Efflatounia

ISSN: 1110-8703
Pages: 3117 – 3143
Volume: 5 Issue 2

Wintering Ornithofaunal Species Diversity and Abundance of an urban

Freshwater Lake, West Bengal, India

Dr. Bireshwar Bera

Assistant Professor
Department of Zoology Laboratory
St. Joseph’s College, North Point, Darjeeling
Affiliated to University of North Bengal, West Bengal, India

Abstract
An ornithological survey was carried out for three consecutive years 2015 - 2017 for assessing the
habitat status; diversity, feeding behaviour and distribution of avifauna during winter months in and
around Lake Saheb Bandh. Attempts were made to cover the representative areas, in order to cover
migratory, residential and residential migratory species, highlighting the current status and diversity
of ornithofauna. The lake was threatened due to demographic pressures and it is over- exploited. A
total of 89 species of birds belonging to 35 families and 14 orders were recorded from the study area.
Anatidae (RDi= 14.607) and Ardeidae (RDi= 7.865) were the dominant families with highest relative
diversity. Among the recorded avifauna, 51 species were resident, 24 species were migratory and 14
species were residential migratory. In this urban area, the species richness of feeding guilds varied
significantly. Most birds were omnivorous (46.07%), followed by insectivorous (21.35%),
carnivorous (20.22%), granivorous and frugivorous (5.62%), and nectarivorous species (1.12%).
Maximum species richness was recorded in wintering months. Ferruginous Duck Aythya nyroca and
Alexandrine Parakeet Psittacula eupatria are near threatened species and have a protected status
under the schedule IV of Indian Wildlife Protection Act, 1972. Interestingly, 23 species having a
globally declining trend are still very common in the study area. According to IUCN Red List version
3.1.7, 87 species were Least Concern (LC), 2 species were near threatened (NT). Different diversity
indices were also calculated. Saheb Bandh Lake supports a huge amount of bird diversity. Shannon's
diversity index indicate higher species diversity (H’ = 3.863). So continuous monitoring of avian
fauna and health condition of the ecosystem by local or state levels on taking integrated management
programs will helpful to maintain a sustainable development of the habitat. The present study
location is also facing tremendous conservation challenges by the impact of anthropogenic alteration
of the habitats in and around the lake. Long-term studies are required to monitor any change in the
avian communities of this urban landscape resulting from urbanization.

KEYWORDS: Ornithofauna, winterbird community, species diversity index, abundance, feeding

guild

INTRODUCTION:
There are large numbers nearly 67,429 wetlands in India varied from larger to smaller in size covering
an area of about 4.1 million hectares, out of these, 2,175 are natural and 65,254 are manmade [1]
including 37 wetlands with international importance under Ramsar convention [2-3]. India has more
than five hundred thousand other natural or artificial wetlands containing inland deltas, freshwater
ponds, permanent or intermittent freshwater or brackish lakes extended in an area of 2.25 ha [2]. The
wetlands covers a variety of ecosystems in India are the main source to country economy as they
provide a site for ecotourism and important habitat of many valuable species of birds [4-6].

3117
Website: www.efflatounia.com
Efflatounia
ISSN: 1110-8703
Pages: 3117 – 3143
Volume: 5 Issue 2

Knowledge of the composition of avian communities is crucial to determine the ecology and health
status of the local ecosystem or regional landscapes [7-8]. So, understanding of avian community
structure and diversity is therefore essential to recognize the importance of landscapes for avian
conservation [8-9].
Globally, there are about a total of 10,721 species of birds having been reported [10]. Freshwater
wetlands are an important habitat for all kinds of water dependent birds for resident as well as
migratory birds for foraging, roosting and breeding activities [11]. A total of 1932 species and 113
families of bird species recorded from Southeast Asia [12] whereas from India 1263 species from 23
orders, 107 families and 492 genera were listed [12-13].
All birds are known together in wetlands of different parts of India and their diversity become highest
during the winter months [14-16]. Birds play an important role in the ecosystems such as predators,
pollinators, scavengers, seed dispersals, seed predators and ecosystem engineers [13,17-18].
Availability of huge resource and suitable habitat makes the wetland favourable place for many of the
species of waterbirds [19-20] which are absolutely depend on wetland habitat for their existence [16]
showing seasonal migratory behaviour [21]. They are relatively easy to identify, the ecology of bird
species is well documented and they play an important role in the sustainable development process.
Moreover, the spatial distribution of these birds in wetlands is influenced by two seasons (nesting
season and hunting season), and the combination of these seasons allows quantitative assessment of
this local avifauna [22-23]. The species composition, diversity and abundance of water bird
populations are strongly affected by sudden changes in habitat quality, vegetation composition and
resource availability of the wetland [16].
They are considered to be an excellent bio-indicator to assess environmental changes [24-30] of a
healthy environment [31-36] as they exploit all trophic levels in a food chain [37-38]. Natural
disasters like drought [39] or anthropogenic stress in the ecosystem and urbanization [40-41] may
indicate population dynamics of bird species. The responsible main key factor for the rapid decline of
variety and variability of avian species population is anthropogenic activities that could lead to habitat
destruction, pollution and overexploitation of the resource in wetlands [16,42-43]. Avian species
diversity and distribution are not consistent with the landscape [44] but pattern of biodiversity
changes with the environmental factors, climatic conditions, topography and habitats [45- 46].
Estimated about over 50% of the wetland habitats of the world are lost in the last century [16, 47- 49].
Thus, it is necessary to protect the wetlands from serious threats by spreading of awareness, making
conservation policies and their proper implementation [50-51]. The previous study and published
paper on avifauna throughout India are also available [11,16,35,52].
Saheb Bandh Lake of Purulia, also known as Nibaran Sayar is a manmade biodiversity rich
freshwater wetland as well as an exclusive drinking water resource in drought-prone Purulia Town of
West Bengal, India. It was declared a National Lake by the Government of India in the year 2010
[53]. The lake and its surrounding land is the resource of a number of aquatic plants in the submerged
as well as floating state, on which thrive a large number of organisms. Draught tolerant plants like,
Butea monosperma, Schleichera oleosa, Madhuca longifolia, Azadirachta indica, Diospyros
melanoxylon, Terminalia chebula, Phyllanthus emblica, Pongamia pinnata, Bambusa spp., Ficus
religiosa, Ficus bengalensis [54-55] also provide food and shelter for avian species. Availability of
food in the form of aquatic crustaceans, insects, mollusks, fishes etc. the lake attracts a number of
birds throughout year. During winter season various migratory birds’ species attracts the tourists
around this beautiful lake.

3118
Website: www.efflatounia.com
Efflatounia
ISSN: 1110-8703
Pages: 3117 – 3143
Volume: 5 Issue 2

A few works have been accomplished on the diversity and distribution of various bird species that
reside in Purulia district [54-56]. Concerning the present status, biological diversity and relatively as
well as to enrich the knowledge on the biodiversity profile, a survey was conducted mainly on
diversity and abundance of avifaunal species found in and around the Lake and how the diversity
changes with a focus on the winters as the migratory species arrive.
Thus, the present study aims to represent the community structure, diversity and abundance of
indigenous and migratory birds to characterize the species assemblage of birds and to identify the
ornithofauna with global importance. The study explores the primary observations made on the bird’s
species emphasizing the trophic guilds, relative abundance and diversity indices. The resultant
information of the present study will facilitate planning strategies for conservation of the birds.

