Advertisement

BMC Research Notes

, 11:212 | Cite as

War zone refugia? Establishing a baseline for protected waterbirds in a wildlife refuge flanked by agriculture and militarization

  • Michael H. Parsons
  • Prameek M. Kannan
Open Access
Research note

Abstract

Objectives

The welfare of threatened fauna should not be assumed merely because their refuges have been designated with protected status. This is particularly true in geographical areas where social/military events drive an under-reported, but potentially lethal, type of human–wildlife interaction. Waterbirds of Gharana Wetland Conservation Reserve consist mostly of threatened species. However, as occurs globally, ‘protected’ fauna near contested borders are sometimes affected by military forces. As part of a larger project to document regional avifauna, we report the seasonal status of waterbirds in order to help establish a baseline for comparing conservation of wildlife within contested areas to that of fauna in more secure refuges. We examined 24 avifauna surveys for relationships between seasons, temperature, individuals and species.

Results

28 of 61 waterbird species were rare. We found seasonal variations in individuals (F3,731 = 3.82; P < 0.01) and species (F3,11 = 5.81; P < 0.05) with a major influx in late winter, rather than autumn. Thus, while this sanctuary serves as an over-wintering site, it is also a stop-over site for high-altitude migrations. While providing this baseline, we offer a reminder that the welfare of wildlife in protected areas should be monitored seasonally, with the ongoing threats to their conservation, carefully documented.

Keywords

Conservation monitoring Avifauna and militarization Remote wetland biodiversity War zone refugia 

Abbreviations

GWCR

Gharana Wetland Conservation Reserve

IBA

Important Bird Area

Introduction

Human militarization can influence the behaviors and population status of wildlife [1, 2] however, few studies documenting this type of human–wildlife conflict (HWC) focus on protected refuges or wildlife sanctuaries [3]. Indeed, gaining the formal protection of a wildlife sanctuary is often considered an end unto itself [4]. The Gharana Wetland Conservation Reserve (GWCR; 32°32′28″N; 74°41′27″E; 281 m asl) is a critical wetland (~ 0.75 km2) situated along the international Indo-Pakistan border. While wetlands provide shelter for more than 12% of all animal species and 40% of all birds [5], this wetland may be especially important because it is found along the Central Asian flyway (Palearctic–Oriental) for winter and summer migrations [6]. The relatively mild winters and abundant resources attract rare and threatened species from as far away as Siberia and Mongolia. However, as occurs in regions throughout the world—despite the international and local designations for protection [7, 8]—the local political and economic conditions challenge the “protected status” of endangered and threatened wildlife.

The principal threats to conservation in GWCR relate directly to its proximity to a contested geopolitical border. Following independence in 1947, both India and Pakistan claimed the same ‘line-of-control’ [9]. Thus, for the past 70 years, there has been varying levels of military activity, including use of 82 mm mortars, in the area [9]. These shells can influence the wildlife directly through ordinance-strikes, or indirectly through reverberation [10]. In 2003, a formal ceasefire was declared. Ironically, this action increased anthropogenic pressure and revealed a complex dynamic between militarization and agriculture, found here [10], and other regions around the world [11]. Whereas, the declaration of a ceasefire did not completely halt the shelling, but instead limited the threat enough so that farmers moved into cultivate the wetland for farming.

Complex dynamics between militarization and agriculture

Locally, farmers not only endure stray firing, they also compete with wildlife for crops. As occurs in most avifauna refuges, migrant visitors are herbivores, and thus consume seeds, saplings, wheat and even crops such as basmati rice, a local mainstay. When migrants arrive in winter, palatable shoots of wheat and rice seedlings are already germinating [12], Consequently, waterbirds are not only threatened by shelling, but also by farmers who chase them with firecrackers which (ironically, if not purposefully) mimic gunfire and reverberation [13].

Additionally the refuge is compromised because villagers deposit their wastes into the wetland, thus, exacerbating silting [13]. Pollution from fertilizers and domestic animal excreta are further threats. Lastly, some farmers intentionally dump soil into the wetland to increase farmable surface area. The take home lesson is that there is a complex and under-reported dynamic between military and agricultural conflicts. Unfortunately, wildlife in such protected habitats may not be as sheltered as we suppose [14].

