warbler

232

Seicercus xanthoschistos Grey-headed


Flycatcher-Warbler

Acrocephalus agricola Paddy-field Warbler

Marshal (1884)

Sylvia curruca Lesser Whitethroat

Acrocephalidae
233
Sylviidae
234

Regulidae
235

Regulus regulus Goldcrest

Aegithalidae
236

Aegithalos concinnus Black-throated


Bushtit

Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | 26 January 2016 | 8(1): 83338357

8347

Birds of Chamba

Shah et al.

Species

Present
study

Singh & Banyal


(2013)

Singh
(2011)

Saikia et al.
(2008)

Thakur et al.
(2002)

Earlier reports

Marshal (1884)

Paridae
237

Cephalopyrus flammiceps Fire-capped Tit

238

Sylviparus modestus Yellow-browed Tit

Marshal (1884)

239

Parus rufonuchalis Rufous-naped Tit

240

Parus melanolophus Spot-winged Crested


Tit

241

Parus dichrous Grey-crested Tit

242

Parus major Great Tit

243

Parus monticolus Green-backed Tit

244

Parus xanthogenys Black-lored Tit

Marshal (1884)

Sittidae
245

Sitta cashmirensis Kashmir Nuthatch

Marshal (1884)

246

Sitta himalayensis White-tailed Nuthatch

Marshal (1884)

247

Sitta leucopsis White-cheeked Nuthatch

Tichodromidae
248

Tichodroma muraria Wallcreeper

Certhiidae
249

Certhia familiaris Eurasian Treecreeper

250

Certhia himalayana Bar-tailed Treecreeper

Dicaeidae
251

Dicaeum agile Thick-billed Flowerpecker

252

Dicaeum erythrorhynchos Pale-billed


Flowerpecker

Mahabal (1993)

253

Dicaeum ignipectus Fire-breasted


Flowerpecker

Family Nectariniidae
254

Nectarinia asiatica Purple Sunbird

Marshal (1884),
Mahabal (1993)

255

Aethopyga siparaja Crimson Sunbird

Marshal (1884),
Mahabal (1993)

256

Aethopyga ignicauda Fire-tailed Sunbird

Marshal (1884)

Zosteropidae
257

Zosterops palpebrosus Oriental White-eye

258

Yuhina flavicollis Whiskered Yuhina

Marshal (1884)

Emberizidae
259

Emberiza lathami Crested Bunting

260

Emberiza cia Rock Bunting

261

Emberiza pusilla Little Bunting

Marshal (1884)

262

Emberzia stewarti White-capped Bunting

Fringillidae
263

Serinus pusillus Fire-fronted Serin

264

Carduelis spinoides Yellow-breasted


Greenfinch

265

Carduelis carduelis European Goldfinch

266

Leucosticte nemoricola Plain Mountain


Finch

267

Callacanthis burtoni Spectacled Finch

Marshal (1884)

268

Carpodacus nipalensis Dark-breasted


Rosefinch

269

Carpodacus erythrinus Scarlet Rosefinch

8348

Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | 26 January 2016 | 8(1): 83338357

Birds of Chamba

Shah et al.
Present
study

Singh & Banyal


(2013)

Singh
(2011)

Saikia et al.
(2008)

Thakur et al.
(2002)

270

Carpodacus rhodochroa Pink-browed


Rosefinch

271

Carpodacus puniceus Red-fronted


Rosefinch

Marshal (1884)

272

Pyrrhula aurantiaca Orange Bullfinch

Marshal (1884)

273

Pyrrhula erythrocephala Red-headed


Bullfinch

274

Mycerobas icterioides Black-and-Yellow


Grosbeak

275

Mycerobas melanozanthos Spot-winged


Grosbeak

Marshal (1884),
Mahabal (1993)

Species

Earlier reports

Passeridae
276

Passer domesticus House Sparrow

277

Passer pyrrhonotus Sind Sparrow

278

Passer rutilans Russet Sparrow

279

Passer montanus Eurasian Tree Sparrow

Marshal (1884)

280

Petronia xanthocollis Chestnut-shouldered


Petronia

Marshal (1884)

Estrildidae
281

Amandava amandava Red Avadavat

Mahabal (1993)

282

Lonchura punctulata Scaly-breasted Munia

Mahabal (1993)

Sturnidae
283

Sturnus pagodarum Brahminy Starling

Marshal (1884),
Mahabal (1993)

284

Sturnus vulgaris Common Starling

Marshal (1884)

285

Acridotheres tristis Common Myna

Marshal (1884),
Mahabal (1993)

286

Acridotheres fuscus Jungle Myna

Marshal (1884),
Mahabal (1992)

Oriolidae
287

Oriolus oriolus Eurasian Golden Oriole

Dicruridae
288

Dicrurus macrocercus Black Drongo

Mahabal (1993)

289

Dicrurus leucophaeus Ashy Drongo

Marshal (1884)

290

Dicrurus aeneus Bronzed Drongo

291

Garrulus glandarius Eurasian Jay

292

Garrulus lanceolatus Black-headed Jay

293

Urocissa flavirostris Yellow-billed Blue


Magpie

294

Urocissa erythrorhyncha Red-billed Blue


Magpie

295

Dendrocitta vagabunda Indian Treepie

Mahabal (1993)

296

Dendrocitta formosae Grey Treepie

297

Pica pica Eurasian Magpie

Marshal (1884),
Mahabal (1993)

298

Nucifraga caryocatactes Spotted


Nutcracker

299

Pyrrhocorax pyrrhocorax Red-billed Chough

300

Pyrrhocorax graculus Yellow-billed Chough

Corvidae

301

Corvus splendens House Crow

Mahabal (1993)

302

Corvus macrorhynchos Jungle Crow

Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | 26 January 2016 | 8(1): 83338357

8349

Birds of Chamba

Shah et al.
Tariq Ahmed Shah

Tariq Ahmed Shah

Image 2. Bar-headed Goose Anser indicus


Image 1. Great Cormorant
Phalacrocorax carbo

Gandla Chethan Kumar

Tariq Ahmed Shah

Image 3. Black Kite Milvus migrans


Gandla Chethan Kumar

Image 6. Egyptian Vulture


Neophron percnopterus

Image 7. Bearded Vulture


Gypaetus barbatus
Tariq Ahmed Shah

Image 5. Himalayan Griffon


Gyps himalayensis

Tariq Ahmed Shah

Image 9. Chukar Alectoris chukar

Martina Anandam

Image 11. Kaleej Pheasant


Lophura leucomelanos

Tariq Ahmed Shah

Image 8. Common Kestrel


Falco tinnunculus

8350

Vishal Ahuja

Image 12. Koklass Pheasent


Pucrasia macrolopha
Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | 26 January 2016 | 8(1): 83338357

Birds of Chamba

Shah et al.

Tariq Ahmed Shah

Tariq Ahmed Shah

Image 15. European Turtle Dove


Streptopelia turtur

Image 16. Spotted Dove


Streptopelia chinensis
Tariq Ahmed Shah
Tariq Ahmed Shah

Tariq Ahmed Shah

Image 17. Slaty-headed Parakeet


Psittacula himalayana

Image 20. Crested Kingfisher


Megaceryle lugubris
Tariq Ahmed Shah

Image 18. Asian-barred Owlet


Glaucidium cuculoides

Image 21. White-breasted Kingfisher


Halcyon smyrnensis

Tariq Ahmed Shah

Tariq Ahmed Shah

Image 24. Great Barbet Megalaima virens

Tariq Ahmed Shah


Tariq Ahmed Shah

Image 25. Large scaly-bellied Woodpecker


Picus squamatus

Image 26. Brown-fronted Pied Woodpecker


Dendrocopos auriceps

Image 28. White wagtail Motacilla alba

Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | 26 January 2016 | 8(1): 83338357

8351

Birds of Chamba

Shah et al.
Tariq Ahmed Shah

Image 29. White-browed Wagtail


Motacilla madaraspatensis

Tariq Ahmed Shah

Tariq Ahmed Shah

Image 31. Oriental Tree Pipit


Anthus hodgsoni

Image 33. Long-tailed Minivet


Pericrocotus ethologus (female)

Tariq Ahmed Shah

Tariq Ahmed Shah

Image 35. Himalayan Bulbul


Pycnonotus leucogenys
Tariq Ahmed Shah

Image 34. Scarlet Minivet


Pericrocotus flammeus

Tariq Ahmed Shah

Tariq Ahmed Shah

Image 36. Redvented Bulbul


Pycnonotus cafer

Tariq Ahmed Shah

Image 39. Rufous-breasted Accentor


Prunella strophiata

Image 37. Asian Black Bulbul


Hypsipetes leucocephalus
8352

Image 38. Brown Dipper Cinclus pallasii

Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | 26 January 2016 | 8(1): 83338357

Birds of Chamba

Shah et al.
Martina Anandam

Tariq Ahmed Shah

Tariq Ahmed Shah

Image 40. Scaly Thrush Zoothera dauma

Tariq Ahmed Shah

Image 41. Chestnut Thrush


Turdus rubrocanus

Tariq Ahmed Shah

Image 44. Blue-headed Rock-thrush


Monticola cinclorhynchus

Image 45 Chestnut-bellied Rock-thrush


Monticola rufiventris

Tariq Ahmed Shah

Image 42. Dark-throated Thrush


Turdus ruficollis (1st winter female)

Tariq Ahmed Shah

Image 46. Blue Whistling-thrush


Myophonus caeruleus

Tariq Ahmed Shah


Tariq Ahmed Shah

Image 48 Blue-capped Redstart


Phoenicurus caeruleocephala

Image 49. Blue-fronted Redstart


Phoenicurus frontalis
Image 50. White-capped Redstart
Chaimarrornis leucocephalus

Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | 26 January 2016 | 8(1): 83338357

8353

Birds of Chamba

Shah et al.
Tariq Ahmed Shah

Tariq Ahmed Shah

Tariq Ahmed Shah

Image 53. Spotted Forktail


Enicurus maculatus

Tariq Ahmed Shah

Image 51. Plumbeous Redstart


Phoenicurus fuliginosus

Tariq Ahmed Shah

Image 52. Little Forktail Enicurus scouleri

Tariq Ahmed Shah

Image 56. Desert Wheatear


Oenanthe deserti

Tariq Ahmed Shah

Image 54. Grey Bushchat


Saxicola ferrea (male)

Tariq Ahmed Shah

Image 55. Asian Stonechat


Saxicola maurus (male)

Vishal Ahuja

Image 60. Streaked Laughingthrush


Garrulax lineatus

Tariq Ahmed Shah

Image 58. Verditer Flycatcher


Eumyias thalassina

Image 59. Asian Paradise Flycatcher


Terpsiphone paradisi
Image 61. Variegated Laughingthrush
Garrulax variegatus

8354

Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | 26 January 2016 | 8(1): 83338357

Birds of Chamba

Shah et al.
Tariq Ahmed Shah

Tariq Ahmed Shah

Tariq Ahmed Shah

Image 64. Brown Prinia Prinia crinigera

Image 62 Bar-throated Minla Minla strigula

Image 63. Rufous Sibia


Heterophasia capistrata

Tariq Ahmed Shah

Tariq Ahmed Shah

Tariq Ahmed Shah

Image 67. Brooks Leaf-warbler


Phylloscopus subviridis
Image 66. Olivaceous Leaf-Warbler
Phylloscopus griseolus

Image 68. Grey-headed Flycatcher-warbler


Seicercus xanthoschistos

Tariq Ahmed Shah

Tariq Ahmed Shah

Tariq Ahmed Shah

Image 70. Spot-winged Crested Tit


Parus melanolophus
Image 69. Black-throated Tit
Aegithalos concinnus

Image 71. Great Tit Parus major

Tariq Ahmed Shah

Tariq Ahmed Shah

Vishal Ahuja

Image 72. Green-backed Tit


Parus monticolus

Image 73. Wallcreeper Tichodroma muraria

Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | 26 January 2016 | 8(1): 83338357

Image 74. Bar-tailed Tree-creeper


Certhia himalayana

8355

Birds of Chamba

Shah et al.
Vishal Ahuja

Vishal Ahuja

Image 76. Purple Sunbird Nectarinia asiatica

Tariq Ahmed Shah

Image 77. Crimson Sunbird


Aethopyga siparaja

Tariq Ahmed Shah

Image 78. Fire-tailed Sunbird


Aethopyga ignicauda

Tariq Ahmed Shah

Image 79. Oriental White-eye


Zosterops palpebrosus
Image 80. Rock Bunting Emberiza cia
Tariq Ahmed Shah

Tariq Ahmed Shah

Image 81. Scarlet Rosefinch


Carpodacus erythrinus

Tariq Ahmed Shah

Image 83. House Sparrow Passer domesticus

Image 85. Russet Sparrow Passer rutilans

Tariq Ahmed Shah

Tariq Ahmed Shah

Vishal Ahuja

Image 88. Jungle Myna


Acridotheres fuscus

Image 84. Sind sparrow Passer pyrrhonotus


Image 87. Common Myna
Acridotheres tristis
8356

Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | 26 January 2016 | 8(1): 83338357

Birds of Chamba

Shah et al.
Tariq Ahmed Shah

Image 91. Yellow-billed Blue Magpie


Urocissa flavirostris

Tariq Ahmed Shah


Tariq Ahmed Shah

Image 89. Bronzed Drongo Dicrurus aeneus

Martina Anandam

Image 90. Black-headed Jay


Garrulus lanceolatus

Tariq Ahmed Shah

Image 93. Grey Treepie


Dendrocitta formosae

Vishal Ahuja

Image 92. Indian Treepie


Dendrocitta vagabunda

Tariq Ahmed Shah

Image 95. Jungle Crow


Corvus macrorhynchos

Image 94. Spotted Nutcracker


Nucifraga caryocatactes

Mahabal, A. (1992). Avifauna of Chamba District (Himachal Pradesh) with emphasis on their
altitudinal distribution. Pavo 30(1&2): 1725.
Manakadan, R. & A. Pittie (2001). Standardised common and scientific names of the birds of
the Indian subcontinent. Buceros 6(1): 137.
MacKinnon, S. & K. Phillipps (1993). A Field Guide to the Birds of Borneo, Sumatra, Java and
Bali. Oxford University Press, Oxford, 491pp.
Pandey, S. (1993). Pheasant surveys and the conservation of protected areas in the Upper Beas
Valley, Himachal Pradesh, India, pp. 5861. In: Jenkins, D. (ed.). Pheasants in Asia 1992. World
Pheasant Association, Reading, UK.
Gregory, R.D., D. Noble, R. Field, J. Marchant, M. Raven & D.W. Gibbons (2003). Using birds as
indicators of biodiversity. Ornis Hungarica 12&13: 1124.
Rasmussen, P.C. &. J.C. Anderton (2005). Birds of South Asia. The Ripley Guide. 2 Volumes (Vol.
1 - Field Guide and Vol. 2 - Attributes and Status). Smithsonian Institution, Washington DC,
USA and Lynx Edicions, Barcelona, Spain. Vol. 1, 378pp. and Vol. 2, 683pp.
Singh, V. & H.S. Banyal (2013). Avian fauna of Khajjiar Lake, District Chamba, Himachal Pradesh,
India. Proceedings of the Zoological Society 66(2): 130136; http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/
s12595-012-0049-9
Singh, A.P. (2011). Birds of the upper catchment of Ravi River, Chamba District, Himachal
Pradesh, India. Indian Birds 7(4): 97103.
Tak, P.C. (1987). On a rare sighting of Western Tragopan (Tragopan melanocephalus) in district
Chamba, Himachal Pradesh, India. Cheetal 28(4): 4245.
Thakur, M.L., R. Paliwal, R., P.C. Tak, H.S. Mehta & V.K. Mattu (2002). Birds of Kalatop-Khajjiar
Wildlife Sanctuary, Chamba (H.P.). Cheetal 41(3&4): 2936.
Thakur, M.L. (2008). Studies on status and diversity of avifauna in Himachal Pradesh. Ph.D.
Thesis. Himachal Pradesh University, Shimla, India, 306pp.
Thakur, M.L., V.K. Mattu, H. Lal, V.N. Sharma, H. Raj & V. Thakur (2010). Avifauna of Arki Hills,
Solan (Himachal Pradesh), India. Indian Birds 5(6): 162166.
Wildlife Institute of India (2015). National Wildlife Database as on 06 October, 2015. Available
online at http://www.wiienvis.nic.in/Database/Protected_Area_854.aspx

Threatened Taxa

Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | 26 January 2016 | 8(1): 83338357

8357

Communication

Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | 26 January 2016 | 8(1): 83588364

Status and population of vultures in Moyar Valley,


southern India

ISSN 0974-7907 (Online)


ISSN 0974-7893 (Print)

R. Venkitachalam 1 & S. Senthilnathan 2

Ph.D. Scholar, PG Research and Department of Zoology, Government Arts College (affiliatted to Bharathiar
University), Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu 641018, India
2
PG Research and Department of Zoology, Chikkana Government Arts College (affiliated to Bharathiar University),
Tirupur, Tamil Nadu 641602, India
1
poojithvenkat@gmail.com (corresponding author), 2 papssi@yahoo.co.uk
1

OPEN ACCESS

Abstract: Four species of vultures were surveyed using road transects in two parts of the Moyar Valley, three of these are Critically
Endangered by IUCN criteria and one is Endangered. The vulture study was done for the first time in Nilgiri North Forest Division and
Sathyamangalam Tiger Reserve of Moyar Valley to determine the flock size in the three species of vultures and also to get a rough
estimation of vultures. The results show higher flock size and higher densities in Nilgiri North Forest Division than in Sathyamangalam Tiger
Reserve and the most numerous of these was the White-rumped Vulture. There is also evidence of seasonal movements in Nilgiri North
Forest Division. These data represent the first systematic survey results from the area and demonstrate the significance of the Moyar
Valley for all four Endangered vulture species, probably the main stronghold remaining in southern India. They are White-rumped Vulture
Gyps bengalensis, Indian Vulture Gyps indicus, Red-headed Vulture Sarcogyps calvus and Egyptian Vulture Neophron percnopterus. The
study recommends that immediate long-term conservation efforts should be taken to save the Critically Endangered vultures in the Moyar
Valley.
Keyword: Conservation, Flock size, Moyar Valley, population, seasonal variation, vultures.

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.11609/jott.2522.8.1.8358-8364 | ZooBank: urn:lsid:zoobank.org:pub:4D13A951-AAB6-48B7-AD4B-6E8323E060F6


Editor: Chris Bowden, Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, Sandy, UK.

Date of publication: 26 January 2016 (online & print)

Manuscript details: Ms # o4240 | Received 14 February 2015 | Final received 08 January 2016 | Finally accepted 13 January 2016
Citation: Venkitachalam, R. & S. Senthilnathan (2016). Status and population of vultures in Moyar Valley, southern India. Journal of Threatened Taxa 8(1): 83588364;
http://dx.doi.org/10.11609/jott.2522.8.1.8358-8364
Copyright: Venkitachalam & Senthilnathan 2016. Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. JoTT allows unrestricted use of this article in any
medium, reproduction and distribution by providing adequate credit to the authors and the source of publication.
Funding: The project was funded by the Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund (CEPF) and World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF-India) small grant programme.
Conflict of Interest: The authors declare no competing interests. Funding sources had no role in study design, data collection, results interpretation and manuscript
writing.
Author Details: Dr. R. Venkitachalam is a Research Associate at Ashoka Trust for Research in Ecology and the Environment (ATREE), Bangalore. He completed his
Ph.D on Status and Ecology of Threatened vulture species in Moyar Valley, Tamilnadu. He so far completed research projects on Hornbills in the Eastern Ghats,
one on Ecosystem monitoring (Component Ornithology) in Keoladeo National Park, involved captive management programme on vultures conservation in India
and two projects on in situ Conservation of vultures in Tamil Nadu. At present he is studying dynamics of ecosystem services in Western Ghats of Tamil Nadu.
Dr. S. Senthilnathan is working as Assistant Professor in the Department of Zoology, Chikkanna Government Arts College, Tirupur. He has more than twenty
years research experience and done a commendable work on environmental studies. He is an awarded of UGC Research Associateship and CSIR Scientist Pool
Officership in his credit. He has also worked with several research institutions like CAS in Marine Biology, Annamalai University, Salim Ali Centre for Ornithology
and Natural History (SACON), Coimbatore and CEE, Ahmadabad. He completed the World Bank projects under PWD, Tamil Nadu and published several papers in
the national and international in the field of environmental science in reputed journals.
Author Contribution: RV conceived and designed the experiments, performed the experiments and analyzed the data.
RV and SS wrote the paper.
Acknowledgements: We thank the Ministry of Environment Forests and Climate Change, Government of India and Tamil Nadu Forest Department, Critical
Ecosystem Partnership Fund (CEPF), Saving Asias Vulture Extinction (SAVE) and WWF-India. We are grateful to the Chief Wildlife Warden, Tamil Nadu for permitting
us to carry out the vulture survey. We also thank the Director, Mudumalai Tiger Reserve and Sathyamangalam Tiger Reserve and the District Forest Officer, Nilgiri
North Forest Division for their cooperation and kind help throughout the study period. We thank Mr. J. Peter Prem Chakravarthi, WWF-India for helping me to
prepare map. We also thank Arulagam and field forest staff in Mudumalai Tiger Reserve, Sathyamanagalam Tiger Reserve and Nilgiri North Forest Division.

8358

Vultures in Moyar Valley

Venkitachalam & Senthilnathan

INTRODUCTION

2001) and Gokula et al. (1996) reported that the Whiterumped Vulture and the Indian vulture are resident in
the Mudumalai Wildlife Sanctuary. The Indian vultures
were previously recorded breeding on cliffs in the
Nilgiri and Palani hills of Tamil Nadu (Sathyamurthi
1970). Hence, the study was undertaken to estimate
the population and distribution pattern of the vulture
species in detail in Nilgiri North Forest Division (NNFD)
and Sathyamangalam Tiger Reserve (STR) of Moyar
Valley.

White-rumped Vulture and Indian Vulture were


the most abundant large raptors present in almost
all bio-geographical zones of the Indian subcontinent
and absent in the Trans-Himalaya and the Andaman
& Nicobar Islands (Ali & Ripley 1983). Vulture species
are threatened across India (Prakash 2012) and in
most parts of the world (Ogada et al. 2012). The major
reason for vulture declines in the Indian subcontinent
was the use of veterinary diclofenac for cattle (Green
et al. 2004; Oaks et al. 2004). Population declines of
vultures indicate dysfunctional ecosystems because
the population dynamics of top order predators often
reflect the ecosystems they inhabit (Newton 1979).
The drug diclofenac was banned in India for veterinary
purposes from 2006. This threat persists despite the
ban and ongoing efforts of various organizations to
save vultures that have recently resulted in a further
step by the Ministry of Health, Government of India
which posted the gazette notification on 17 July 2015,
restricting larger multi-dose vials for humans to single
unit 3ml packs only, to curb the illegal veterinary use
of the human drug in cattle. Similarly, The Director
of Veterinary and Animal Husbandry banned another
vulture killer drug, ketoprofen in three districts of Tamil
Nadu in September 2015 such as Coimbatore, Nilgiri and
Erode. These districts fall within the Vulture Safe Zone
(VSZ) in Tamil Nadu. VSZ is centered on a surviving wild
vulture colony. Based on range size of White-rumped
Vultures determined using satellite telemetry, a VSZ
includes an area with a radius of at least 100km in every
direction (i.e., a circular area with a 100km radius). This
equals a total area of over 30,000km2 (IBCN, 2014).
VSZs are a means of focusing effort on priority actions
to remove diclofenac and other vulture NSAIDs (NonSteroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drug) for a network of areas
where vultures survive. Saving Asias Vultures from
Extinction (SAVE) refers to these VZSs as provisional and
when the threats of diclofenac and other vulture toxic
NSAIDs have been removed will declare a provisional
VSZ as a true VSZ (SAVE 2014a). The VSZ concept was
pioneered in Nepal, and introduced in other parts of
the country. Without steps such as this, vultures remain
under serious threat (SAVE).
So far no systematic studies are available on
vultures in southern India, especially in Tamil Nadu.
Few opportunistic observations and short notes were
available on vultures in Tamil Nadu. Badshah (1968)
reported that the White-rumped Vulture was common in
Tamil Nadu except near seacoasts (BirdLife International,

MATERIALS AND METHODS


Study Area
The Moyar Valley located between 11.7012890N
& 76.5870620E and 11.4724430N & 77.1476080E
encompasses the Nilgiri plateau in the southeast,
Thalamalai plateau in the northeast, and Mudumalai
Tiger Reserve in the west (Fig. 1). The approximate
length of the valley is 50km falling within the Tamil
Nadu and Karnataka states. Mudumalai Tiger Reserve
and Sathyamangalam Tiger Reserve of Tamil Nadu and
Bandipur Tiger Reserve of Karnataka within the Moyar
Valley are protected areas. The altitude of the valley
ranges from 290m to 1950m. Extremes of climate are
experienced with temperatures varying between 17
37.5 0C. During the northeast monsoon season, the
extreme eastern part of the Valley receives heavy rainfall
and during the southwest monsoon the western parts of
the Valley receives heavy rainfall.
There is a 260m deep gorge in the valley called
Moyar Gorge, which is located in the eastern end of
Nilgiri district, which separates the Segur plateau and
the Mysore plateau in the northwest. The study area
sprawling over 600km2 covers part of Masinagudi Range
of Mudumalai Tiger Reserve, Segur Range, Singara
Range, Nilgiri Eastern Slope Range of Nilgiri North Forest
Division and Bhavanisagar Range of Sathyamangalam
Tiger Reserve in the northeast. The different types
of vegetation and the healthy prey and predator base
support the four vulture species in the valley.
Line transect method
In Moyar Valley, vultures were counted on road
transects; tarred roads and metal roads are maintained
by the Tamil Nadu Forest Department to easily access
the villages in the protected areas of STR and NNFD
(Fig. 1). These roads were selected for vulture survey.
The transects were driven between 08:00 and 17:00
local time at 2030 kmph in the protected areas. These
transects were conducted twice each month from

Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | 26 January 2016 | 8(1): 83588364

8359

Vultures in Moyar Valley

Venkitachalam & Senthilnathan

Figure 1. Study Area showing vulture survey transect routes and vulture nest distribution in Moyar Valley

January to December in 2012 and 2013. The routes


followed in 2013 were the same as in the previous
surveys. The total length of transects of the present
study covers a distance of 1277km in STR and 1308km
in NNFD of Moyar Valley. Vulture nest searches were
carried out during the months of October to June. We
walked on elephant footpaths, alongside streams and
river to search for vulture nests. Vulture species were
counted from vantage points using a telescope (29X) and
with a binocular (40X10) and nesting trees were marked
by using GPS (global positioning system) (Images 14).
Statistical Analysis
Basic statistics such as, arithmetic mean, standard
deviation and standard error were calculated for all the
replicative variables and are given as X SD or X SE.
Statistical analyses were performed by using Windows
based statistical packagesMicrosoft Excel, MINITAB
(Ryan et al. 1992), and SPSS (Statistical Package for Social
Science: Nie et al. 1975). The significance of the Pearson
correlation co-efficient was tested using t test. The nonparametric test used was chi-square test for testing the
association between variables. For hypothesis testing
P<0.05 and P<0.01 were considered and these levels
of significance are indicated as appropriate. Statistical
inferences were made following Sokal & Rohlf (1995)
8360

Tolstoy

Image 1. Indian Vulture Gyps indicus

and Zar (2003). Although chi-square results are given


in many tables and graphs, where the data were
used in percentages, the analyses were done only on
frequencies.

Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | 26 January 2016 | 8(1): 83588364

Vultures in Moyar Valley


R. Venkitachalam

Image 2. Egptiyan Vulture Neophron percnopterus.


R. Venkitachalam

Venkitachalam & Senthilnathan

RESULTS
Flock size of three vulture species was significantly
higher in NNFD when compared to STR of Moyar Valley
(Table 3). White-rumped Vultures showed a significant
difference in the flock size in NNFD and STR. This was
demonstrated statistically with a significant difference
in the flock size between the study sites for Whiterumped Vulture (c2=3.68; df =1; p < 0.05). Though there
is variation in mean encounter rate of White-rumped
Vulture, it was not statistically significant (c2= 0.86; df
=1; p > 0.05).
The flock size of the Indian Vulture was very low and
found insignificant between the NNFD and STR (Table 3).
There was no difference in the overall number of Redheaded Vultures sighted between NNFD and STR. In the
present observation, there is a significant variation in
the total number of vultures sighted between NNFD and
STR, hence an attempt was made to study the seasonal
variations of vulture abundance in Moyar Valley.
Seasonal variation in the flock size and encounter rate
of vultures in Nilgiri North Forest Division
Seasonal variations in the number of vultures sighted
and encounter rate of three species of vultures varied
in NNFD. The White-rumped Vulture population (Fig. 2)
and encounter rate (0.920.17) was highest during postmonsoon period compared to other seasons (Table 1).
Indian Vulture sightings were relatively higher during
monsoon period when compared to post monsoon and
summer (Fig. 2; Table 1). No seasonal variations were
noticed in Red-headed Vulture numbers across different
seasons in the NNFD.

Image 3. Red-headed Vulture Sarcogyps calvus


R. Venkitachalam

Seasonal variation in the flock size and encounter rate


of vultures in Sathyamangalam Tiger Reserve
The mean population of White-rumped Vultures
was significantly highest during summer season (April,
May, June and July) followed by monsoon (August,
Kruskal Wallis Anova
White-rumped Vulture =11.77; df=2; p=0.03
Indian Vulture =4; df=1; p=0.05
Red-headed Vulture =2.94; df=2; p=0.23

Vulture species

Image 4. White-rumped Vulture Gyps bengalensis

Figure 2. Seasonal variation population size of different species of


vultures in Nilgiri North Forest Division

Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | 26 January 2016 | 8(1): 83588364

8361

Vultures in Moyar Valley

Venkitachalam & Senthilnathan

Table 1. Seasonal variations in the encounter rate of different species ofvultures in Nilgiri North Forest Division (NNFD)
Parameters

Encounter
rate (/km)

White-rumped Vulture (n=43)

Seasons

Indian Vulture (n=4)

Red-headed Vulture (n=29)

Mean

SE

Mean

SE

Mean

SE

Monsoon
(August, September, October, November)

1.14

0.310

0.44

0.48

0.101

Post-Monsoon
(December, January, February, March)

0.92

0.179

0.33

0.00

0.46

0.069

Summer
(April, May, June, July)

0.50

0.130

0.37

0.061

Kruskal-Wallis Anova

c =5.79; df=2;p=0.055

c =4; df=2;p=0.046

c =0.91; df=2;p=0.636

- No value

Table 2. Seasonal variations in the encounter rate of different species of vultures in Sathyamangalam Tiger Reserve (STR).
Parameters

Encounter
rate (/km)

White-rumped Vulture (n=24)

Seasons

IndianVulture (n=15)

Red-headedVulture (n=11)

Mean

SE

Mean

SE

Mean

SE

Monsoon
(August, September, October, November)

0.79

0.253

0.41

0.140

0.43

0.066

Post-Monsoon
December, January, February, March)

0.41

0.120

0.36

0.084

0.21

0.017

Summer
(April, May, June, July)

0.60

0.233

0.41

0.124

0.33

0.087

c =0.23; df=2;p=0.89

Kruskal-Wallis Anova

c =0.77; df=2;p=0.68

c=4.88; df=2;p=0.087

Table 3. Flock size and encounter rate of Vulture comparison between the Nilgiri North Forest Division and Sathyamangalam Tiger Reserve
Parameters

White- rumped Vulture (n=67)

Study area

Flock size

Mean Encounter
rate

Indian Vulture (n=19)

Red-headed Vulture (n=40)

Mean

SE

Mean

SE

Mean

SE

NND

18.51

2.863

1.25

0.250

1.66

0.143

STR

12.79

3.980

2.87

0.515

1.36

0.152

Kruskal-Wallis Anova

c =3.68; df=1;p=0.055

NND

0.81

0.120

0.36

STR

0.64

0.137

0.40

Kruskal-Wallis Anova

c2=0.86; df=1;p=0.35

c =0.755; df=1;p=0.39
2

0.028

0.43

0.043

0.080

0.32

0.042

c2=0.75; df=1;p=0.36

- No value

Table 4. Mean and Median crowding of Vultures in Moyar Valley.