MATERIALS AND METHODS:

Study area
The freshwater lake Saheb Bandh (Nibaran Sayar) is situated at the centre of the Purulia town in West
Bengal located at 23º29'42"N latitude and 86 º 21’37” E longitudes (Fig 1). The land and water area
of lake covers an area of ~ 110 acres [57] with mean depth of 4.8 ± 2 m [58]. The water is mainly
used for domestic as well as drinking purposes under the administrative control of Purulia Municipal
Corporation (PMC), and also being used for fishing, sports, recreational and cultural purposes
throughout the year. The marshy area surrounding the lake is suitable feeding habitat for bird species
whereas surrounding grassland and scattered trees species support diverse avifauna. The whole
surface water of the wetland is filled with many aquatic plant species such as Nymphaea nouchali,
Ipomoea aquatica, Azolla pinnata, Salvinia cucullate, Alternanthera philoxeroides, Ceratophyllum
demersum, Trapa natan, Pistia stratiotes, Lemna aequinoctialis, Potamogeton crispus , Cyperus
cephalotes etc.[59]. There are small islands at the center of the lake and Subhas Park that plays an
important role as the shelter of many migratory water birds and local non-migratory bird species. The
most noticeable threats to the wetland are domestic sewage from surrounding houses and nearby
shops. The excessive growth of emergent and floating vegetation during certain seasons also affects
the population dynamics of water birds. Unfortunately, in spite of its environmental, recreational and
aesthetic values it has received little attention in the past.

Methodology
Bird census was carried out for three consecutive winter years 2015 to 2017 in the months of
December, January and February because a large number of migratory birds visit the lake. The birds
were observed and counted each year in two phases; the first phase in the morning 06:30 h to 09:30 h
and the second phase in the evening 16:00 h to 18:00 h [11] on random visits to the wetland
accounting to around 110 h.
Fig. 1: Location map of Saheb Bandh Lake, West Bengal, India (Source: Google maps).

3119
Website: www.efflatounia.com
Efflatounia
ISSN: 1110-8703
Pages: 3117 – 3143
Volume: 5 Issue 2

Position of Purulia district

in West Bengal

INDIA

Avian species were monitored through direct observation method to estimate the total number of bird
species and their individuals in and around the lake. Observations were done in every winter season
randomly to initially target the migratory ducks, waders, and other terrestrial avifauna species using
Olympus Binocular (10 x 10). Photographic documentation was done by using Nikon D3200 with
lens 55 mm and 200 mm. with the help of professional photographer. During observation, a proper
distance was maintained between birds and observer because birds are very sensitive to anthropogenic
activity [60]. Based on the visual observations and photographs, birds were identified following
standard guidebooks [61,62]. Migratory status and feeding habits of the enlisted birds was determined

3120
Website: www.efflatounia.com
Efflatounia
ISSN: 1110-8703
Pages: 3117 – 3143
Volume: 5 Issue 2

by personal observation as well as information available in the literature [61,63-64]. All the water
birds present in the water bodies were counted and species and number of individuals recorded.

Analysis of Status, feeding guild, Species diversity and richness

The information regarding the status of global population trends and different threat categories for
each observed bird species was collected from the IUCN Red List of threatened species [65-66].
Feeding guilds were determined by examining their feeding habitat and categorized into six feeding
guilds i.e., carnivore (Car), omnivore (Omn), nectivore (Nect), granivore (Gran), insectivore (Ins) and
frugivore (Frug) [67-69].
For determination of species parameters such as richness, evenness, and abundance are most
important component. The bird species richness was taken as the total number of species observed.
Different diversity indices were considered to calculate species diversity by using PAST ver. 4.03
software package.

Relative Diversity (RDi):

The relative diversity (RDi) of families was calculated using the following formula [70].
RDi = (Number of birds’ species in a family/Total number of species) × 100
RESULTS:
From field observation a total of 2690 individuals of birds under 89 species from 35 families and 14
orders were counted in Saheb Bandh Lake, in which 51 resident (R), 24 migratory (M) and 14
residential migratory (RM) species. A detailed checklist of the ornithofauna along with their
residential status, conservation status, feeding guilds and global trends were presented in Table 1.
Among 2690 individuals of birds 1146 were counted during winter 2015 whereas 878 and 666 during
winter months of 2016 and 2017 respectively, showing decreasing trends. According to result the
dominant avifauna species were found in the order Anseriformes 41.75% (n = 1123), followed by
Passeriformes 22.75% (n = 612), Pelecaniformes 8.96% (n=241), Suliformes 4.20% (n =113),
Psitaciformes 3.83% (n = 103), Columbiformes 3.42% (n=92), Charadriiformes 3.16% (n=85),
Coraciiformes 2.97% (n=80), Gruiformes 2.68% (n = 72), Accipitriformes 1.75% (n=47), Piciformes
0.61% (n=39), Cuculiformes 1.12% (n=30), Podicipediformes 1.00% (n=27), Apodiformes 0.97%
(n=26). Among 24 migratory (M) avian species the dominant species were found in the order
Anseriformes (10) followed by Passeriformes (07), Accipitriformes (02), Pelecaniformes (02),
Charadriiformes (01), Cuculiformes (03) and Columbiformes (01). The dominant resident(R) species
was found in the order Passeriformes (21) followed by Pelecaniformes (04), Charadriiformes (03),
Coraciiformes (03), Cuculiformes (03), Gruiformes (03), Columbiformes (03), Piciformes (03),
Accipitriformes (02), Anseriformes (02), Psitaciformes (02), Apodiformes(01) and Podicipediformes
(01). The dominant residential migratory (RM) species was found in the order Passeriformes (04)
followed by Suliformes (03), Gruiformes Gruiformes (02), Anseriformes (01), Apodiformes (01),
Columbiformes (01),Coraciiformes (01), and Pelecaniformes (01). All the above results were shown
in Table.2.
The family Anatidae dominated by the representation of 13 species (42%) followed by Ardeidae
(8.96%), Sturnidae (5.13%), Phalacrocoracidae with 3 species (4.20%), Psitaculidae (3.83%),
Columbidae (3.97%), Pycnonotidae (3.20%), Leiothrichidae (3.12%), Rallidae with 4 species
(2.68%), Jacanidae (2.30%), Muscicapidae (2.27%), Accipitridae and Meropidae (1.75%),
Motacillidae (1.56%), Cuculidae (1.12%), Cistcolidae and Podicipedidae (1.00%), whereas rest of the
families occupied less than 1% of the bird family in and around of Lake Saheb Bandh (Figure 2).