From a global perspective, decreases in the abundance or fluctuations of waterbirds are particularly important to document in areas such as these [15]. The conditions of which, may be exacerbated by human presence and ‘both types’ of disturbance. As such, the status of water-birds—in particular any changes in the number of seasonal migrants—is one of the key distinguishing attributes of its biodiversity when threatened by anthropogenic factors [15]. By formally documenting this information, researchers may help promote the potential for ecotourism, as well as compensation for farmers [16].

Objectives

Contested areas such as GWCR are recognized as “war zone refugia” [3], but fauna within are not well-documented. Our objectives were to seasonally document the residential status, relative abundance, richness, evenness and feeding guilds of waterbirds in the GWCR over a full year. This information represents an essential step in a comprehensive plan to document the wildlife in this protected region, and to obtain baseline data for longitudinal comparisons of secure sanctuaries.

Main text

Methods

Gharana 32°32′28″N; 74°41′27″E; 281 m above sea level, located on the Indo-Pakistan border in the south-western part of Jammu and Kashmir, is composed of a rain-fed swamp with a bottom surface of loamy clay with decaying vegetation. It is in the subtropical climatic zone where summer temperatures reach 46 °C maximum and winter minima decrease to 2 °C. Annual rainfall is ~ 1331 mm, with the majority of precipitation occurring when the south-western monsoon winds arrive (July–September). Vegetation includes Eicchornia spp., Hydrilla spp. [17] and the common reed (Typha spp.). Due to local development, there is also surface runoff from agricultural fields [18].

The agricultural fields adjacent to Gharana village also provides both suitable habitat, and concomitant threats, for a diverse group of bird taxa [19]. These characteristics make this protected area both accessible and economically important. This wetland is also located in a state known for outdoor activities and adventure (Jammu and Kashmir), and is internationally renowned for birdwatching and mountaineering [16].

Data collection

Our methods have been previously reported in the overarching project [19], except herein we report seasonal fluctuations limited to waterbirds, as the data was far too prodigious to include in one report. Twenty-four surveys were conducted from July 2012 to June 2013, covering all seasons; summer (April–June), monsoon (July–Sept), autumn (Oct–Novem) and winter (Dec–March). These surveys strictly followed well-established methods for line transects and point count methods in [20] (e.g., using widely-spaced, randomly-elected transects, with attention to avoiding bias from effort, walking speed, or weather conditions; birds flying overhead were counted separately as they cannot be used in density estimation). Counts were performed twice per month at all sites by a team of ten individuals in the early morning (07:00–10:00) during the time of highest bird activity [21] and lowest human disturbance. Observer effects were minimal because these animals have habituated to humans through agricultural and military actions. Experts > 200 h of wetland bird identification and post-doctoral training were consulted throughout the period.

All waterbird species were classified as common/rare, and also resident/migratory status of the birds as per [22]. For instance, VC = very common species encountered during (80% of all surveys); C = common species encountered frequently (50–70%) and R = rare species which are encountered less frequently (10–20%). Likewise, if a particular species was documented between December and March, then it was considered as a winter visitor. Whereas, presence between April and June was documented as a summer visitation. If we documented a waterbird was documented throughout a year in and around GWCR, then it was considered as a resident. Feeding guilds were identified from the literature, rather than what birds were seen feeding on at the time. Nikon Monarch 10 × 42 binoculars were used during surveys for taking observations and on-the-spot identification. Photographs and/or video were used to validate any unidentified species. The checklist was prepared using the standardized common and scientific names assigned in [23]. All data collected were observational and did not involve any manipulation or alteration of any animals, plants or humans.

Statistics

Univariate analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to examine the relationships between season and between number of individuals and the number of species. Tukey’s post hoc test was used to test pair-wise comparisons between seasons. Univariate ANOVA was also used to examine the relationship between season and each of four indices (Shannon–Wiener, Simpson’s Diversity, Equitability J and the Margalef index). Cross tabulations with Pearson’s Chi Square tests were performed between feeding guild and abundance, feeding guild and residence status, and between abundance and residence status. We used linear regressions to assess the relationship individuals and temperature and between species and temperature. Statistical significance (alpha) was set at P ≤ 0.05 and descriptive and inferential analyses were conducted using Minitab V. 17 (State College, PA).