Min

Max

Mean
crowding

95%
Confidence
Interval

White-rumped
Vulture (n=67)

79

38.27

29.9 to 47.8

31

Indian Vulture
(n=19)

08

3.88

2.65 to5.77

Red-headed
Vulture (n=40)

04

1.89

1.63 to 2.33

Species

Median

September, October and November) and post monsoon


seasons (December, January, February and March) (Table
3). The mean population (Fig. 3) and the encounter
rate of Indian vultures were found to be highest during
monsoon season when compared to the other seasons
(Table 2); however the encounter rate of Red-headed
8362

Kruskal Wallis Anova


White-rumped Vulture =6.33; df=2; p=0.04
Indian Vulture =5.96; df=2; p=0.05
Red-headed Vulture =4.88; df=2; p=0.89

Vulture species

Figure 3. Seasonal variation population size of different species of


vultures in Sathyamangalam Tiger Reserve

Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | 26 January 2016 | 8(1): 83588364

Vultures in Moyar Valley

Vulture showed uniform distribution and no seasonal


variation was observed (Table 2). It is clear that the
mean encounter rate of all the three vulture species
did not show any variation between seasons (Table 2).
Nevertheless there is a clear seasonal variation in the
White-rumped Vulture population and encounter rate
per kilometer in both NNFD and STR (Tables 1,2; Figs.
2,3).
The mean crowding and median group size of the
present study were highest for White-rumped Vulture
with 38.27 and 31 respectively. The mean crowding
ranges from 30 to 48 individuals in a single Whiterumped Vulture group. In the Indian vulture the mean
crowding was low (3.88) and it ranged from 2.655.77.
Statistical mean crowding for the Red-headed Vulture
was 1.89 and did not show any variation (Table 4). The
mean and median crowding results concluded that
mean crowding varied greatly and the mean group size
of White-rumped Vulture was highly varied in skewed
(aggregated) distribution group size in both NNFD and
STR.
Breeding populations recorded
Thirty-six pairs of White-rumped Vulture active
nesting population were observed on the trees along the
riparian habitat in NNFD and Mudumalai Tiger Reserve
(Fig. 1) and four pairs of Indian vultures were breeding
on the rocky cliffs in both NNFD and STR of Moyar Valley
(Venkitachalam et al. 2015).

DISCUSSION
This is the first systematic survey of three species
of vultures, viz., White-rumped Vulture, Indian Vulture
and Red-headed Vulture in the NNFD and STR of Moyar
Valley of Tamil Nadu. Significantly larger vulture flocks
were recorded in NNFD than in the STR. The flock size
of Indian vulture and Red-headed Vulture was very low
and statistically non-significant between the study sites.
The present study results however reveal that there is
a significant variation in the total numbers of vultures
sighted between NNFD and STR, and we also attempted
to examine any seasonal variation of vulture numbers in
Moyar Valley.
The mean populations of the three species of
vultures varied according to the seasons in the both
study areas NNFD and STR of Moyar Valley although
these variations were only significant for White-rumped
Vulture. Population size of White-rumped Vulture
was found to be highest during post monsoon season

Venkitachalam & Senthilnathan

compared to summer and monsoon seasons in NNFD.


In STR White-rumped Vulture was found to be highest
during summer when compared to other seasons. In
monsoon, the time available for forage is limited and
thermal production is very uncertain because of the
relatively low temperature and in summer, the high
availability of day light hours, and the almost continuous
formation of thermal lifts helps disperse the breeding
and non-breeding vultures to forage. The vultures start
breeding from post monsoon and summer onwards,
and variations on the counts could simply reflect less
movement by incubating vultures. Nest surveys provide
a measure of the size of the breeding population, hence
yield an important measure of the local status of these
long-lived, slow breeding vultures (Margalida et al. 2011).
White-rumped Vultures were not observed nesting in
STR although they were frequently recorded soaring,
roosting and feeding in STR. The Red-headed Vultures
are solitary species occurring during the present study
period and these were recorded with similar frequency
throughout the year. Juveniles of Red-headed Vultures
were recorded during the study period, indicating that
the Red-headed Vulture may be breeding in or around
the study area of Moyar Valley. Statistical mean and
median highest aggregated populations of vultures were
White-rumped Vulture followed by Indian Vulture and
Red-headed Vulture. However, the prey, predator base
in the thorny savanna forest helps vultures to easily
locate animal carcasses and the lesser intrusion of the
vulture killer drugs has led to the presence of vultures in
the landscape. The mammalian predators scat analysis
revealed that though the diet of the three predators
consisted of 15 to 21 prey species, wild ungulates
formed a major portion of their diet (88.496.7 %) in the
Mudumalai Tiger Reserve (Ramesh et al. 2012), which is
adjacent to the Nilgiri North Forest Division. We strongly
recommend that immediate in situ monitoring efforts
such as revisiting annual nest monitoring, synchronized
and well coordinated seasonal and carcass surveys
should be conducted in the Nilgiri North Forest Division,
Sathyamangalam and Mudumalai tiger reserves to
understand the species-wise populations of the highly
threatened vultures.

REFERENCES
Ali, S. & S.D. Ripley (eds.) (1983). Handbook of the Birds of India and
Pakistan together with those of Nepal and Ceylon, Vol. 1 to 10.
Oxford University Press, 3121pp.
BirdLife International (2001). Threatened Birds of Asia: The BirdLife
International Red Data Book. Birdlife International, Cambridge, U.K.,

Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | 26 January 2016 | 8(1): 83588364

8363

Vultures in Moyar Valley

Venkitachalam & Senthilnathan

3038pp.
Fuller, M.R. & J.A. Mosher (1981). Methods of detecting and counting
raptors. Studies in Avian Biology 6: 235248.
Green, R.E., I. Newton S. Shultz, A.A. Cunningham, M. Gilbert, D.
Pain & V. Prakash (2004). Diclofenac poisoning as a cause of vulture
population declines across the Indian subcontinent. Journal of
Applied Ecology 41: 793800.
Gokula, V. & L. Vijayan (1996). Birds of Mudumalai Wildlife Sanctuary,
India. Forktail 12: 107116.
Indian Bird Conservation Network (2014). Vulture Special. MISTNET
15: 336.
Margalida, A., D. Oro, A. Corts-Avizanda, R. Heredia & J.A. Donzar
(2011). Misleading population estimates: biases and consistency
of visual surveys and matrix modelling in the Endangered Bearded
Vulture. PLoS ONE 6(10): e26784; http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/
journal.pone.0026784
Newton, I. (1979). Population Ecology of Raptors. Buteo Books, Poyser
Ltd, England, 399pp.
Nie, N.H., C.H. Hull, J.G. Jenkins, K. Steinbrenner & D.H. Bent (eds.)
(1975). SPSS, Statistical Package for the Social Sciences, McGrawHill, New York, 257pp.
Oaks, J.L., M. Gilbert, M.Z. Virani, R.T. Watson, C.U. Meteyer, B.A.
Rideout, H.L. Shivaprasad, S. Ahmed, M.J.I.Chaudhry, M. Arshad,
S. Mahmood, A. Ali & A.A. Khan (2004). Diclofenac residues as
the cause of vulture population declines in Pakistan. Nature 427:

630633.
Ogada, D.L. M.E. Torchin, M.F. Kinnaird & V.O. Ezenwa (2012).
Effects of vulture declines on facultative scavengers and potential
implications for mammalian disease Transmission. Conservation
Biology 26(3): 453460.
Ramesh, T., R. Kalle, K. Sankar & Q. Qureshi (2012). Dietary
Partitioning in Sympatric Large Carnivores in a Tropical Forests of
Western Ghats in India. Mammal Study 37(4): 313321; http://
dx.doi.org/10.3106/041.037.0405
Ryan, F.B., B.L. Joiner & A.T. Ryan (1992). MINITAB Handbook. Boston
PWS-KENT Publishing Company, 376pp.
Saving Asias Vultures from Extinction. http://www.save-vultures.org/
save latest news. Html # vialban.
SAVE (2014 a). Vulture Safe Zones: Objectives and Key Activities. June
2014. Available: www.save-vultures.org (Accessed 25 June 2014)
Sathyamurthi, S.T (1970). Guide to the Bird Gallery. Director of
Stationary and Printing, Madras, 95pp.
Sokal, R.R. & F.T. Rohlf (eds.) (1981). Biometry. W.H. Freeman and
Company, New York, 859pp.
Venkitachalam, R. & N. Senthilnathan (2015). Breeding Record of
Indian Vulture (Gyps indicus) in Moyar Valley, Tamil Nadu, India.
Current Science 109(2): 258259.
Zar, J.H. (eds.) (2003). Biostatistical Analysis. Pearson Education Pvt
Ltd, Singapore, 663pp.

Threatened Taxa

8364

Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | 26 January 2016 | 8(1): 83588364

First record of Scotophilus kuhlii Leach, 1821 (Chiroptera:


Vespertilionidae) from Nepal
Dibya Dahal 1, Sanjan Thapa 2 & Khadga Basnet 3

ISSN 0974-7907 (Online)


ISSN 0974-7893 (Print)

Central Department of Zoology, Tribhuvan University, Kathmandu, Nepal


Small Mammals Conservation and Research Foundation, New Baneshwor, Kathmandu, Nepal
1
dibyawildlifecon@gmail.com, 2 thapasanjan@gmail.com (corresponding author), 3 kbasnet@ntc.net.np
1,3
2

Abstract: Occurrence of Scotophilus kuhlii was speculated throughout


the southern plain (Tarai) of Nepal. However, there was no record of
voucher specimen of the species from Nepal. We collected a specimen
from the Tikulia tole, Pakali Village Development Committee, Sunsari
District of southeastern Nepal and deposited at Central Department
of Zoology (CDZ) Museum, Tribhuvan University, Kathmandu. The
specimen was identified asS. kuhlii based on measurement of external
body, cranial, dental parts and detail description of the species. This is
the first specific locality record of the species from Nepal that confirms
its presence in the country.
Keywords: Cranial, dental parts, first specific locality record,
measurements of external body, Scotophilus kuhlii, Sunsari District.
Abbreviations: HB - head and body length; T - tail length; TIB - tibia
length; HF - hind foot length; FA - forearm length; Thumb - first
metacarpal length; 3Mt - third metacarpal length; 1ph3Mt - length
of the first phalanx of the third metacarpal; 2ph3Mt - length of the
second phalanx of the third metacarpal; 4Mt - fourth metacarpal
length; 1ph4Mt - length of the first phalanx of the fourth metacarpal;
2ph4Mt - length of the second phalanx of the fourth metacarpal; 5Mt
- fifth metacarpal length; 1ph5Mt - length of the first phalanx of the
fifth metacarpal; 2ph5Mt - length of the second phalanx of the fifth
metacarpal; E - ear length; Tragus - tragus length; WSP-Wingspan;
GTL Greatest length of the skull; CCL - Condylo-canine Length; C-M3
- Maxillary toothrow; M3-M3 - Posterior Palatal Width; C1-C1 - Anterior
Palatal Width; M - Mandible Length; C-M3 - Mandibular Toothrow;
ZB - Zygomatic Breadth; BB - Breadth of Braincase; PC - Postorbital
Constriction

OPEN ACCESS

Scotophilus kuhlii Leach, 1821 has been listed in


the faunal list of the country (Suwal & Verheugt 1995;
Shrestha 1997; Baral & Shah 2008; Acharya et al. 2010).
Occurrence of the species was speculated throughout
the southern plain (Tarai) of Nepal (Corbet & Hill 1992)
including all protected areas outside in some districts like
Morang, Jhapa and Parsa (Jnawali et al. 2011). Simmons
(2005) and Srinivasulu & Srinivasulu (2012) indicated
probable occurrence of this species in Nepal. However,
there was no record or voucher specimen of the species
from Nepal (Pearch 2011).
Materials and Methods
A specimen was collected from Tikulia tole
0
(26 4220.82N & 870138.22E), Pakali-8, Sunsari
District, Nepal at an elevation of 107m (Fig. 1) on 12
February 2012 by the first author and deposited in the
museum of Central Department of Zoology, Tribhuvan
University, Kathmandu, where it is preserved in 70%
ethanol.

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.11609/jott.2164.8.1.8365-8368 | ZooBank: urn:lsid:zoobank.org:pub:B9E39F9B-6DF9-49A1-BBAB-01ECBEBB769F


Editor: Anonymity requested.

Date of publication: 26 January 2016 (online & print)

Manuscript details: Ms # 2164 | Received 19 July 2015 | Final received 07 January 2016 | Finally accepted 10 January 2016
Citation: Dahal, D., S. Thapa & K. Basnet (2016). First record of Scotophilus kuhlii Leach, 1821 (Chiroptera: Vespertilionidae) from Nepal. Journal of Threatened Taxa
8(1): 83658368; http://dx.doi.org/10.11609/jott.2164.8.1.8365-8368
Copyright: Dahal et al. 2016. Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. JoTT allows unrestricted use of this article in any medium, reproduction
and distribution by providing adequate credit to the authors and the source of publication.
Funding: Self funded.
Conflict of Interest: The authors declare no competing interests.
Acknowledgements: All identification processes were done in Ecology lab of the Central Department of Zoology, Tribhuvan University, Kirtipur, Kathmandu. We
owe a sincere gratitude to two anonymous reviewers for critical and constructive comments on the manuscript.

8365

Short Communication

Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | 26 January 2016 | 8(1): 83658368

Scotophilus kuhlii from Nepal

Dahal et al.

Systematic review
Scotophilus kuhlii Leach, 1821
Asiatic Lesser Yellow House Bat
Scotophilus kuhlii Leach, 1821: 72. India.
Material
CDZ TU_BAT 032, 12.ii.2012, 1 adult male, Tikulia
tole, Pakali-8, Sunsari District, Nepal 2604220.82N &
870138.22E, elevation 107m.
Variation
Bates & Harrison (1997) refer specimens from Indian
Subcontinent as S. kuhlii following Hill & Thonglongya
(1972) and S.k. wroughtoni to subspecific form. The
present material differs from the description by Bates &
Harrison (1997) in colour of ventral pelage.
Diagnosis and description
Measurement of external body, cranial, and dental
parts (Table 1) and detail description of Scotophilus
kuhlii are the basis of diagnosis of the species. Tail
is long and its terminal tip projects 2mm from the
interfemoral membrane. Head has a broad and blunt
muzzle, characteristic crescent-shaped tragus and a
well-developed antitragus. Genus Eptesicus is also
identified by the shape of the tragus, but it is short and
blunt strikingly different from that of Scotophilus. The
antitragus is separated by a distinct notch at the posterior
end of the tragus. Forearm measures 47mm and the
total mass weighs 22g. The skull has an elongated and
profound braincase with distinct lambda which projects
above the posterior of supraoccipital. There are well
developed lamboid crests. The short and broad rostrum
has prominent lachrymal processes above the orbits. At
the inter-orbital region, the sagittal crest is bifurcated
and extends to the front of the orbits. Nasal aperture
is wide. Anterior of the palate (to the mid-point of
the first upper premolar (pm4)) is emarginated broadly
and intensely. Tympanic bullae are small and about
the breadth of basioccipital. Coronoid processes in
mandible are tall and triangular. The angular process is
broad and slightly deflected outward. Dental character
includes unicuspid upper incisor with a well-developed
cingulum. The left upper incisor is missing. The upper
canine which is in contact with upper incisor is large
(Image 1). The lower canine is tall and recurved (Image
2). The upper premolar (pm4) measures two-thirds the
height of the canine (Image 1). The first lower premolar
(pm2) is minute and is about one-third the crown area
and one-fourth the height of the second lower premolar
8366

Figure 1. Map depicting the collection site (red circle) of the Asiatic
Lesser Yellow House Bat with reference site Itahari (black hexagon)
in Sunsari District, Nepal.

Table 1. Selected external, cranial, and dental measurements (in


mm.) of Scotophilus kuhlii (CDZ TU_BAT 32) from Tikulia tole, Pakali
V.D.C. ward # 8, Sunsari District, Nepal.
HB

67

2Ph3MT

21

41

WSP

374

TIB

17

10

HF

Tragus

FA

47

GTL

19.2

Thumb

CCL

17.2

5MT

43

BB

10.3

1Ph5MT

PC

3.4

2Ph5MT

10

C-M3

6.6

4MT

44

C-M3

7.3

1Ph4MT

12

13.5

2Ph4MT

13

C1-C1

6.3

3MT

45

M3-M3

7.5

1Ph3MT

15

ZB

13.2

(pm4). The second lower premolar measures about twothirds the height of the lower canine. The sizes of lower
first and second molars are equal (Image 2).
The specimen has brownish dorsal pelage on the

Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | 26 January 2016 | 8(1): 83658368

Scotophilus kuhlii from Nepal

Dahal et al.
Sanjan Thapa

Dibya Dahal

Image 1. Lateral view of the skull of Asiatic Lesser Yellow House Bat
(CDZ TU_BAT 32) collected from Tikuliatol, Pakali V.D.C. ward # 8,
Sunsari District, Nepal.

Sanjan Thapa

Image 3. Asiatic Lesser Yellow House Bat Scotophilus kuhlii collected


from Tikuliatol, Pakali V.D.C. ward # 8, Sunsari District, Nepal.

Image 2. Lateral view of the mandible of Asiatic Lesser Yellow House


Bat (CDZ TU_BAT 32) collected from Tikuliatol, Pakali V.D.C. ward #
8, Sunsari District, Nepal.

back, head and around the neck. The specimen lacks


characteristic yellowish tinge in the ventral pelage that
is evident in S. heathii. The ventral pelage is brownishwhite (Image 3). Smaller size of the external characters
and the skull identifies the species to be S. kuhlii.
Ecology and Habitat
The material was collected from a palm tree in Pakali
Village Development Committee (VDC) located south of
Mahendra Highway, 4km west of Ithari and 3km east of
Jhumka Bazaar in Sunsari District (Fig. 1). Climate of the
collection area is characterized by tropical monsoon type
with minimum and maximum temperature of 8.80C and
36.80C, respectively. The area receives an annual average
rainfall of 1934.5mm (RARST 2014). The collection
site is manly dominated by agricultural land cultivated
with paddy, wheat, maize, mustard, gram, garden pea,
papaya, golden gram, white jute and sugarcane. Banana

Musa paradisiaca, beetlenut Areca catechu, coconut


Cocos nucifera, mango Mangifera indica, jack fruit
Artocarpus heterophyllus and litchi Litchi chinensis are
the fruits cultivated in the area. Bamboo and palm trees
are patchily distributed within agricultural landscape.
Vegetation of the area includes Sisso Dalbergia sissoo,
Sal Shorea robusta, Simal Bombax ceiba, Khayer Acacia
catechu, Banyan tree Ficus benghalensis, Kadam
Anthocephalus chinensis, Peepal Ficus religiosa, Black
plum Syzygium cumini, Tallow tree Triadica sebifera and
Mulberry Morus alba.
Discussion
S. kuhlii ranges through much of South Asia,
southern China and Southeast Asia (Bates et al. 2008).
In South Asia, it is presently known from Bangladesh
(Chittagong, Khulna and Sylhet divisions), India
(Andaman & Nicobar Islands, Andhra Pradesh, Assam,
Bihar, Gujarat, Jharkhand, Karnataka, Kerala, Madhya
Pradesh, Maharashtra, Meghalaya, Odisha, Rajasthan,
Tamil Nadu, Tripura, Uttar Pradesh, Uttarakhand and
West Bengal), Pakistan (Punjab and Sind) and Sri Lanka
(Central, Eastern, Northern, North Central and Uva
provinces) (Khan 2001; Das 2003; Vanitharani 2006;
Korad et al. 2007). In South Asia, it has been recorded

Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | 26 January 2016 | 8(1): 83658368

8367

Scotophilus kuhlii from Nepal

Dahal et al.

from sea level to an elevation of 1,111m (Molur et al.


2002).
S. kuhlii has been recorded from 12 localities in Bihar
and 16 localities in West Bengal in India. Among them,
the nearest locality from Tikulia tole, Pakali V.D.C., Nepal
is Purniya District, Bihar, India. The ventral pelage is
pale brown, usually without the characteristic yellowish
tinge as found in S. heathii (Bates & Harrison 1997).
However, pelage of our specimens is also anomalous
from a specimen with the dorsal pelage olive brown
in color and ventrally creamy and a distinct collar on
the throat reported by Srinivasulu et al. (2010). The
recorded locality lies within the critical/endangered
Global 200 terrestrial eco-region number 91, Tarai-Duar
Savanna and Grasslands (Olson & Dinerstein 2002).
Nepal includes part of the Himalaya Hotspot as defined
by Conservation International (2007). This is the first
specific locality record of the species collected in Nepal
that confirms its occurrence in the country.
References
Acharya P., H. Adhikari, S. Dahal, A. Thapa & S. Thapa (2010). Bats of
Nepal, A Field Guide. Small Mammals Conservation and Research
Foundation, New Baneshwor, Kathmandu, Nepal.
Baral, H.S. & K.B. Shah (2008). Wild Mammals of Nepal. Himalayan
Nature, Kathmandu, Nepal.
Bates, P.J.J. & D.L. Harrison (1997). Bats of Indian Subcontinent.
Harrison Zoological Museum Publication, Sevenoaks, United
Kingdom, 258pp.
Bates, P., T. Kingston, C. Francis, G. Rosell-Ambal, L. Heaney, J.-C.
Gonzales, S. Molur, S. & C. Srinivasulu (2008). Scotophilus kuhlii.
The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2008: e.T20068A9142479.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2008.RLTS.T20068A9142479.
en. Downloaded on 19 January 2016.
Conservation International (2007). http://www.biodiversityhotspots.
org/xp/hotspots/himalaya/pages/conservation.aspx. Downloaded
on 21 March 2012.
Corbet, G.B. & J.E. Hill (1992). The Mammals of the Indomalayan
Region. Natural History Museum / OUP, 488pp.
Das, P.K. (2003). Studies on some Indian Chiroptera from West Bengal.
Records of the Zoological Survey of India, Occasional Paper 217:
1164.
R.A.R.S.T (2014). Annual Report 2070/71 (2013/14). Regional
Agricultural Research Station, Nepal Agricultural Research Council,
Tarahara, Sunsari, Nepal, xii+109pp.

8368

Hill, J.E. & K. Thonglongya (1972). Bats from Thailand and Cambodia.
Bulletin of the British Museum (Natural History) (Zoology) 22(6):
173196.
Jnawali, S.R., H.S. Baral, S. Lee, K.P. Acharya, G.P. Upadhyay, M.
Pandey, M., R. Shrestha, D. Joshi, B.R. Laminchhane, J. Griffiths,
A.P. Khatiwada, N. Subedi & R. Amin. (compilers) (2011). The
Status of Nepal Mammals: The National Red List Series, Department
of National Parks and Wildlife Conservation, Kathmandu, Nepal,
viii+266pp.
Leach, W.E. (1821). The characters of three new genera of bats without
foliaceous appendages to the nose. Transactions of the Linnean
Society of London 13: 6972.
Khan, M.A.R. (2001). Status and distribution of bats in Bangladesh
with notes on their ecology. Zoos Print Journal 16(5): 479483;
http://dx.doi.org/10.11609/JoTT.ZPJ.16.5.479-83
Korad, V., K. Yardi & R. Raud (2007). Diversity and Distribution of Bats
in the Western Ghats of India. Zoos Print Journal 22(7): 27522758;
http://dx.doi.org/10.11609/JoTT.ZPJ.1563.2752-8
Molur S., G. Marimuthu, C. Srinivasulu, S. Mistry, A. Hutson, P.J.J.
Bates, S. Walker, K.P. Priya & A.R.B. Priya (eds.) (2002). Status of
South Asian Chiroptera: Conservation Assessment and Management
Plan (C.A.M.P.) Workshop Report. Zoo Outreach Organisation,
Conservation Breeding Specialist Group South Asia and Wildlife
Information & Liaison Development Society, Coimbatore, India.
Olson, D.M. & E. Dinerstein (2002). The Global 200: priority ecoregions
for global conservation. Annals of the Missouri Botanical Garden 89:
199224.
Pearch, M.J. (2011). A review of the biological diversity and distribution
of small mammal taxa in the terrestrial ecoregions and protected
areas of Nepal. Zootaxa 3072: 286.
Shrestha, T.K. (1997). Mammals of Nepal. Bimala Shrestha, R.K.
Printers, Kathmandu, Nepal.
Simmons, N. (2005). Order Chiroptera, pp. 312529. In: Wilson D.E.
& D.M. Reeder (eds.). Mammal Species of the World: A Taxonomic
and Geographic. Reference. 3rd Edition - Vol. 1. The John Hopkins
University Press, Baltimore, xxxv+2142pp.
Srinivasulu, B., C. Srinivasulu & P. Venkateshwarlu (2010). First record
of Lesser Yellow House Bat Scotophilus kuhlii Leach, 1821 from
Secunderabad, Andhra Pradesh, India with a note on its diet. Journal
of Threatened Taxa 2(10): 12341236; http://dx.doi.org/10.11609/
JoTT.o1989.1234-6
Srinivasulu, C. & B. Srinivasulu (2012). South Asian Mammals, Their
Diversity, Distribution and Status. Springer, USA, xi+467pp+10 illus.
in color.
Suwal, R. & W.J.M. Verheugt (1995). Enumeration of Mammals of
Nepal. Biodiversity Profiles Project Publication No. 6. Department
of National Parks and Wildlife Conservation, Kathmandu, Nepal.
Vanitharani, J. (2006). Noteworthy representatives of bat species
in Agasthyamalai Biosphere Reserve, Tamil Nadu. Journal of
Theoretical and Experimental Biology 2(2): 4759.

Threatened Taxa

Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | 26 January 2016 | 8(1): 83658368

Avifaunal diversity in Assam University Campus, Silchar, India


Biswajit Chakdar 1, Parthankar Choudhury 2 & Hilloljyoti Singha 3
Department of Ecology and Environmental Science; 3 Centre for Biodiversity and Natural Resources Conservation,
Assam University, Silchar, Assam 788011, India
1
bchakdar40@gmail.com, 2 parthankar@rediffmail.com, 3 hilloljyoti.singha@gmail.com (corresponding author)
1,2

Abstract: We conducted a bird survey in the Assam University campus,


Silchar from February 2011 to June 2011. A total of 73 species of
birds belonging to 56 genera, 32 families and 13 orders was recorded.
Significantly, the highest number of bird species restricted to only one
particular habitat (17 species) was recorded in the forest area called
eco-forest (2=18, df=3, P<0.01). The highest similarity of bird species
was found between degraded area and secondary growth area, and
the lowest was found between eco-forest and degraded area. Species
richness and dominance of species were more in the eco-forest area.
The diversity of species was more in the secondary growth area. Redvented Bulbul, Spotted Dove and Red-whiskered Bulbul were the most
abundant and frequent bird species found in campus. The avifaunal
diversity in the study area shows the importance of the University
campus as an ideal bird habitat.
Keywords: Assam University, bird, degraded forest, dominance,
species diversity, species richness.

The Indian subcontinent has 1340 bird species (Ali


& Ripley 1987; Manakadan & Pittie 2001) which is over
13% of the worlds birds. In Assam, more than 900
species and subspecies of birds belonging to 20 orders
have been recorded (Choudhury 2000). A few studies
on the terrestrial bird community have been done in
the Barak Valley in the southern part of Assam (Hume
1877, 1880, 1888; Baker 18941901; Inglis 18961910),
which contained lists of birds. Of late, Deb & Gupta

ISSN 0974-7907 (Online)


ISSN 0974-7893 (Print)

OPEN ACCESS

(2010) analysed avian communities in fragmented


landscapes of Cachar District, Assam. A checklist of
113 species of birds in Assam University, Silchar campus
and its adjoining area is available in Dutta et al. (2008).
In addition to the university campus, they recorded
birds in quite diverse habitats including nearby tea
gardens, grassy meadows, scrub jungles, open forest,
relatively dense forest, hills, paddy fields, agricultural
lands, stream banks, bamboo groves, horticultural
gardens near villages. However, they did not do a
comparative study of avifauna in different habitats.
Bird diversity is influenced by habitat heterogeneity
(MacArthur & MacArthur 1961). Change in structural
and compositional diversity of native vegetation would
alter the composition of the bird community (Fleishman
et al. 1990; Leito et al. 2006; Acevedo & Aide 2008).
Each habitat has its own characteristics with regard to
avifauna composition (Manhaes & Loures-Ribeiro 2005),
and several studies have established that the structural
characteristics of the habitat influence bird diversity in
general, and specific habitat preference in particular.
We studied avian diversity in different habitats of the
Assam University, Silchar campus. We took the university
campus as a model for studying birds in heterogeneous

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.11609/jott.2524.8.1.8369-8378 | ZooBank: urn:lsid:zoobank.org:pub:BF014448-0E21-4B95-A7E6-88C1B1E8AAE1


Editor: Rajiv S. Kalsi, Department of Zoology, M.L.N. College, Haryana, India.

Date of publication: 26 January 2016 (online & print)

Manuscript details: Ms # 2524 | Received 07 December 2014 | Final received 30 October 2015 | Finally accepted 23 December 2015
Citation: Chakdar, B., P. Choudhury & H. Singha (2016). Avifaunal diversity in Assam University Campus, Silchar, India. Journal of Threatened Taxa 8(1): 83698378;
http://dx.doi.org/10.11609/jott.2524.8.1.8369-8378
Copyright: Chakdar et al. 2016. Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. JoTT allows unrestricted use of this article in any medium, reproduction
and distribution by providing adequate credit to the authors and the source of publication.
Funding: None.
Conflict of Interest: The authors declare no competing interests.
Acknowledgements: We express our thanks to the Head of the Department Dr. Dulal Chandra Ray for his kind support. We are also thankful to all the non-teaching
staffs of our department and security guards of the University for their Cooperation. We also acknowledge with thanks the cooperation and support of Soumya
Dasgupta, Manab, Jayanta, Freeman, Anukul and Dipankar Debnath.

8369

Short Communication

Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | 26 January 2016 | 8(1): 83698378

Avifauna of Assam University Campus

Chakdar et al.

habitats. Similar work has also been done at the Federal


University of Juiz de Fora, Brazil (Manhaes & LouresRibeiro 2005). We investigated the avifaunal diversity in
different habitats in the same landscape.
Study Area
The study was carried out in Assam University,
Silchar (AUS) campus (24041N & 92041E), located
in Cachar District of Assam (Fig. 1). The University
campus is spread over an area of about 600 acres and
is surrounded by several small hillocks, natural lakes, tea
gardens and agricultural lands (Dutta et al. 2008). The
area experiences a warm, humid climate having a mean
annual rainfall of 2660mm, most of which is received
from May to September. The temperature ranges from
110C (January) to 32.60C (August).
We selected four distinct habitats within the
university campus to compare the avifauna (Fig. 2).
We named them gorge, eco-forest, degraded area and
secondary growth area.
The gorge is characterized by a narrow deep strip of
1km flanked by two perpendicular hilly slopes. It has
small temporary streams, and puddles, mainly fed by
rain water. The vegetation is dominated by herbs and
shrubs such as Clerodendron viscosum, Cassia alata,
Lantana camara, Combretum sp. and Crotolaria juncea,
with a few trees of Artocarpus chama scattered in the
habitat.
The university campus has a forest patch, which
is actually the remnant of a hill forest, which used to
occur before the establishment of the campus. This is
popularly known as the eco-forest. One side of the
forest is surrounded by the Silcoorie Tea Estate and the
other side is bordered by paddy fields. The dominant
tree species in this habitat are Artocarpus chama,
Tetrameles nudiflora, Ficus sp. and Artocarpus lakoocha,
and the undergrowth is dominated by Schizostachyum
dullooa, Mimosa himalayana, saplings of Goniothalamus
sp., Cyclostemon sp., Desmodium trifolium, saplings
of Calamus guruba, Daemonorops sp., Homalonema
sp., Combretum sp., Cassia alata, Lantana camara and
seedlings of Artocarpus chama (Dutta et al. 2008). We
recognized that the degraded area had a few small trees
but it was dominated by shrub species like Melastoma
sp., Combretum sp., and Clerodendron viscosum. The
fourth habitat we selected was a secondary growth area,
with regeneration of vegetation and some secondary
vegetation. Combretum sp. and Melastoma sp. are the
dominant shrub species found here. The area did not
have any trees.