3121
Website: www.efflatounia.com
Efflatounia
ISSN: 1110-8703
Pages: 3117 – 3143
Volume: 5 Issue 2

As per IUCN Red List threatened categories, 87 species recorded from the study areas fall under the
Least Concern (LC) category, which account for 98% and two species (2%) were categorized as Near
Threatened (NT). The two Near Threatened species-Ferruginous Duck (Aythya nyroca) and
Alexandrine Parakeet (Psittacula eupatria) are protected under Schedule IV of the Indian Wildlife
Protection Act, 1972 [71].
Overall, avifaunal diversity reveals that the maximum number of the family (35) and species (89)
recorded from the Saheb Bandh. The species dominance (D) was 0.045, 0.035 and 0.034 for three
consecutive years with average value of 0.038. Simpson's diversity index (1-D) and Shannon wiener’s
species diversity (H') were higher as 0.955, 0.965, 0.966 and 3.779, 3.895, 3.914 respectively for three
consecutive years. Evenness index 0.492, 0.552, 0.563 were found moderately higher demonstrate
that in urban matrices, species diversity and richness decreases, showing influences of urbanization on
the avian community. The Margalef’s Richness index, which used as another measure of species’
richness also were the highest (12.49, 12.98, 13.54) in sampling site. Mechanic (R2) index value was
found to be maximum 2.63, 3.004 and 3.45.
By analysing the global population trend, it was noted that the Saheb Bandh Lake belongs to urban
region includes 26 such species of birds known to follow the stable population trend (ST), 24
increasing (IN), 16 with unknown (UN) and notably other 23 species marked to follow the decreasing
(DE) population trend [66].(Table 1)
Among the feeding guilds, omnivore was the guild with the highest number (41) of species (46.07%)
and nectivore was the guild with the least number of species (1 species) i.e., 1.12% of the total
species. and the observed order was omnivorous (46.07%) > insectivorous (21.35%) > carnivorous
(20.22%) > granivorous and frugivorous (5.62%) > nectarivorous (1.12%). Omnivores were the most
dominant species (Fig. 3).
Relative Diversity index (RDi) variability value of the Families of avi-fauna found in the Saheb
Bandh Lake showed in Figure 4. The Family Anatidae (RDi= 14.607) of the Order Anseriformes is
the most dominant Family, followed by the Family Ardeidae (7.865), Columbidae, Rallidae and
Sturnidae (5.618), Cuculidae and Accipitridae (4.494), Cistcolidae, Motacillidae, Muscicapidae and
Phalacrocoracidae (3.371), Apodidae, Charadriidae, Jacanidae, Alcedinidae, Alaudidae, Corvidae,
Laniidae, Pycnonotidae, Megalaimidae and Psitaculidae (2.247), whereas the rest of the families
Coraciidae, Meropidae, Dicruridae, Nectariniidae, Oriolidae, Passeridae, Aegithinidae, Hirudinidae,
Phylloscopidae, Leiothrichidae, Acrocephalidae, Dicaeidae, Picidae and Podicipedidae were showed
RDi value of 1.124.

3122
Website: www.efflatounia.com
Efflatounia
ISSN: 1110-8703
Pages: 3117 – 3143
Volume: 5 Issue 2

Table 1. Checklist of Ornithofauna species with their respective taxonomic position in urban Saheb Bandh Lake sites of West Bengal, India,
recorded during study period, together with their residential status(R= residential, M= migratory, RM= residential migratory), feeding guilds (Car =
carnivore, Omn = omnivore, Nect = nectarivore, Gran = granivore, Ins = insectivore and Frug = frugivore) and global population trend (ST= stable,
IN= increasing, DE=decreasing and UN= unknown) and IUCN status
Sl.No. Common Name Scientific Name Residential IUCN Feeding Global
Status Status Habit Trend
A. ORDER: Accipitriformes
a. Family: Accipitridae (Hawks, Eagles, Buzzards, Vultures, Kites, Harriers)
1 Common Pariah Kite/Cheel Milvus migrans (Boddaert, 1783) R LC Omn IN
2 Western Marsh Harrier Circus aeruginosus (Linnaeus, 1758) M LC Car IN
3 Black-Winged Kite Elanus caeruleus (Desfontaines, 1789) R LC Car DE
4 Shikra Accipiter badius (Gmelin, 1788) M LC Car ST
B. ORDER: Anseriformes
a. Family: Anatidae (Swans, Geese and Ducks)
5 Lesser Whistling Teal Dendrocygna javanica (Horsfield, 1821) R LC Omn DE
6 Red Creasted Pochard Netta rufina (Pallas, 1773) M LC Omn UN
7 Cotton Teal/Pygmy Goose Nettapus coromandelianus (Gmelin, 1789) R LC Omn ST
8 Northern Shoveller Anas clypeata (Linnaeus, 1758) M LC Omn DE
9 Northern Pintail Anas acuta (Linnaeus, 1758) M LC Omn DE
10 Common Teal Anas crecca (Linnaeus, 1758) M LC Omn UN
11 Large Whistling Teal Dendrocygna bicolor (Vieillot, 1816) RM LC Omn DE
12 Gadwall Anas strepera (Linnaeus, 1758) M LC Omn UN
13 Common Pochard Aythya ferina (Linnaeus, 1758) M LC Omn DE
14 Garganey Anas querquedula (Linnaeus, 1758) M LC Omn DE
15 Tufted Pochard Aythya fuligula (Linnaeus, 1758) M LC Omn ST
16 Common Shelduck Tadorna tadorna (Linnaeus, 1758) M LC Omn IN

3123
Website: www.efflatounia.com
Efflatounia
ISSN: 1110-8703
Pages: 3117 – 3143
Volume: 5 Issue 2

17 Ferruginous Duck Aythya nyroca (Guldenstadt, 1770) M NT Omn DE

C. ORDER: Apodiformes
a. Family: Apodidae (Swifts)
18 Indian House Swift Apus affinis (Gray, 1830) RM LC Ins IN
19 Asian Palm-Swift Cypsiurus balasiensis (Gray, 1829) R LC Ins ST
D. ORDER: Charadriiformes
a. Family: Charadriidae (Plovers, Dotterels, Lapwings)
20 Common Green Shank Tringa nebularia (Gunnerus, 1767) M LC Car ST
21 Red-wattled Lapwing Vanellus indicus (Boddaert, 1783) R LC Car UN
b. Family: Jacanidae (Jacanas)
22 Pheasant-tailed Jacana Hydrophasianus chirurgus (Scopoli, 1786) R LC Omn DE
23 Bronze-Winged Jacana Metopidius indicus (Latham, 1790) R LC Omn UN
E. ORDER : Columbiformes
a. Family: Columbidae (Pigeons and Doves)
24 Blue Rock Pigeon Columba livia (Gmelin, 1789) R LC Gran DE
25 Spotted Dove Spilopelia chinensis (Scopoli, 1768) R LC Gran IN
26 Red Collared Dove Streptopelia tranquebarica (Hermann, 1804) RM LC Gran DE
27 Eurasian collared dove Streptopelia decoacto (Frivaldszky, 1838) M LC Gran IN
28 Yellow-footed Green-Pigeon Treron phoenicopterus (Latham, 1790) R LC Frug IN
F. ORDER : Coraciiformes
a. Family: Alcedinidae (Kingfishers)
29 Small Blue Kingfisher Alcedo atthis (Linnaeus, 1758) RM LC Car UN
30 White Breasted Kingfisher Halcyon smyrnensis (Linnaeus, 1758) R LC Car IN
b. Family: Coraciidae (Rollers)
31 Indian Roller Coracias benghalensis (Linnaeus, 1758) R LC Ins IN

3124
Website: www.efflatounia.com
Efflatounia
ISSN: 1110-8703
Pages: 3117 – 3143
Volume: 5 Issue 2

c. Family: Meropidae (Bee-eaters)

32 Small Green Bee-eater Merops orientalis (Latham, 1801) R LC Ins IN
G. ORDER : Cuculiformes
a. Family: Cuculidae (Cuckoos, Malkohas and Coucals)
33 Greater Coucal Centropus sinensis (Stephens, 1815) R LC Omn ST
34 Koel Eudynamys scolopacea (Linnaeus, 1758) R LC Omn ST
35 Pied cuckoo Clamator jacobinus (Boddaert, 1783) RM LC Ins ST
36 Lesser Coucal Centropus bengalensis (Gmelin, 1788) R LC Ins IN
H. ORDER : Gruiformes
a. Family: Rallidae (Rails, Crakes, Moorhens, Coots)
37 WhiteBreasted waterhen Amaurornis phoenicurus (Pennant, 1769) R LC Omn UN
38 Gray-headed Swamphen Porphyrio poliocephalus (Latham, 1801) R LC Omn UN
39 Common Moorhen Gallinula chloropus (Linnaeus, 1758) R LC Omn ST
40 Common Coot Fulica atra (Linnaeus, 1758) RM LC Omn IN
41 Baillon's Crake Zapornia pusilla (Pallas, 1776) RM LC Omn UN
I. ORDER : Passeriformes
a. Family: Alaudidae (Larks)
42 Ashy-crowned Sparrow-lark Eremopterix griseus (Scopoli, 1786) M LC Gran ST
43 Indian Bushlark Mirafra erythroptera (Blyth, 1845) RM LC Omn ST
b. Family: Cistcolidae
44 Common Tailorbird Orthotomus sutorius(Pennant, 1769) R LC Ins ST
45 Streaked Fantail Warbler Cisticola juncidis(Rafinesque, 1810) R LC Ins IN
46 Plain Prinia Prinia inornata (Sykes, 1832) R LC Ins ST
c. Family: Corvidae (Crows, Jays, Treepies, Magpies)
47 Tree Pie Dendrocitta vagabunda (Latham,1790) R LC Ins DE