Results

We documented 61 waterbird species from 11 families of 6 orders over 1 year (Table 1); 28 species were rare. The majority were from three families, the Anatidae (Anseriformes), Phalacrocoracida (Pelicaniformes), and Rallidae (Gruiformes). We found the most waterbird species in March (39), and fewest in June (16). The largest population (~ 9701 individuals) was also recorded in March while the lowest population size (130 individuals) was found in May. Order Anseriformes contributed the most species (19). During March, the Bar-headed Goose (Anser indicus) constituted 62% (6000 individuals) while the Ruddy Shelduck (Tadorna ferruginea) accounted for 15% (1500) of the total population (9701) count.
Table 1

Inventory of waterbirds of the Gharana Wetland Conservation Reserve recorded from July 2012 to June 2013

Sp.

Order

Family

Common name

Scientific name

Residential status

Abundance

Feeding

1

Podicipediformes

Podicipedidae

Little grebe

Tachybaptus ruficollis

R

VC

C

2

Pelecaniformes

Phalacrocoracidae

Great cormorant

Phalacrocorax carbo

WV

VC

C

3

  

Little cormorant

P. niger

WV

VC

C

4

Ciconiiformes

Ardeidae

Yellow bittern

Ixobrychus sinensis

WV

R

C

5

  

Black-crowned night-heron

Nycticorax nycticorax

WV

C

C

6

  

Indian pond heron

Ardeola grayii

R

VC

C

7

  

Cattle egret

Bubulcus ibis

R

VC

C

8

  

Little egret

Egretta garzetta

R

VC

C

9

  

Intermediate egret

E. intermedia

R

C

C

10

  

Great egret

E. alba

WV

C

C

11

  

Purple heron

Ardea purpurea

R

VC

C

12

  

Grey heron

A. cinerea

R

VC

C

13

 

Ciconiidae

Painted stork

Mycteria leucocephala

WV

R

C

14

  

Black stork

Ciconia nigra

WV

R

C

15

  

Wooly-necked stork

C. episcopus

WV

R

C

16

  

Black-necked stork

Ephippiorhynchus asiaticus

WV

R

C

17

 

Threskiornithidae

Black-headed ibis

Threskiornis melanocephalus

WV

R

C

18

  

Black ibis

Pseudibis papillosa

WV

R

C

19

  

Glossy ibis

Plegadis falcinellus

WV

R

C

20

  

Eurasian spoonbill

Platalea leucorodia

WV

R

C

21

Anseriformes

Anatidae

Lesser whistling duck

Dendrocygna javanica

WV

VC

H

22

  

Greylag goose

Anser anser

WV

R

H

23

  

Greater white-fronted goose

Anser albifrons

WV

R

H

24

  

Bar-headed goose

A. indicus

WV

C

H

25

  

Ruddy shelduck

Tadorna ferruginea

WV

R

H

26

  

Knob-billed duck

Sarkidiornis melanotos

WV

R

H

27

  

Eurasian wigeon

Anas penelope

WV

C

H

28

  

Gadwall

A. strepera

WV

VC

H

29

  

Eurasian teal

A. crecca

WV

VC

H

30

  

Mallard

A. platyrhynchos

WV

R

H

31

  

Indian spot-billed duck

A. poecilorhyncha

WV

R

H

32

  

Northern pintail

A. acuta

WV

C

H

33

  

Garganey

A. querquedula

WV

R

H

34

  

Northern shoveler

A. clypeata

WV

VC

H

35

  

Red-crested pochard

Netta rufina

WV

R

H

36

  

Common pochard

Aythya ferina

WV

C

H

37

  

Ferruginous duck

A. nyroca

WV

R

H

38

  

Tufted duck

A. fuligula

WV

R

H

39

Gruiformes

Rallidae

Water rail

Rallus aquaticus

WV

C

O

40

  

White-breasted waterhen

Amaurornis phoenicurus

R

VC

O

41

  

Common moorhen

Gallinula chloropus

R

VC

O

42

  

Purple swamphen

Porphyrio porphyrio

R

VC

O

43

  

Eurasian coot

Fulica atra

WV

C

O

44

 

Gruidae

Common crane

Grus grus

WV

R

O

45

Charadriiformes

Jacanidae

Pheasant-tailed jacana

Hydrophasianus chirurgus

SW

C

O

46

 

Charadriidae

Red-wattled lapwing

Vanellus indicus

R

VC

O

47

  

White-tailed lapwing

V. leucurus

WV

  

48

  