8370

Study area
River
District border
Town

Figure 1. Location of the study area

Methods
Data collection
The study was carried out from February 2011
to June 2011. A 350m-long trail in each habitat was
followed until no addition of new species of birds to the
cumulative number of species was confirmed. Thus each
trail was walked 10 times during the study period. While
walking at a constant pace along the trail, the species
encountered within 30m on both sides of the trail were
recorded. Birds flying overhead were excluded, and
the birds that flew from behind the observers, were
not recorded to avoid double count. The bird species
were observed with a field binoculars (840) from 05:30
to 07:30 hr. and from 16:00 to 18:00 hr. Grimmett et
al. (1999) was followed for the identification of birds;
conspicuous bird calls were additionally used both
for identification and recording birds. In addition to
the fixed trails, opportunistic sightings of the birds
were also recorded in other parts of the campus. The
comprehensive checklist of the birds in the campus
was prepared by adding these species with the species
recorded on the fixed trails.
Data analyses
The cumulative number of species observed in
each habitat was considered as the species richness for
that habitat. A checklist of bird species found on the
university campus was prepared following Manakadan &

Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | 26 January 2016 | 8(1): 83698378

Avifauna of Assam University Campus

Chakdar et al.

Figure 2. Study area showing different habitats surveyed. Source: image@2011 GeoEye, Google Earth.

Pittie (2001) and Choudhury (2000). A list of bird species


recorded in all the four habitats along with overall
relative abundance and percentage of frequency of each
species was calculated. The percentage of frequency
for each species was calculated simply by dividing the
number of days on which the species was observed by
the total number of observation days multiplied by 100.
Relative abundance for each species was calculated by
dividing the total number of individuals of the species
observed by the total number of individuals of all the
species observed multiplied by 100.
We listed the bird species found particularly in each
of the four specific habitats, i.e., for gorge, eco-forest,
secondary growth area and degraded area separately,
and then performed Chi-square test to see if the number
of species was significantly different in those habitats.
Shannon-Wiener index (Shannon & Weaver 1949) for
bird species diversity, and also, dominance and evenness
of bird species were calculated for each habitat using

PAST software (Hammer et al. 2001). To determine the


association of species between two habitats, Sorensens
index of similarity (Sorensen 1948) was calculated as
given below:
Cs = 2j / (a + b)
Where j = number of species common to both
habitats.
a = number of species in habitat A
b = number of species in habitat B.
Results
A total of 73 species of birds (Appendix 1) belonging
to 56 genera, 32 families and 13 orders were recorded
from Assam University campus. However, 53 species
belonging to 44 genera, 28 families and 12 orders were
encountered on the regular trails followed in the four
different habitats in the campus. Out of these, six species
were exclusively winter visitors, one was a migrant and

Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | 26 January 2016 | 8(1): 83698378

8371

Avifauna of Assam University Campus

Chakdar et al.

DISCUSSION
The diversity of birds and distribution with respect
to available habitat types represents the importance of
the university campus as a suitable bird habitat. The
university campus consists of a mosaic of habitats, which
supports good diversity of birds. Habitat heterogeneity
favours habitat specialist (through niche partitioning)
birds with broad niches (Surasinghe et al. 2010).
In addition to 53 bird species in the regular trails,
we recorded 20 more species in the university campus
(Appendix 1), which we encountered occasionally,
through opportunistic sightings. To prepare a checklist
of bird species, opportunistic records are also required
in addition to regular trail surveys.
The overall Shannon diversity index (2.90) in the
Assam University campus was high. The habitat
8372

Figure 3. Species accumulation curve for avian communities in four


different habitats surveyed.

Figure 4. Number of bird species recorded in different habitats in


the Assam University, Silchar campus during 2011.

No. of species

the remaining 66 species were residents, including


occasional winter visitors and local and altitudinal
migrants (see Choudhury 2000 for this classification).
The highest species richness was found in the ecoforest (36 spp. = 67.92%) and the lowest in the degraded
area (19 spp. = 35.85%) (Figs. 3 & 4). However, the
highest bird diversity was found in the secondary growth
area and the lowest species diversity was recorded in the
eco-forest (Table 1). The dominance of species was more
in the eco-forest and lowest in the gorge. Equitability or
evenness was highest in the degraded area followed by
the secondary growth area. The dominance, Shannon
index and evenness for bird community in the entire
area covering all four habitat types were 0.106, 2.896
and 0.729, respectively (Table 1).
Among the four different habitats, six bird species
were recorded only in the gorge, 17 species were
recorded only in the eco-forest, two- and four species
were recorded only in degraded area and secondary
growth area, respectively; i.e., 29 species of birds (55%)
were recorded from only one particular habitat type
(Table 2). Significantly, the highest number of birds
found only in a particular habitat (17 species = 57%)
was recorded in the eco-forest (2=18, df=3, P<0.01)
(Fig. 5). The highest similarity of bird species was found
between the degraded area & the secondary growth
area and the lowest was found between the eco-forest
& the degraded area (Table 3).
The Red-vented Bulbul Pycnonotus cafer, the Spotted
Dove Streptopelia chinensis and the Red-whiskered
Bulbul Pycnonotus jocosus were the most abundant and
frequent bird species (Table 4). Ten bird species were
generalists, occurring in all habitat types recorded in the
campus (Table 4).

Figure 5. Number of bird species found particularly in one habitat


type.

heterogeneity hypothesis proposes that an increase in


the number of habitats leads to an increase in species
diversity in a landscape (MacArthur & MacArthur 1961)

Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | 26 January 2016 | 8(1): 83698378

Avifauna of Assam University Campus

Chakdar et al.

Table 1. Dominance and Diversity indices of avian communities in different habitats.


Index

Gorge

Eco-forest

Degraded area

Secondary growth

Overall

Dominance

0.120

0.156

0.097

0.107

0.106

Shannon index

2.558

2.529

2.573

2.594

2.896

Equitability or evenness

0.776

0.706

0.874

0.816

0.729

Table 2. Bird species recorded only in one particular habitat type in the Assam University, Silchar campus during 2011.
Gorge

Eco-forest

Degraded area

Secondary growth

Cattle Egret
Small Blue Kingfisher
Indian Pond-Heron
Common Snipe
White-breasted Waterhen
Grey-backed Shrike

Golden-fronted Leafbird
Common Hoopoe
Fulvous-breasted Pied Woodpecker
Coppersmith Barbet
Hodgsons Scimitar-Babbler
Scarlet-backed Flowerpecker
Alexandrine Parakeet
Black-naped Green Woodpecker
Crimson Sunbird
Large Cuckoo-Shrike
Indian Roller
Yellow-legged Green-Pigeon
Black-headed Oriole
Kaleej Pheasant
Large Yellow-naped Woodpecker
Red-breasted Parakeet
Common Hill-Myna

Spotted Munia
House Sparrow

Chestnut-headed Bee-eater
Emerald Dove
Pied Harrier
Spotted Owlet

Table 3. Similarity between different habitats in terms of bird species occurrence.


Habitat
Sorensen's Index

Gorge & Eco-forest

Eco-forest &
Degraded area

Degraded area &


Secondary growth

Gorge & Degraded


area

Gorge & Secondary


growth

Eco-forest &
Secondary growth

0.476

0.436

0.941

0.696

0.731

0.567

because of an expansion in the number of partitionable


niche dimensions (Cramer & Willig 2005). However,
the Shannon diversity index in four studied habitats
differed very little. The secondary growth area had
the highest diversity index of 2.60. In a similar study
in different habitats in tropical deciduous forest, the
Shannon diversity index ranged from 2.84 to 3.76 with
species richness varying from 39 to 75 (Ramrez-Albores
2007). Johnsingh & Joshua (1994) found bird species
diversity index 3.04 in dry deciduous forest, while 2.83
in secondary vegetation in Mundanthurai Plateau,
southern India. In our study, the overall species richness
was 53 in the regular trails. Though the highest number
of species was recorded in the eco-forest area, because
of the dominance of Red-vented Bulbul, the ShannonWieners Index was less than that of the secondary
growth area. Tvardkov (2010) found no difference in
the abundance of birds, but differences in the diversity
between primary and secondary forests (see Dunn 2004
also for review).

The eco-forest area with comparatively more trees


was rich in bird species. More than half of all the species
recorded in this area were confined to this particular
habitat. The presence of trees with understory vegetation
in this area provided food resources, breeding habitat
and cover for the birds. Dense under-storey vegetation
provides a good habitat for bush birds. This area looked
to be a suitable nesting habitat for several bird species.
The Common Hill-Myna Gracula religiosa, Red-breasted
Parakeet Psittacula alexandri, Rose-ringed Parakeet
Psittacula krameri, Blue-throated Barbet Megalaima
asiatica, Coppersmith Barbet Megalaima haemacephala
are some of the birds species that have been seen to
make nests in tree-holes. This habitat supports 17
bird species which were not found in the other three
habitats, which is because of its vegetation complexity.
The secondary vegetation, especially if it is heavily
disturbed, has fewer forest specialist bird species and
more of the widespread generalist species (Terborgh
& Weske 1969; Beehler et al. 1987). Although the

Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | 26 January 2016 | 8(1): 83698378

8373

Avifauna of Assam University Campus

Chakdar et al.

Table 4. The relative abundance and frequency of each species and its occurrence in four habitats.
Habitat
Species
1

Red-vented Bulbul

Gorge
+

Eco-forest

Degraded
area

Secondary
growth

Rel.
Abundance (%)

Frequency (%)

27.6

100.0

Spotted Dove

9.1

90.0

Red-whiskered Bulbul

7.5

80.0

Common Myna

4.3

60.0

Brown-flanked Bush-Warbler

4.4

60.0

Oriental Magpie-Robin

3.0

57.5

Rufous-necked Laughingthrush

5.8

45.0

Black Drongo

2.0

42.5

Jungle Crow

3.7

42.5

10

Asian Pied Starling

3.2

37.5

11

Jungle Myna

2.7

37.5

12

Blue-throated Barbet

1.5

32.5

13

Rose-ringed Parakeet

2.8

30.0

14

Common Tailorbird

1.5

30.0

15

Greater Coucal

1.3

30.0

16

Rufous-backed Shrike

0.8

25.0

17

Striated Babbler

2.8

22.5

18

Common Hill-Myna

2.1

22.5

19

House Sparrow

1.7

22.5

20

White-throated Kingfisher

0.7

20.0

21

Red-breasted Parakeet

2.2

17.5

22

Chestnut-headed Bee-eater

0.9

17.5

23

Asian Koel

0.6

17.5

24

White-rumped Munia

2.4

15.0

25

Common Snipe

0.4

10.0

26

Spotted Owlet

0.3

10.0

27

Bronze Drongo

0.3

10.0

28

Grey-backed Shrike

0.2

7.5

29

White-breasted Waterhen

0.3

7.5

30

Red Junglefowl

0.2

7.5

31

Pied Harrier

0.4

7.5

32

Large Yellow-naped Woodpecker

0.3

5.0

33

Grey-headed Starling

0.6

5.0

34

Large Cuckoo-Shrike

0.2

5.0

35

Black-naped Green Woodpecker

0.2

5.0

36

Common Iora

0.1

2.5

37

Indian Pond-Heron

0.1

2.5

38

Small Blue Kingfisher

0.1

2.5

39

Kaleej Pheasant

0.1

2.5

40

Black-headed Oriole

0.2

2.5

41

Yellow-legged Green-Pigeon

0.2

2.5

42

Indian Roller

0.2

2.5

43

Emerald Dove

0.1

2.5

8374

Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | 26 January 2016 | 8(1): 83698378

Avifauna of Assam University Campus

Chakdar et al.
Habitat

Species
44

Crimson Sunbird

Gorge
-

Eco-forest

Degraded
area

Secondary
growth

Rel.
Abundance (%)

Frequency (%)

0.1

2.5

45

Alexandrine Parakeet

0.1

2.5

46

Scarlet-backed Flowerpecker

0.1

2.5

47

Hodgsons Scimitar-Babbler

0.1

2.5

48

Spotted Munia

0.1

2.5

49

Coppersmith Barbet

0.1

2.5

50

Cattle Egret

0.1

2.5

51

Fulvous-breasted Pied
Woodpecker

0.1

2.5

52

Common Hoopoe

0.1

2.5

53

Gold-fronted Chloropsis

0.1

2.5

+ = present; - = absent;

secondary growth area of the campus is located nearby


a forest, several of the forest-dependent birds were
either rare or absent in the secondary growth area.
Notable among these were the Common Hill-Myna,
Common Iora Aegithina tiphia, Alexandrine Parakeet
Psittacula eupatria, Fulvous-breasted Pied Woodpecker
Dendrocopos macei, Black-naped Green Woodpecker
Picus canus and Large Yellow-naped Woodpecker Picus
flavinucha. Common Myna Acridotheres tristis, Black
Drongo Dicrurus macrocercus, Red-vented Bulbul, Redwhiskered Bulbul, Spotted Dove, Asian Koel Eudynamys
scolopacea, Brown-flanked Bush-warbler Cettia fortipes,
White-breasted Kingfisher Halcyon Smyrnensis, Jungle
Crow Corvus macrorhynchos and Common Tailorbird
Orthotomus sutorius were the generalist bird species
recorded in all the four habitats. Eighteen bird species
were sighted only once or twice in the study period,
13 of them were sighted in the eco-forest region.
These species might be occasional visitors. Rice et al.
(1983) found that species with restricted distributions
were habitat specialists, whereas species with broad
distributions can be either habitat generalists or
specialists.
The Gorge area consisting of some temporary
streams and pools supported some water bird species,
which were restricted to this habitat only. The Degraded
area, on the other hand, had mostly generalist bird
species and some urban birds such as House Sparrow
Passer domesticus, Spotted Munia Lonchura punctulata,
etc.
Species diversity in the Secondary growth area was
more as the bird species present there were mostly
generalist species and the individuals were evenly
distributed. Johnsingh & Joshua (1994) also found fewer

specialized forest species in secondary vegetation and


more generalists. Deb & Gupta (2010) had recorded
more species diversity in secondary growth landscape
than degraded forest. They also stated that patch quality
is an important governing factor limiting occurrence and
distribution of sensitive species. Species composition of
the vegetation is very important to habitat selection by
birds (Rice et al. 1983). However, Johnsingh & Joshua
(1994) could not find any relationship between bird
species diversity and tree species diversity. Rai (1991)
concluded that bird species richness was highest in the
floristically rich habitat types. However, Daniels (1989)
found increased bird diversity in disturbed forest. Our
study area represented at least four different patchy
habitats, which provides an overall mosaic kind of
habitat for rich avian diversity. The highest similarity
of bird species (94%) was found between the degraded
area and secondary growth area. Johnsingh & Joshua
(1994) found 52% similarity in bird species between
secondary vegetation and dry deciduous forest. Our
result of similarity index between eco-forest and
secondary growth area (56%) is similar to their study.
Both the degraded area and secondary growth area had
less vegetation, devoid of trees, and thus have a similar
look. Mostly generalist bird species were found in these
habitats.
The Assam University, Silchar campus is a remnant of
forested area having mosaic kinds of landscape, which
provide different habitats for the diverse communities
of birds. We recorded some migratory species which
are rarely found in this region. The presence of both
generalist as well as habitat specialist bird species in the
same landscape may lead to many research questions.
A study on comparative ecology between these two

Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | 26 January 2016 | 8(1): 83698378

8375

Avifauna of Assam University Campus

Chakdar et al.

communities could be done. On the basis of abundance,


resource partition between congeneric species like Redvented Bulbul and Red-whiskered Bulbul, Red-breasted
Parakeet and Rose-ringed Parakeet, House Sparrow and
Eurasian Tree Sparrow, etc., could also be studied. There
is also scope to study least known species, e.g., Rufousnecked Laughingthrush, which is otherwise not easily
found in the Barak Valley. Long term nest monitoring
of the House Sparrow and Eurasian Tree Sparrow is
one of the options for future research. Because of
secondary succession in some areas is going on, it will be
interesting to continue the field research in later years to
see the change in bird community there. However, due
to developmental activities in the campus in the form
of construction of buildings, some parts of the campus
have acquired the form of a semi-urban habitat (Singha
et al. 2011), which provides a good habitat for some
urban species (e.g., House Sparrow, Tree Sparrow) as
well. They recorded 157 nests belonging to five species
of birds in the AUS campus. It is proposed, however
that habitat heterogeneity should be maintained for the
conservation of species richness in habitats threatened
by human activities (McGarigal & McComb 1992;
Greenberg et al. 1995). Therefore, considering the rich
avian species diversity in heterogenous habitats in the
AUS campus, the remnant forest area should be kept out
of developmental activities. Our study has revealed that
due to heterogenous habitats within its campus area,
Assam University, Silchar holds a high avian diversity.
Therefore, developmental activities like building
constructions could be restricted to some places, and
particularly the eco-forest area and gorge should remain
as they are.

REFERENCES
Acevedo, M.A. & T.M. Aide (2008). Bird community dynamics and
habitat associations in Karst, Mangrove and Pterocarpus forest
fragment in an urban zone. Caribbean Journal Science 44: 402416.
Ali, S. & S.D. Ripley (1987). Compact Handbook of the Birds of India
and Pakistan together with those of Bangladesh, Nepal, Bhutan, and
Sri Lanka. Oxford University Press, Delhi, India, 737pp.
Baker, E.C.S. (18941901). The birds of north Cachar, 12 parts. Journal
of Bombay Natural History Society Volumes: 813.
Beehler, B.C., K.S.R. Krishna Raju & A. Shahid (1987). Avian use of
man-disturbed forest habitats in the Eastern Ghats, India. Ibis 129:
197211.
Choudhury, A.U. (2000). The Birds of Assam. Gibbon Books and World
Wide Fund for Nature-India, Guwahati.
Cramer, M.J. & M.R. Willig (2005). Habitat heterogeneity, species
diversity and null models. Oikos 108: 209218.
Deb, N. & A. Gupta (2010). Avian Community Analysis in Fragmented
Landscapes of Cachar District, Assam. Assam University Journal of
Science & Technology: Biological and Environmental Sciences 5(I):
7584
8376

Daniels, R.J.R. (1989). A conservation strategy for the birds of the


Uttara Kannada District. PhD Thesis. Indian Institute of Science,
Bangalore.
Dunn, R.R. (2004). Recovery of faunal communities during tropical
forest regeneration. Conservation Biology 18: 302309.
Dutta, B.K., A. Gupta, A.K. Das & A. De (2008). Ecology and
Biodiversity of Assam University Campus. Department of Ecology &
Environmental Science, Assam University, Silchar, 33pp.
Fleishman, E., N. McDonald, R. McNally, D. Murphy, J. Waters, T.
Floyd, J. Fowler & L. Cohen (1990). Practical Statistics for Field
Biology. John Wiley and Sons, New York.
Greenberg, C.H., L.D. Harris & D.G. Neary (1995). A comparison of bird
communities in burned and salvagelogged, clearcut, and forested
Florida sand pine scrub. Wilson Bulletin 107: 4054.
Grimmett, R., C. Inskipp & T. Inskipp (1999). Pocket Guide to the Birds
of the Indian Subcontinent. Oxford University Press, New Delhi.
384pp.
Hammer, O., D.A.T. Harperand & P.D. Ryan (2001). PAST:
Paleontological Statistics Software Package for Education and Data
Analysis. Palaeontologia Electronica 4(1): 9pp.
Hume, A.O. (1877). A first list of the birds of northeastern Cachar. Stray
feathers 5: 147.
Hume, A.O. (1880). A second list of the birds of northeastern Cachar.
Stray feathers 9: 241259.
Hume, A.O. (1888). The birds of Manipur, Sylhet and Cachar. Stray
feathers 11: 1353.
Inglis, C.(1896-1910). List of birds collected during 5 years residence
in the Hylakandy district of Cachar. 8 parts. Journal of the Bombay
Natural History Society volumes: 1030.
Javed, S. & R. Kaul (2002). Field Methods for Bird Surveys. Bombay
Natural History Society, Mumbai, 61pp.
Johnsingh, A.J.T. & J. Joshua (1994). Avifauna in Three Vegetation
Types on Mundanthurai Plateau, South India. Journal of Tropical
Ecology 10(3): 323335.
Leito, A., J. Truu, E. Roosaluste, K. Seep & I. Podier (2006). Long term
dynamics of breeding birds in broad-leaved deciduous forest on
Hanckasti Island in the west-estonian archipelago. Ornis. Fennica
83: 124130.
MacArthur, R.H. & J.W. MacArthur (1961). On bird species diversity.
Ecology 42: 594598.
Manakadan, R. & A. Pittie (2001). Standardised common and scientific
names of the birds of the Indian subcontinent. Buceros 6(1): 137.
Manhes, M.A. & A. Loures-Ribeiro (2005). Spatial distribution and
diversity of bird community in an urban area of southeast Brazil.
Brazilian Archives of Biology and Technology 48(2): 285294.
McGarigal, K. & W.C. McComb (1992). Streamside versus upslope
breeding bird communities in the central Oregon coast range.
Journal of Wildlife Management 56: 1023.
Rai, N.D. (1991). A study of heterospecific flocking and non-breeding
bird community structure of Rajaji National Park. MSc. (Wildlife
Science) dissertation. Saurashtra University, Rajkot.
Ramrez-Albores, J.E. (2007). Bird diversity and conservation of Alto
Balsas (Southwestern Puebla), Mexico. Revista de Biologia Tropical
55(1): 287300.
Rice, J., R.D. Ohmart & B.W. Anderson (1983). Habitat selection
attributes of an avian community: a discriminant analysis
investigation. Ecological Monographs 53(3): 226229.
Shannon, C.E. & W. Weaver (1949). The Mathematical Theory of
Communication. Urbana, University of Illinois Press, 117pp.
Singha, H., P. Deb, B. Chakdar, J.K. Roy & M.R. Choudhury (2011).
Nest Site Selection by Passerines with Special Reference to House
Sparrow (Passer domesticus) and Spotted Munia (Lonchura
punctulata) in a Newly Developed Semi Urban Hamlet in South
Assam, India. Assam University Journal of Science & Technology:
Biological and Environmental Sciences 8(1): 7483.
Sorensen, T. (1948). A method of establishing groups of equal
amplitude in plant sociology based on similarity of species content
and its application to analyses of the vegetation on Danish
commons. Kongelige Danske Videnskabernes Selskab 5: 134

Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | 26 January 2016 | 8(1): 83698378

Avifauna of Assam University Campus

Chakdar et al.

Surasinghe, T.D. & C. De Alwis (2010). Birds of Sabaragamuwa


University campus, Buttala, Sri Lanka. Journal of Threatened Taxa
2(5): 876888; http://dx.doi.org/10.11609/JoTT.o2113.876-88
Terborgh, J. & J.S. Weske (1969). Colonization of secondary habitats by
Peruvian birds. Ecology 50: 765782.

Tvardikova, K. (2010). Bird abundances in primary and secondary


growths in Papua New Guinea: a preliminary assessment. Tropical
Conservation Science 3(4): 373388.

Appendix 1. Checklist of birds found in the Assam University, Silchar campus during 2011. Classification of birds is after Manakadan & Pittie
(2001).
Scientific name

Residential
status

Common name

Scientific name

Residential
status

24. White-breasted Kingfisher

Halcyon Smyrnensis

Ardeola grayii

Meropidae

2. Cattle Egret

Bubulcus ibis

25. Chestnut-headed Bee-eater

Merops leschenaulti

3. Median Egret

Mesophoyx
intermedia

Coraciidae
Coracias
benghalensis

R, L

Upupa epops

R, W, L

Common name
Ciconiiformes: Ardeidae
1. Indian Pond-Heron

26. Indian Roller

Ciconiidae
4. Asian Openbill-Stork

Anastomus oscitans

Falconiformes: Accipitridae

Upupidae
27. Common Hoopoe

5. Pied Harrier

Circus melanoleucos

M, W

6. Crested Serpent-Eagle

Spilornis cheela

Galliformes: Phasianidae

Piciformes: Capidonidae
28. Blue-throated Barbet

Megalaima asiatica

29. Lineated Barbet

Megalaima lineata

Megalaima
haemacephala

7. Red Junglefowl

Gallus gallus

30. Coppersmith Barbet

8. Kaleej Pheasant

Lophura
leucomelanos

Picidae
31. Eurasian Wryneck

Jynx torquilla

32. Large Yellow-naped


Woodpecker

Picus flavinucha

33. Black-naped Green


Woodpecker

Picus canus

34. Fulvous-breasted Pied


Woodpecker

Dendrocopos macei

Gruiformes: Rallidae
9. White-breasted Waterhen

Amaurornis
phoenicurus

Charadriiformes: Scolopacidae
Gallinago gallinago

11. Emerald Dove

Chalcophaps indica

12. Spotted Dove

Streptopelia chinensis

10. Common Snipe


Columbiformes: Columbidae

13. Yellow-legged Green-Pigeon

Treron phoenicoptera

14. Red-breasted Parakeet

Psittacula alexandri

15. Rose-ringed Parakeet

Psittacula krameri

16. Alexandrine Parakeet

Psittacula eupatria

Cuculiformes: Cuculidae
17. Greater Coucal

Centropus sinensis

18. Asian Koel

Eudynamys
scolopacea

R, L

19. Spotted Owlet

Athene brama

20. Brown Fish-Owl

Ketupa zeylonensis

Ninox scutulata

Apus affinis

R, L

Alcedo atthis

Strigiformes: Strigidae

Apodiformes: Apodidae

Coraciiformes: Alcedinidae
23. Small Blue Kingfisher

Lanius schach

R, W

Lanius tephronotus

Oriolus xanthornus

Dicrurus aeneus

37. Black-headed Oriole


Dicruridae
38. Bronzed Drongo
39. Black Drongo

Dicrurus macrocercus

40. Greater Racket-tailed Drongo

Dicrurus paradiseus

Artamus fuscus

Artamidae
41. Ashy Woodswallow
Sturnidae

Strigidae

22. House Swift

35. Rufous-backed Shrike


36. Grey-backed Shrike
Oriolidae

Psittaciformes: Psittacidae

21. Brown Hawk-Owl

Passeriformes: Laniidae

42. Common Myna

Acridotheres tristis

43. Asian Pied Starling

Sturnus contra

44. Jungle Myna

Acridotheres fuscus

45. Common Hill-Myna

Gracula religiosa

46. Grey-headed Starling

Sturnus malabaricus

Corvus splendens

Corvidae
47. House Crow

Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | 26 January 2016 | 8(1): 83698378

8377

Avifauna of Assam University Campus

Chakdar et al.

Common name

Scientific name

Residential
status

Common name

Scientific name

Residential
status

48. Jungle Crow

Corvus
macrorhynchos

61. Black-necked Tailorbird

Orthotomus
atrogularis

49. Indian Treepie

Dendrocitta
vagabunda

Coracina macei

51. Common Iora


52. Gold-fronted Chloropsis

62. Siberian Rubythroat

Luscinia calliope

63. Oriental Magpie-Robin

Copsychus saularis

64. White-rumped Shama

Copsychus
malabaricus

65. Blue-fronted Redstart

Phoenicurus frontalis

Aegithina tiphia

66. Blue Rock-Thrush

Monticola solitarius

Chloropsis aurifrons

Dicaeidae
Dicaeum cruentatum

Campephagidae
50. Large Cuckoo-Shrike
Irenidae

Pycnonotidae

67. Scarlet-backed Flowerpecker

53. Red-vented Bulbul

Pycnonotus cafer

Nectariniidae

54. Red-whiskered Bulbul

Pycnonotus jocosus

68. Purple Sunbird

Nectarinia asiatica

55. Black-crested Bulbul

Pycnonotus
melanicterus

69. Crimson Sunbird

Aethopyga siparaja

R, L

Cettia fortipes

Passeridae

Muscicapidae
56. Brown-flanked Bush-Warbler
57. Hodgsons Scimitar-Babbler

Pomatorhinus
schisticeps

58. Striated Babbler

Turdoides earlei

59.Rufous-necked Laughingthrush

Garrulax ruficollis

60. Common Tailorbird

Orthotomus sutorius

70. House Sparrow

Passer domesticus

71. Eurasian Tree Sparrow

Passer montanus

Estrildidae
72. White-rumped Munia

Lonchura striata

73. Spotted Munia

Lonchura punctulata

R - Resident; L - Local and altitudinal migrant; W - Winter visitor; M - Migrant, but some breed here (Choudhury 2000).

Threatened Taxa

8378

Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | 26 January 2016 | 8(1): 83698378

New locality record of the Travancore Bush Frog


Raorchestes travancoricus Boulenger, 1891 (Amphibia:
Anura: Rhacophoridae) from Periyar Tiger Reserve, Kerala,
India
K.P. Rajkumar 1, T.S. Prasad 2, Sandeep Das 3, R. Sreehari 4, P.S. Easa 5 & K.A. Sreejith 6

ISSN 0974-7907 (Online)


ISSN 0974-7893 (Print)

OPEN ACCESS

Forest Ecology and Biodiversity Conservation Division, Kerala Forest Research Institute, Peechi, Kerala 680653,
India
1,3
University of Calicut, Thenhipalam, Malappuram District, Kerala 673635, India
4
Ecologist, Periyar Tiger Conservation Foundation, Thekkady, Kerala 685536, India
1
rajkumarkp@kfri.res.in, 2 prasadambadyonline@gmail.com, 3 sandeep.koodu@gmail.com, 4 sree.forestry@gmail.com,
5
easaelephant@yahoo.com, 6 sreejith@kfri.res.in (corresponding author)
1,2,3,5,6

Abstract: Raorchestes travancoricusis a rare and endemic rhacophorid


from southern Western Ghats. The frog was listed in the Extinct
category of the IUCN Red List until June 2015,even after its rediscovery
in 2004. In June 2015, the R. travancoricus was reassessed to
Endangered category. All published reports of the species are restricted
to disturbed habitats outside protected areas and the current study
report the presence of the species from eight different localities from
a protected area the Periyar Tiger Reserve.
Keywords: Amphibia, Bush Frog, Periyar, Raorchestes.

Raorchestes travancoricus was listed in the Extinct


category of the IUCN Red List (Biju 2004) until June 2015
even after the rediscovery of the frog from Vandiperiyar
in 2004. It was reassessed as Endangered B2ab(iii)
based on the area of occupancy as restricted to 30km2
(IUCN SSC Amphibian Specialist Group 2015). The
current status is based on the presence of the species
in three locations, Vagamon, Vandiperiyar, and Periyar
Tiger Reserve. We here report the presence of the

species from eight different localities in Periyar Tiger


Reserve (PTR), all through direct visual sighting. All the
current reports of the species are restricted to disturbed
habitats outside protected areas. Presence of this
rare species in several marshy grassland ecosystems,
locally called vayals, in the Tiger Reserve indicates the
need for a sound management strategy for the habitat,
which holds the only known population of Raorchestes
travancoricus within a protected area.
The Travancore Bush Frog Raorchestes travancoricus
(Boulenger, 1891) is one of the least known rhacophorids
of the Western Ghats. R. travancoricus was initially
described as Ixalus travancoricus based on a single
female specimen collected by H.S. Ferguson from
Bodanaikanur (Bodinayakkanur), presently in Tamil
Nadu close to the Kerala border (Biju & Bossuyt 2009).
Since there were no reports since the description R.
travancoricus was listed Extinct in the IUCN Red List

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.11609/jott.2139.8.1.8379-8382 | ZooBank: urn:lsid:zoobank.org:pub:BD39E226-AFDB-4532-918E-5BF0DF11A400


Editor: Anonymity requested.