3125
Website: www.efflatounia.com
Efflatounia
ISSN: 1110-8703
Pages: 3117 – 3143
Volume: 5 Issue 2

48 House Crow Corvus splendens (Vieillot, 1817) R LC Omn ST

d. Family: Dicruridae (Drongos)
49 Black Drongo Dicrurus macrocercus(Vieillot, 1817) R LC Ins UN
e. Family: Laniidae (Shrikes)
50 Brown Shrike Lanius cristatus (Linnaeus, 1758) M LC Ins DE
51 Bay-backed Shrike Lanius vittatus (Valenciennes, 1826) M LC Ins ST
f. Family: Motacillidae (Wagtails and Pipits)
52 White Wag tail Motacilla alba (Linnaeus, 1758) RM LC Car ST
53 Yellow Wag tail Motacilla flava (Linnaeus, 1758) RM LC Omn DE
54 Olive-backed pipit Anthus hodgsoni (Richmond, 1907) RM LC Ins ST
g. Family: Muscicapidae (Thrushes, Shortwings, Robins, Forktails, Wheaters)
55 Magpie Robin Copsychus saularis(Linnaeus, 1758) R LC Ins ST
56 Indian Robin Copsychus fulicatus (Linnaeus, 1766) R LC Ins ST
57 Taiga Flycatcher Ficedula albicilla (Pallas, 1811) M LC Ins ST
h. Family: Nectariniidae (Sunbirds and Spiderhunters)
58 Purple Sunbird Nectarinia asiatica (Latham, 1790) R LC Nect ST
i. Family: Oriolidae (Orioles)
59 Black-hooded Oriole Oriolus xanthornus (Linnaeus, 1758) R LC Omn ST
j. Family: Passeridae(Sparrows and Snowfinches)
60 House Sparrow Passer domesticus (Linnaeus, 1758) R LC Omn DE
k. Family: Pycnonotidae (Bulbuls and Finch-bills)
61 Red-vented Bulbul Pycnonotus cafer (Linnaeus, 1766) R LC Omn IN
62 Red-whiskered Bulbul Pycnonotus jocosus (Linnaeus, 1758) R LC Omn DE
l. Family: Sturnidae (Starlings and Mynas)
63 Indian Myna Acridortheres tristis (Linnaeus, 1766) R LC Omn IN

3126
Website: www.efflatounia.com
Efflatounia
ISSN: 1110-8703
Pages: 3117 – 3143
Volume: 5 Issue 2

64 Grey-headed Myna Sturnia malabarica (Gmelin, 1789) R LC Omn UN

65 Pied Myna Gracupica contra (Linnaeus, 1758) R LC Omn IN
66 Bank Myna Acridotheres ginginianus (Latham, 1790) R LC Omn IN
67 Jungle Myna Acridotheres fuscus (Wagler, 1827) R LC Omn DE
m. Family: Aegithinidae
68 Common Iora Aegithina tiphia (Linnaeus, 1758) R LC Ins UN
n. Family: Hirudinidae
69 Barn Swallow Hirundo rustica (Linnaeus, 1758) M LC Omn DE
o. Family: Phylloscopidae
70 Greenish Warbler Phylloscopus trochiloides (Sundevall, 1837) M LC Omn IN
p. Family: Leiothrichidae
71 Jungle Babbler Argya striata (Dumont, 1823) R LC Ins ST
q. Family: Acrocephalidae
72 Blyth's Reed Warbler Acrocephalus dumetorum (Blyth, 1849) M LC Omn IN
r. Family: Dicaeidae
73 Pale-billed Flowerpecker Dicaeum erythrorhynchos (Latham, 1790) R LC Omn ST
J. ORDER : Pelecaniformes
a. Family: Ardeidae (Herons, Egrets and Bitterns)
74 Pond Heron Ardeola grayii (Sykes, 1832) R LC Car UN
75 Black-crowned Night Heron Nycticorax nycticorax (Linnaeus, 1758) R LC Car DE
76 Little Egret Egretta garzetta (Linnaeus, 1766) R LC Car IN
77 Median Egret Mesophoyx intermedia (Wagler, 1827) RM LC Car DE
78 Cattle Egret Bubulcus ibis (Linnaeus, 1758) R LC Car IN
79 Purple Heron Ardea purpurea (Linnaeus, 1766) M LC Car DE
80 Great White Egret Ardea alba (Linnaeus, 1758) M LC Car UN

3127
Website: www.efflatounia.com
Efflatounia
ISSN: 1110-8703
Pages: 3117 – 3143
Volume: 5 Issue 2

K. ORDER : Piciformes
a. Family: Megalaimidae (Barbets)
81 Coppersmith Barbet Psilopogon haemacephala (Statius Müller, 1776) R LC Frug IN
82 Blue-throated Barbet Psilopogon asiaticus (Latham, 1790) R LC Omn ST
b. Family: Picidae
83 Black-rumped Flameback Dinopium benghalense (Linnaeus, 1758) R LC Omn ST
L. ORDER : Podicipediformes
a. Family: Podicipedidae(Grebe)
84 Little Grebe Tachybaptus ruficollis (Pallas, 1764) R LC Omn DE
M. ORDER : Psitaciformes
a. Family: Psitaculidae (Parakeets and Hanging-Parrots)
85 Rose Ringed Parakeet Psittacula krameri (Scopoli, 1769) R LC Frug IN
86 Alexandrine Parakeet Psittacula eupatria (Linnaeus, 1766) R NT Frug DE
N. ORDER : Suliformes
a. Family: Phalacrocoracidae (Cormorants/Shags)
87 Large Cormorant Phalacrocorax carbo (Linnaeus, 1758) RM LC Car IN
88 Indian Shag Phalacrocorax fuscicollis (Stephens, 1826) RM LC Car UN
89 Little Cormorant Phalacrocorax niger (Vieillot, 1817) RM LC Car UN

Table 2. The total order wise frequency of occurrence of ornithofauna community of the study area
ORDERS WINTER WINTER WINTER TOTAL % R M RM Sum %
2015 2016 2017 value value
ORDER 1 : Accipitriformes 24 14 9 47 1.75% 2 2 0 4 4.49%
ORDER 2 : Anseriformes 531 353 239 1123 41.75% 2 10 1 13 14.61%
ORDER 3: Apodiformes 9 11 6 26 0.97% 1 0 1 2 2.25%
ORDER 4 : Charadriiformes 40 27 18 85 3.16% 3 1 0 4 4.49%