Little ringed plover

Charadrius dubius

R

R

O

49

 

Scolopacidae

Common snipe

Gallinago gallinago

WV

R

I

50

  

Common sandpiper

Actitis hypoleucos

WV

C

I

51

  

Green sandpiper

Tringa ochropus

WV

R

I

52

  

Common greenshank

T. nebularia

R

  

53

  

Curlew sandpiper

Calidris ferruginea

V

R

I

54

  

Little stint

C. minuta

V

R

I

55

  

Ruff

Philomachus pugnax

WV

VC

I

56

 

Recurvirostridae

Black-winged stilt

Himantopus himantopus

WV

C

I

57

 

Glareolidae

Oriental pratincole

Glareola maldivarum

V

R

I

58

  

Little pratincole

G. lactea

R

C

I

59

 

Laridae

River tern

Sterna aurantia

SW

C

C

60

  

Common tern

S. hirundo

V

R

C

61

  

White-winged tern

Chlidonias leucopterus

V

R

C

Feeding guilds: I insectivorous, O omnivorous, C carnivorous, H herbivorous; Residential status: WV winter visitors, R resident, V vagrant, SV summer visitors; Abundance: C common, VC very common, R rare

The number of waterbird individuals (ANOVA F3,731 = 3.82; P < 0.01) and species (ANOVA F3,11 = 5.81; P < 0.05) varied by season (Table 2). Tukey’s post hoc test showed that the number of individuals and species in the Winter differed to all three seasons, and that Autumn, Monsoon, and Summer seasons were not different to one another. Among the 4 indices, the Shannon–Wiener (ANOVA F3,11 = 25.2; P < 0.001), Simpson’s Diversity ANOVA F3,11 = 18.5; P < 0.001, and Equitability J (ANOVA F3,11 = 18.6; P < 0.001) were each significantly different across seasons. In all cases winter was different to the other three seasons. The Margalef index (ANOVA F3,11 = 0.75; P > 0.5) did not vary significantly by season.
Table 2

Seasonal variations in species diversity, dominance and evenness of waterbirds by month/season identified in the Gharana Wetland Conservation Reserve from July 2012 to June 2013

Season

Month

Individuals

Species

Shannon–Wiener

Simpson’s 1-D

Margalef

Equitability J

Monsoon

July

142

17

2.67

0.92

3.23

0.94

 

August

235

28

3.03

0.94

4.95

0.91

 

September

276

28

3.13

0.95

4.80

0.94

Autumn

October

483

32

3.25

0.96

5.02

0.94

 

November

841

31

2.96

0.92

4.46

0.86

Winter

December

2091

32

1.60

0.54

4.06

0.46

 

January

2347

36

1.31

0.44

4.51

0.36

 

February

5028

37

1.31

0.50

4.22

0.36

 

March

9701

39

1.52

0.59

4.14

0.41

Summer

April

513

29

1.92

0.65

4.49

0.57

 

May

133

21

2.70

0.90

4.09

0.89

 

June

130

16

2.60

0.91

3.08

0.94

Index (year)

Mean

± SE

Min

Q1

Q3

Max

 

Shannon–Weaver

2.33

0.03

1.31

1.54

3.01

3.25

 

Simpson

0.77

0.01

0.44

0.55

0.94

0.96

 

Margalef

4.25

0.02

3.08

4.06

4.73

5.02

 

Equitability J

0.72

0.01

0.36

0.43

0.94

0.94

 
Among the 61 species, 15 were common (25%), 28 were rare (46%), and 18 very common 29% (Table 1). Within feeding guilds, among the 18 species of carnivores, 8 species were ‘very common’ (44%), however cross tabulations (Table 3) showed no association between feeding guild and abundance (χ2= 4.4; P > 0.5). There was an association between feeding guild and residence status (χ2= 21.9; P < 0.001). Winter visitors were more likely to be herbivores (46%), whereas there were no resident herbivores. There was also an association between residence status and abundance (χ2 = 21.9; P < 0.001) (Table 3). Rare waterbirds were most likely to be winter visitors (54%) than were common (26%) or very common birds (21%). Among the 14 species of residents, 10 were very common (71%) (Table 3). There was a strong negative correlation between temperature and number of species S = 4.84; R2= 61.8%; F = 16.15; P < 0.005. No correlation was found between temperature and number of individual waterbirds; S = 2803.18; R2= 13.3%; F = 1.53; P > 0.2.
Table 3