Date of publication: 26 January 2016 (online & print)

Manuscript details: Ms # 2139 | Received 09 July 2015 | Final received 05 January 2016 | Finally accepted 07 January 2016
Citation: Rajkumar, K.P., T.S. Prasad, Sandeep Das, R. Sreehari, P.S. Easa & K.A. Sreejith (2016). New locality record of the Travancore Bush Frog Raorchestes travancoricus Boulenger, 1891 (Amphibia: Anura: Rhacophoridae) from Periyar Tiger Reserve, Kerala, India. Journal of Threatened Taxa 8(1): 83798382; http://dx.doi.
org/10.11609/jott.2139.8.1.8379-8382
Copyright: Rajkumar et al. 2016. Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. JoTT allows unrestricted use of this article in any medium, reproduction and distribution by providing adequate credit to the authors and the source of publication.
Funding: Kerala Forest Department, WL10-10886/2013 dated on 11/4/2013.
Conflict of Interest: The authors declare no competing interests.
Acknowledgements: The authors are thankful to the Chief Wildlife Warden, Kerala for providing permission to conduct the study (WL10-10886/2013) and
extending our gratitude to Kerala Forests and Wildlife Department for financial support. We express our sincere gratitude to Dr. Amit Mallick IFS, Mr. Sanjayan
Kumar IFS, Mr. C. Babu, Mr. M. Ajeesh, Mr. S. Sandeep and officials of Periyar Tiger Reserve Conservation Foundation for their support. We gratefully acknowledge
the Cornell Lab of Ornithology-Bioacoustics Research Program for supporting us with the Raven Pro v1.4 software. We acknowledge the support of the Director,
KFRI and Ms. Lilly Margaret Eluvathingal for reviewing the manuscript and Mr. Sanil Mohan for assistance in fieldwork.

8379

Short Communication

Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | 26 January 2016 | 8(1): 83798382

New record of Raorchestes travancoricus

Rajkumar et al.

(Biju 2004). Later, Biju & Bossuyt (2009) reported the


rediscovery of R. travancoricus based on the sighting of
a male frog from Vandiperiyar, 70km southwest of the
type locality in 2004, and two male frogs from Vagamon
in 2006, both in non-protected areas. In this study, we
report eight records of R. travancoricus from Periyar
Tiger Reserve. We also present a preliminary analysis of
the call of the species.
Raorchestes travancoricus was observed from
Periyar Tiger Reserve on four occasions in the Uppupara
region in Azhutha Forest Range in August and September
2014. A single male was first found calling 1m high on
Ageratina adenophora (Sticky Snakeroot / Crofton weed)
in a marshy grassland ecosystem (vayal) at 18.00hr in
Uppupara Thannithotti Vayal on 26 September 2014
(Images 1 & 2). A total of 36 individuals were sighted and
a single male specimen was collected and morphometric
measurements were taken to the nearest 0.1mm with
a Mitutoyo digital vernier calliper using a binocular
microscope. The specimen is deposited in the wildlife
museum of Kerala Forest Research Institute, Peechi.
The identity was confirmed from the yellowish-pink
colouration with distinct brown lines on the dorsum,
dark brown streak on each side of the snout. Small
snout vent length (SVL 26.49mm), snout oval in dorsal
view, head wider (HW 8.0mm) than the head length
(HL 7.71 mm), snout length (SL) 3.8mm. Skin of snout
region, between eyes, upper eyelids, side of head and
anterior and posterior parts of back shagreened. Loreal
and tympanic region light brown with a prominent
streak on each side of the snout from the extreme tip of
the snout to the lower level of the supra-tympanic fold.
The minimum distance between upper eyelids (IUE)
3.69mm and maximum width of upper eyelid is (UEW)
1.69mm. Eye length (EL) 3.45mm. Nuptial pad absent,
body slender, canthus rostralis indistinct, loreal region
acutely concave, tympanum indistinct, supratympanic
fold indistinct. Fore limb (FLL 5.57) shorter than hand
(HAL 5.1mm), fingers without lateral dermal fringe.
Subarticular tubercles prominent, rounded and single.
Supernumerary tubercles weekly developed. Hind
limbs moderately long (Thigh length TL 12.2mm, Shank
length SHL 11.9mm, Tarsus lengh Tal 6.7mm, Foot length
Fol 9.41mm). Dorsal part of forelimb and hind limb
shagreened, webbing reduced, subarticualr tubercles
rather prominent, rounded and simple. Upper and
lower parts of flank shagreened to sparsely granular.
Chest, belly and posterior surface of thighs granular.
Call description
The calls were recorded using ZOOM H4nSP Handy
8380

Sandeep Das

Image 1. Calling male Raorchestes travancoricus on Chrysopogon


nodulibarbis grass clump

K.P. Rajkumar

Image 2. Raorchestes travancoricus on Ageratina adenophora


(Sticky Snakeroot/Crofton weed) in a marshy grassland ecosystem

Recorder from Uppupara in Periyar Tiger Reserve and


the calls were analyzed by using the software Raven
v1.4 software (Cornell Laboratory of Ornithology, Ithaca,
NY, USA) (Bee et al. 2013a,b; Thomas et al. 2014). The
waveform and frequency of the call described is given in
Fig. 1 and Fig. 2, respectively (Audio 1). Call duration was
2.2 second with two distinct notes and the first note was
relatively shorter (0.6 second). The second note was long
and 1.1 second in duration. The dominant frequency of
both the notes was about 2.7kHz (Fig. 2) and compared
to the second one the first note was relatively lower
in amplitude (Fig. 1). Though the dominant frequency
was within the range of its published sister taxa R.
graminirupes (Bee et al. 2013b), the duration of both
notes of R. travancoricus is relatively much longer than
that of both notes of R. graminirupes.
The previous report of occurrence of the species is
also close to the present area (Biju & Bossuyt 2009).

Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | 26 January 2016 | 8(1): 83798382

New record of Raorchestes travancoricus

Rajkumar et al.

Figure 1. Waveforms of Raorchestes travancoricus male advertisement call (3 sec)

Figure 2. Spectrogram of Raorchestes travancoricusmale advertisement call (3 sec)

Further investigation on the same day from 18.00hr to


01.00hr resulted in the sighting of 19 individuals from 20
10x10m quadrats laid randomly in the 1.21 acre vayal.
Out of them 12 males (gender confirmed by presence of
single subgular vocal sac) were found calling, sitting 12
m high from the ground on grass clumps present in the
vayals. An amplected pair was found moving through
grass, entered deep inside a grass clump (Chrysopogon
nodulibarbis) and was then not followed to avoid
disturbance. Random searching in the adjacent areas in
different habitats resulted in 36 encounters, all of them
on grasses or bushes in vayals and open grasslands.
However, not a single encounter was observed in the
surrounding evergreen forest patches, suggesting that
this species is a vayal specialist.
R. travancoricus was also observed from seven other
localities in Periyar Tiger Reserve, viz., Gavi, Upper
Manalar, Eravangalar, Mangaladevi, Kumarikulam,
Moolavaika and Chokkampatti during the herpetofaunal
survey by the authors and the range of the species
extends further south of Vandiperiyar, and increasing
the altitudinal range up to 1800m. Even though the
species was observed from the above seven locations
in Periyar Tiger Reserve, detailed survey was carried out
only at Uppupara. The details of locations of sightings of

Table 1. Distribution range of Raorchestes travancoricus from


southern Western Ghats
Location

Altitude
(m)

Latitude

Longitude

1.

Bodanaikanur, TN

350

9.97 N

77.480E

2.

Vandiperiyar, Idukki

800

9.87 N

77.170E

3.

Vagamon, Idukki

900

9.570N

77.080E

4.

Uppuppara, PTR

1188

9.470N

77.080E

5.

Gavi, PTR

1179

9.43 N

77.130E

6.

Upper Manalar, PTR

1495

9.550N

77.330E

7.

Eravangalar, PTR

1340

9.57 N

77.280E

8.

Mangaladevi, PTR

1234

9.590N

77.210E

9.

Moolavaiga, PTR

1315

9.40 N

77.320E

10.

Kumarikulam, PTR

1209

9.490N

77.280E

11.

Chokkampatti, PTR

1802

9.28 N

77.270E

0
0

TN - Tamil Nadu; PTR - Periyar Tiger Reserve

the species is summarised in Table 1 and the locations in


PTR plotted in the Image 3. A detailed survey in similar
habitats of Periyar Tiger Reserve is suggested to explore
the possibility of more populations of the species to
gauge its current distribution. Future research is required
to understand the habitat preference and distribution

Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | 26 January 2016 | 8(1): 83798382

8381

New record of Raorchestes travancoricus

Rajkumar et al.

Image 3. Distribution map of Raorchestes travancoricus including the type locality

of this species. By reporting marshy grasslands in PTR


as new localities for R. travancoricus, the current study
also highlights the importance of conservation and
management of the vayal ecosystem in Periyar Tiger
Reserve.
References
Bee, M.A., R. Suyesh & S.D. Biju (2013a). The vocal repertoire of
Pseudophilautus kani, a shrub frog (Anura: Rhacophoridae) from the
Western Ghats of India.Bioacoustics22(1): 67-85.
Bee, M.A., R. Suyesh & S.D. Biju (2013b). Vocal behavior of the
Ponmudi Bush Frog (Raorchestes graminirupes): repertoire and
individual variation. Herpetologica69(1): 22-35.

Biju, S.D. & F. Bossuyt (2009). Systematics and phylogeny of Philautus


Gistel, 1848 (Anura, Rhacophoridae) in the Western Ghats of India,
with descriptions of 12 new species. Zoological Journal of the
Linnean Society 155(2): 374-444.
Bioacoustics Research Program (2014). Raven Pro: Interactive Sound
Analysis Software (Version 1.4) [64bit]. Ithaca, NY: The Cornell Lab
of Ornithology. Available from http://www.birds.cornell.edu/raven.
Downloaded on 15 October 2015.
Boulenger, G.A. (1891). Description of a new species of frog obtained
by Mr. H.S. Ferguson in Travancore, South India. Journal of the
Bombay Natural History Society 6: 450.
IUCN SSC Amphibian Specialist Group (2015). Raorchestes
travancoricus. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2015:
e.T58927A3075035. Downloaded on 17 October 2015; http://
dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2015-2.RLTS.T58927A3075035.en.
Thomas, A., R. Suyesh, S.D. Biju & M.A. Bee (2014). Vocal behavior
of the elusive purple frog of India (Nasikabatrachus sahyadrensis),
a fossorial species endemic to the Western Ghats. PloS ONE 9(2):
e84809; http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0084809

Threatened Taxa

8382

Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | 26 January 2016 | 8(1): 83798382

Descriptions of four new species of Dicopomorpha Ogloblin


(Hymenoptera: Chalcidoidea: Mymaridae) from India with a
key to Indian species
A. Rameshkumar 1 & S. Manickavasagam 2
Division of Insect Systematics, ICAR - National Bureau of Agricultural Insect Resources, P.B. No. 2491, HA Farm Post,
Bellary Road, Bengaluru 560024, Karnataka, India
2
Entomology Department, Faculty of Agriculture, Annamalai University, Chidambaram, Tamil Nadu 608002, India
1
drrameshtrichy@gmail.com (corresponding author), 2 drmanicks2003@yahoo.co.in
1

Abstract: Four new species of Dicopomorpha Ogloblin (Hymenoptera:


Chalcidoidea: Mymaridae), D. albithorax, D. funiculata, D. longiscapa
and D. minuta are described and illustrated. A key to the Indian species
of Dicopomorpha is provided.
Keywords: Dicopomorpha, Mymaridae, new species, species key.
Abbreviation: ICAR-NBAIR - National Bureau of Agricultural Insect
Resources (formerly NBAII), Bangalore, Karnataka, India; EDAU Entomology Department, Annamalai University, Faculty of Agriculture,
Chidambaram, Tamil Nadu, India; fl - funicle segment ; mps multiporous plate sensilla.

Dicopomorpha Ogloblin is a small genus reported


from all continents and includes 10 species (Huber
2009; Noyes 2015). Huber (2009) discussed the
affinities of Dicopomorpha with the other members
of Alaptus group, namely, Alaptus Westwood, 1839,
Dicopus Enock, 1909, Mimalaptus Noyes & Valentine,
1989 and KikikiHuber & Beardsley, 2000, and provided
a key to the Alaptus group of genera. Triapitsyn &
Berezovskiy (2003) published a key to the two species
known from the Palaearctic region. Manickavasagam

ISSN 0974-7907 (Online)


ISSN 0974-7893 (Print)

OPEN ACCESS

& Rameshkumar (2011) reported Dicopomorpha from


India. In 1989, Rao described the Dicopulus indicus
from Karnataka, latter species synonymized under
Dicopomorpha by Yoshimoto (1990). In this paper, four
new species of Dicopomorpha are described from India
and the Indian species are keyed.
Materials and Methods
The study was conducted on specimens collected
from surveys for mymarids using yellow pan traps and
Malaise traps in a variety of habitats in southern India
over a period of five years from 2008 to 2013. Specimens
were processed using hexamethyldisilazane (HMDS)
before card mounting (Brown 1993) and dissected
and mounted on slides in natural Canada balsam. All
measurements are in micrometers. Digital images
of habitus were taken with Leica S8APO stereo zoom
microscope and slide mounts with Leica DMLB phase
contrast microscope. Composite images were generated
from image stacks using CombineZP. The specimens
studied are deposited with EDAU and ICAR-NBAIR.

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.11609/jott.2523.8.1.8383-8388 | ZooBank: urn:lsid:zoobank.org:pub:78102C33-A315-4BCF-BA95-551C42893643


Editor: John Huber, Canadian National Collection of Insects, Ontario, Canada.

Date of publication: 26 January 2016 (online & print)

Manuscript details: Ms # 2523 | Received 31 December 2014 | Final received 08 January 2016 | Finally accepted 14 January 2016
Citation: Rameshkumar, A. & S. Manickavasagam (2016). Descriptions of four new species of Dicopomorpha Ogloblin (Hymenoptera: Chalcidoidea: Mymaridae)
from India with a key to Indian species. Journal of Threatened Taxa 8(1): 83838388; http://dx.doi.org/10.11609/jott.2523.8.1.8383-8388
Copyright: Rameshkumar & Manickavasagam 2016. Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. JoTT allows unrestricted use of this article in any
medium, reproduction and distribution by providing adequate credit to the authors and the source of publication.
Funding: ICAR and Annamalai University, Chidambaram.
Conflict of Interest: The authors declare no competing interests.
Acknowledgements: The authors are grateful to Dr. John T. Huber, mymarid specialist, Ottawa, Canada and Dr. J. Poorani, ICAR - National Bureau of Agricultural
Insect Resources, Bangalore for their continuous support and encouragement. Thanks are also due to Dr. K. Rajmohana, Scientist C, Western Ghat Regional Station
(Zoological Survey of India), Calicut, Kerala for providing a specimen. The first author is thankful to the Indian Council of Agricultural Research for funding his work
under the Network Project on Insect Biosystematics.

8383

Short Communication

Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | 26 January 2016 | 8(1): 83838388

Four new species of Dicopomorpha from India

Rameshkumar & Manickavasagam

Dicopomorpha Ogloblin
Dicopomorpha Ogloblin, 1955: 387. Type species:
Dicopomorpha macrocephala Ogloblin, by original
designation.
Chromodicopus Ogloblin, 1955: 390. Type species:
Chromodicopus pulchricornis Ogloblin, by original
designation. Synonymy by Yoshimoto (1990: 27).
Dicopulus Ogloblin, 1955: 377. Type species:
Dicopulus stramineus Ogloblin, by original designation.
Synonymy by Yoshimoto (1990: 27).
Brief diagnosis
Antenna with funicle 7-segmented, sometimes
6-segmented, clava entire; mandibles pointing towards
each other, with two subequal teeth; frenum entire; fore
wing relatively narrow, with posterior margin slightly
curved towards apex but relatively straight medially;
petiole well over half as wide as propodeum; metasoma
broadly sessile (Lin et al. 2007; Huber 2009).
Dicopomorpha is closely related to Dicopus from
which it is distinguished by the following features: genae
in facial view much less convergent (strongly narrowing
in Dicopus) and mandibles crossing each other with
two equal sized teeth (not crossing, with two teeth of
unequal size in Dicopus).
Dicopomorpha albithorax sp. nov.
(Images 16)
urn:lsid:zoobank.org:act:2EF6C64F-5000-4012-9C4B-0B268C4E6763

Material examined
Holotype: Female, (EDAU/Mym 17/2016), 27.v.2012,
on slide labeled, India: Andaman & Nicobar Islands,
Diglipur, Ramnagar, Malaise trap, Forest floor, coll. A.
Rameshkumar.
Paratype:
Female
(ICAR/NBAIR/MYM
105),
23.iii.2013, on card, India: Tamil Nadu, Tiruchirappalli,
Thuraiyur, Green hills, Kanapadi, yellow pan trap, forest
floor, coll. A. Rameshkumar.
Female
Holotype. Length 260 micrometers. Head dark brown
to black above, median trabecula slightly paler below;
eyes reddish-brown; antenna light brown, darkening
towards apex; mesosoma whitish laterally and apically,
except mesoscutum basally light brown, fading towards
apex and merging with whitish scutellum; tegula white.
Legs pale brown; procoxa white, meso-and metacoxa
dark brown; femora and tibiae paler, tarsi brown;
metasoma dark brown.
Head: Wider than high (1.45). Face with shallow and
8384

Images 16. Dicopomorpha albithorax sp. nov.


1 - female; 2 - Head in frontal view; 3 - Antenna; 4 - Fore wing;
5 - hind wing; 6 - mesosoma. Authors

vertex with deep reticulate sculpture; malar space half


the eye height, with two setae; each antennal torulus
with a single seta below and two setae between each
other; one longer seta next to each posterior ocellus;
single seta between anterior ocellus and each posterior
ocelli; one seta on each side sublaterally just below
lower eye margin.
Antenna: Scape 5.7 as long as wide, 2.66 as long
as pedicel, pedicel 1.87 as long as wide; radicle not
separated from scape by a groove; funicle 6-segmented,
all segments longer than wide; fl1 & fl2 and fl3 & fl4 equal
in length; fl5 and fl6 subequal; clava 3.15 as long as wide,
longer than preceding three segments; mps absent in
funicle segments, two mps on clava.
Mesosoma: Subequal to metasoma, 1.3 as long
as wide; sculpture on mesoscutum deep lineolate, on
anterior scutellum shallow lineolate, on frenum shallow
reticulate; anterior scutellum longer than frenum;
dorsellum and propodeum short.
Wings: Fore wing 10.5 as long as wide; longest

Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | 26 January 2016 | 8(1): 83838388

Four new species of Dicopomorpha from India

marginal fringe 3.69 wing width and 0.35 wing


length; disc with five microtrichia except for the usual
marginal microtrichia; proximal macrochaeta absent;
hypochaeta near apex of submarginal vein; hind wing
19 as long as wide, longest marginal fringe 5.25 wing
width and 0.27 wing length, hind wing with one row of
microtrichia along hind margin.
Metasoma: Slightly longer than wide, cercal setae
long and curved; ovipositor shorter than mesotibia (85:
123).
Measurements: Head width, 160; height, 110; eye
length, 90; malar space length, 40; antennal torulus
height, 20; width, 15; distance between antennal toruli,
40; distance between antennal toruli and transverse
trabecula, 30; distance between anterior ocellus and
transverse trabecula, 30; length and width of antennal
segments, scape, 100 : 18; pedicel, 37 : 20; fl1, 32 : 7.5;
fl2, 32 : 7.5; fl3, 35 : 10; fl4, 35 : 10; fl5, 32 : 12; fl6, 32
: 17; clava, 103 : 32; fore wing length, 420; width, 40;
longest marginal fringe length, 147; hind wing length,
380; width, 20; longest marginal fringe length, 105;
mesosoma length, 143; width, 108; metasoma length,
138; width, 118; mesotibia length, 123; ovipositor
length, 85; cercal seta length, 103.

Rameshkumar & Manickavasagam

Images 713. Dicopomorpha funiculata sp. nov.


7 - female; 8 - Head in frontal view; 9 - Antenna; 10 - Fore wing; 11 hind wing; 12 - mesosoma; 13 - meso and metasoma. Authors

Male: Unknown.
Etymology
The specific epithet is of Latin origin (alba= white;
+ thorax) and refers to the whitish thorax.
Comments
This species is distinct and can be easily differentiated
from the other species from India by its 6-segmented
funicle (7-segmented funicle in all other Indian species).
Dicopomorpha funiculata sp. nov.
(Images 713)
urn:lsid:zoobank.org:act:CCB645FF-3844-49DF-ABBF-02B396471FB3

Material examined
Holotype: Female, (EDAU/Mym 18/2016), 27.v.2012,
on slide labeled, India: Andaman & Nicobar Islands,
Diglipur, Ramnagar, Malaise trap, forest floor, coll. A.
Rameshkumar.
Female
Holotype. Length 420. Body uniformly dark brown;
eye reddish-brown; legs pale yellow; antenna pale
brown; apex of metasoma below cercal plate whitish.
Head: Wider than high; malar space 1.17 of eye

length; sculpture on vertex deep reticulate, shallow on


face; setal arrangement as follows: two on malar space;
two between antennal toruli; one each near inner
side of each posterior ocellus; two pairs of long setae
on clypeus region (above mouth margin); two pairs of
setae on temple; one between anterior ocellus and each
posterior ocellus; two on anterior eye margin.
Antenna: Scape 4.44 as long as wide, 2 as long as
pedicel, latter 2 as long as wide; funicle 7-segmented,
all segments longer than wide, gradually increasing in
width distally; fl1 & fl5, fl3 & fl4, fl6 & fl7 equal in length;
clava 2.3 as long as wide, shorter than preceding three
segments; mps absent on funicle segments, three on
clava.
Mesosoma: Shorter than metasoma, with reticulate
sculpture on mesoscutum and scutellum.
Wings: Fore wing 15 as long as wide; longest
marginal fringe 5.38 as long as wing width; fore wing
disc with two setae; hind wing 28 as long as wide;
longest marginal fringe 7.5 as long as wing width.
Metasoma: Ovipositor exserted, 1.4 as long as
mesotibia.
Measurements: Head width, 200; height, 160; eye
length, 100; malar space length, 85; antennal torulus

Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | 26 January 2016 | 8(1): 83838388

8385

Four new species of Dicopomorpha from India

Rameshkumar & Manickavasagam

height, 20; distance between antennal toruli and


transverse trabecula, 13; length and width of antennal
segments, scape, 100 : 23; pedicel, 50 : 25; fl1, 38 : 10;
fl2, 33 : 10; fl3, 40 : 10; fl4, 40 : 15; fl5, 38 : 18; fl6, 35
: 20; fl7, 35 : 23; clava, 88 : 38; fore wing length, 600;
width, 40; longest marginal fringe length, 215; hind wing
length, 560; width, 20; longest marginal fringe length,
150; mesosoma length, 170; metasoma length, 250;
mesotibia length, 158; ovipositor length, 225; cercal seta
length, 88.
Male: Unknown.
Etymology
The specific epithet is an adjective in reference to the
normal 2nd funicle segment.
Comments
It differs from all other Indian species by the ring-less
2nd segment and the narrow fore wing, about 15 as long
as wide (less than 11 as long as wide in all other Indian
species).

Images 1419. Dicopomorpha minuta sp. nov.


14 - female; 15 - Head in frontal view; 16 - Antenna; 17 - Fore wing;
18 - hind wing; 19 - mesosoma. Authors

Dicopomorpha minuta sp. nov.


(Images 1419)
urn:lsid:zoobank.org:act:81D91F76-4295-4D6F-9C76-46044663C256

Material examined
Holotype: Female, (EDAU/Mym 19/2016), 13.x.2010,
on slide labeled, India: Tamil Nadu: Cuddalore,
Chidambaram, Annamalai University premises, yellow
pan trap, mango orchard, coll. A. Rameshkumar.
Paratypes: 3 Females, (ICAR/NBAIR/MYM 106-108),
10.xii.2013, on card, India: Tamil Nadu, Cuddalore,
Chidambaram, Annamalai University premises, Malaise
trap, mango orchard, coll. A. Rameshkumar.
Female
Holotype. Length 250. Body more or less uniformly
yellowish-brown with metallic reflection; mesoscutum
with light bluish-green reflections; face above trabecula
with coppery blue reflection and below trabecula
yellowish; legs uniformly yellowish-brown.
Head: 1.13 as wide as high; vertex with deep
reticulate sculpture; eye 0.66 of head height and 2.23
as long as malar space, malar space with two setae on
each side; vertex, area between anterior ocellus and
eye margin with a single seta each; one pair of setae
between antennal toruli; two pairs of setae between
antennal toruli and mouth margin.
Antenna: Scape 7.9 as long as wide, 3.29 as long as
8386

pedicel, latter 1.9 as long as wide; funicle 7-segmented;


fl1, fl4 and fl6 equal in length; fl5 and fl7 equal in length;
fl2 smallest (ring-like) and fl3 longest segment; all funicle
segments as long as wide except fl1 and spine like setae
present in all the funicle segments; mps absent in funicle
segments; clava 2.95 as long as wide, slightly longer
than preceding four funicle segments with two mps.
Mesosoma: Longer than metasoma, with lineolatereticulate sculpture in mesoscutum and scutellum.
Wings: Fore wing 10.75 as long as wide; longest
marginal fringe 3.75 as long as wing width; hind wing
21 as long as wide; longest marginal fringe 5.75 as
long as wing width; fore wing disc with single seta in
middle; hind wing with single line of marginal setae,
wing disc bare.
Metasoma: Ovipositor not exserted, 1.2 as long
as mesotibia; cercal plate long, slightly smaller than
ovipositor.
Measurements: Head width, 145; height, 128; eye
length, 85; malar space length, 38; antennal torulus
height, 15; distance between antennal toruli and
transverse trabecula, 8; length and width of antennal
segments, scape, 158 : 20; pedicel, 48 : 25; fl1, 25 : 10;
fl2, 8 : 8; fl3, 33 : 13; fl4, 25 : 15; fl5, 28 : 15; fl6, 25 : 15; fl7,
28 : 18; clava, 118 : 40; fore wing length, 430; width, 40;

Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | 26 January 2016 | 8(1): 83838388

Four new species of Dicopomorpha from India

Rameshkumar & Manickavasagam

longest marginal fringe length, 150; hind wing length,


420; width, 20; longest marginal fringe length, 115;
mesosoma length, 140; metasoma length, 85; mesotibia
length, 125; ovipositor length, 150; cercal seta length,
130.
Male: Unknown.
Etymology
The specific epithet is an adjective derived from Latin
and refers to its very small size.
Comments
This species is close to D. indica (Subba Rao) and D.
longiscapa sp. n. (India). It differs from these species
by the following features: scape 7.9 as long as wide
and ovipositor 1.2 as long as mesotibia (in longiscapa,
scape about 9 as long as wide and ovipositor shorter
than mesotibia; in indica, scape 5 as long as wide).
Dicopomorpha longiscapa sp. nov.
(Images 2025)
urn:lsid:zoobank.org:act:35E42BA5-8E07-4550-BB08-D85DDF8BD92E

Material examined
Holotype:
Female,
(EDAU/Mym
20/2016),
17.xii.2008, on slide labeled, India: Kerala, Calicut,
Malaise trap, paddy field, coll. K. Rajmohana.
Female
Holotype. Length 350. Body dorsally brown, antenna,
legs and rest of ventral side slightly paler.
Head: 1.3 as wide as high; face with shallow rugose
punctures; eye large, 0.6 of head height, more than
half malar space, latter with two setae; each posterior
ocellus with one long seta, two minute setae on anterior
ocellus.
Antenna: Scape 8.9 as long as wide, 3.5 as long
as pedicel; pedicel 2.2 as long as wide, longer than
fl1; funicle 7-segmented, fl2 shortest (ring-like) and fl3
longest segment; fl4, fl5 and fl6 equal; mps absent in
funicle segments; clava large, 3.5 as long as wide and
longer than preceding four segments, with two large
mps.
Mesosoma: Mesoscutum smooth with shallow
reticulate sculpture; scutellum not clearly divided, both
anterior scutellum and frenum with reticulate sculpture;
propodeum short.
Wings: Fore wing 10 as long as wide; longest
marginal fringe 3.2 as long as wing width; fore wing
disc with four microtrichia on middle and also usual two

Images 2025. Dicopomorpha longiscapa sp. nov


20 - female; 21 - Head in frontal view; 22 - Antenna; 23 - Fore wing;
24 - hind wing; 25 - mesosoma. Authors

rows along anterior and posterior margin; hypochaeta


situated at junction of submarginal and marginal vein;
proximal macrochaeta absent; discal macrochaeta
placed almost at midpoint of marginal vein; hind wing
24.5 as long as wide; longest marginal fringe 6.6
as long as wing width, hind wing gradually widening
towards rounded apex.
Metasoma: Ovipositor shorter than length of
mesotibia.
Measurements: Head width, 180; height, 140; eye
length, 90; malar space length, 40; antennal torulus
height, 20; distance between antennal toruli, 50; distance
between antennal toruli and transverse trabecula, 10;
length and width of antennal segments, scape, 177 : 20;
pedicel, 50 : 23; fl1, 28 : 10; fl2, 10 : 10; fl3, 33 : 13; fl4, 28
: 15; fl5, 28 : 15; fl6, 28 : 15; fl7, 30 : 17; clava, 140 : 40;
fore wing length, 500; width, 50; longest marginal fringe
length, 162; hind wing length, 490; width, 20; longest
marginal fringe length, 132; mesosoma length, 125;
metasoma length, 138; mesotibia length, 158; ovipositor
length, 113; cercal seta length, 163.
Male: Unknown.

Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | 26 January 2016 | 8(1): 83838388

8387

Four new species of Dicopomorpha from India

Rameshkumar & Manickavasagam

Key to Indian species of Dicopomorpha


1
-

Antenna with funicle 6-segmented (Image 3); mesoscutum mostly whitish (Images 1 and 6) ....... D. albithorax sp. nov.
Antenna with funicle 7-segmented (Images 9, 16 & 22); mesoscutum yellow to dark brown (Images 7, 14 & 20) ......... 2

2

-

Fl2 not ring-like, as long as other segments (Image 9); scape about 4.5 as long as wide; fore wing 15 as long as wide
(Image 10) .......................................................................................................................................... D. funiculata sp. nov.
Fl2 ring-like, much shorter than other segments (Images 16 and 22); scape more than 4.5 as long as wide; fore wing less
than 15 as long as wide (Images 17 and 23) .................................................................................................................... 3

3

-

Scape 5 as long as wide; fore wing about 11 as long as wide; hind wing about 18 as long as wide (Rao 1989) ..........
............................................................................................................................................................ D. indica (Subba Rao)
Scape more than 7 as long as wide (Images 16 and 22); fore wing less than 11 as long as wide (Images 17 and 23); hind
wing more than 20 as long as wide .................................................................................................................................. 4

4

-

Ovipositor 1.2 as long as mesotibia; scape 7.9 as long as wide (Image 16); fore wing 10.8 as long as wide (Image 17);
hind wing 21 as long as wide ................................................................................................................. D. minuta sp. nov.
Ovipositor shorter than mesotibia; scape 8.9 as long as wide (Image 22); fore wing 10 as long as wide; hind wing
about 24 as long as wide ................................................................................................................ D. longiscapa sp. nov.