3128
Website: www.efflatounia.com
Efflatounia
ISSN: 1110-8703
Pages: 3117 – 3143
Volume: 5 Issue 2

ORDER 5 : Columbiformes 37 26 29 92 3.42% 3 1 1 5 5.62%

ORDER 6 : Coraciiformes 30 25 25 80 2.97% 3 0 1 4 4.49%
ORDER 7 : Cuculiformes 12 10 8 30 1.12% 3 1 0 4 4.49%
ORDER 8 : Gruiformes 29 23 20 72 2.68% 3 0 2 5 5.62%
ORDER 9 : Passeriformes 234 205 173 612 22.75% 21 7 4 32 35.96%
ORDER 10 : Pelecaniformes 99 86 56 241 8.96% 4 2 1 7 7.87%
ORDER 11 : Piciformes 14 12 13 39 1.45% 3 0 0 3 3.37%
ORDER 12 : Podicipediformes 11 9 7 27 1.00% 1 0 0 1 1.12%
ORDER 13 : Psitaciformes 32 39 32 103 3.83% 2 0 0 2 2.25%
ORDER 14: Suliformes 44 38 31 113 4.20% 0 0 3 3 3.37%
1146 878 666 2690 100% 51 24 14 89 100%

3129
Website: www.efflatounia.com
Efflatounia
ISSN: 1110-8703
Pages: 3117 – 3143
Volume: 5 Issue 2

Fig. 2. The total family wise frequency of occurrence of ornithofauna community of the study
area

Family: Phalacrocoracidae
Family: Psitaculidae
Family: Podicipedidae
Family: Picidae
Family: Megalaimidae
Family: Ardeidae
Family: Dicaeidae
Family: Acrocephalidae
Family: Leiothrichidae
Family: Phylloscopidae
Family: Hirudinidae
Family: Aegithinidae
Family: Sturnidae
Family: Pycnonotidae RM
Family: Passeridae M
Family: Oriolidae
R
Family: Nectariniidae
%
Family: Muscicapidae
Family: Motacillidae TOTAL
Family: Laniidae WINTER2017
Family: Dicruridae WINTER2016
Family: Corvidae WINTER2015
Family: Cistcolidae
Family: Alaudidae
Family: Rallidae
Family: Cuculidae
Family: Meropidae
Family: Coraciidae
Family: Alcedinidae
Family: Columbidae
Family: Jacanidae
Family: Charadriidae
Family: Apodidae
Family: Anatidae
Family: Accipitridae
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200

3130
Website: www.efflatounia.com
Efflatounia
ISSN: 1110-8703
Pages: 3117 – 3143
Volume: 5 Issue 2

Table.3. Diversity indices of the bird communities recorded from three winter season
Diversity indices WINTER WINTER WINTER Avg.
2015 2016 2017
Taxa_S 89 89 89
Individuals 1146 878 666
Dominance_D 0.045 0.035 0.034 0.038
Simpson_1-D 0.955 0.965 0.966 0.962
Shannon_H 3.779 3.895 3.914 3.863
Evenness_e^H/S 0.492 0.552 0.563 0.536
Menhinick 2.629 3.004 3.449 3.027
Margalef 12.490 12.980 13.540 13.003

Fig. 3. Percentage of bird species belong to six foraging guilds (i.e., Omn=omnivore,
Car=carnivore, Ins=insectivore, Gran=granivore, Frug=Frugivore and
Nect=nectarivore) recorded from study area

Omn Car Ins Gran Frug Nect

1%

6%
6%

46%
21%

20%

Fig. 4. Relative diversity (RDi) of avian families during the study period

3131
Website: www.efflatounia.com
Efflatounia
ISSN: 1110-8703
Pages: 3117 – 3143
Volume: 5 Issue 2
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35

Family: Phalacrocoracidae
Family: Psitaculidae
Family: Podicipedidae
Family: Picidae
Family: Megalaimidae
Family: Ardeidae
Family: Dicaeidae
Family: Acrocephalidae
Family: Leiothrichidae
Family: Phylloscopidae
Family: Hirudinidae
Family: Aegithinidae
Family: Sturnidae
Family: Pycnonotidae
Family: Passeridae
Family: Oriolidae
Family: Nectariniidae
Family: Muscicapidae
RDi
Family: Motacillidae
Family: Laniidae
Family: Dicruridae
Family: Corvidae
Family: Cistcolidae
Family: Alaudidae
Family: Rallidae
Family: Cuculidae
Family: Meropidae
Family: Coraciidae
8

Family: Alcedinidae
7

Family: Columbidae
6

Family: Jacanidae
5

Family: Charadriidae
4

Family: Apodidae
3

Family: Anatidae
2

Family: Accipitridae
1

0.000 5.000 10.000 15.000 20.000

DISCUSSION

3132
Website: www.efflatounia.com
Efflatounia
ISSN: 1110-8703
Pages: 3117 – 3143
Volume: 5 Issue 2

Saheb Bandh Lake of Purulia is a manmade lake which features a range of water bird species during
the winter season (December – February). During winters, when the water level resides and the food
is easily accessible then only the majority of the migratory species of Waterfowl and wading birds are
observed in large numbers, apart from that of ground birds forage surrounding the water body [11]. In
and around the lake small as well as large trees provide shelter and act as a nesting site for the birds
species which is potent enough to sustain the load of a large population of ducks as well as other
avifaunal species [11,52,72-74].
A total of 89 avifauna species were recorded during the survey period, which deduce the information
regarding characteristic species assemblage of birds. The assemblages of bird species in a wetland are
significant for the migratory birds [75]. In a sustaining wetland ecosystem the water quality parameter
and the growth of the weeds were directly influenced by the abundance of the birds, which provides a
reflection of the multifunctional role of the birds [20,75-77]. In the wetland coexistence of the birds
can possibly be a reflection of the habitat and niche segregation [77], and temporary exploitation of
the habitat by the winter visitors during winter season [75-76,78]. However, in the present survey the
observation on the number and composition of the bird species reveals that lake has moderate and
diverse avifaunal diversity comparable to the other studies [1,15,26,36,48,76-80]. It is known that bird
diversity decreases with the urban gradient [81-83] due to increasing human disturbance in cities and
buildings that reduce breeding opportunities and resources for bird species [84] which is in agreement
with result of other studies [85]. The families Anatidae and Ardeidae are the most dominant in the
study area which is in accordance with the study in Purbasthali bird sanctuary [26,86]. Anatidae
family was reported to the largest family of waterbird community [87-89] occupy different
microhabitats of the wetlands which are sufficiently powerful in sustaining the load of a broad
population of ducks [88]. Several studies have also showed Ardeidae to be the most diverse avian
family, particularly in wetland habitats [15,36,90]. The diversity of the family Ardeidae was due to
the presence of species with different foraging habits, using various behavioural and morphological
adaptations to wade in the water and seek different food resources which were available in the lake as
well as the morphometric characteristics of the lake which favour their presence and abundance [89].
During winter months population of migratory birds reached its peak value. Availability of adequate
food and safety are the basic requirements of the migratory birds at their wintering ground with its
adequate space, vast breeding ground, and different niches for diverse species [1,26,91]. So, the
occurrence of winter migratory birds in and around the Lake Saheb Bandh indicates that the wetland
provides suitable habitat not only for resident species but also for migratory species of birds [15-
16,79,92].
The lake and its surrounding areas attract many migratory birds in winter, including two globally
threatened species: Ferruginous Duck Aythya nyroca and Alexandrine Parakeet (Psittacula eupatria)
including 23 bird species with globally declined population trend (DE). Ferruginous Duck also
reported from Dheer Bill, Assam [93]. Higher values of diversity indices revealed significant species
richness comparing to the size of the wetland. It may be due to the availability as well as the variety of
alternative food resources for birds over the favourable habitat for nesting and breeding [16,94].
Generally, wetland birds are heterogeneous in their feeding habits [95] found to utilize different
wetland habitats and extensively depends on a mosaic of microhabitat for their survival [1]. The entire
water area of the lake is covered with various aquatic vegetation like Nymphaea, Ipomoea, Azolla,
Salvinia, Alternanthera, Ceratophyllum, Trapa, Pistia, Lemna, Potamogeton , Cyperus etc. which
could perfect breeding ground of birds like Common Moorhen, White-breasted Waterhen and Purple
Swamphen [78,96] though high vegetation in a wetland may negatively influence the water bird