Frequency distribution and relative percentages of each feeding guild of waterbirds in relation to abundance and residential status (above)

 

Feeding guild

χ2

P

Carnivore

Herbivore

Insectivore

Omnivore

Abundance

 Common

4 (26.7%)

4 (26.7%)

4 (26.7%)

3 (20%)

4.40

> 0.5

 Rare

10 (35.7%)

10 (35.7%)

5 (17.8%)

3 (10.7%)

 Very common

8 (44.4%)

5 (27.7%)

1 (5.5%)

4 (22.2%)

Resident status

 Resident

7 (50%)

0 (0%)

2 (14.2%)

5 (35.7%)

21.9

< 0.001

 Summer visitor

1 (33.3%)

1 (33.3%)

0 (0%)

1 (33.3%)

 Vagrants

2 (40%)

0 (0%)

3 (60%)

0 (0%)

 Winter visitor

12 (30.7%)

18 (46.1%)

5 (12.8%)

4 (10.2%)

 

Abundance

P

 

Common

Rare

Very common

χ2

 

Resident status

 

 Resident

3 (21.4%)

1 (7.1%)

10 (71.4%)

23.6

< 0.001

 

 Summer visitor

2 (66.7%)

1 (33.3%)

0 (0%)

 

 Vagrants

0 (0%)

5 (100%)

0 (0%)

 

 Winter visitor

10 (25.6%)

21 (53.8%)

8 (20.5%)

   

Frequency distribution and relative percentages of each resident status according to abundance (below)

Discussion

Protected fauna inhabiting “war zone refugia” have not been well documented [3], despite their presence and vulnerability in geographically-contested areas worldwide [3]. Here, we have provided a template for obtaining baseline data for waterbirds living in such areas. In doing so, we have provided the first documentation of the seasonal status, relative abundance, species richness, evenness and dominance of waterbirds under-duress over 1 year. We have identified 61 species from 11 families of 6 orders; two-thirds of all species (40) were visitors, and almost half (28) were rare. Waterbirds present during the stopover period (March high-altitude return migration) contributed more to the four indices than over-wintering birds (late Autumn upsurge).

Like most wetlands, this reserve supports birds of a diverse array of ecological niches and therefore, varied diets. The majority of resident species were carnivores, likely owing to the wide availability of year-round access to invertebrate fauna. Most of the carnivores were very common, whereas there were no resident herbivores. However, migrants were more likely to be herbivores, partly explaining many locals’ frustration with the loss of crops. Furthermore, most of the herbivores visited during the winter when birds predate the young and highly palatable shoots of wheat and therefore inflict maximum damage to crops. This dynamic demonstrates that either the presence and absence of military activity in such areas can result in direct duress from shelling, or indirectly result in agricultural duress when farmers move forward once the shelling periods cease.

Continued documentation of the avian fauna and their availability of resources is necessary to aid in the promotion of the wetland for improved conservation. While important for baseline data and continual monitoring, this information may also be utilized to quantify numbers to inspire ecotourism and similar approaches to enhance the livelihood of resident farmers and provide alternatives to farming for income. At the global scale, conservationists should pay special attention to document avifauna in contested regions, or militarized borders, while not prematurely assuming that species in protected sanctuaries are safe from duress.

Limitations

Our data are descriptive, consider ad hoc hypotheses, and do not include comparative data from other wildlife refuges or sanctuaries around the globe. Further, we do not report quantifiable measures of shelling (e.g., number of explosions, amplitude of noise generated, lethality, damage to young, or variation by season). However, we hope our initial communication encourages others to analyse and report the well-being of fauna in both secure and vulnerable sanctuaries in the presence and absence of militarization.

Notes

Authors’ contributions

MHP and PMK analyzed and presented the data, completed the literature review and drafted the manuscript. Both authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Acknowledgements

We thank the Department of Wildlife Protection, Jammu and Kashmir for granting permission and providing the necessary logistic support and cooperation for this extensive study. We also appreciate the efforts of those that collected this extensive data set, who wish to remain anonymous.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Availability of data and materials

The datasets generated during and/or analyzed during the current study have been made available in a public digital data repository available at https://doi.pangaea.de/10.1594/PANGAEA.887416.

Consent to publish

Not applicable.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

These data are observational only and do not require ethics approval or consent to participate.