Etymology
The specific epithet is an adjective of Latin origin in
reference to the scape, which is longer than that in all
other known species.
Comments
This species is close to D. indica, but differs from the
following characters: scape about 9 as long as wide;
fore wing 10 as long as wide and hind wing about 25
as long as wide (in indica, scape 5 as long as wide; fore
wing 11 as long as wide and hind wing 21 as long as
wide).
References
Brown, B.V. (1993). A further chemical alternative to critical point
drying for preparing small (or large) flies. Fly Times 7: 10.
Enock, F. (1909). New genera of British Mymaridae (Haliday).
Transactions of the Entomological Society of London 1909: 449459.
Huber, J.T. (2009). The genus Dicopomorpha (Hymenoptera,
Mymaridae) in Africa and a key to Alaptus-group genera. Zookeys
20: 233244; http://dx.doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.20.116
Huber, J.T. & J.W. Beardsley (2000). A new genus of fairyfly, Kikiki, from
the Hawaiian Islands (Hymenoptera: Mymaridae). Proceedings of
the Hawaiian Entomological Society 34: 6570.

8388

Lin, N.Q., J.T. Huber & J. LaSalle (2007). The Australian genera of
Mymaridae (Hymenoptera: Chalcidoidea). Zootaxa 1596: 1111.
Manickavasagam, S. & A. Rameshkumar (2011). First report of three
genera of fairyflies (Hymenoptera: Mymaridae) from India with
description of a new species of Dicopus and some other records.
Zootaxa 3094: 6368.
Noyes, J.S. (2015). Universal Chalcidoidea Data Base. world wide web
electronic publication. http://www.nhm.ac.uk/chalcidoid
Noyes, J.S. & E.W. Valentine (1989). Mymaridae (Insecta:
Hymenoptera) - introduction, and review of genera. Fauna of New
Zealand 17, 95pp.
Ogloblin, A.A. (1955). Los nuevos representantes de la fam. Mymaridae
(Hym.) de la Republica Argentina. Bollettino del Laboratorio di
Zoologia generale e agrarian Filippo Silvestri 33: 377397.
Rao, B.R.S. (1989). On a collection of Indian Mymaridae (Chalcidoidea:
Hymenoptera). Hexapoda 1: 168169.
Triapitsyn, S.V. & V.V. Berezovskiy (2003). Review of the Mymaridae
(Hymenoptera: Chalcidoidea) of Primorskii Krai: genera Arescon
Walker and Dicopomorpha Ogloblin. Far Eastern Entomologist 124:
115.
Westwood, J.O. (1839). Synopsis of the genera of British insects. In:
An introduction to the modern classification of insects, founded on
the natural habits and corresponding organization of the different
families, 1158pp.
Yoshimoto, C.M. (1990). A review of the genera of new world
Mymaridae (Hymenoptera: Chalcidoidea). Flora & Fauna Handbook
No.7, 166.
Threatened Taxa

Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | 26 January 2016 | 8(1): 83838388

Taxonomic studies on Acridinae (Orthoptera: Acridoidea:


Acrididae) from the northeastern states of India
Mohammed Imran Khan 1 & Mohammed Kamil Usmani 2

ISSN 0974-7907 (Online)


ISSN 0974-7893 (Print)

Section of Entomology, Department of Zoology, Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh, Uttar Pradesh 202002, India
mikhanalig@gmail.com; 2usmanikamil94@gmail.com (corresponding author)

1,2
1

Abstract: From a survey of the northeastern states of India, seven


species belonging to three genera of the subfamily Acridinae were
recorded. In addition to conventional morphological characters, the
detailed structure of the male and female genitalia were studied. All
the species are described and illustrated. A key to the known genera
of the subfamily Acridinae is also provided.
Keywords: Acrididae, Acridinae, key, northeastern India.

Bei-Bienko & Mishchenko (1951) divided the family


Acrididae into six subfamilies: Acridinae, Oedipodinae,
Catantopinae, Pyrgomorphinae, Pamphaginae and
Egnatiinae, principally based on the presence or absence
of prosternal process, external apical spine of hind tibia,
fastigial furrow, intercalary vein of tegmina, dark band
on wing, filiform or ensiform condition of the antennae,
size of the arolium between claws, oblique or vertical
condition of the frons. The subfamily Acridinae from
the Indian Subcontinent (Bangladesh, Nepal, Bhutan, Sri
Lanka, Maldives, India and Pakistan) has been studied
by Kirby (1914), Bei-Beinko & Mischenko (1951) and
Dirsh (1965). Shishodia & Tandon (2004) reported seven
genera and 10 species under the subfamily Acridinae
from Manipur. Shishodia & Dey (2006) reported eight
genera and 11 species under the subfamily Acridinae
from Nagaland. Shishodia & Dey (2007) report five

OPEN ACCESS

genera and eight species under the subfamily Acridinae


from Mizoram. In the present paper the authors
recorded three genera and seven species from the
northeastern Indian states.
All the species reported from the northeastern states
were studied in detail using conventional morphological
and genitalic characters. The key to genera and species
wherever necessary are provided. Diagnosis and
genitalic characters are given for each species.
Material and Methods
A survey for the collection of acridid specimens was
conducted from 2008 to 2011 from the grasslands and
agricultural fields of Assam, Sikkim, Manipur, Arunachal
Pradesh, Meghalaya, Tripura, Mizoram and Nagaland.
The specimens were handpicked or collected by a
sweeping net. The collected specimens were preserved
in 70% ethyl alcohol so as to prevent them from shrinking
and spoilage and soon specimens become soft enough,
and helps in proper stretching. For genitalic studies the
apical tip of the abdomen was cut and boiled in 10%
KOH solution and genital structures were isolated. All
drawings were prepared under camera lucida attached
to standard microscopes. The descriptions of the
phallic complex follow the terminologies used in Dirsh

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.11609/jott.1709.8.1.8389-8397 | ZooBank: urn:lsid:zoobank.org:pub:06CD4022-DE36-4409-9064-0AC1127BDC8D


Editor: B.A. Daniel, Zoo Outreach Organization, Coimbatore, India.

Date of publication: 26 January 2016 (online & print)

Manuscript details: Ms # 1709 | Received 22 December 2014 | Final received 05 January 2016 | Finally accepted 14 January 2016
Citation: Khan, M.I. & M.K. Usmani (2016). Taxonomic studies on Acridinae (Orthoptera: Acridoidea: Acrididae) from the northeastern states of India. Journal of
Threatened Taxa 8(1): 83898397; http://dx.doi.org/10.11609/jott.1709.8.1.8389-8397
Copyright: Khan & Usmani 2016. Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. JoTT allows unrestricted use of this article in any medium, reproduction and distribution by providing adequate credit to the authors and the source of publication.
Funding: University Grants Commission, New Delhi (Ref. no. 33-33/2007 (SR)).
Conflict of Interest: The authors declare no competing interests.
Acknowledgements: We wish to extend our gratitude to the University Grants Commission, New Delhi for providing financial assistance during the tenure of a
major research project (Ref. no. 33-33/2007 (SR)) being carried out on Studies on taxonomy and diversity of northeastern states of India.

8389

Short Communication

Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | 26 January 2016 | 8(1): 83898397

Taxonomic studies on Acridinae

Khan & Usmani

(1965). Specimens are deposited in the museum of


the department of Zoology, Aligarh Muslim University,
Aligarh (MZD-AMU).
Acrida exaltata (Walker, 1859)
(Image 1; Fig. 1)
Truxalis exaltata Walker, 1859. Ann. Nat. Hist. 4(3):
222.
Tryxali sbrevicolis Bolivar, 1893. Feuille Jeunes Nat.
23: 162. Syn. by Kirby, 1910. A Synonymic Catalogue
of Orthoptera (Orthoptera Saltatoria, Locustidae vel
Acridiidae) 3(2): 103.
Acrida lugubris Burr, 1902. Trans. Ent. Soc. Lond. 157.
Syn. by Uvarov, 1921: Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. 7(9):481.
Acrida curta Uvarov, 1936. Linn. Soc. J. Zoology, 39.
Syn. by Dirsh & Uvarov, 1953: Tijdschr.Ent. 96(3): 231.
Syn. by Dirsh & Uvarov. 1953. Tijdschr. v. Entomologie,
96: 232.
Acrida exaltata (Walker); Willemse, 1951. Publties
natuurh. Genoot. Limburg, 4: 100.
Material examined: 136a-08/z, 29.x.2008, four
females, two males, on paddy field, Sansari, Guwahati,
Assam; 136b-08/z, 2.ii.2009, seven females, two males,
on grasses, Pasighat, East Siang, Arunachal Pradesh;
136c-08/z, 3.ii.2009, two females, on grasses; West
Imphal, Manipur.
Diagnosis: Green in colour. The head and pronotum
of about equal length; tegmina obtusely pointed, scarcely
longer than hind femora; wings yellowish hyaline, the
cells in the posterior part cloudy in the middle.
Male genitalia: Supra-anal plate broadly angular,
slightly longer than wide, lateral margins slightly curved
medially, apex obtusely conical; cercus uniformly broad,
less than three times as long as wide, apex broadly
rounded. Sub genital plate elongate-angular, longer
than wide, apex obtusely rounded. Epiphallus with
moderately broad median bridge, its anterior margin
convex with small paired, bilobed, nodulated lophi and
blunt, peg like ancorae. Aedeagus flexured, apical valve
narrow, curved, shorter than basal valve, connected
with basal valve with flexure, apex pointed; basal valve
broad basally.
Female genitalia: Supra-anal plate wide, flattened,
as long as wide, apex obtusely conical; cercus short,
longer than wide, apex obtusely rounded. Sub genital
plate with posterior margin slightly convex in the
middle; posterior marginal setae and jannones organs
present; egg-guide long, three and a half times as long
as wide. Spermatheca with apical diverticulum short,
apex truncated, shorter than pre-apical diverticulum;
pre-apical diverticulum sac like. Ovipositor with dorsal
8390

Mohd. Imran Khan

Image 1. Acrida exaltata. A - male; B - female

Figure 1. Acrida exaltata. AD (male); EH (female)


A - Supra anal plate; B - Subgenital plate; C - Epiphallus;
D - Aedeagus; E - Supra anal plate; F - Subgenital plate; G - Spermatheca; H - Ovipositor

valve broad, slightly more than three times as long as


wide, shorter than lateral apodeme; ventral valve with
apical tip short, basal sclerite narrow and tuberculate;
mesial valve slightly dilated apically.

Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | 26 January 2016 | 8(1): 83898397

Taxonomic studies on Acridinae

Khan & Usmani

Morphometry: (length in mm)


Male: Body length 32.17, Tegmina 26.21, Pronotum
1.41, Hind femur 19.79
Female: Body length 49.89, Tegmina 45.48, Pronotum
2.56, Hind femur 31.74
Distribution: India: Sikkim, Kashmir, the Himalyas,
Assam and Uttar Pradesh.
Acrida gigantea (Herbst, 1786)
(Image 2; Fig. 2)
Truxalis gigantean Herbst, 1786. Fuessly Archiv;: 191.
Acrida gigantean (Herbst); Kirby, 1914. Fauna Brit,
Orth.: 98.
Acrida gigantea (Herbst); Shrinivasan; 1986. Eastern
Ghats insects, Part 1, Zoo. Surv. India, Madras: 10.
Acrida gigantea (Herbst); Tandon & Shishodia; 1995.
Himalayan Ecosystem Series: Fauna of Western Himalaya
(U.P), Par 1, Zoo. Surv. India,: 37.
Acrida gigantea (Herbst); Joshi et al.; 2004. Journal
of Tropical Forestry, 20(3-4): 72.
Acrida gigantean (Herbst); Shishodia, 2006a.
Bionotes 8(1): 11.
Acrida gigantea (Herbst); Shishodia, 2008b. Faunal
Diversity of Jabalpur District, M.P., (Zool. Surv. India): 97.
Material examined: 137a-08/z, 29.x.2008, four
females, two males, on paddy field, Guwahati, Assam;
137b-08/z, 2.ii.2009, seven females, two males, on
grasses, East Siang, Arunachal Pradesh.
Diagnosis: Head slightly, if at all, longer than the
pronotum, and often shorter. Green in colour. Head
and pronotum with 2 or 3 pale pink bands on each
side; tegmina with two broad pink longitudinal bands,
between which is often a whitish line.
Male genitalia: Supra-anal plate triangular, longer
than wide, apex rounded, cercus elongate, three times
as long as wide, apex acutely rounded. Sub genital plate
elongate, much longer than broad, narrowing apically.
Epiphallus bridge shaped, ancorae well developed, lophi
triangular, bridge narrow, uniformly broad. Aedeagus,
basal valve broader and longer than apical valve, apical
valve narrow, upward, apex pointed.
Female genitalia: Supra-anal plate broad, broader
than long, apex pointed, cercus small, broad, narrowing
apically, twice as long as wide, apex rounded. Sub genital
plate, posterior margin entirely setose, surface with two
small patches, egg-guide narrow, elongate, four times as
long as wide. Spermatheca, apical diverticulum broad,
sac like, wider and longer than pre-apical diverticulum.
Apical diverticulum short and broad.Ovipositor, dorsal
valve broad, margin smooth, apical tip rounded, ventral
valve with apical tip acutely rounded, serrated, apodeme

Mohd. Imran Khan

Image 2. Acrida gigantea. A - male; B - female

Figure 2. Acrida gigantea. AD (male); EH (female)


A - Supra anal plate; B - Subgenital plate; C - Epiphallus;
D - Aedeagus; E - Supra anal plate; F - Subgenital plate;
G - Spermatheca; H - Ovipositor

considerably longer than dorsal valve.


Morphometry: (length in mm)
Male: Body length 27.3, Tegmina 21.6, Pronotum
5.6, Hind femur 18.9
Female: Body length 47.8, Tegmina 43.1, Pronotum

Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | 26 January 2016 | 8(1): 83898397

8391

Taxonomic studies on Acridinae

Khan & Usmani

9.1, Hind femur 22.5


Distribution: India: Himachal Pradesh, Madhya
Pradesh, Tamil Nadu and Uttarakhand; Malaysia and
Malaya.
Phlaeoba infumata Brunner, 1893
(Image 3; Fig. 3)
Phlaeoba infumata Brunner von Wattenwyl, 1893.
Ann. Mus. Civ. Stor. Nat. Genova 213(33): 124.
Phlaeoba infumata Brunner; Kirby, W.F. 1914. Fauna
of British India, including Ceylon and Burma. Orthoptera
(Acrididae) 103.
Phlaeoba infumata Brunner; Uvarov, 1921. Ann.
Mag. nat. Hist. 97: 486.
Phlaeoba infumata Brunner; Willemse, C. 1951. Publ.
natuurhist. Genootsch. Limburg 4: 85.
Material Examined: 138a-08/z, 21.x.2008, nine
females, two males; on grasses, RaiBhoi, Umran,
Meghalaya; 138b-08/z, 22.x.2008, seven females,
three males, on grasses, Jowai, Ummalong; 138c-08/z,
1.ii.2009, on grasses, Papumpare, Itanagar, Arunachal
Pradesh; 138d-08/z, 11.ii.2009, 10 females, three
males, on grasses, Aizwal, Selesih, Mizoram; 138e-08/z,
13.ii.2009, 15 females, five males, on grasses, Agartala,
Lembucherra, Tripura; 138f-08/z, 17.x.2009, eight
females, five males, on grasses, East Imphal, Manipur;
138g-08/z, 19.x.2009, four females, three males, on
grasses, Dimapur, Nagaland.
Diagnosis: Uniform brownish testaceous.
The
fastigium of the vertex rather short and obtuse, concave
above, with a continuous median carina extending along
the head and pronotum. Antennae ensiform, as long as
or longer than head and pronotum together.
Male genitalia: Supra-anal plate broadly triangular,
slightly longer than wide, apex broadly rounded; cercus
broad, narrowing apically, two and a half times as long as
wide, apex rounded. Sub genital plate wide, flattened,
broad basally, obtusely narrowing apically, longer than
wide, apex elongate, incurved, rounded. Epiphallus with
bridge narrow, ancorae moderate, with pointed apices,
lophi small, single lobed. Aedeagus flexured, apical
valve narrow, strongly curved, upward, much narrower
and shorter than the basal valve, apex pointed, basal
valve broad and dilated basally.
Female genitalia: Supra-anal plate wide, flattened,
wider than long, apex obtusely rounded, cercus short,
broad, one and a half times as long as wide, apex
rounded. Sub genital plate with posterior margin having
triangular projection in the middle; posterior marginal
setae and jannones organs present; egg-guide slightly
more than twice as long as wide. Spermatheca with
8392

Mohd. Imran Khan

Image 3. Phlaeoba infumata. A - male; B - female

Figure 3. Phlaeoba infumata. AD (male); EH (female)


A - Supra anal plate; B - Subgenital plate; C - Epiphallus;
D - Aedeagus; E - Supra anal plate; F - Subgenital plate;
G - Spermatheca; H - Ovipositor

apical diverticulum short and tubercle-like, pre-apical


diverticulum well developed and sac like. Ovipositor
with dorsal valve narrow, slightly more than four times
as long as wide, shorter than lateral apodeme; ventral
valve with apical tip long and pointed, slope deeply
concave, mesial tooth truncated, basal scleritesetose on
apical half.
Morphometry: (length in mm)

Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | 26 January 2016 | 8(1): 83898397

Taxonomic studies on Acridinae

Khan & Usmani

Male: Body length 20.89, Tegmina 16.4, Pronotum


1.98, Hind femur 13.15
Female: Body length 26.5, Tegmina 22.7, Pronotum
2.44, Hind femur 16.95
Distribution: India: Andhra Pradesh, Arunachal
Pradesh, Assam, Bihar, Chattisgarh, Delhi, Goa, Haryana,
Himachal Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh and Manipur;
Bangladesh, East Nepal, Hainan Islands and Myanmar.
Phlaeoba panteli Bolivar, 1902
(Image 4; Fig. 4)
Phlaeoba panteli Bolivar, 1902. Ann. Soc. ent. Fr. 70:
589.
Phlaeoba wathousei Kirby, W.F. 1910. A Synonymic
Catalogue of Orthoptera (Orthoptera Saltatoria,
Locustidaevel Acridiidae) 3(2): 361 Syn. by Otte, D. 1995.
Orthoptera Species File 5:263.
Phlaeoba panteli (Bolivar); Kirby, W.F. 1914. Fauna
of British India, including Ceylon and Burma. Orthoptera
(Acrididae) 105.
Material Examined: 139a-08/z, 14.x.2008, three
females, two males, on grasses, Ranka, Gangtok, Sikkim;
139b-08/z, 25.x.2008, six females, two males; on grasses,
RaiBhoi, Umaran, Meghalaya; 139c-08/z, 14.ii.2009,
seven females, on grasses, Kamalghat, Agartala, Tripura;
139d-08/z, 15.x.009, four females, two males, on
grasses, West Imphal, Manipur.
Diagnosis: Ferruginous brown, with scattered black
dots. Antennae narrowly ensiform, shorter than the
head and pronotum together, brown at the tips. Vertex
horizontal, with the marginal carinae converging behind
the eyes, fastigium broad, rounded in front, the median
carinacontinued on the head and pronotum.
Male genitalia: Supra-anal plate triangular, cercus
straight, conical; Sub genital plate short, with obtuse
apex; Epiphallus, bridge moderately narrow, ancorae
short, lophi lobiform; Aedeagus, apical valve narrower
and much shorter than the basal valve.
Female genitalia: Supra-anal plate elongate, one
and half times as long as wide apex rounded, cercus
uniformly broad, two and half times as long as wide,
apex rounded. Sub genital plate, posterior margin
setose, with a median projection; Spermatheca, apical
diverticulum rudimentary, pre-apical diverticulum well
developed and sac like. Ovipositor, dorsal valve shorter
than lateral apodeme, tips acute.
Morphometry: (length in mm)
Male: Body length 19.10, Tegmina 15.0, Pronotum
1.15, Hind femur 12.15
Female: Body length 33.39, Tegmina 19.19, Pronotum
2.70, Hind femur 19.22

Mohd. Imran Khan

Image 4. Phlaeoba panteli. A - male; B - female

Figure 4. Phlaeoba panteli. AD (male); EH (female)


A - Supra anal plate; B - Subgenital plate; C - Epiphallus;
D - Aedeagus; E - Supra anal plate; F - Subgenital plate;
G - Spermatheca; H - Ovipositor

Distribution: India: Andhra Pradesh, Arunachal


Pradesh, Bihar, Himachal Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh,
Manipur, Meghalaya, Tripura, Tamil Nadu, Uttarakhand
and West Bengal; Afghanistan.

Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | 26 January 2016 | 8(1): 83898397

8393

Taxonomic studies on Acridinae

Khan & Usmani

middle. Pronotum very narrow, with the lateral carinae


parallel, or slightly convergent behind in the male.
Male genitalia: Supra-anal plate elongate narrow,
two times as long as wide, apex rounded, cercus
elongate, narrowing apically, three times as long as wide,
apex rounded. Sub genital plate broad, apex broadly
rounded. Epiphallus bridge shaped, bridge narrow,
ancorae and lophi developed, ancorae with tips pointed.
Aedeagus, basal valve broad, shorter than apical valve.
Apical valve elongate, narrow, pointed apically.
Morphometry: (length in mm)
Male: Body length 18.7, Tegmina 11.3, Pronotum
4.5, Hind femur 13.00
Distribution: India: Tamil Nadu; Malaysia and Malaya.

Mohd. Imran Khan

Image 5. Phlaeoba angustidorsis. (male)

Figure 5. Phlaeoba angustidorsis. AD (male)


A - Supra anal plate; B - Subgenital plate; C - Epiphallus;
D - Aedeagus

Phlaeoba angustidorsis Bolivar, 1902


(Image 5; Fig. 5)
Phlaeoba angustidorsis Bolivar, 1902 .Ann. Soc. ent.
Fr. 70: 590.
Phlaeoba angustidorsis Bolivar; Kirby, W.F. 1914.
Fauna of British India, including Ceylon and Burma.
Orthoptera (Acrididae) 104.
Material Examined: 140a-08/z, 14.x.2008, five
males, on grasses, Ranka, Gangtok, Sikkim; 140a-08/z,
30.x.2008, two males, on grasses, Patorkuchi, Guwahati,
Assam.
Diagnosis: Ferruginous brown, the male with a yellow
band extending to the tipof the tegmina. Fastigium of
the vertex shorter than the eye, smooth, carinated in the
8394

Phlaeoba tenebrosa (Walker, 1871)


(Image 6; Fig. 6)
Opomalatenebrosa Walker, F. 1871. Catalogue of the
Specimens of Dermaptera Saltatoria in the Collection of
the British Museum Supplement: 53
Phlaeoba tenebrosa (Walker); Kirby, W.F. 1910.
A Synonymic Catalogue of Orthoptera (Orthoptera
Saltatoria, Locustidaevel Acridiidae) 3(2): 138.
Phlaeoba tenebrosa (Walker); Uvarov. 1925[1924].
Jour. Asiat. Soc. Bengal 20: 318.
Phlaeoba tenebrosa (Walker); Uvarov. 1929. Revue
Suisse de Zool. 36: 537.
Phlaeobatenebrosa (Walker); Yin, Xiang-Chu, Kai-Ling
Xia et al. 2003. Fauna Sinica, Insecta 32 (supplement):
177.
Phlaeoba tenebrosa(Walker); Azim & Reshi. 2010.
Acta Zool. Mex. (n.s.) 26(1): 221.
Material Examined: 141a-08/z, 2.ii.2009 on grasses,
four females, East Siang, Arunachal Pradesh.
Diagnosis: Body small to medium size; antennae
ensiform, as long as or longer than head and pronotum
together; head normal; vertex with distinct median
carinula; fastigium of vertex depressed with median
and lateral carinulae; fastigial foveolae not visible from
above; frons slightly oblique; frontal ridge deeply sulcate.
Female genitalia: Supra-anal plate broad, as long
as wide, apex pointed, cercus broad narrowing apically,
slightly more than two times as long as wide, apex
rounded. Sub genital plate wide, posterior margin
slightly notched in the middle, setose medially, surface
with brown patches, egg-guide, short, two times as
long as wide, narrowingat apex. Spermatheca, apical
diverticulum long, broad, sac like; pre-apical diverticulum
short rudimentary. Ovipositor with dorsal valve broad,
apical tip rounded, dorsal condyle well developed,
slightly shorter than lateral apodeme, ventral valve

Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | 26 January 2016 | 8(1): 83898397

Taxonomic studies on Acridinae


Mohd. Imran Khan

Image 6. Phlaeoba tenebrosa (female)

Figure 6. Phlaeoba tenebrosa (female)


A - Supra anal plate; B - Subgenital plate; C - Spermatheca;
D - Ovipositor

narrow, apical tip acute.


Morphometry: (length in mm)
Female: Body length 27.8, Tegmina 24.4, Pronotum
5.5, Hind femur 15.9
Distribution: India: Arunachal Pradesh.
Orthochtha indica Uvarov, 1942
(Image 7; Fig. 7)
Orthochtha indica Uvarov, 1942a: Ann. Mag. nat.
hist. London 9(11) (56): 587.
Orthochtha indica Julka et al., 1982: Oriental Insect
63: 71.
Orthochtha indica Bhowmik & Halder, 1983b: Rec.

Khan & Usmani

zool. Surv. India 81(1&2): 171.


Orthochtha indica Bhowmik, 1985b: Rec. zool. Surv.
India, Occ. Pap. No. 78: 12.
Orthochtha indica Hazra et al. 1995: State Fauna
Series, 4: Fauna of Meghalaya, Part 3, Zool. Surv. India:
239.
Orthochtha indica Saini & Mehta, 2007: Bionotes
9(3):76.
Material examined: 142a-08/z, 14.x.2008, three
females, two males, on grasses, Sichey, Gangtok,
Sikkim; 142b-08/z, 21.x.2008, five females, two males,
on grasses, Umran, RaiBhoi, Meghalaya; 142c-08/z,
10.ii.2009, seven females, five males, on grasses, Sihphir,
Aizwal, Mizoram.
Diagnosis: Body of median size; antennae ensiform,
much longer than head and pronotum together; head
conical, never elongate; fastigium of vertex depressed,
with lateral carinulae; fastigial foveolae absent; frontal
ridge sulcate; pronotum elongate, constricted in the
middle.
Male genitalia: Supra-anal plate elongate-angular,
cercus narrow-conical; slightly incurved with obtuse
apex, sub genital plate short, subconical; Epiphallus,
bridge narrow medially, ancorae large, lophilobiform;
aedeagus, apical valve about as long as and much
narrower than basal valve.
Female genitalia: Supra-anal plate broad, slightly
broader than long, apex broadly rounded, cercus broad
basally, narrowing apically, slightly longer than two times
as long as wide, apexnarrowly rounded. Sub genital plate
elongate, wide, posterior margin smooth without setae,
patches absent, egg-guide narrow, three times as long
as wide, apex pointed. Spermatheca apical diverticulum
elongate uniformly, narrowing apically, much longer than
pre-apical diverticulum. Pre-apical diverticulum short,
broad, sac like. Ovipositor broad with apex pointed,
one and half time shorter than lateral apodeme, ventral
valve elongate narrow, apical tip rounded.
Morphometry: (length in mm)
Male: Body length 23.9, Tegmina 20.64, Pronotum
1.84, Hind femur 16.14
Female: Body length 35.5, Tegmina 26.5, Pronotum
2.2, Hind femur 21.65
Distribution: India: Delhi, Himachal Pradesh,
Maharashtra, Madhya Pradesh and Meghalaya.
Discussion
A critical analysis on the distribution of the genera
and species belonging to various subfamilies of
Acrididae in the present work reveals that the genera
and species are widely distributed in different regions of

Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | 26 January 2016 | 8(1): 83898397

8395

Taxonomic studies on Acridinae

Khan & Usmani

Mohd. Imran Khan

Image 7. Orthocta indica. A - male; B - female

Assam, Sikkim, Manipur, Arunachal Pradesh, Meghalaya,


Tripura, Mizoram and Nagaland. During this study a
total of seven species belonging to three genera of the
subfamily Acridinae were recorded from the eight NorthEastern states of India. Earlier studies on the systematics
of Indian Acrididae are exclusively based on the external
characters like colour, size, texture, number of antennal
segments etc. Beside conventional characters, in the
present study an attempt has also been made to make
a comprehensive study on the genitalic structures, viz.,
supra-anal plate and cerci, subgenital plate, epiphallus
and aedeagus of the male; sub genital plate, supraanal plate and cerci, ovipositor and spermatheca of the
female. The significance of conventional and genitalic
structures in the classification of Indian Acridoidea is
shown. The northeastern part of India comprising eight
states is one of the most important biodiversity hotspots
in India and the world. Most of the northeastern states
have more than 60% of their geographical area under
forest cover. This region is full of diversity of various
insects. Meghalaya represents the most diverse state
in having the most number of specimens as well as the
number of genera while the least number of specimens
and genera were recorded from Tripura and Sikkim.
While the other states were represented by a moderate
number of genera belonging to different subfamilies.
This may be attributed to the fact that Meghalaya has
the higher forest cover area as well as grasslands when
compared to the other states. Extensive surveys of these
areas were made which results in good diversity as
depicted in the results.
References

Figure 7. Orthoctha indica. AD (male); EH (female)


A - Supra anal plate; B - Subgenital plate; C - Epiphallus;
D - Aedeagus; E - Supra anal plate; F - Subgenital plate;
G - Spermatheca; H - Ovipositor

8396

Bei-Bienko, G.Y. & L.L. Mishchenko (1951). Locusts and Grasshoppers


of the USSR and Adjacent Countries. Akad. Nauk SSSR, Moscow Part
I, no. 38: xxi+400 pp; Part II, no. 40: xxi+291pp.
Dirsh, V.M. (1965). The African Genera of Acridoidea. Cambridge,
xiii+579pp.
Kirby, W.F. (1914). The Fauna of British India, including Ceylon and
Burma. Orthoptera (Acrididae), London, ix+276pp.
Shishodia, M.S. & S.K. Tandon (2004). Insecta: Orthoptera: Acridoidea,
pp. 111137. In: Fauna of Manipur. State Fauna Series 10. Zoological
Survey of India.
Shishodia, M.S. & A. Dey (2006). Insecta: Orthoptera: Acrididae and
Pyrgomorphidae, pp. 95110. In: Fauna of Nagaland. State Fauna
Series 12. Zoological Survey of India.
Shishodia, M.S. & A. Dey (2007). Insecta: Orthoptera: Acridoidea,
187206. In: Fauna of Mizoram. State Fauna Series 14. Zoological
Survey of India.

Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | 26 January 2016 | 8(1): 83898397

Taxonomic studies on Acridinae

Khan & Usmani

Key to the genera of the subfamily Acridinae MacLeay, 1821 recorded from the northeastern states of India
1.
-

Head never elongate; Hind femur never very long and slender ......................................................................................... 2
Head elongate; hind femur very long and slender ........................................................................... Acrida Linnaeus, 1758

2.
-

Pronotum with lateral carinae straight, nearly parallel ............................ Phlaeoba Stal, 1860
Pronotum with lateral carinae diverging in metazoan ............................ Orthochtha Karsch, 1891
Key to the species of the genus Acrida Linnaeus, 1758

1.
-

Body greenish; lateral carina of pronotum not edged within with black line ........................... A. exaltata Walker, 1859
Body dry grass coloured; lateral carina of pronotum edged within with black line ..... A. gigantea Herbst, 1794
Key to the Indian species of Phlaeoba Stal, 1860

1.
-

Lateral carina of pronotum distinct ................................................................................................................................... 2


Lateral carina of pronotum indistinct or coarsely indicated or absent, pronotum coarsely punctured ..............................
.....................................................................................................................................................P. tenebrosa Walker, 1871

2.
-

Wings more or less fuscous at apex .................... 3


Wings hyaline ..................................P. panteli Bolivar, I., 1902

3.
-

Antennae ringed or tipped with obscure yellow .............................................. P. anqustidorsis Bolivar, I., 1902
Antennae unicolorous ................................................................................... P. infumata Brunner, 1893

Threatened Taxa

Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | 26 January 2016 | 8(1): 83898397

8397

Short Communication

Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | 26 January 2016 | 8(1): 83988402

ISSN 0974-7907 (Online)


ISSN 0974-7893 (Print)

OPEN ACCESS

Magnolia lanuginosa (Wall.) Figlar & Noot. in West Khasi


Hills of Meghalaya, northeastern India: re-collection and
implications for conservation
Aabid Hussain Mir 1, Viheno Iralu 2, Ngakhainii Trune Pao 3, Gunjana Chaudhury 4,
Clarence G. Khonglah 5, K.L. Chaudhary 6, B.K. Tiwari 7 & Krishna Upadhaya 8
Department of Environmental Studies, 8 Department of Basic Sciences and Social Sciences,
North-Eastern Hill University, Umshing Mawkynroh, Shillong, Meghalaya 793022, India
6
Department of Botany, Lady Keane College, Secretariat Hills, Shillong, Meghalaya 793001, India
1
aabidm4@gmail.com, 2 viheiralu@gmail.com, 3 atrune@gmail.com, 4 cgunjana@gmail.com,
5
rex05hgmg@gmail.com, 6 klchaudhary31@gmail.com, 7 bktiwarinehu@gmail.com,
8
upkri@yahoo.com (corresponding author)

1,2,3,4,5,7

Abstract: Magnolia lanuginosa (Wall.) Figlar & Noot. [= Michelia


lanuginosa Wall.], a rare tree species of Meghalaya, is restricted to
the West Khasi Hills District, Meghalaya. The species was considered
to have become extinct from the state. The present paper reports
a recent re-collection of the species from four locations in the West
Khasi Hills after a lapse of almost 100 years. In addition, the population
structure, regeneration status and the threat to the species are also
discussed so as to develop effective strategies for its conservation.
Keywords: Conservation, Data Deficient, Khasi Hills, sacred grove.