3133
Website: www.efflatounia.com
Efflatounia
ISSN: 1110-8703
Pages: 3117 – 3143
Volume: 5 Issue 2

community [16]. The wetland attracts and serves as a wintering ground for migratory birds (especially
migratory ducks) every year, and also supports large breeding populations of the Pheasant-tailed
Jacana and the Bronzed-winged Jacana, which were seen to thrive on floating vegetation dominated
by water hyacinth [36]. The lake surrounded with scattered trees probably provided shelter and
suitable foraging grounds, nesting and roosting on the emergent and fringed vegetation for the
wetland birds [97]. In the present study high abundance of omnivorous species is related to the close
association of various macro-invertebrates and fishes with hydrophytes which favors the diving water
birds [76]. Winter season being an opportunist and having higher adaptability for migratory water
birds in a wetland which supports appropriate feeding habitat for all water birds belonging from every
feeding guild [16]. For this unmanaged Saheb Bandh Lake the similarities in habitat quality are
supposed to sustain greater diversity [98]. Globally, there are 40% of the insect species is decline due
to intensification of agriculture using a large volume of pesticides and fertilizers [99-101]. According
to Schrauth and Wink [102] the decrease in insect abundance affects higher trophic levels like
insectivorous birds. The abundance of various kinds of food due to the existence of special microcli-
matic conditions might be suitable for various bird species occupying different feeding guilds along
with the dominance of omnivores, which could provide them an ecotone environment [103-104].
Large no of residential birds were recorded from the lake due to marshy aquatic weeds, aquatic
vegetation and large trees which are hiding place to build nest mostly species like common coot
(Fulica atra), Rudy shield duck (Tadorna ferruginia) [105]. Residential status of bird species also has
been studied by several workers [106-110]. Saheb Bandh Lake is an ideal habitat for migratory and
residential migratory birds, especially the winter visitors. Fish, aquatic insects, macro invertebrates
and macrophytic resources of the lake are important sources of food for wetland birds. Similar trends
also found from other studies [111-113].
During winter season increased species richness of migratory water birds including other
residential and residential migratory birds in this lake may be due to its favorable climatic condition
as well as availability of food resources and habitat suitability. Intensive visit shows that a decline in
the species richness is seen by comparing the data of the last three years may be due to anthropogenic
pressure, domestic activities, fishing, and boating and organic water pollution from household
drainage run off [11] which is a cause of concern is the main threats that birds face. These migratory
species have different breeding sites, wintering sites, and stopover sites or passage routes and are
sensitive to disturbance in any of these sites can cause a decline in their population [101]. The result
of higher density, diversity, richness during winter season is in accordance with many studies
[3,15,88,114-116].
The Shannon and Weaver Diversity Index (H’), which measures the degree of complexity of a
settlement, the higher it is, the more it corresponds to a settlement composed of a large number of
species with a low representation [117]. Conversely, a low value reflects a settlement dominated by a
species or a settlement with a small number of species with a high degree of representativeness
[23,118]. During the study period the diversity index is high reflecting the most diversified bird
population. They have high values and rates of this index; display the perfect balance throughout the
study period. According to Turkmen and Kazanci [119], in biological communities most acceptable
measured using the Shannon diversity index range from 1.5 to 3.5, rarely exceeds 4.5. Values above
3.0 indicate that habitat structure is stable and balanced and values below 1.0 indicate the presence of
pollution and degradation of habitat structure. Based on these criteria, it was observed that none of the
study area lowered the level of 1.0 in case of H´. The much higher values of H´ (above 3.0) were
observed from the study area during the wintering month’s indicative stable habitat structure and

3134
Website: www.efflatounia.com
Efflatounia
ISSN: 1110-8703
Pages: 3117 – 3143
Volume: 5 Issue 2

balanced ecosystem. It may be due to the aggregation of large variety of migratory water bird species
into the lake for food and forage [26]. Generally, Simpson index ranges from 0 to 1, where 0
represents minimum evenness and 1 for the maximum. Mature and stable communities have high
diversity value (0.6 to 0.9), while the communities under stress conditions, exhibiting low diversity,
usually show close to zero value [120-121]. Simpson diversity index is always higher where the
community is dominated by less number of species and when the dominance is shared by large
number of species [122]. In the present study, Simpson index closer to one experienced mature and
stable communities. The present study also indicates that whenever Simpson diversity index increases
towards higher value, the evenness index goes in antagonistic directions and vice versa [121]. The
equitability index explains better the equilibrium of the populations; it tends towards zero, when a
species largely dominates the population and is equal to one when all species have the same
abundance [23]. The study represents with a medium to higher value noted during the study period.
This means that there is more or less equilibrium between the numbers of species during these
periods. Margalef index has no limit value and it shows a variation depending upon the number of
species and takes only one component of diversity (species richness) into consideration reflecting
sensitivity to sample size. In the present investigation, the value of Margalef diversity index was
higher. Menhinick index, like Margalef's index, attempts to estimate species richness but at the same
time it is independent on the sample size (16,57). However, the overall Simpson’s diversity index
indicates greater variation in species diversity between the results obtained by using Shannon's and
Simpson’s diversity indices. This is because Simpson’s diversity index takes into consideration
relative abundance which is not the case for Shannon's diversity index. The variation in species
diversity and species evenness at various sites may be due to the influx of visitors, vehicles and local
people in and near the lake and the availability of food to the birds [123]. The anthropogenic activities
such as parking lots, housing developments and agricultural fields may have changed the diversity in
the area which is well reflected by the species composition before human intervention [123-124].
Diversity indices of the bird species in the lake is high, this could be due to a high foraging resources
available and the good morphometrics of the lake. Hoyer and Canfield [125], Paszkowski and Tonn
[126] have reported a positive relationship between lake area and its mophometrics as contributing to
aquatic bird species richness and assemblages [89].
Analysis of Relative diversity (RDi) of bird families showed that Anatidae and Ardeidae have
the highest RDi value whereas rests of the families have the lowest RDj value. The RDi values of
different bird families changes in the relative abundance of feeding guild of one bird may influence
the abundance of others and thus, affects the community composition of the ecosystem [127].
During the last few years, Lake Saheb Bandh attracts many bird watchers visit the wetland for
photography of the migratory birds and established as a place of ecotourism. The locals and tourists
use this wetland for their daily utilities like bathing, boating, washing clothes, and washing their
vehicles which are degrading the water quality of the reservoir. As it is declared as National Lake
regular monitoring and maintenance must be carried out by the authorities.
CONCLUSION:
From the above discussion it can be concluded that the Lake Saheb Bandh plays an important role for
providing versatile ecosystem services and supports a huge number of ornithofaunal diversity
especially during the wintering period. The ornithofaunal species diversity and abundance of this
wetland was probably due to the multiple vegetation structure and availability of food which provides
shelter, microhabitats, suitable foraging grounds, nesting as well as breeding ground and feeding
guilds to the different types of waterbirds, residential birds and migratory bird’s species. Neverthless,