Funding

No external funding was received and thus the authors are not declaring any funding sources.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

References

  1. 1.
    Gese EM, Rongstad OJ, Mytton WR. Changes in coyote movements due to military activity. J Wildl Manag. 1989;53:334–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Krausman PR, Harris LK, Blasch CL, Koenen KK, Francine J. Effects of military operations on behavior and hearing of endangered Sonoran pronghorn. Wildl Monogr. 2004;157(1):1–41.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Dudley JP, Ginsberg JR, Plumptre AJ, Hart JA, Campos LC. Effects of war and civil strife on wildlife and wildlife habitats. Conserv Biol. 2002;16(2):319–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Wright RG. Wildlife management in the national parks: questions in search of answers. Ecol Appl. 1999;9(1):30–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Zakaria M, Rajpar MN. Bird species composition and feeding guilds based on point count and mist netting methods at the Paya Indah Wetland Reserve, Peninsular Malaysia. Trop Life Sci Res. 2010;21(2):7–26.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Veen J, Yurlov A, Delany S, Mihantiev A, Selivanova M, Boere G. An atlas of movements of Southwest Siberian waterbirds. Siberia: Wetlands International Russia Office; 2005.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Schuyt K, Brander L. The economic values of the world’s wetlands, living waters. Amsterdam: WWF International and Institute for Environmental Studies, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam; 2004.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Zafar-ul-Islam M, Rahmani AR. Important bird areas in India: priority sites for conservation. Anna Arbor: Bombay Natural History Society; 2004.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Mahapatra DA: Positioning the People in the Contested Borders of Kashmir. Centre for international border studies research working paper. 2011. p. 21.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Saving Gharana Sanctuary. Jammu Kashmir Latest News|Tourism|Breaking News J&K. http://www.dailyexcelsior.com/saving-gharana-sanctuary/. Accessed 15 Dec 2017.
  11. 11.
    Loucks C, Mascia MB, Maxwell A, Huy K, Duong K, Chea N, Long B, Cox N, Seng T. Wildlife decline in Cambodia, 1953–2005: exploring the legacy of armed conflict. Conserv Lett. 2009;2(2):82–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Nyhus PJ, Osofsky SA, Ferraro P, Madden F, Fischer H. Bearing the costs of human–wildlife conflict: the challenges of compensation schemes. Conserv Biol Ser Camb. 2005;9:107.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Rahmani AR, Kalra M, Khan NI. Threatened birds of India: their conservation requirements. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2012.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Aung M, Swe KK, Oo T, Moe KK, Leimgruber P, Allendorf T, Duncan C, Wemmer C. The environmental history of Chatthin Wildlife Sanctuary, a protected area in Myanmar (Burma). J Environ Manag. 2004;72(4):205–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Burger J. Habitat selection in temperate marsh-nesting birds. Rutgers: Academic Press, Inc.; 1985.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Sharma A. Ecotourism in J&K: vehicle to sustainable development. Rev Res J. 2014;3(8):ROR-741.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Tara J, Kour R, Sharma S. A record of aquatic Hemiptera of Gharana Wetland, Jammu. Bioscan. 2011;6(4):649–55.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Pandotra A, Sahi D. Avifaunal assemblages in suburban habitats of Jammu, J&K, India. Res J Environ Sci. 2014;3(6):17–24.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Jamwal PS, Chandan P, Rattan R, Anand A, Kannan PM, Parsons MH. Survey of Avifauna of the Gharana Wetland Reserve: implications for conservation in a semi-arid agricultural setting on the Indo-Pakistan border. BMC Zool. 2017;20172:7.  https://doi.org/10.1186/s40850-017-0016-z.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Bibby CJ. Bird census techniques. Cambridge: Elsevier; 2000.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Buckland ST, Anderson DR, Burnham KP, Laake JL, Borchers DL, Thomas L. Introduction to distance sampling estimating abundance of biological populations. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2001.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Saikia P, Saikia M. Diversity of bird fauna in NE India. J Assam Sci Soc. 2000;41(2):379–96.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Kazmierczak K, Perlo BV. Field guide to the birds of the Indian Subcontinent. New Haven: Yale University Press; 2000.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Biological SciencesFordham UniversityBronxUSA
  2. 2.Department of BiologyPace UniversityPleasantvilleUSA

Personalised recommendations