Magnolia L. [Incl. Elmerrillia, Kmeria, Manglietia,


Michelia, Pachylarnax, Talauma], belonging to the
family Magnoliaceae, consists of 219 species distributed
in the Himalaya to Japan and western Malaysia, eastern
North America to tropical America (Mabberley 2008).
According to Kumar (2014), a total of 30 species and one
variety are recognised from the Indian region.

Magnolia lanuginosa (Wall.) Figlar & Noot.


[Synonyms: Michelia lanuginosa Wall., Michelia
lanceolata E.H. Wilson, Michelia velutina DC.,Sampacca
lanuginosa (Wall.) Kuntze and Magnolia velutina (DC.)
Figlar] is a threatened tree, which is less commonly
found in Meghalaya. It is chiefly found in the forest
slopes at 15002400 m of India (West Bengal, Sikkim,
Arunachal Pradesh, Meghalaya, Nagaland and Manipur),
Nepal, Bhutan, Myanmar, Tibet and southwestern China
(Yunnan). In the Chinese Red List, the species has been
assessed as regionally extinct suggesting that it may
have reduced its range of occurrence in China (Wheeler &
Rivers 2014). It has also been reported as a less common
tree in the Kanchenjunga range in Darjeeling (Chettri et
al. 2008). In Meghalaya, it is restricted exclusively to the
West Khasi Hills. The only collection was from Kynshi
by U.N. Kanjilal in the year 1915 (ASSAM 5889). Kanjilal

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.11609/jott.2242.8.1.8398-8402
Editor: P. Lakshminarasimhan, Botanical Survey of India, Pune, India.

Date of publication: 26 January 2016 (online & print)

Manuscript details: Ms # 2242 | Received 27 August 2015 | Final received 07 December 2015 | Finally accepted 30 December 2015
Citation: Mir, A.H., V. Iralu, N.T. Pao, G. Chaudhury, C.G. Khonglah, K.L. Chaudhary, B.K. Tiwari & K. Upadhaya (2016). Magnolia lanuginosa (Wall.) Figlar & Noot.
in West Khasi Hills of Meghalaya, northeastern India: re-collection and implications for conservation. Journal of Threatened Taxa 8(1): 83988402; http://dx.doi.
org/10.11609/jott.2242.8.1.8398-8402
Copyright: Mir et al. 2016. Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. JoTT allows unrestricted use of this article in any medium, reproduction and
distribution by providing adequate credit to the authors and the source of publication.
Funding: State Forest Department, Government of Meghalaya
(No MFD/ThFC/2012-13/8289 dated 26 September 2014).
Conflict of Interest: The authors declare no competing interests.
Acknowledgements: The authors are thankful to the State Forest Department, Government of Meghalaya for financial assistance (No MFD/ThFC/2012-13/8289
dated 26 September 2014). We are also thankful to the Head, Botanical Survey of India, Eastern Regional Centre, Shillong for allowing us to consult the herbarium.
The help and cooperation received from the Traditional Institution and the local people are also acknowledged.

8398

Re-collection of Magnolia lanuginosa from West Khasi Hills

& Bor (1940) in Flora of Assam reported it to be a less


commonly found species. Haridasan & Rao (1985) in
the Forest Flora of Meghalaya stated that it might have
been eliminated from the state. The species has been
classified as Data Deficient by the IUCN Red List of
Threatened Species (Wheeler & Rivers 2014) as there is
neither any information on existing subpopulations nor
are the threats and uses known.
While carrying out floristic studies in the Mawnai
sacred grove at West Khasi Hills, one of the species
was identified as Magnolia lanuginosa. The identity
of the species was confirmed by comparing it with the
herbarium specimens housed at the Botanical Survey
of India, Eastern Regional Centre, Shillong (ASSAM). It
was collected after a lapse of almost 100 years from the
state. Therefore, a detailed study was conducted with
the following objectives: (i) to assess the distribution
of the species in the state of Meghalaya, (ii) estimate
the population structure and regeneration status, (iii)
examine the threat operating on the species, and (iv) to
suggest measures for its conservation.
Materials and Methods
Study site
Extensive field surveys were carried out in different
parts of the West Khasi Hills from January 20132015 to
locate the species with the help of available herbarium
information and local people. In addition to the
Mawnai Sacred grove (25034.51N & 91035.56E, altitude
1741m), the species could be collected from three
additional sites viz., Mawnai Village forest (25034.79N
& 91035.35E, 1800m) Kynshi Village forest (25028.38N
& 91018.32E, 1620m) and Rngisawlia Village Reserve
forest (25026.66N & 91028.09E, 1592m). Hereafter,
these sites have been abbreviated as site I (Mawnai
sacred grove), site II (adjacent to Mawnai Village forest),
site III (Kynshi village forest) and site IV (Rngisawlia
village reserve forest) respectively.
Study species
Magnolia lanuginosa (= Michelia lanuginosa) is a
medium-sized tree that grows in subtropical broadleaved
forests (Champion & Seth 1968). It was however
observed that the species also grows along with Pine
Pinus kesiya. It has an average height of 15m but there
were some individuals that had attained a height of
25m. The tree has a broad crown. It often formed the
canopy layer in site-I and site-IV. It attains a girth of
180cm. Young parts very hairy. The leaves measure 12
21 by 25 cm and are densely hairy tomentose beneath.
Flowering buds are initiated in late July and it attains

Mir et al.

peak flowering in August. Fruiting starts from August


and the fruit matures during the months of September
October. The fruit is made up of 1220 follicles which
contain 24 seeds covered by a pale orange fragrant
aril during the early stages of growth which turns deep
orange at maturation (Image 1).
Field survey and data analysis
The forests where the species was present in the
West Khasi Hills were thoroughly surveyed and a plot
of 20 20 m was laid to enumerate the species and
its associates. The species occurred in 12, 4, 6 and
15 plots at site -I, -II, -III and -IV respectively. The
population structure and regeneration status of the
species were studied by classifying the species into: (1)
adult individuals (5cm diameter at breast height (dbh)
measured at 1.37m from the ground level), and (2)
regenerating individuals that include saplings (<5cm dbh
and >1m height) and seedlings (<1m height). The adult
individuals of Magnolia lanuginosa were assigned to five
dbh classes (515, 1625, 2635, 3645 and >45 cm)
to analyze the population structure. The regeneration
status of the species was assessed following Sukumar et
al. (1992) as: (a) good, if seedling > sapling > adult; (b)
fair, if seedling > sapling adult; (c) poor, if a species
survives only at the sapling stage, but not as seedlings
(though saplings may be less, more or equal to adults)
(d) none, if the species is absent both at the sapling
and seedling stages, but present as adults and (e) new,
if the species has no adults, but only saplings and/or
seedlings.
The disturbance index for each site was computed
following Uotila & Kouki (2005), Tang et al. (2010, 2011)
with a slight modification. A score of five was assigned to
each of the human disturbance factors, viz., logging for
timber, fuel wood harvesting, NTFPs collection, clearing
forest land for agriculture, grazing, building roads and
fire. Any site with all these disturbances would have a
total score of 35.
Results and Discussion
Site characteristics
The Mawnai sacred grove (site-I) was the least
disturbed site and represents the subtropical broadleaved forest. The dominant tree species in the forest
include Citrus latipes, Castanopsis purpullera, Casearia
glomerulata, Litsea salicifolia and Macropanax
dispermus. Adjacent to the sacred grove was a
village forest (site-II), which is a severely degraded
mixed-pine forest, with a dominance of Pinus kesiya,
Lithocarpus elegans and Castanopsis tribuloides. In

Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | 26 January 2016 | 8(1): 83988402

8399

Re-collection of Magnolia lanuginosa from West Khasi Hills

Mir et al.
Viheno Iralu

Image 1. Flowering twig (A), flower (B), fruit initiation (C) and mature fruits with seeds (D) of Magnolia lanuginosa

site-III, Pinus kesiya was the dominant tree species


followed by Rhododendron arboreum and Lithocarpus
dealbatus whereas in site-IV, the associated species
includes Schima wallichii, S. khasiana, Pinus kesiya and
Castanopsis tribuloides. All the sites were exposed to
anthropogenic disturbances, of which site-II and site-III
were highly disturbed (Table 1).
Population characteristics
The total population of Magnolia lanuginosa
including seedling, sapling and adult individuals varied
significantly among the four sites. Site-I had the highest
number of total individuals (123), followed by site IV (80
individuals), site-II (39 individuals) and site-III, which had
only 11 individuals. The highest number of individuals
in site-I may be attributed to least disturbances and the
8400

related favorable habitat as compared to other sites.


Of all the sites, site-IV had the highest number of adult
individuals (54), followed by site-I (36), site-II (18) and
site-III (6). A high proportion (67%) of cut individuals of
the species were observed in site-III (Table 1).
The population structure of adult trees (5cm
dbh) of Magnolia lanuginosa depicted through a
density diameter distribution yielded a discontinuous
distribution of individuals. Except site-I, there were
no individuals in the highest (>45 cm) dbh class (Fig.
1). The low density and discontinuous distribution
of the species in different diameter classes in all the
sites could be attributed to selective felling and human
disturbance. A similar observation has been made with
Grewia pandaica, a rare and endemic species of the
Western Ghats (Parthasarathy & Karthikeyan 1997) and

Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | 26 January 2016 | 8(1): 83988402

Re-collection of Magnolia lanuginosa from West Khasi Hills

Mir et al.

Table 1. Site characteristics and population of Magnolia lanuginosa in different sites of West Khasi Hills in Meghalaya
Number of Individuals of M. lanuginosa
Site

Forest type

Seedling

Sapling

Adult

No. of cut
individuals

Other associated species

Current disturbances

Site-I

Broad leaved
forest

50

37

36

Citrus latipes, Castanopsis


purpullera, Casearia
glomerulata, Litsea salicifolia
and Macropanax dispermus

Fuel wood harvesting, NTFPs


collection and grazing

Site-II

Mixed pine forest

21

18

Pinus kesiya, Lithocarpus


elegans, Schima wallichii and
Castanopsis tribuloides

Logging for timber, fuel wood


harvesting, NTFPs collection,
clearing forest land for
agriculture, grazing, and fire
Logging for timber, fuel wood
harvesting, NTFPs collection,
clearing forest land for
agriculture, grazing, building
roads and fire
Logging for timber, fuel wood
harvesting, NTFPs collection,
grazing and fire

Site-III

Mixed pine forest

Pinus kesiya, Rhododendron


arboreum and Lithocarpus
dealbatus

Site-IV

Mixed pine forest

21

54

Schima wallichii, Schima


khasiana, Pinus kesiya, Myrica
esculenta and Castanopsis
tribuloides

Alphonsea sclerocarpa, an endemic tree species from


the Eastern Ghats (Kadaval & Parthasarathy 2001).

Threat status
The threat to the species is mainly anthropogenic
disturbances, which had a negative impact on its
performance. This is evident by a negative correlation
(Y = 212.2 - 5.67429X, R = 0.99, p = 0.008, n=4) between
the population size of the species and disturbance. Such
a disturbance-linked decline in population size of the
species has also been observed in Alphonsea sclerocarpa
from the Eastern Ghats (Kadaval & Parthasarathy 2001)
and Ilex khasiana from northeastern India (Upadhaya et
al. 2009). Disturbance in the form of timber extraction
drastically reduces the densities of naturally occurring
plants. Except site-I, all the sites were exposed to high
disturbances. A combined effect of all these factors
(Table 1) might have contributed to the very low
population of the species.

Site-I
Site-II
Site-III
Site-IV

18
16
Number of individuals

Regeneration status
The overall age structures of the population based
on the density of seedling, sapling and adult individuals
varied among the four sites. The highest seedling
density (50 individuals) was recorded at site-I, followed
by 21 individuals in site-II, 5 individuals insite -IV, and
only 1 individual in site-III. Similarly, the sapling density
was highest in site-I (37 individuals) followed by site-IV
(21), site-III (4) and site-II, which had no seedlings (Table
1). Based on the number of seedlings, saplings and adult
trees, the regeneration status was good only in site -I,
while in all other forests sites it was poor (Fig. 2).

20

14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0

515

1625
2635
Diameter class (cm)

3645

>45

Figure 1. Density-diameter distribution of adult individuals ( 5cm


dbh) of Magnolia lanuginosa in different sites of West Khasi Hills in
Meghalaya

Except the sacred grove, the low seedling and sapling


density of the species in all the sites could be due to its
association with pine. Pine-or pine-mixed forests are
exposed to fire every year leading to high mortality of the
young individuals. Tree felling for use as poles and timber
was another threat responsible for the species decline.
The species is considered good timber and is preferred
to make furniture, building houses and the wood is
highly priced. This could be the reason for its absence in
>45cm dbh class in highly disturbed patches. Moreover,
forest clearing for agriculture and construction of roads
is leading to the habitat destruction of the species.
Habitat destruction has been recognized as one of
the important threats responsible for species extinction,

Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | 26 January 2016 | 8(1): 83988402

8401

Re-collection of Magnolia lanuginosa from West Khasi Hills


70

Percentage of individuals

60

Mir et al.

References

Seedling
Sapling
Adult

50
40
30
20
10
0

Site-I

Site-II

Sites

Site-III

Site-IV

Figure 2. Population structure of Magnolia lanuginosa in different


sites of West Khasi Hills in Meghalaya

followed by fire, hence hindering the regeneration


process. Another factor for low regeneration of the
species can be attributed to the fact that many of the
fruits fall from the tree before they mature. The heavy
fruits are vulnerable to gushes of wind and tend to fall
easily. The fruits are also predated by squirrels and
insects on the forest floor. Another factor for its low
density especially in disturbed sites could be that the
species germinates during FebruaryMarch and is soon
exposed to fire followed by competition with other
species in the rainy season (AprilOctober). Recently,
a similar observation has been made by Iralu and
Upadhaya (2015) with another species of Magnolia (M.
punduana).
Conservation implications
The study reveals that the population of the species
is very low and there is an urgent need for taking up
effective conservation measures, so as to save it from
extinction in the state. Thus the forest patches, where
the species occurs need to be protected. The local people
should be encouraged to grow the species in their home
gardens and agroforestry. This will reduce the pressure
on the species in the wild. Forest fire is another major
threat to the species and needs to be checked. The
species is required to be raised both through seeds and
tissue culture, and introduced in suitable habitats as well
as in botanical gardens.

Champion, H.G. & S.K. Seth (1968). A Revised Survey of the Forest
Types of India, Manager of Publications, Government of India,
Delhi.
Chettri, N., B. Shakya & E. Sharma (2008). Biodiversity Conservation
in Kangchenjunga Landscape. International Centre for Integrated
Mountain Development.
Haridasan, K. & R.R. Rao (1985). Forest Flora of Meghalaya - Vol I.
Bishen Singh and Mahendrapal Singh, Dehra Dun.
Iralu, V. & K. Upadhaya (2015). Notes on Magnolia punduana Hk. f.
& Th. (Magnoliopsida: Magnoliales: Magnoliaceae): an endemic
and threatened tree species of northeastern India. Journal of
Threatened Taxa 7(9): 75737576; http://dx.doi.org/10.11609/
JoTT.o4238.7573-6
Kadaval, K. & N. Parthasarathy (2001). Population analysis of
Alphonsea sclerocarpa Thw. (Annonaceae) in the Kalyaran Hills
of Eastern Ghats India. International Journal of Ecology and
Environmental Science 27: 5154.
Kanjilal, U.N. & N.L. Bor (1940). Flora of Assam. Omsons Publications,
New Delhi, India, 22pp.
Kumar, V.S. (2014). Magnoliaceae of Indian Region An Apprisal, pp.
5374. In: Panda, S. & C. Ghosh (eds.). Diversity and Conservation
of Plants and Traditional Knowledge. Bishen Singh Mahendra Pal
Singh, Dehra Dun.
Mabberley, D.J. (2008). Mabberleys Plant-book: A Portable Dictionary
of the Vascular Plants: Their Classification and Uses: Utilizing
Kubitzkis The Families and Genera of Vascular Plants (1990). 3rd
Revised Edition. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Parthasarathy, N. & R. Karthikeyan (1997). Population structure of
Grewia pandaica- a rare and endemic tree species of southwest
India. International Journal of Ecology and Environmental Sciences
23: 8590.
Sukumar, R., H.S. Dattaraja, H.S. Suresh, J. Radhakrishnan, R.
Vasudeva, S. Nirmala & N.V. Joshi (1992). Long-term monitoring of
vegetation in a tropical deciduous forest in Mudumalai, Southern
India. Current Science 62(9): 608616.
Tang, C.Q., Y. Li & Z.Y. Zhang (2010). Species diversity patterns of
natural secondary plant communities and man-made forests in a
subtropical mountainous karst area, Yunnan, SW China. Mountain
Research and Development 30(3): 244251; http://dx.doi.
org/10.1659/MRD-JOURNAL-D-10-00021.1
Tang, C.Q., Y. Yang, M. Ohsawa, A. Momohara, M. Hara, S. Cheng
& S. Fan (2011). Population structure of relict Metasequoia
glyptostroboides and its habitat fragmentation and degradation in
south-central China. Biological Conservation 144: 279289; http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2010.09.003
Uotila, A.& J. Kouki (2005). Understory vegetation in spruce-dominated
forests in eastern Finland and Russian Karelia: successional pattern
after anthropogenic and natural disturbances. Forest Ecology and
Management 215(13): 113137; http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
foreco.2005.05.008
Upadhaya, K., S.K. Barik, D. Adhikari, R. Baishya & N.J. Lakadong
(2009). Regeneration ecology and population status of a Critically
Endangered and endemic tree species (Ilex khasianaPurk.) in northeastern India.Journal of Forestry Research 20: 223228; http://
dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11676-009-0041-z
Wheeler, L. & M.C. Rivers (2014). Magnolia lanuginosa. The IUCN
Red List of Threatened Species 2014: e.T15114022A15114029.
Downloaded on 09 January 2016; http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.
UK.2014-3.RLTS.T15114022A15114029.en

Threatened Taxa

8402

Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | 26 January 2016 | 8(1): 83988402

Three species of Phallus (Basidiomycota: Agaricomycetes:


Phallaceae) from Jammu & Kashmir, India
Harpreet Kour 1, Rigzin Yangdol 2, Sanjeev Kumar 3 & Yash Pal Sharma 4

ISSN 0974-7907 (Online)


ISSN 0974-7893 (Print)

Department of Botany, University of Jammu, Jammu 180006, India


harpreet.mushrooms@gmail.com, 2 rigzinmushroom7145@gmail.com, 3 sanjeevkoul222@gmail.com,
4
yashdbm3@yahoo.co.in (corresponding author)
1,2,3,4
1

Abstract: In this paper, three species of Phallus viz., P. macrosporus,


P. rubicundus and P. hadriani are described, illustrated and discussed
along with habitat photographs and line drawings of microscopic
features. Out of these, P. macrosporus is new to India. P. rubicundus is
new to Jammu & Kashmir whereas P. hadriani constitutes a new report
of its occurrence from the Jammu Province. A key to the investigated
species is also provided.
Keywords: Ladakh, new record, Phallaceae, Poonch, stinkhorn,
taxonomy.

Phallus is a well-known gasteroid genus within


the family Phallaceae with 18 species distributed
worldwide (Kirk et al. 2008). Index Fungorum accounts
for 175 records for this genus. Characteristically, these
stinkhorns develop from round to oval egg that has
an inner gelatinous layer, unbranched and upright
fruiting bodies and a foul smelling gleba (Arora 1986).
Predominantly occupying the tropical and subtropical
habitat, some species occur in temperate areas as
well (Lee 1957; Li et al. 2002; Barrett & Stuckey 2008;
Hemmes & Desjardin 2009; Dash et al. 2010; Mohanan
2011). In India, a number of Phallus species have been
widely reported from various locations (Bhagwat et al.
2005; Bakshi & Mandal 2006; Swapna et al. 2008; Dash

OPEN ACCESS

et al. 2010; Mohanan 2011; Dutta et al. 2012; Sridhar


& Karun 2013; Tiwari et al. 2013). This communication
deals with three species of Phallus collected from two
highly diversified terrains of Jammu & Kashmir State,
which differ with respect to altitudinal and latitudinal
zonations and edaphic factors.
Study Area
Jammu & Kashmir has very rich biological wealth and
cultural heritage and because of its unique geography
and diverse climatic conditions it is an abode to a large
number of macro-fungi. The present study was carried
out on the specimens collected from two different
districts of Jammu & Kashmir: Poonch and Leh (Fig. 1).
The district Poonch, cradled in the peaks of the Pir
Panjal Himalayan ranges, lies between 7305874035E &
3302534001N. It is bounded by the Kashmir Valley in
the northeast, district Rajouri in the south and Pakistan
occupied Kashmir in the west. The area experiences
sub-tropical to temperate climate regime. Average
temperature during the summer months is around 300C
while in the winter months it is as low as 810 0C. The
annual rainfall ranges from 1,6351,796 mm, the bulk
of which is received during the monsoon period (July to

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.11609/jott.2173.8.1.8403-8409
Editor: R.K. Verma, Tropical Forest Research Institute, Jabalpur, India.

Date of publication: 26 January 2016 (online & print)

Manuscript details: Ms # 2173 | Received 21 July 2015 | Final received 06 January 2016 | Finally accepted 11 January 2016
Citation: Kour, H., R. Yangdol, S. Kumar & Y.P. Sharma (2016). Three species of Phallus (Basidiomycota: Agaricomycetes: Phallaceae) from Jammu & Kashmir, India.
Journal of Threatened Taxa 8(1): 84038409; http://dx.doi.org/10.11609/jott.2173.8.1.8403-8409
Copyright: Kour et al. 2016. Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. JoTT allows unrestricted use of this article in any medium, reproduction
and distribution by providing adequate credit to the authors and the source of publication.
Funding: University Grants Commission, New Delhi UGC-SAP Grant No. F.3-14/2011 (SAP-II)- dated 19/03/2015;
and RGNF: F1-17.1/2013-14/RGNF-2013-14-ST-JAM-37362 Feb. 2014.
Conflict of Interest: The authors declare no competing interests.
Acknowledgements: The authors wish to thank the Head, Department of Botany, University of Jammu and UGC-SAP for providing laboratory facilities and financial
assistance. The second author (an RGNF fellow) also acknowledges the financial support received as a Senior Research Fellowship from the University Grants
Commission, New Delhi.

8403

Short Communication

Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | 26 January 2016 | 8(1): 84038409

Three Phallus species from Jammu & Kashmir

Kour et al.

September). Silty loam and alluvial soil are the major


soil types of Poonch.
On the other hand, Leh District, one of the coldest
and most elevated places in the world, is situated
in the Ladakh region in Indian Trans-Himalaya. It is
located between 3201536000 & 7501580015E with
an altitude ranging from 2,9005,900 m. The area
is characterized by extreme heat and cold, extreme
bareness and dryness, low oxygen and atmospheric
pressure. The temperature fluctuates between 350C
during summer to a minimum of -350C during extreme
winter. The annual precipitation is very little i.e., 80300
mm and thus the absence of rainfall over the greater
part of the year has resulted in xerophytic vegetation.
The soil is predominantly sandy to sandy loam and pure
clay with low nutrient content.
Methods
The specimens examined were collected from the
study area during 20142015. Habitat details and
field characters such as habit, odour, colour, and size
of the pileus (cap), pseudostipe and volva, presence or
absence of indusium or veil were observed from the
fresh material. The microscopic details were studied
from dried specimen, revived in 5% KOH, and stained
in 1% Congo red. Microscopic line drawings were
made with the aid of a camera lucida. Microscopic
characters were photographed using a Sony N50 camera
attached to an Olympus CH 20i binocular microscope
and measurements were recorded for each character
for description of average dimensions. The mean
quotient (Q) of the spore length divided by spore width

was calculated from a measurement of 20 mature


basidiospores. The examined samples were deposited
in the Herbarium of Botany Department, University of
Jammu (HBJU).
Results and Discussion
1. Phallus macrosporus B. Liu, Z.Y. Li & Du (1980)
Material examined: HBJU 402, 03.viii.2014,
Phey Village, Leh, Jammu & Kashmir, India, solitary,
humicolous, in a cultivated field of barley (Toh), coll. R.
Yangdol and Y.P. Sharma.
Expanded basidiomata: 14.0cm high, solitary.
Receptacle: convex, surface deeply reticulate with
perforated apex. Gleba: Olive brown, mucilaginous.
Pseudostipe: cylindrical, 8.5 2.2 cm, spongy, hollow,
white when fresh, light yellow when dried. Volva:
saccate, 3.5 x 2.6 cm, membranous, reddish tinted to
purple. Odour: pungent. Basidiospores: ellipsoidal,
6.48.0 4.04.8 m, avL = 7.2, avW = 4.4, Q = 1.6
1.7, subhyaline to light greenish, smooth. Basidia: not
observed. Pileus hyphae: septate, hyaline, thin walled,
branched, clamp connections present, 1.63.2 m wide.
Pseudostipe: composed of hyaline hyphae, 1.64.8m

a
b

India

d
collection sites

Figure 1. Study area - Jammu and Kashmir


8404

Figure 2. Phallus macrosporus. Camera lucida drawings: (a)


Basidiospores; (b) Pileus hyphae; (c) Stipe hyphae and cells; (d)
Volval hyphae. Scale bars a,b,d= 15m, c= 20m. Rigzin Yangdol
Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | 26 January 2016 | 8(1): 84038409

Three Phallus species from Jammu & Kashmir

Kour et al.

Image 1. Phallus macrosporus: (a) Expanded basidiomata in natural habitat; (b) Basidiospores in Congo red; (c) Pileus hyphae showing clamp
connections; (d) Stipe elements. Scale bars a= 2cm, b-d= 15m. Rigzin Yangdol

wide and sub-globose cells measuring 18.048.0


14.044.0 m. Volva: composed of septate, branched,
hyaline, thick walled hyphae, 2.416.0 m wide, clamp
connections present (Image 1, Fig. 2).
Taxonomic remarks: The present specimen of P.
macrosporus is similar to the description given by
Calonge (2005), with reticulate receptacle, reddish to
purple volva and large sized basidiospores. The overall
morphology of the basidiomata resembles P. hadriani
but the presence of large sized basidiospores clearly
differentiates it from the latter. This is a new report for
India.
Distribution: Earlier reported from China (Liu et al. 1980)
2. Phallusrubicundus(Bosc) Fr.,Syst. mycol.(Lundae)2(2):
284 (1823)
Synonymy: Satyrus rubicundusBosc,Mag.
Gesell. naturf. Freunde, Berlin 5: 86 (1811)
Phallus
rubicundus(Bosc)
Fr.,Syst.
mycol. (Lundae) 2(2): 284 (1823) var. rubicundus
Ithyphallus rubicundus(Bosc) E. Fisch.,Syll.

fung. (Abellini) 5: 11 (1888) var. rubicundus


Phallus rubicundus var. gracillimusDring & R.W. Rayner,
(1967)
Material examined: HBJU 403, 10.viii.2014, Khorinar,
Poonch, Jammu & Kashmir, India, solitary, humicolous,
in a cultivated field, coll. H. Kour and Y.P. Sharma.
Eggs: ovate, white, smooth, 2.03.0 cm wide, mycelial
strands attached to the base. Mature basidiocarp: 14.0
19.0 cm long. Pseudostipe: decurved, peach coloured,
spongiose, tapering towards the apex, deeply reticulate.
Receptacle: conical, with a flat tip with conspicuous
pore at the apex. Gleba: olivaceous, covering the whole
length of the receptacle. Volva saccate, 14.017.0
cm, creamish-white. Odour: pungent. Basidiospores:
elliptical, 3.24.8 1.62.4 m, avL = 4.0 avW = 2.0, Q
= 2.0, hyaline, smooth, greenish tinted in KOH. Pileus
hyphae: septate, hyaline, branched, 1.63.2 m wide.
Stipe cells: sub-globose, hyaline, 28.060.0 28.052.0
m. Volva: composed of septate hyphae, 3.24.8 m
wide. Rhizomorph hyphae: hyaline, septate, 1.63.2 m
wide (Image 2, Fig. 3).

Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | 26 January 2016 | 8(1): 84038409

8405

Three Phallus species from Jammu & Kashmir

Kour et al.