3135
Website: www.efflatounia.com
Efflatounia
ISSN: 1110-8703
Pages: 3117 – 3143
Volume: 5 Issue 2

the lake ecosystems in our country are susceptible from different anthropogenic disturbances. This
lake remains very vulnerable to the disturbances effects caused by human activities. It is also
important to note that the increasing use of the surrounding areas by visitors, noise pollution and
grazing are major source of disturbance for wilderness of the ornithofauna. It is therefore essential to
ensure that any direct or indirect degradation is prevented and to ensure that the very attractive
wilderness character of this lake is maintained.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT:
Author is very much thankful to the Principal and HOD of the Department of Zoology, St. Joseph’s
College, North Point, Darjeeling, under University of North Bengal (W.B) for granting the permission
to carry out this study.
REFERENCES:
1. Harisha MN, Hosetti BB. 2018. Status and conservation issues of wetland birds in
Komaranahalli Lake, Davanagere District, Karnataka, India. Journal of Threatened Taxa.
10(2): 11290–11294.
2. Panigrahy S, Murthy TV, Patel JG, Singh TS. 2012. Wetlands of India: inventory and
assessment at 1: 50,000 scale using geospatial techniques. Current Science. 102(6): 852–856.
3. Kumar P, Rai D, Gupta SK. 2016. Wetland bird assemblage in rural ponds of Kurukshetra,
India. Waterbirds. 39(1): 86–98. DOI: 10.1675/063.039.0111
4. Umair M. 2018. Anthropogenic impacts on the coastal wetland and wildlife-A review. Journal
of Wildlife and Ecology. 2: 30-36.
5. Misbakh UN, Gardazi SMH. 2019. Drinking Water Quality Assessment of Union Council
Thub, Bagh, Azad Jammu and Kashmir. Journal of Wildlife and Ecology. 3: 28-34.
6. Ashraf S, Riaz A, Muhammad N. 2019. Assessments of avian diversity of Uchhali lake,
Pakistan. Journal of Wildlife and Ecology. 3: 8-15.
7. Nagya GG, Ladányib M, Aranyc I, Aszalósc R, Czúczca B. 2017. Birds and plants:
Comparing biodiversity indicators in eight lowland agricultural mosaic landscapes in
Hungary. Ecological Indicators. 7: 566–573.
8. Sohil A, Sharma N. 2019. A preliminary Survey of Bird Communities around Jammu,
(Jammu & Kashmir). Biological Forum – An International Journal. 11(2): 27-49.
9. Kattan GH, Franco P. 2004. Bird diversity along elevation gradients in the Andes of
Colombia: area and mass effects. Global Ecology and Biogeography. 13: 451-458.
10. Billerman SM. Keeney BK. Rodewald PG. Schulenberg T.S. 2020. (Eds.) Birds of the World.
Cornell Laboratory of Ornithology, Ithaca, NY, USA. https://birdsoftheworld.org /bow/home
11. Vishwakarma A, Anthony FM, Sourabh Tiwari S. Choubey S. 2020. Avifaunal Diversity of
Winter Season in Kopra Reservoir of Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, India. Proceedings of the
Zoological Society. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12595-020-00349-z
12. Praveen J, Jayapal R, Inskipp T, Warakagoda D, Thompson PM, Anderson RC, Carr P, et. al.
2019. Checklist of the birds of South Asia (v5.0), 2019. Website:
http://www.indianbirds.in/wp-ntent/uploads/2019/12/south_asia_checklist_v5_0.xlsx.
13. Parihar A, Parin DP, Khandla Y, Parmar D, Parihar V, Hiteshkumar PH. 2020. Checklist of
avifauna from some selected sites of Visnagar city, Mehshana, North Gujarat. Journal of
Entomology and Zoology Studies. 8(2): 1232-1243.
14. Khan TN, Sinha A, Hazra P. 2016. Population trends and community composition of
migratory waterbirds in three emerging wetlands of global significance in south-western

3136
Website: www.efflatounia.com
Efflatounia
ISSN: 1110-8703
Pages: 3117 – 3143
Volume: 5 Issue 2

Bengal, India. Journal of Threatened Taxa. 8(3): 8541–8555. DOI:

10.11609/jott.2652.8.3.8541-8555
15. Mazumdar S. 2019. Composition of avian communities in a human-modified wetland Okhla
Bird Sanctuary, India: with notes on conservation initiatives. – Proceedings of the Zoological
Society 72(4): 319–333. DOI: 10.1007/ s12595-017-0239-6
16. Chakraborty A, Barman H, Saha GK. Aditya G. 2021. Wintering waterbird assemblage in an
emerging wetland of West Bengal, India: characterization for conservation management.
Ornis Hungarica. 29(1): 1–19.
17. Mahato S, Mandal S, Das D.2021. An appraisal of avian species diversity in and around
Purulia Town, West Bengal, India. Journal of Threatened Taxa. 13( 3) : 17906–17917DOI:
10.11609/jott.4733.13.3.17906-17917
18. Whelan CJ, Wenny DG, Marquis RJ. 2008. Ecosystem services provided by birds. Annals of
the New York academy of sciences. 1134(1): 25-60.
19. Collar NJ. Andrew P. 1988. Birds to Watch. – The ICBP World Check-List of Threatened
Birds, International Council for Bird Preservation, Technical Publication No. 8., Cambridge
University Press, UK.
20. Adhurya S, Das S. Ray S. 2020. Guanotrophication by waterbirds in freshwater lakes: a
review on ecosystem perspective. – In: Roy PK, Cao X, Li X, Das P. Deo S. (eds.)
Mathematical Analysis and Applications in Modeling. – Springer Proceedings in Mathematics
& Statistics 302.
21. Gatto AE, Grubb TG, Chambers CL. 2005. Red-tailed Hawk dietary overlap with Northern
Goshawks on the Kaibab Plateau, Arizona. – Journal of Raptor Research. 39(4): 439–444.
22. Chernichko JI, Kostiushyn VA,Vinokurova SV. 2018. The Amount and Distribution of the
Red Data Book Bird Wetland Species in the Azov-Black Sea Region of Ukraine According to
the Results of August Counts 2004–2015. Vestnik Zoologii, 52(2): 145–154, 2018DOI
10.2478/vzoo-2018-0016
23. Loucif K, Bara M, Grira A, Maazi MC, Hamli A, Houhamdi M. 2020. Ecology of avian
settlements in lake Tonga (NORTHEAST ALGERIA). Zoodiversity. 54(4): 275–284.
24. Koli VK. 2014. Diversity and status of avifauna in Todgarh-Raoli Wildlife Sanctuary,
Rajasthan, India. Journal of Asia-Pacific Biodiversity. 7: 401-407.
25. Kurniawan N, Arifianto A. 2017. Ornitologi: Sejarah, Biologi dan Konservasi, UB Press,
Malang.
26. Debnath S, Biswas S. Panigrahi AK. 2018. Present status and diversity of avian fauna in
Purbasthali bird sanctuary, West Bengal, India. Agriculture Science Digest-A Research
Journal. 38(2): 95–102. DOI: 10.18805/ AG.D-4711
27. Samson AB, Ramakrishnan S, Karthick P, Santhosh Kumar M, Ilakkia A, Chitheena J,
Beulah B, Ravi P. 2018. Diversity and status of avifauna in Doddabetta hills and surrounding
areas of Udhagamandalam, Nilgiris Plateau, Western Ghats, Southern India. Bird-o-soar #13.
In: Zoo’s Print, 33(3): 23:36.
28. Parwate BP. 2020. Diversity of Birds in Local Ecosystem Lakhani, Dist. Bhandara
(Maharashtra), India. ESSENCE International Journal for Environmental Rehabilitation and
Conservation. XI (SP2): 205-212. https://eoi.citefactor.org /10.11208 /essence. 20.11.SP2.146
29. Nurrofik A, Muhammad FM, Agung Sih Kurnianto AS, Septiadi L, Kurniawan N. 2021.
Avifaunal Diversity and Community Structure in Universitas Brawijaya Forest, East Java,