Image 2. Phallus rubicundus: (a) Mature Fruit bodies in natural habitat; (b) Uprooted fruit bodies and eggs; (c) Basidiospores; (d) Stipe cells.
Scale bars a-b= 3cm, c= 15m, d= 10m. Harpreet Kour

Taxonomic remarks: P. rubicundus, commonly


known as Devils stinkhorn, can easily be confused
with Mutinus elegans but a close examination reveals
that P. rubicundus has a clearly distinguished, separate
head that holds the spore containing olive green slime
whereas the species of Mutinus bear their slime on the
upper part of a stem that lacks a clearly distinguished
head. Earlier, this species was found on the ground and
on dead roots of grass but our examined species was
found inhabiting the litter and dead logs. It is new to
Jammu & Kashmir.
Distribution: Previously reported from West Africa
and Brazil (Dring 1964; Trierveiler-Pereira et al. 2009)
and Dutta et al. (2012) reported it from West Bengal,
India.
3. Phallus hadriani Vent. (1798)
Synonymy: Hymenophallus hadriani (Vent.)
Nees,Syst. Pilze(Wrzburg): 251 (1816)
Phallus hadriani Vent., Mm. Inst. nat. Sci. Arts 1:
8406

517 (1798)f. hadriani


Phallus iosmosBerk., in Smith,Engl. Fl., Fungi (Edn 2)
(London)5(2): 227 (1836)
Phallus imperialisSchulzer, in Kalchbrenner,Icon. Sel.
Hymenomyc. Hung.: 63, pl. 40, fig. 1 (1873)
Material examined: HBJU 401, 18.v.2015, Khorinar,
Poonch, Jammu & Kashmir, India, solitary, humicolous,
in a cultivated field among the trees of Melia azardicta
and Prunus domestica, coll. H. Kour and Y.P. Sharma
Eggs: sub-globose to pyriform, 4.06.0 4.05.0
cm, initially white in colour, later turned pink to purple
colour with scales forming reticulate pattern on the
surface, partly subterranean, attached to the substrate
by a mycelial cord; when cut found the stinkhorn to be
enclosed in a gelatinous substance. Mature basidiomata:
20.025.0 cm high. Receptacle: 2.54.0 cm wide,
strongly reticulated with a perforation at its tip. Gleba:
Olive green, with the disappearance of gleba receptacle
appeared pure white. Pseudostipe: cylindrical, 7.010.0
cm long and 1.22.5 cm wide, hollow, spongy, white

Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | 26 January 2016 | 8(1): 84038409

Three Phallus species from Jammu & Kashmir

Kour et al.

a
b

c
d

e
e
Figure 3. Phallus rubicundus. Camera lucida drawings: (a)
Basidiospores; (b) Pileus hyphae; (c) Stipe cells; (d) Volval hyphae;
(e) Rhizomorph hyphae. Scale bars a,b,d,e= 10m, c= 15m.
Harpreet Kour

when fresh, became light yellow when dried. Volva:


2.03.0 cm wide, light purple. Basidiospores: 2.43.2
(4.8) 0.81.6m, avL = 3.2, avW = 1.2, Q= 2.7, elliptical,
smooth, subhyaline, greenish tinge in KOH. Basidia:
elongated, cylindrical, a bit broader at centre, 14.416.0
2.43.2 m, Sterigmata 8 in number. Receptacle:
composed of hyaline, septate and branched hyphae and
measures about 2.43.2 m. Pseudostipe: comprises
subglobular cells, 1.64.8 m. Volval hyphae: hyaline,
septate, branched, 1.64.8 m (Image 3, Fig. 4).
Taxonomic remarks: Macro- and microscopic
features of the present specimen corroborates well
with the description given by Calonge (2005). Phallus
impudicus is a closely related species but differs only
in the colour of thevolvawhich is white in the former
and purplish in our described species. This stinkhorn
species is sometimes mistaken for an old morel owing
to its pitted head, somewhat similar in shape with a
lack of slimy spores mass (which may be lost in old
age). Although, this species had earlier been enlisted
by Abraham (1991) from Kashmir but we are describing
it for the first time. Thus, it constitutes a new record for
Jammu province.
Distribution: Earlier reported from Turkey and Poland
(Zabawski 1976; Demirel & Uzun 2004)

Figure 4. Phallus hadriani. Camera lucida drawings: (a) Basidia; (b)


Basidiospores; (c) Pileus hyphae; (d) Stipe hyphae and cells; (e)
Volval hyphae; (f) Rhizomorph hyphae. Scale bars a,b,c,e,f= 10m,
d= 15m. Harpreet Kour

References
Abraham, S.P. (1991). Kashmir fungal flora - An overview. Indian
Mushroom Floristic Studies 13-24.
Arora, D. (1986). Mushrooms Demystified. Ten Speed Press, Berkeley,
California, USA, 936pp.
Bakshi, D. & N.C. Mandal (2006). Activities of some catabolic
and anabolic enzymes of carbohydrate metabolism during
developmental phases of fruit-bodies of Dictyophora indusiata and
Geastrum fornicatum. Current Science 90: 10621064.
Barrett, M. & B. Stuckey (2008). Phallus merulinus newly reported for
the top end. Fungimap Newsletters 36: 116.
Bhagwat, S.A., C.G. Kushalappa, P.H. Williams & N.D. Brown (2005).
The role of informal protected areas in maintaining biodiversity in
the Western Ghats of India. Ecology and Society 10: 140.
Calonge, F.D. (2005). A tentative key to identify the species of Phallus.
Bulletino del Circolo Micrologo 29: 918.
Dash, P.K., D.K. Sahu, S. Sahoo & R. Das (2010). Phallus indusiatus
Vent. & Pers. (Basidiomycetes) - a new generic record from Eastern
Ghats of India. Journal of Threatened Taxa 2(8 ): 10961098; http://
dx.doi.org/10.11609/JoTT.o2305.1096-8
Demirel, K. & Y. Uzun (2004). Two new records of Phallalesfor the
mycoflora of Turkey. Turkish Journal of Botany28: 213214.
Dring, D.M. (1964). Gasteromycetes of West Tropical Africa.
Mycological Papers 98: 160.
Dutta, A.K., N. Chakraborty, P. Pradhan & K. Acharya (2012).
Phallales of West Bengal, India. II. Phallaceae: Phallus and Mutinus.
Researcher 4: 2125.
Hemmes, D.E. & D.E. Desjardin (2009). Stinkhorns of the Hawaiian
Islands. Fungi 2: 810.
Kirk, P.M., P.F. Cannon, D.W. Minter & J.A. Stalpers (2008). Ainsworth
and Bisbys Dictionary of the Fungi - 10th Edition. CAB International,
Wallingford, UK, 771pp.
Lee, W.S. (1957). Two new phalloids from Taiwan. Mycologia 49: 156

Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | 26 January 2016 | 8(1): 84038409

8407

Three Phallus species from Jammu & Kashmir

Kour et al.

c
d

Image 3. Phallus hadriani: (a) Partially submerged egg; (b) Uprooted eggs showing colour change; (c) L.S of egg showing exoperidium,
mesoperidium, endoperidium and pseudostipe; (d) Fresh basidiome with gleba and volval remnants on receptacle; (e) Fully mature
basidiomata showing reticulated receptacle and conspicuous perforation at the tip; (f) Basidiospores in Congo red; (g) Basidia; (h) Pileus
hyphae showing clamp connection. Scale bars a-c= 2cm, e= 5cm, f- h= 10m. Harpreet Kour
8408

Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | 26 January 2016 | 8(1): 84038409

Three Phallus species from Jammu & Kashmir

Kour et al.

Key to investigated species of Phallus


1.
Receptacle granulose or rugulose .................................................................................................................................... 2
1.
Receptacle reticulate ........................................................................................................................................................ 3
2.
Receptacle conical, pseudostipe reddish to orangish, basidiospores 3.24.8 1.62.4 m, volva white ...........................
............................................................................................................................................... Phallus rubicundus (Bosc) Fr.
3.
Basidiospores size less than or equals to 5m ................................................................................................................. 4
3.
Basidiospores size more than 5m ................................................................................................................................... 5
4.
With spores of 2.43.2 (4.8) 0.81.6 m, volva purple with scales .............................................. Phallus hadriani Vent.
5.
With spores of 6.48.0 4.04.8 m, volva pale reddish to purplish tinge ............ Phallus macrosporus B. Liu, B. Li & Du

158.
Li, T.R., B. Song & B. Liu (2002).Three taxa of Phallaceae in HMAS,
China. Fungal Diversity 11: 123127.
Liu, B., Z.Y. Li & F. Du (1980).Phallus macrosporusnew species.Acta
Microbiologica Sinica(in Chinese)20:124126.
Mohanan, C. (2011). Macrofungi of Kerala. Kerala Forest Research
Institute, Kerala, India.
Sridhar, K.R. & N.C. Karun (2013). On the Basket Stinkhorn Mushroom
Phallus merulinus (Phallaceae) in Mangalore, Karnataka, India.
Journal of Threatened Taxa 5(5): 39853988; http://dx.doi.
org/10.11609/JoTT.o3312.3985-8

Swapna, S., A. Syed & M. Krishnappa (2008). Diversity of macrofungi


in semi-evergreen and moist deciduous forest of Shimoga District,
Karnataka. Journal of Mycology and Plant Pathology 38: 2126.
Tiwari, C.K., J. Parihar, R.K. Verma & U. Prakasham (2013). Atlas of
Wood Decaying Fungi of central India. Tropical Forest Research
Institute, Jabalpur, India.
Trierveiler-Pereira, L., C. Loguercio-Leite, F.D. Calonge & I.G. Baseia
(2009). An emendation of Phallus glutinolens. Mycological Progress
8: 377380; http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11557-009-0603-7
Zabawski, J. (1976). New localities ofPhallus hadriani, new record in
the northwest Poland.Fragmenta Floristic et Geobotanica22:623
26.

Threatened Taxa

Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | 26 January 2016 | 8(1): 84038409

8409

Note

Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | 26 January 2016 | 8(1): 84108411

Dusky Warbler Phylloscopus


fuscatus is a winter visitor to
India, including certain Asian and
European countries (Rasmussen
ISSN 0974-7907 (Online)
ISSN 0974-7893 (Print)
& Anderton 2005; Grimmet et
al. 2011). It is a common winter
OPEN ACCESS
migrant in eastern and northeastern
parts of India, with occasional
sporadic sightings across peninsular
India (Grimmet et al. 2011) and a
rare winter visitor in the western parts of Maharashtra
(Prasad 2003). In Maharashtra, the species has been
reported from Poona (now Pune) (Alexander 1948),
Mahabaleshwar, Satara District (Dymond 2003) and
Tadoba, Chandrapur District (Joshi 2012).
While on a casual bird watching session in Sanjay
Gandhi National Park (1901344.55N & 7205213.25E;
Fig. 1), Mumbai on 15 December 2013, VC and JJ
observed a grayish-brown warbler at 12:20 h, with a
fairly long supercilium extending beyond the eyes, which
eliminated some of the common warblers recorded in
the said location. The individual was observed calling
and foraging, for about 30 minutes at a distance of c.
3.5m among a few bushes along a water stream. A
photograph (Image 1) was captured using a digital
camera for confirming the identification later.
Subsequent visits were made on 16 February 2014
and on 23 February 2014 to the same location in the
Sanjay Gandhi National Park, near the Borivali-Kanheri
caves road (1901327.82N & 720530.48E, elevation
c. 43m) to spot the species. On the said dates, solitary
individuals of the same species were observed by
authors and other birdwatchers. On both the occasions,
identification was confirmed by observations as well
as by call play-back technique, in which the call was

Dusky Warbler Phylloscopus fuscatus


(Aves: Passeriformes: Sylviidae) in Sanjay
Gandhi National Park, Maharashtra a rare record for peninsular India
Parvish Pandya 1, Vikrant Choursiya 2 & Jyoti James 3
Zoology Department, Bhavans College, Andheri (W), Mumbai,
Maharashtra 400058, India
3
B-7, Sai Ashish, Near Satya Sai Baba Temple, Mahakali Caves Road,
Andheri (E), Mumbai, Maharashtra 400093, India
1
parvishpandya@gmail.com, 2 madscientist.wilderness@gmail.com
(corresponding author), 3 jyotimumbai306@gmail.com
1,2

obtained from www.xeno-canto.org/asia, to which each


individual responded. The bird was observed among
low bushes as well as in the tree canopy adjoining the
stream up to a height of approximately c. 6m. Sightings
were possible after long gaps since the bird used to
disappear for a fair amount of time, only to return for a
short while.
From the recorded observations and by using the
photograph clicked on 15 December 2013, the bird
was identified as Dusky Warbler, using the following
distinctive characters: (1) absence of wing bar; (2)
legs pale and not dark as seen in some warblers (ex.
Phylloscopus collybita, P. trochiloides); (3) upper parts
brown and buff along the flanks; (4) buff colored
supercilium and strong dark eye band, against bright
yellow supercilium (thereby eliminating P. griseolus);
and 5. dark upper mandible and pale lower mandible.
During all three observations, Dusky warblers were
sighted at the same location, in a habitat which mainly
consisted of a semi-dried fresh-water stream, with
clusters of Polygonum glabrum on the stream-bed and

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.11609/jott.1887.8.1.8410-8411
Editor: C. Srinivasulu, Osmania University, Hyderabad, India.

Date of publication: 26 January 2016 (online & print)

Manuscript details: Ms # 1887 | Received 25 March 2015 | Final received 15 January 2016 | Finally accepted 17 January 2016
Citation: Pandya, P., V. Choursiya & J. James (2016). Dusky Warbler Phylloscopus fuscatus (Aves: Passeriformes: Sylviidae) in Sanjay Gandhi National Park, Maharashtra - a rare record for peninsular India. Journal of Threatened Taxa 8(1): 84108411; http://dx.doi.org/10.11609/jott.1887.8.1.8410-8411
Copyright: Pandya et al. 2016. Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. JoTT allows unrestricted use of this article in any medium, reproduction
and distribution by providing adequate credit to the authors and the source of publication.
Funding: None.
Conflict of Interest: The authors declare no competing interests.
Acknowledgements: We wish to thank the staff of the Maharashtra State Forest Department at Sanjay Gandhi National Park; Shashank Dalvi for sharing sighting
details; Amey Ketkar, Pranad Patil, Saurabh Sawant, Viral Mistry and Varun Satose for identification confirmation and accompanying us on subsequent visits.

8410

Dusky Warbler in Sanjay Gandhi National Park

Pandya et al.

Figure 1. Map of the Sanjay Gandhi National Park, Mumbai, India showing the sighting location of Dusky Warbler Phylloscopus fuscatus.

Vikrant Choursiya

2014) almost at the same place where the present


individual was recorded. It is therefore possible that
although this bird may be wintering in low numbers in its
favoured habitats within this national park, it is possible
that the bird may have been overlooked. Other reasons
for no regular records being available for this bird could
be since individuals evade detection as they move about
in infrequented areas of the park, its cryptic behavior,
and due to the similarity of its call with other warblers
that occur here.
References

Image 1. An individual Dusky Warbler Phylloscopus fuscatus


photographed on 15 December 2013 in Sanjay Gandhi National
Park, Mumbai, Maharashtra, India.

with evergreen riverine forest mainly of composed of


Millettia pinnata and Dendrocalamus sp. on the either
banks. The individuals were observed to frequent
branches and foliage of all the above plant species.
Popular field guides do not mark this place as a
location for sighting this bird. This sighting is not a first
record for Sanjay Gandhi National Park since it was
sighted c. 2002 (Shashank Dalvi, pers. comm. January

Alexander, H.G. (1948). The status of the Dusky Willow-Warbler


[Phylloscopus fuscatus (Blyth)] in India. Journal of the Bombay
Natural History Society 47(4): 736739.
BirdLife International (2014) Species factsheet:Phylloscopusfuscatus.
Downloaded fromhttp://www.birdlife.orgon 05/03/2014.
Dymond, N. (2003). Field identification of Tytlers Leaf Warbler
Phylloscopus tytleri. Oriental Bird Club Bulletin 37: 5759.
Grimmett, R., C. Inskipp, T. Inskipp & R. Allen (2011). Birds of the
Indian subcontinent. Christopher Helm.
Joshi A. (2012). http://orientalbirdimages.org/photographers.php?p=
13&action=birderimages&Bird_Image_ID=59261&Birder_ID=1093
Prasad, A. (2003). Annotated checklist of the Birds of Western
Maharashtra. Buceros 8 (2 & 3): 1-174
Rasmussen, P.C., J.C. Anderton & N. Arlott (2005). Birds of South
Asia: the Ripley Guide(Vol. 2). Washington, DC, and Lynx Editions,
Barcelona, Spain: Smithsonian Institution, 378pp.

Threatened Taxa

Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | 26 January 2016 | 8(1): 84108411

8411

Note

Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | 26 January 2016 | 8(1): 84128414

The genus Oberonia, belonging


to the family Orchidaceae, subfamily
Epidendroideae, tribe Malaxideae
and subtribe Malaxidinae was
ISSN 0974-7907 (Online)
ISSN 0974-7893 (Print)
described by John Lindley in 1830.
It comprises between 329 species
OPEN ACCESS
distributed from South Africa
through Asia to Australia and the
Pacific islands with a single species
in Madagascar and tropical Africa
(Pearce & Cribb 2002; Govaerts et al. 2015).
The genus is epiphytic, rarely lithophytic, easily
recognized by its clustered, fleshy, laterally compressed,
ensiform, distichous leaves; terminal racemose
inflorescence and small, numerous, non-resupinated
flowers. In India, Oberonia is represented by 68 species
(Ansari & Balakrishnan 1990; Misra 2007; Narayanan
et al. 2010) and in Gujarat by two species (Anonymous
1996).
During the field survey for orchids of Gujarat, the
first author collected a few plants of the genus Oberonia
when it was flowering during the month of October
2014 from Dang District of southern Gujarat. On critical
observation and perusal of the relevant literature
(Santapau & Kapadia 1964; Abraham & Vatsala 1981)
the specimens were identified as Oberonia mucronata
(D. Don) Ormerod & Seidenf. After a scrutiny of the
significant literature (Suryanarayana 1968; Desai 1976;
Shah 1978, 1983; Vora 1980; Reddy 1987; Bole &
Pathak 1988; Anonymous 1996, 19982002, 2001; Tadvi
2014), it was found to be a taxon hitherto not recorded
from Gujarat State, hence it is reported here as a new

Oberonia mucronata (D. Don) Ormerod


& Seidenf. (Orchidaceae), new addition to
the flora of Gujarat, India
Mital R. Bhatt 1 & Padamnabhi S. Nagar 2
1,2

Department of Botany, Faculty of Science, The Maharaja Sayajirao


University of Baroda, Vadodara, Gujarat 390002, India
1
mitalbhatt1990@gmail.com (corresponding author),
2
drnagar@gmail.com

distribution record for the state. The present location


in Gujarat is also the western most geographic range for
this species. The voucher specimen is deposited in the
herbaria of The Maharaja Sayajirao University of Baroda
(BARO), and the Botanical Survey of India, Jodhpur
(BSJO). With the current report, the genus Oberonia
is now represented by three species, viz., O. falconeri
Hook.f., O. brunoniana Wight and O. mucronata (D. Don)
Ormerod & Seidenf. in Gujarat.
Globally the species has a wide range of distribution.
In India it is distributed in Andhra Pradesh, Assam,
Karnataka, Kerala, Maharashtra, Mizoram, Orissa, Tamil
Nadu and Uttarakhand. In Gujarat very few individuals
of this species were seen at Ahwa, Dangs District (Fig.
1). A detailed taxonomic description and images are
provided here along with its habitat, regional distribution
and geographical distribution to authenticate the
new distribution record. An easy identification key to
Oberonia species of Gujarat is provided.

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.11609/jott.1816.8.1.8412-8414
Editor: Pankaj Kumar, Kadoorie Farm and Botanic Garden Corporation, Hong Kong.

Date of publication: 26 January 2016 (online & print)

Manuscript details: Ms # 1816 | Received 06 February 2015 | Final received 30 December 2015 | Finally accepted 02 January 2016
Citation: Bhatt, M.R. & P.S. Nagar (2016). Oberonia mucronata (D. Don) Ormerod & Seidenf. (Orchidaceae), new addition to the flora of Gujarat, India. Journal of
Threatened Taxa 8(1): 84128414; http://dx.doi.org/10.11609/jott.1816.8.1.8412-8414
Copyright: Bhatt & Nagar 2016. Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. JoTT allows unrestricted use of this article in any medium, reproduction
and distribution by providing adequate credit to the authors and the source of publication.
Funding: Gujarat Biodiversity Board.
Conflict of Interest: The authors declare no competing interests.
Acknowledgements: The authors are thankful to Dr. A.P. Singh, Member Secretary, Gujarat Biodiversity Board (GBB) for financial assistance. The authors are
also thankful to Dr. Dinesh Agrawal (BSI Sikkim) and Dr. Jeewan S. Jalal (BSI Pune) for their assistance in the authentication of plant material. We are thankful
to the reviewers of the manuscript for their critical comments and suggestions. The laboratory studies were supported by Prof. Sandhya Kiran Garge, the Head,
Department of Botany, the Maharaja Sayajirao University Baroda.

8412

Oberonia mucronata new record to Gujarat

Bhatt & Nagar

Locality in Gujarat

Figure 1. Distribution of Oberonia mucronata (D. Don) Ormerod & Seidenf in Gujarat.

Oberonia mucronata (Image 1)


(D. Don) Ormerod & Seidenf. in G. Seidenfaden, Contr.
Orchid Fl. Thailand. 13:20 (1997). Stelis mucronata D. Don
in Prodr. Fl. Nepal. 32. 1825; Cymbidium iridifolium Roxb.
in Fl. Ind. ed. 1832, 3: 458 (1832); Oberonia denticulata
Wight in Icon. P1. Ind. Orient. 5: t. 1625 (1851); Malaxis
denticulata (Wight) Rchb.f. in Ann. Bot. Syst. 6: 208
(1861); O. iridifolia var. brevifolia Hook. f. in Fl. Brit.
India 5: 676 (1890); O. iridifolia var. denticulata (Wight)
Hook. f. in Fl. Brit. India 5: 676 (1890). O. denticulata
var. iridifolia (Roxb.) S. Misra in J. Orchid Soc. India 3: 69
(1989); O. denticulata var. brevifolia (Hook.f.) S. Misra in
J. Orchid Soc. India 3: 70 (1989); O. brevifolia (Hook.f.)
Panigrahi in S.K. Murti & G. Panigrahi, Fl. Bilaspur Distr.
2: 591 (1999); O. smisrae Panigrahi in S.K. Murti & G.
Panigrahi, Fl. Bilaspur Distr. 2: 593 (1999).
Isotype: 1832, Sillet, Bangladesh, N. Wallich, # 1948b
(P00404924) (P!).
Erect or pendulous epiphytic herb, 1922 cm long
with inflorescence. Leaves 4 to 5, clustered, 79.51.5
1.7 cm, distichous, laterally compressed, thick, fleshy,
pale green, oblong-ensiform with acute apex. Scape
340.3 cm, flattened, adnate to the upper leaf in
young plants, Inflorescence 1619 cm long, decurved,
densely flowered. Flowers pedicelled, 22.5 mm long,
golden yellow, bracteate. Bracts equaling the size of
ovary, 1.30.7 mm, ovate to oblong, acute or obtuse,
irregularly denticulate along the margin. Dorsal sepal

Mital R. Bhatt

Image 1. Oberonia mucronata (D. Don) Ormerod & Seidenf.


a - habit; b - part of inflorescence with flowers; c - side view of
flower; d - front view of flower; e - petal; f - lip

Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | 26 January 2016 | 8(1): 84128414

8413

Oberonia mucronata new record to Gujarat

Bhatt & Nagar

Key to identification of Oberonia of the Gujarat


1.
2.
2.
1.

Lip with entire margin;


Leaves up to 8cm, pale green, scape cylindrical .......................................... O. falconeri
Leaves up to 28cm, purplish-brown, scape flat ........................................... O. brunoniana
Lip with deeply toothed or laciniate margin ............................................ O. mucronata

11.20.8 mm, ovate, acute, entire along the margins;


lateral sepals narrower with acute apex. Petals 10.5,
ovate to oblong, obtuse with irregularly erose margin.
Lip quadrate in outline, glabrous or sparsely hairy, glanddotted, 55 mm, 3-lobed, lateral lobes oblong, deeply
dentate, spreading in flower except for the incurved
distal end; middle lobe two-lobuled, lobules triangular,
acute, deeply dentate. Ovary with pedicel 1.21.5 mm
long, glabrous. Column 1 mm long, subglobose, sessile.
Capsule 0.3 0.1 mm, ellipsoid with a short pedicel
(Image 1).
Specimen Examined: 0094 (BSJO!), 28.x.2014,
2004339.72N & 7304022.86E, 297m, Ahwa, Dangs,
Gujarat, India, coll. Mital R. Bhatt.
Flowering & Fruiting: AugustDecember
Habitat and Ecology: Oberonia mucronata was
mostly observed on the tree trunk of Terminalia
crenulata in moist deciduous forest, in association with
other members of Orchidaceae like Oberonia falconeri,
Vanda tessellata and Vanda testacea.
Global distribution: India (Andhra Pradesh, Assam,
Gujarat, Karnataka, Kerala, Maharashtra, Mizoram, Tamil
Nadu and Uttarakhand), Bangladesh, Bhutan, China,
Indonesia, Jawa, Laos, Malaya, Malaysia, Myanmar,
Nepal, Philippines, Thailand and Vietnam.
References
Abraham, A. & P. Vatsala (1981). Introduction to Orchids. Tropical
Botanic Garden and Research Institute, Trivandrum, 414428pp.
Anonymous (1996). The Biological Diversity of Gujarat. Gujarat
Ecology Commission, Vadodara, India, 149150pp.

Anonymous (19982002). Conservation of Rare and Endangered


Biodiversity of Gujarat, Gujarat Ecology Commission, Vadodara,
India, 156139pp.
Anonymous (2001). Threatened Biodiversity of Gujarat, Gujarat
Ecology Commission, Vadodara, India, 18103pp.
Ansari, R. & N.P. Balakrishnan (1990). A revision of the Indian species
of Oberonia (Orchidaceae). Orchid Monographs 4: 182.
Bole, P.V. & U.M. Pathak (1988). Flora of Saurashtra. Botanical Survey
of India, iii+305306pp.
Desai, M.J. (1976). A Contribution to the Flora of Bansda Forest. PhD
Thesis, Sardar Patel University, Valllabh Vidyanagar, 520528pp.
Govaerts, R., M.A. Campacci, D.H. Baptista, P. Cribb, A. George, K.
Krenuz, J. Wood, P. Bernet, K. Kartochvil, G. Gerlach, G. Carr, P.
Alrich, A.M. Pridgeon, J. Pfahl, H. Tigges & J. Shaw (2015). World
Checklist of Orchidaceae. Facilitated by the Royal Botanic Garden,
Kew Published on the internet; http//apps.kew.org/wcsp/ Accessed
on May 2015.
Misra, S. (2007). Orchids of India - A Glimpse. Bishen Singh Mahendra
Pal Singh, Dehradun, India.
Narayanan, M.K., M. Manudev, P. Sujanapal, N.A. Kumar, M.
Sivadasan & H.A. Ahmed (2010). Oberonia swaminathanii sp. nov.
(Orchidaceae) from, Kerala, India. Nordic Journal of Botany 28: 713
715; http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1756-1051.2010.00822.x
Pearce, N. & P.J. Cribb (2002). Flora of Bhutan. The Orchids of Bhutan
- Vol. 3, Part 3. Royal Botanical Garden, Edinburgh.
Reddy, A.S. (1987). Flora of Dharampur forests. PhD Thesis, Sardar
Patel University, Vallabh Vidyanagar, 520528pp.
Santapau, H. & Z. Kapadia (1964). The Orchids of Bombay. Calcutta,
5476pp.
Shah, G.L. (1978). Flora of Gujarat. Sardar Patel University, Vallabh
Vidyanagar, iii+652663pp.
Shah, G.L. (1983). Rare species with restricted distribution in South
Gujarat, pp. 5054. In: Jain, S.K. & R.R. Rao (eds.). Assessment of
Threatened Plant of India. Botanical Survey of India, Howrah.
Suryanarayana, B. (1968). A Contribution to the flora of Dangs Forest.
PhD Thesis, Sardar Patel University, Vallabh Vidyanagar, ii+637
647pp.
Tadvi, D.S. (2014). Floristic diversity of Dangs, Gujarat. PhD Thesis,
Department of Botany, The Maharaja Sayajirao University of Baroda,
Vadodara, 37167pp.
Vora, H.M. (1980). Contribution to the flora of Dharampur, Kaprada
and Nana ponda Ranges. PhD Thesis, South Gujarat University,
Surat, 886891pp.

Threatened Taxa

8414

Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | 26 January 2016 | 8(1): 84128414

Comments on the list of marine mammals


from Kerala
R.P. Kumarran
13/3, Second floor, Phase III, Villivakkam, Chennai, Tamil Nadu
600049, India
r.p.kumarran@gmail.com

Nameer et al. (2015) in their recent paper on


vertebrate diversity of Kerala present an erroneous
analysis on marine mammals based on incorrect
checklist produced by Nameer (2015). It is necessary
that the following errors be corrected and corrigenda be
published. This helps to prevent misleading information
being repeatedly published in future.
Nameer et al. (2015)
In Fig. 3, 19% are marine mammals. The authors
have to ascertain those records from the originals. The
bottom topography of Kerala is not suitable to support
high diversity of marine mammal species as reported.
Many oceanic species listed are questionable. Kerala
being one among the well-studied regions for marine
mammals (Afsal et al. 2009) the compilation by
authors shows gross negligence with no peer-reviewed
publications.
Nameer (2015)
I. It is evident from the references that the author
has failed to consult peer-reviewed publications for
marine mammals in India. Most of the citations are
grey literature. If they are listing 23 species of marine
mammals, where is the pertaining literature?
II. The number of species recorded from Kerala is
on the higher side. It is 50% more than the inventory
proposed byKumarran (2012). What is the reason for
this sudden increase in the number of species?

III. In Table 1, the following


entries need corrections.
2. Dugong: In my 28 years of
experience working on marine ISSN 0974-7907 (Online)
ISSN 0974-7893 (Print)
mammals, I have never come
across a record/publication of
OPEN ACCESS
dugong from Kerala in the last 200
years. They are discontinuously
distributed in Gujarat, Tamil Nadu
and Andaman Islands (Kumaran
2002).
Under the column English name, why have they
given another name within parentheses? The English
names in serial numbers 97, 100, 101, 102, 105, 107,
110, 113, 114, 115 and 117 are not in currency. In the
case of 98 what is inside the parentheses is the accepted
English name.
When writing the English names of the cetacean
species, it is customary to follow common names
approved by International Whaling Commission. The
author has failed to follow that style leading to more
confusion.
Likewise, it is preferable to record vernacular names
that are in currency than attempting to translate English
names to vernacular. The purpose of recording the
indigenous technical knowledge is to learn the ageold practices and reach out to the natives more easily.
It is understandable that several species will often
have overlapping vernacular names. In the last three
decades, both the fishing distance from the shore and
the fishing time has increased, consequently increasing
the interaction of fishermen with new cetaceans species.
However, a thorough survey should be able to produce
more vernacular names in currency than coining new
ones.
97. What is recorded from India is Long-beaked
Common Dolphin Delphinus capensis and delphis as
quoted (which is not found in Indian waters). For details

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.11609/jott.2449.8.1.8415-8416
Date of publication: 26 January 2016 (online & print)
Manuscript details: Ms # 2449 | Received 12 December 2015
Citation: Kumarran, R.P. (2016). Comments on the list of marine mammals from Kerala. Journal of Threatened Taxa 8(1): 84158416; http://dx.doi.org/10.11609/
jott.2449.8.1.8415-8416
Copyright: Kumarran 2016. Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. JoTT allows unrestricted use of this article in any medium, reproduction
and distribution by providing adequate credit to the authors and the source of publication.

8415

Response

Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | 26 January 2016 | 8(1): 84158416

Comments on Kerala marine mammal list

Kumarran

the author should consultJayasankaret al. (2008).


Similarly serial numbers 104, 106, 107, 113, 114
are questionable. The author needs to support those
records with peer-reviewed publications on them.
100. The only publicationJeyabaskaran et al. (2011),
to the best of my knowledge is based on a photographic
record with no detailed measurements. So as of now,
it is a questionable record. For instance in the case of
striped dolphin kindly refer to the first record in India
that describes several aspects of the species(Kumaran
2003).
101. Frasers dolphin record is also questionable.
102. There is nothing called Melon-headed Dolphin.
It is a dolphin, known as Melon-headed Whale like
other dolphin species such as Killer Whale or False Killer
Whale.
105. It should be Indo-Pacific Humpbacked Dolphin.
109. The Bottlenose Dolphin reported from India
isTursiops aduncusand nottruncatus. And the English
name should be Indo-Pacific Bottlenose Dolphin.

References
Afsal, V.V., K.S.S.M. Yousuf, B. Anoop, A.K. Anoop, P. Kannan, M.
Rajagopalan & E. Vivekanandan (2008). A note on cetacean
distribution in the Indian EEZ and contiguous seas during 2003
07.Journal of Cetacean Research and Management10(3): 209216.
Jayasankar, P., B. Anoop, E. Vivekanandan, M. Rajagopalan, K.M.M.
Yousuf, P. Reynold, P.K. Krishnakumar, P.L. Kumaran, V.V. Afsal &
A.A. Krishnan (2008). Molecular identification of delphinids and
finless porpoise (Cetacea) from the Arabian Sea and Bay of Bengal.
Zootaxa1853: 5767.
Jeyabaskaran, R., S. Paul, E. Vivekanandan & K.S.S.M. Yousuf (2011).
First record of Pygmy Killer WhaleFeresa attenuataGray, 1874 from
India with a review of their occurrence in the world oceans.Journal
of Marine Biological Association India53(2): 208217.
Kumaran, P.L. (2002). Marine mammal research in India - a review and
critique of the methods. Current Science 83(10): 12101220.
Kumaran, P.L. (2003). First confirmed record of Striped Dolphin,Stenella
coeruleoalba(Meyen, 1883) from India.Journal of Marine Biological
Association of India45(1): 11520.
Kumarran, R.P. (2009). Whither marine mammal conservation in
India?Current Science97(11): 15211522.
Kumarran, R.P. (2012). Cetaceans and cetacean research in
India.Journal of Cetacean Research and Management 12(2): 159
172.
Nameer, P.O., J. Praveen, A. Bijukumar, M.J. Palot, S. Das & R.
Raghavan (2015a). A checklist of the vertebrates of Kerala State,
India. Journal of Threatened Taxa 7(13): 79617970; http://dx.doi.
org/10.11609/JoTT.1999.7.13.7961-7970
Nameer, P.O. (2015b). A checklist of mammals of Kerala, India. Journal
of Threatened Taxa 7(13): 79717982; http://dx.doi.org/10.11609/
JoTT.2000.7.13.7971-7982

Threatened Taxa

8416

Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | 26 January 2016 | 8(1): 84158416

Checklist of Marine Mammals of Kerala


- a reply to Kumarran (2016) and the
updated Checklist of Marine Mammals of
Kerala
P.O. Nameer
Centre for Wildlife Studies, College of Forestry, Kerala Agricultural
University, KAU (PO), Thrissur, Kerala 680656, India
nameer.po@kau.in

At the outset let me thank K.P. Kumarran for making


some critical comments on the marine mammal checklist
of Kerala. I list below the answers on the doubts raised
by Kumarran (2016).
The maritime limits for including species in the
Checklist of Vertebrates of Kerala (Nameer et al. 2015)
is on par with the definition for the Exclusive Economic
Zone (EEZ) of a country and the biological resources
(including their conservation measures), as proposed by
the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea
(Klein 2005).
The suggestion by Kumarran (2016) on the taxonomy
of the Common Dolphin is a welcome one. According
to Wang et al. (2014) only a single species of Common
Dolphin was recognised prior to 1994; however, it was
subsequently split into two species Delphinus delphis
and D. capensis. The one that is known from the Indian
coasts including the Kerala coast is Delphinus capensis.
Wang et al. (2014) also opined that Delphinus capensis
tropicalis is the subspecies of the Common Dolphin that
is seen in the Indian Ocean.
Very few cetacean inventories have been undertaken
in the maritime limits of India, and the majority (71%) of
cetacean records from India are opportunistic in nature
(Kumarran 2012). However, Kumarran (2016) claims that
Kerala being one among the well-studied regions for
marine mammals citing(Afsal et al. 2009)contradicts

his own previous conclusion


published just three years back. It
may be noted that Afsal et al. (2009)
study based on opportunistic ISSN 0974-7907 (Online)
ISSN 0974-7893 (Print)
sightings of cetacean species was
not exclusive to Kerala EEZ but has
OPEN ACCESS
straddled different maritime limits
of the country. Hence, we concur
with the previous conclusion
mentioned in Kumarran (2012) that
there is paucity in cetacean inventories for Kerala.
The nomenclature of the marine mammals used in
Nameer (2015) follows Mead & Brownell (2005), and
the vernacular names were taken from various sources
(Prater 1971; Sadasivan 1987; Nameer 2000; Sathasivam
2004; Menon 2008; Dinesan et al. 2010), and most of
which were already in use by the local fisher folk. These
were not literal translations of the English names to
Malayalam as pointed out by Kumarran (2016).
The primary reference used for preparing the list of
marine mammals included in Nameer (2015) was Mead
& Brownell (2005) and Shoshani (2005). The list was
subsequently checked using a more recent publication
on marine mammals by Wilson & Mittermeier (2014).
Many of the doubts and arguments raised by Kumarran
(2016) seem to be based on a select set of publications
hand-picked by him, the primary one being his own
(Kumarran 2012). May I suggest the author to refer to
some of the recent publications on the marine mammals
(Demr 2014; MacLeod 2014; Marsh 2014; Wang et al.
2014; Wilson & Mittermeier 2014), which have latest
information on the marine mammal distribution.
To further support the inclusion of certain species
doubts on the distribution of which were raised by
Kumarran (2016), we provide the following explanations.
1. Dugong Dugong dugon: There is a historical
record of Dugong from Malabar coasts (Blanford
18881891). According to Shoshani (2005), dugong is

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.11609/jott.2497.8.1.8417-8420 | ZooBank: urn:lsid:zoobank.org:pub:DF556615-8313-4EDF-B412-51B89815DC0E


Date of publication: 26 January 2016 (online & print)
Manuscript details: Ms # 2497 | Received 06 January 2016
Citation: Nameer, P.O. (2016). Checklist of Marine Mammals of Kerala - a reply to Kumarran (2016) and the updated Checklist of Marine Mammals of Kerala. Journal
of Threatened Taxa 8(1): 84178420; http://dx.doi.org/10.11609/jott.2497.8.1.8417-8420
Copyright: Nameer 2016. Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. JoTT allows unrestricted use of this article in any medium, reproduction and
distribution by providing adequate credit to the authors and the source of publication.
Acknowledgements: I thank Kumaran Sathasivam, Rajeev Raghavan and Praveen J for offering useful comments on the earlier draft of the reply. I also thank P.
Naveenlal for his assistance with the Malayalam fonts.

8417

Reply to Response

Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | 26 January 2016 | 8(1): 84178420

Reply to Kumarran (2016) Nameer

distributed in the coastal waters of Indian Ocean. Marsh


(2014) provides a global distribution map that clearly
shows the distribution of dugong from the Kerala coast.
2. Pygmy Killer Whale Feresa attenuata: Mead
and Brownell (2005), gives the distribution of Pygmy
Killer Whale as tropical waters. According to Wang et al.
(2014) the Pygmy Killer Whale has cosmopolitan tropical
distribution between 400N and 350S, including Arabian
sea, and the Kerala coast, which is explicitly shown in the
distribution map.
3. Frasers Dolphin Lagenodelphis hosei: Mead
and Brownell (2005), gives the distribution of Frasers
Dolphin as tropical waters. According to Wang et al.
(2014) this species has a distribution in the tropical
oceans from 300N and 300S, including the Kerala coast.
4. Rough-toothed Dolphin Steno bredanensis:
Mead and Brownell (2005), gives the distribution of
Rough-toothed Dolphin as tropical waters. Wang et
al. (2014) mentions the distribution of this species as
tropical oceans from 400N and 350S, including Kerala
coast.
5. Striped Dolphin Stenella coeruleoalba: Mead
and Brownell (2005), gives the distribution of Striped
Dolphin as tropical waters. Wang et al. (2014) mentions
the distribution as tropical oceans from 500N and 400S,
including Kerala coast.
6. Pantropical Spotted Dolphin Stenella attenuata:
Mead and Brownell (2005), gives the distribution of
Pantropical Spotted Dolphin as tropical waters. Wang et
al. (2014) mentions the distribution as tropical oceans
from 400N and 400S, including Kerala coast. Wang et
al. (2014) had further suggested that the subspecies of
Pantropical Spotted Dolphin seen in the Arabian Sea is
Stenella attenuate attenuata.
7. Ginkgo-toothed
Whale
Mesoplodon
ginkgodens: According to Mead & Brownell (2005),
Ginkgo-toothed Whale is distributed in tropical waters
including the Indian Ocean and Sri Lanka. MacLeod
(2014) gives the distribution as warm waters of Indian
oceans in southern India and Sri Lanka, including a
distribution map showing its presence from the Kerala
coast.
8. Minke Whale Balaenoptera acutorostrata:
Mead and Brownell (2005), gives the distribution of
Minke Whale as tropical waters. Demr (2014) provides
a distribution map showing the presence of this species
from the Kerala coast.
When the most recent publications on marine
mammals (Demr 2014; MacLeod 2014; Marsh 2014;
Wang et al. 2014; Wilson & Mittermeier 2014) were
consulted, which the author did not have access at the
8418

time of publication of Nameer (2015), it was found that


the following additional species that were not included
in Nameer (2015) are also distributed in the Kerala
coasts.
1. Deraniyagalas Beaked Whale Mesoplodon
hotaula: This species was considered as a synonym
of Ginkgo-toothed Whale Mesoplodon ginkgodens
until 2014, when molecular studies have resurrected
Mesoplodon hotaula as a distinct species (MacLeod
2014). Its distribution is given as warmer waters
of Indian Ocean from southern India and Sri Lanka.
MacLeod (2014) also gives the distribution map of
Deraniyagalas Beaked Whale showing its presence from
the Kerala coast.
2. Blainvilles Beaked Whale Mesoplodon
densirostris: has worldwide distribution in tropical
waters, and the distribution map by MacLeod (2014)
shows its presence from the Kerala coast.
3. Longmans Beaked Whale Indopacetus
pacificus: MacLeod (2014) provides a distribution map
showing the presence of the species in the Kerala coast
Cuviers Beaked Whale Ziphius cavirostris: MacLeod
(2014) provides a distribution map showing the presence
of the species in the Kerala coast.
4. Killer Whale Orcinus orca: According to Wang et
al. (2014) Killer Whale is the most widely distributed of
all cetaceans, and provides a distribution map showing
the presence of the species in the Kerala coast.
5. Indo-Pacific Bottlenose Dolphin Tursipos
aduncus: Wang et al. (2014), provides a distribution map
showing the presence of the species in the Kerala coast
6. Sperm Whale Physeter macrocephalus:
Formerly known as Physeter catodon (Mead & Brownell
2005), the species was subsequently synonymised with
Physeter macrocephalus (Mesnick 2014). According
to Mesnick, (2014) Sperm Whale has a cosmopolitan
distribution and Mesnick (2014) provides a distribution
map showing the presence of the species in the Kerala
coast.
7. Dwarf Sperm Whale Kogia sima: McAlpine
(2014) provides a distribution map showing the presence
of the species in the Kerala coast.
8. Sei Whale Balaenoptera borealis: Demr
(2014) provides a distribution map showing the presence
of the species in the Kerala coast.
Thus the updated marine mammal (cetacean and
sirenian) list of Kerala adds to 31 species under seven
families and two orders. The revised list of marine
mammals of Kerala is given in Table 1. Six species of
marine mammals are threatened according to the
IUCN Red List, with three species each in Endangered

Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | 26 January 2016 | 8(1): 84178420

Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | 26 January 2016 | 8(1): 84178420


(Osbeck, 1765)
(Meyen, 1833)
(Gray, 1846)
(Gray, 1828)
(Ehrenberg, 1833)
(Montagu, 1821)

Steno bredanensis

Sousa chinensis

Stenella coeruleoalba

Stenella attenuata

Stenella longirostris

Tursiops aduncus

Tursiops truncatus

Rough-toothed Dolphin

Indo-Pacific humpback Dolphin


(Plumbeous Dolphin)

Striped Dolphin

Pantropical Spotted Dolphin (Bridled


Dolphin)

Spinner Dolphin

Indo-Pacific Bottlenose Dolphin

Bottle-nosed Dolphin

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

Dwarf Sperm Whale

20

Family: Ziphiidae (beaked whales)

Pygmy Sperm Whale

Family: Kogiidae (pygmy and dwarf sperm


whales)

Sperm Whale

19

18

Family: Physeteridae (sperm whales)

Finless Porpoise (Indo-Pacific Finless


Porpoise)

(Blainville, 1838)
(Owen, 1866)

Kogia sima

Linnaeus, 1758

Kogia breviceps

Physeter macrocephalus

(G. Cuvier, 1829)

(G. Cuvier in Lesson,


1828)

Neophocaena phocaenoides

(Linnaeus, 1758)

Orcinus orca

Killer Whale

17

(Owen, 1846)

Pseudorca crassidens

False Killer Whale

Family: Phocoenidae (porpoises)

(Gray, 1846)

Peponocephala electra

Melon-headed Dolphin (Indian Broadbeaked Dolphin)

Fraser, 1957

Gray, 1875

Lagenodelphis hosei

Frasers Dolphin (Sarawak Dolphin)

Feresa attenuata

Pigmy Killer Whale (Slender Blackfish)

Gray, 1846

Globicephala macrorhynchus

kuiya Eatimigala

Kunnan Eatimigala

Ea Timigala

Eliyani

Kuppimkkan phin

DD

DD

VU

VU

LC

DD

in-pasiphik kuppimkkan
Dphin

DD

Meliyani

LC

LC

NT

LC

DD

DD

LC

LC

DD

DD

LC

LC

VU

IUCN

Pui phin

Varayan

Punnani

Parukkan Pallan

Kelayitimigala

Kapaa Kelayitimigala

Talayan Timigala

Phrserue phin

Kunnan Kelayitimigala

Kunnichiakan phin

Chra phin

Kaalpanni, Kaali

Kaal Pau

Vernacular name

(G.Cuvier, 1812)

Grampus griseus

Short-finned Pilot Whale (Pacific Pilot


Whale)

Malayalam name

Long-beaked Common Dolphin

Grey Dolphin (Risso's Dolphin)

(Muller, 1776)

Linnaeus, 1758

Dugong dugon

Authority

Delphinus capensis

Family: Delphinidae (marine dolphins)

Order Cetacea

Dugong (Sea Cow)

Family: Dugongidae (dugongs)

Species name

Order Sirenia

English name

Table 1. Checklist of marine mammals of Kerala

END

Sch. II

Sch. II

Sch. II

Sch. I

Sch. II

Sch. II

Sch. II

Sch. II

Sch. II

Sch. II

Sch. II

Sch. II

Sch. II

Sch. II

Sch. II

Sch. II

Sch. II

Sch. II

Sch. II

Sch. I

WPA

App. II

App. II

App. II

App. II

App. II

App. II

App. II

App. II

App. II

App. II

App. II

App. II

App. II

App. II

App. II

App. II

App. II

App. II

App. II

App. I

CITES

Reply to Kumarran (2016) Nameer

8419

App. I
Sch. II

LC
Knan Timigala

EN
Chiakan Timigala

(Borowski, 1781)
Humpback Whale
31

Megaptera novaeangliae

(Linnaeus, 1758)
Fin Whale (Common Rorqual)
30

Balaenoptera physalus

App. I

App. I

App. I
Sch. II

Sch. II
EN
Nla Timigala

Braiane Timigala

(Linnaeus, 1758)

Anderson, 1879

Blue Whale
29

Balaenoptera musculus

Brydes Whale (Tropical Whale)


28

Balaenoptera edeni

DD

Sch. II

App. I

App. I
Sch. II
LC

EN
Chra Timigala

Cheu Timigala

Lesson, 1828

Lacepede, 1804

Balaenoptera borealis
Sei Whale
27

Balaenoptera acutorostrata
Minke Whale (Lesser Rorqual)
26

Family: Balaenopteridae (rorquals)

LC
Kuviyaue Chuan
Timigala
Ziphius cavirostris

G. Cuvier, 1823
Cuviers Beaked Whale
25

DD
Lne Chuan
Timigala

(Longman, 1926)
Indopacetus pacificus
Longmans Beaked Whale
24

NE
Deraniyagalayue Chuan
Timigala
Deraniyagala, 1963
Mesoplodon hotaula
Deraniyagalas Beaked Whale
23

Sch. II

App. II
Sch. II

App. II
Sch. II

App. II
Sch. II

App. II
Sch. II
DD
Blainvilleyue Chuan
Timigala

(Blainville, 1817)
Mesoplodon densirostris
Blainville's Beaked Whale
22

DD
Jik Timigala

Nishiwaki and Kamiya,


1958
Mesoplodon ginkgodens
Ginkgo-toothed Whale (Ginkgo-toothed
Beaked Whale)
21

Authority
Species name
English name

Malayalam name

Vernacular name

IUCN

END

WPA

Sch. II

CITES

App. II

Reply to Kumarran (2016) Nameer

and Vulnerable categories. Close to 40% of marine


mammals distributed in the Kerala coast come under the
Data Deficient category.
References
Afsal, V.V., K.S.S.M. Yousuf, B. Anoop, A.K. Anoop, P. Kannan, M.
Rajagopalan & E. Vivekanandan (2008). A note on cetacean
distribution in the Indian EEZ and contiguous seas during 200307.
Journal of Cetacean Research and Management 10(3): 209215.
Blanford, W.T. (18881891). The Fauna of British India, Including
Ceylon and Burma. Mammalia. Part I & II. Taylor and Francis, Red
Lion Court Fleet Street, London, 617pp.
Demr, T.A. (2014). Family Balaenopteridae (rorquals), pp. 242299.
In: Wilson, D.E. & R.A. Mittermeier (eds.). Handbook of the Mammals
of the World. Vol. 4 - Sea Mammals. Lynx Edicions, Barcelona.
Dinesan, C., C. Radhakrishnan & M.J. Palot (2010). Keralathile
Sasthanikal (Mammals of Kerala). Malabar Natural History Society,
Kozhikode, 174pp.
Klein, N. (2005). Dispute Settlement in the UNConvention on the Law
of the Sea. Cambridge University Press, 415pp.
Kumarran, R.P. (2012). Cetaceans and cetacean research in
India.Journal of Cetacean Research and Management 12(2): 159
172.
Kumarran, R.P. (2016). Comments on the list of marine mammals from
Kerala. Journal of Threatened Taxa 8(1): 84158416; http://dx.doi.
org/10.11609/jott.2449.8.1.8415-8416
MacLeod, C.D. (2014). Family Ziphiidae (beaked whales), pp. 326357.
In: Wilson, D.E. & R.A. Mittermeier (eds.).Handbook of the Mammals
of the World.Vol. 4 - Sea Mammals. Lynx Edicions, Barcelona.
Marsh, H.D. (2014). Family Dugongidae (dugong), pp. 564576. In:
Wilson, D.E. &R.A. Mittermeier (eds.). Handbook of the Mammals
of the World. Vol. 4 - Sea Mammals. Lynx Edicions, Barcelona.
Mead, G.J.& L.R. Brownell Jr. (2005).Order Cetacea, pp. 723743.In:
Wilson, D.E. & D.M. Reeder (eds.). Mammal Species of The World: A
Taxonomic and Geographic Reference. 3rd Edition - Vol. 1. The Johns
Hopkins University Press, Baltimore.
Menon, V. (2008). Indiayile Sasthanikal - Oru Field Guide. (Indian
Mammals - A Field Guide). DC Books, 321pp.
Nameer, P.O. (2000). Checklist of Indian Mammals.Kerala State Forest
Department and Kerala Agricultural University, 90pp+xxv.
Nameer, P.O. (2015). A checklist of mammals of Kerala, India. Journal
of Threatened Taxa 7(13): 79717982; http://dx.doi.org/10.11609/
jott.2000.7.13.7971-7982
Nameer, P.O., J. Praveen, A. Bijukumar, M.J. Palot, S. Das & R.
Raghavan (2015). A checklist of the vertebrates of Kerala State,
India. Journal of Threatened Taxa 7(13): 79617970; http://dx.doi.
org/10.11609/jott.1999.7.13.7961-7970
Prater, S.H. (1971). Book of Indian Animals. 3rd Edition. Bombay
Natural History Society, Bombay.
Sadasivan, V. (1987). Keralathile Vanyajeevikal - Sasthanikal. (Wildlife
of Kerala - Mammals). Kerala State Institute of Language, Kerala,
81pp.
Sathasivam, K. (2004). Marine Mammals of India. University Press,
Hyderabad, 180pp.
Shoshani, J. (2005). Order Sirenia, pp. 9293. In: Wilson, D.E. &D.M.
Reeder (eds.). Mammal Species of The World: A Taxonomic and
Geographic Reference. 3rd Edition - Vol. 1. The Johns Hopkins
University Press, Baltimore.
Wang, J.Y., K.N. Riehl & S.Z. Dungan (2014). Family Delphinidae (ocean
dolphins), pp. 410527. In: Wilson, D.E. & R.A. Mittermeier (eds.).
Handbook of the Mammals of the World.Vol. 4 - Sea Mammals. Lynx
Edicions, Barcelona.
Wilson, D.E. & R.A. Mittermeier (eds.). (2014). Handbook of the
Mammals of the World. Vol. 4. Sea Mammals. Lynx Edicions,
Barcelona.
Threatened Taxa

8420

Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | 26 January 2016 | 8(1): 84178420

Jzsef Lanszki, University of West Hungary, Sopron, Hungary


K. Karthigeyan, Botanical Survey of India, Howrah, India
Klaus Ruetzler, NMNHistory, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, USA.
K. Ravikumar, FRLHT, Bengaluru, Karnataka, India
K.A. Subramanian, Zoological Survey of India, New Alipore, Kolkata, India
Kees Rookmaaker, Rhino Resource Center, United Kingdom
Kelly B. Miller, University of New Mexico, USA
K.G. Sivaramakrishnan, Madras Christian College, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India
K.S. Gopi Sundar, International Crane Foundation, Baraboo, USA
K.S. Negi, NBPGR-ICAR, Nainital District, Uttarakhand, India
Kailash Chandra, Zoological Survey of India, Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh, India
Kareen Schnabel, NIWA, Wellington, New Zealand
Karin Schwartz, George Mason University, Fairfax, Virginia
Karol Bucsek, Witt Museum, Mnchen, Germany
Kevin Smith, IUCN, Cambridge, UK
Klaus Ruetzler, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC
Kristin Leus, Copenhagen Zoo, Annuntiatenstraat, Merksem, Belgium
Kumaran Sathasivam, Marine Mammal Conservation Network of India, India
Lala A.K. Singh, Bhubaneswar, Orissa, India
Llewellyn D. Densmore, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, USA
Lukas Rber, Department of Vertebrates, Natural History Museum, Switzerland
M. Afzal Khan, Department of Zoology, Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh, India
Mandar S. Paingankar, University of Pune, Pune, Maharashtra, India
Manju Siliwal, WILD, Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu, India
Mario Cohn-Haft, Instituto Nacional de Pesquisas da Amaznia (INPA), Brasil
Martin B.D. Stiewe, The Natural History Museum, UK
Matheus dos Santos Rocha, Universidade do Vale do Rio dos Sinos, Brasil
Meena Venkataraman, Mumbai, India
Merlin Franco, Curtin University, Malaysia
Mewa Singh, Mysore University, Mysuru, India
Mohammad Hayat, Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh, India
Mohilal Meitei, Manipur University, Camchipur, Manipur, India
M. Nithyanandan, Environmental Department, La Ala Al Kuwait Real Estate. Co.
K.S.C., Kuwait
M.K. Vasudeva Rao, Shiv Ranjani Housing Society, Pune, India.
N.P. Balakrishnan, Ret. Joint Director, BSI, Coimbatore, India
Nancy van der Poorten, Toronto, Canada
Nguyen Thi Phuong Lien, Vietnam Academy of Science and Technology, Hanoi,
Vietnam
Neelesh Dahanukar, IISER, Pune, Maharashtra, India
Nishith Dharaiya, HNG University, Patan, India
Norbert Delahaye, Colombo, Sri Lanka
Okan Klkylolu, Abant Izzet Baysal University, Bolu, Turkey
Pankaj Kumar, Kadoorie Farm and Botanic Garden Corporation, Hong Kong
Partha Pratim Bhattacharjee, Tripura University, Suryamaninagar, India
Paul A. Racey, University of Aberdeen, Scotland
Penelope Greenslade, Federation University, Ballarat, Australia
Peter Boveng, NOAA Alaska Fisheries Science Center, Seattle, USA.
Peter Smetacek, Butterfly Research Centre, Bhimtal, India
Phyllis C. Lee, University of Stirling, Stirling, UK
Priya Davidar, Pondicherry University, Kalapet, Puducherry, India
P. Lakshminarasimhan, Botanical Survey of India, Pune, India.
P.M. Sureshan, Zoological Survey of India, Kozhikode, Kerala, India
P.O. Nameer, Kerala Agricultural University, Thrissur, Kerala, India
P.S. Easa, Kerala Forest Research Institute, Peechi, India
R. Ramanibai, Guindy Campus, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India
R. Varatharajan, Manipur University, Imphal, Manipur, India

Journal of Threatened Taxa is indexed/abstracted in Bibliography of Systematic Mycology, Biological Abstracts, BIOSIS
Previews, CAB Abstracts, EBSCO, Google Scholar, Index
Copernicus, Index Fungorum, JournalSeek, National Academy
of Agricultural Sciences, NewJour, OCLC WorldCat, Stanford
University Libraries, Virtual Library of Biology, Zoological
Records.
NAAS rating (India) 4.72

R.K. Avasthi, Rohtak University, Haryana, India


R.K. Verma, Tropical Forest Research Institute, Jabalpur, India
R.M. Sharma, (Retd.) Scientist, Zoological Survey of India, Pune, India
Ragnar Kinzelbach, University of Rostock, Rostock, Germany
Rajah Jayapal, SACON, Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu, India
Rajashekhar K Patil, Mangalore University, Mangalore, India
Rajeev Raghavan, St. Alberts College, Kochi, Kerala, India
Rajiv S. Kalsi, M.L.N. College, Yamuna Nagar, Haryana, India
Raju Sekar, Xian Jiaotong-Liverpool University, Suzhou, China
Raju Vyas, Vadodara, India
Raymond Henry, Auburn University, Auburn, USA
Renkang Peng, Charles Darwin University, Darwin, Australia
Reuven Yosef, Ben Gurion University of the Negev, Eilat Campus, Israel.
Richard Corlett, Xishuangbanna Tropical Botanical Garden, Yunnan, China
Richard Gallon, llandudno, North Wales, LL30 1UP
Richard Kiprono Mibey, Vice Chancellor, Moi University, Eldoret, Kenya
Robert W. Sites, University of Missouri, Columbia, USA.
Robert D. Sluka, Chiltern Gateway Project, A Rocha UK, Southall, Middlesex, UK
Robin Wilson, Museum Victoria, Melbourne, Australia
Roland Wirth, Zoologische Gesellschaft fr Arten-und Populationsschutz, Germany
Rory Dow, National Museum of natural History Naturalis, The Netherlands
S. Ajmal Khan, Annamalai University, Parangipettai, India
S. Balachandran, Bombay Natural History Society, Mumbai, India
S.C. Verma, Professor Emeritus, Panjab University, Chandigarh, India
S. Gombobaatar, National University of Mongolia, Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia
S. Jayakumar, Pondicherry University, Puducherry, India
Saito Motoki, The Butterfly Society of Japan, Tokyo, Japan.
Sanjay Molur, WILD, Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu, India
Shomita Mukherjee, SACON, Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu, India
Shonil A. Bhagwat, The Open University, UK
Stephen D. Nash, Scientific Illustrator, State University of New York, NY, USA
Sushil K. Dutta, Indian Institute of Science, Bengaluru, Karnataka, India
Tadashi Kawai, Wakkanai Fisheries Research Institute, Hokkaido, Japan
Tim New, La Trobe University, MelbourneVictoria, Australia
Tony Whitten, Fauna & Flora International, Cambridge, UK
Topiltzin Contreras MacBeath, Universidad Autnoma del estado de Morelos,
Mxico
Ullasa Kodandaramaiah, IISER-TVM, Thiruvananthapuram, India
Uwe Braun, Martin-Luther-Universitt, Neuwerk, Germany
V. Irudayaraj, St. Xaviers College, Palayamkottai, Tamil Nadu, India
V. Sampath Kumar, Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, UK
V. Santharam, Rishi Valley Education Centre, Chittoor, Andhra Pradesh, India
Vijayasankar Raman, University of Mississippi, USA
W. Vishwanath, Manipur University, Imphal, India
Wiebke Herding, Amsterdam,The Netherlands
Wioletta Tomaszewska, Museum and Institute of Zoology, Wilcza, Poland

Reviewers 20142015
Due to pausity of space, the list of reviewers for 2014-2015 is available online.

English Editors
Mrs. Mira Bhojwani,Pune, India
Dr. Fred Pluthero, Toronto, Canada
Mr. P. Ilangovan, Chennai, India

Print copies of the Journal are available at cost. Write to


the Managing Editor, JoTT, c/o Wildlife Information Liaison
Development, 96, Kumudham Nagar, Vilankurichi Road,
Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu 641035, India
threatenedtaxa@gmail.com

OPEN ACCESS

All articles published in the Journal of Threatened Taxa are registered under Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License unless otherwise mentioned.
JoTT allows unrestricted use of articles in any medium, reproduction and distribution
by providing adequate credit to the authors and the source of publication.

ISSN 0974-7907 (Online); ISSN 0974-7893 (Print)


January 2016 | Vol. 8 | No. 1 | Pages: 83098420
Date of Publication: 26 January 2016 (Online & Print)
DOI: 10.11609/jott.2016.8.1.8309-8420
www.threatenedtaxa.org
Article
Habitat quantity of Red-cockaded Woodpecker Picoides
borealis (Aves: Piciformes: Picidae) in its former historic
landscape near the Big Thicket National Preserve, Texas, USA
-- Vivek Thapa & Miguel F. Acevedo, Pp. 83098322
Communications
The conservation status of the Fishing Cat Prionailurus
viverrinus Bennett, 1833 (Carnivora: Felidae) In Koshi Tappu
Wildlife Reserve, Nepal
-- Iain Rothie Taylor, Hem Sagar Baral, Prava Pandey & Prativa
Kaspal, Pp. 83238332
Avifauna of Chamba District, Himachal Pradesh, India with
emphasis on Kalatop-Khajjiar Wildlife Sanctuary and its
surroundings
-- Tariq Ahmed Shah, Vishal Ahuja, Martina Anandam &
Chelmala Srinivasulu, Pp. 83338357
Status and population of vultures in Moyar Valley, southern
India
-- R. Venkitachalam & S. Senthilnathan, Pp. 83588364
Short Communications
First record of Scotophilus kuhlii Leach, 1821 (Chiroptera:
Vespertilionidae) from Nepal
-- Dibya Dahal, Sanjan Thapa & Khadga Basnet, Pp. 83658368
Avifaunal diversity in Assam University Campus, Silchar,
India
-- Biswajit Chakdar, Parthankar Choudhury & Hilloljyoti Singha,
Pp. 83698378
New locality record of the Travancore Bush Frog Raorchestes
travancoricus Boulenger, 1891 (Amphibia: Anura:
Rhacophoridae) from Periyar Tiger Reserve, Kerala, India
-- K.P. Rajkumar, T.S. Prasad, Sandeep Das, R. Sreehari, P.S.
Easa & K.A. Sreejith, Pp. 83798382

Descriptions of four new species of Dicopomorpha Ogloblin


(Hymenoptera: Chalcidoidea: Mymaridae) from India with a
key to Indian species
-- A. Rameshkumar & S. Manickavasagam, Pp. 83838388
Taxonomic studies on Acridinae (Orthoptera: Acridoidea:
Acrididae) from the northeastern states of India
-- Mohammed Imran Khan & Mohammed Kamil Usmani,
Pp. 83898397
Magnolia lanuginosa (Wall.) Figlar & Noot. in West Khasi
Hills of Meghalaya, northeastern India: re-collection and
implications for conservation
-- Aabid Hussain Mir, Viheno Iralu, Ngakhainii Trune Pao,
Gunjana Chaudhury, Clarence G. Khonglah, K.L. Chaudhary,
B.K. Tiwari & Krishna Upadhaya, Pp. 83988402
Three species of Phallus (Basidiomycota: Agaricomycetes:
Phallaceae) from Jammu & Kashmir, India
-- Harpreet Kour, Rigzin Yangdol, Sanjeev Kumar & Yash Pal
Sharma, Pp. 84038409
Notes
Dusky Warbler Phylloscopus fuscatus (Aves: Passeriformes:
Sylviidae) in Sanjay Gandhi National Park, Maharashtra a rare record for peninsular India
-- Parvish Pandya, Vikrant Choursiya & Jyoti James, Pp. 8410
8411
Oberonia mucronata (D. Don) Ormerod & Seidenf.
(Orchidaceae), new addition to the flora of Gujarat, India
-- Mital R. Bhatt & Padamnabhi S. Nagar, Pp. 84128414
Response & Reply
Comments on the list of marine mammals from Kerala
-- R.P. Kumarran, Pp. 84158416
Checklist of Marine Mammals of Kerala - a reply to
Kumarran (2016) and the updated Checklist of Marine
Mammals of Kerala
-- P.O. Nameer, Pp. 84178420

Threatened Taxa

Вам также может понравиться