3137
Website: www.efflatounia.com
Efflatounia
ISSN: 1110-8703
Pages: 3117 – 3143
Volume: 5 Issue 2

Indonesia. Journal of Tropical Biodiversity and Biotechnology. 06 (01): 1-12. Jtbb58335

DOI: 10.22146/jtbb.58335.
30. Panda BP, Das AK, Jena SK, Mahapatra B, Dash AK, Pradhan A, Parida SP. 2021. Habitat
heterogeneity and seasonal variations influencing avian community structure in wetlands.
Journal of Asia-Pacific Biodiversity. 14(1): 23-32.
31. Gregory RD, Noble D, Field R, Marchant J, Raven M, Gibbons DW. 2003. Using birds as
indicators of biodiversity. Ornis Hungarica. 12(13): 11–24.
32. Gregory R. 2006. Birds as biodiversity indicators for Europe. Significance. (3): 106-110.
33. Bhat IP. Hosetti BB. 2009. Avifaunal diversity of Anekere wetland, Karkala, Udupi district,
Karnataka, India. – Journal of Environmental Biology. 30(6):1059–1062.
34. Amat JA, Green AJ. 2010. Waterbirds as Bioindicators of Environmental Conditions.
Conservation Monitoring in Freshwater Habitats. Springer Netherlands. 45-52.
35. Chowdhury S. 2017. A Study on Avifaunal Species Diversity of Purbasthali Oxbow Lake,
West Bengal, India. International Journal of Science and Research (IJSR). 6(3):866-871.
36. Mukhopadhyay S, Mazumdar S. 2017. Composition, diversity and foraging guilds of avifauna
in a suburban area of southern West Bengal, India. The Ring. 39: 103–120. DOI:
10.1515/ring-2017-0004
37. Hadley SJK, Hadley AS, Betts M. 2012. Acoustic classification of multiple simultaneous bird
species: a multi-instance multi label approach. Journal of Acoustical Society of America.
131(6): 4640–4650. https://doi.org/10.1121 /1.4707424
38. Ramchandra AM. 2013. Diversity and richness of bird species in newly formed habitats of
Chandoli National Park in Western Ghats, Maharashtra State, India. Biodiversity Journal.
4(1): 235–242.
39. Blake JG. Hanowski JM. Niemi GJ. Collins PT. 1994. Annual variation in bird populations of
mixed conifer northern hardwood forests. Condor. 96: 381–399.
40. Savidge JA. 1984. Guam: paradise lost for wildlife. Biological Conservation. 30: 305–317.
https://doi.org/10.1016/0006-3207(84)90049-1
41. O’Connell TJ, Jackson LE, Brooks RP. 2000. Bird guilds as indicators of ecological condition
in the Central Appalachians.Ecological Applications 10: 1706–1721.
https://doi.org/10.1890/1051-0761(2000)010[1706:BGAIOE]2.0.CO;2
42. Prasad KK, Ramakrishna B, Srinivasulu C, Srinivasulu B. 2014. Avifaunal diversity of
Manjeera Wildlife Sanctuary, Andhra Pradesh,India. Journal of Threatened Taxa. 6(2): 5464–
5467. https://doi.org/10.11609/JoTT.o3505.5464-77.
43. Storch D, Konvicka M, Benes J, Martinková J, Gaston K. 2003. Distribution patterns in
butterflies and birds of the Czech Republic:Separating effects of habitat and geographical
position. Journal of Biogeography 30(8): 1195–1208. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-
2699.2003.00917.x
44. Bibby CJ. Burgess ND. Hill DA.1992. Bird Census Techniques.Academic Press, London,
257pp.
45. Rodríguez-Estrella R. 2007. Land use changes affect distributional patterns of desert birds in
the Baja California peninsula, Mexico. Diversity and Distribution. 13: 877–889.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1472-4642.2007.00387.x
46. Jankowski JE, Ciecka AL, Meyer NY, Rabenold KN. 2009. Beta diversity along
environmental gradient: implications of habitat specialization in tropical montane landscapes.
Journal of Animal Ecology. 78: 315–327. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2656.2008.01487.x

3138
Website: www.efflatounia.com
Efflatounia
ISSN: 1110-8703
Pages: 3117 – 3143
Volume: 5 Issue 2

47. Fraser LH, Keddy PA. 2005.The World’s Largest Wetlands: Ecology and Conservation. –
Cambridge University Press, UK.
48. Datta T. 2011. Human interference and avifaunal diversity of two wetlands of Jalpaiguri,
West Bengal, India. Journal of Threatened Taxa 3(12): 2253–2262. DOI: 10.11609
/JoTT.o2739.2253-62.
49. Davidson NC. 2016. Wetland losses and the status of wetland-dependent species. – In:
Finlayson, C., Milton, G., Prentice, R. & Davidson, N. (eds.) The Wetland Book. – Springer,
Dordrecht, pp. 1–14. DOI: 10.1007/978-94- 007-6173-5_197-1
50. Islam MZ, Rahmani AR. 2008. Potential and existing Ramsar sites in India. – Oxford
University Press, New Delhi.
51. Céréghino R. Boix D. Cauchie HM. Martens K. Oertli B. 2014.The ecological role of ponds
in a changing world. – Hydrobiologia. 723: 1–6. DOI: 10.1007/s10750-013-1719-y
52. Porte DS, Gupta S. 2018. Status and Diversity of Wetland Birds at Ancient Township
Ratanpur of Chhattisgarh, India. Ambient Science. 05(Sp2).
53. Hazra P. 2021. Population Trends of Waterbirds in Purulia Saheb Bandh in Response to
Habitat Degradation. Academia Letters, Article 1535. https://doi.org/ 10.20935 /AL1535.
54. Das, D. 2016. Above ground arthropod diversity in a tropical deciduous forest in Ayodhya
Hill, Purulia, India. Proceedings of the Zoological Society 69: 141–145.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12595-015-0140-0
55. Samanta S, Das D, Mandal S. 2017. Butterfly fauna of Baghmundi, Purulia, West Bengal,
India: a preliminary checklist. Journal of Threatened Taxa. 9(5): 10198–10207.
https://doi.org/10.11609/jott.2841.9.5.10198-10207
56. Das D. 2018. Butterfly (Lepidoptera: Rhopalocera) diversity in relation to habitat utilization
at Jagannath Kishore College, Purulia,West Bengal (India). Journal of Insect Biodiversity.
007(1): 001–016.https://doi.org/10.12976/jib/2018.07.1.1
57. Bera B. 2019. Faunal composition of benthic macro invertebrates and their importance in an
urban fresh water lake ecosystem. International Journal of Research and Analytical Reviews.
6(2): 139-147.
58. Ghosh N. (ed) 2007. Paschim Banga—Purulia district. Department ofInformation & Culture,
Government of West Bengal, Kolkata.
59. Sao SB. 2016. Aquatic Plant Diversity Measurement and Ecological Importance of Saheb
Bandh in Purulia District, West Bengal. IOSR Journal of Environmental Science, Toxicology
and Food Technology (IOSR-JESTFT), 10(11): 66-69.
60. Bibby C, Burgess N, Hill D, Mustoe S. 2000. Bird Census Techniques. Academic Press,
London.
61. Ali S. 2002. The Book of Indian Birds (13th Revised Edition). Oxford University Press, New
Delhi, 326pp.
62. Grimmett R, Inskipp C, Inskipp T. 2016. Birds of the Indian Subcontinent: India, Pakistan,
Sri Lanka, Nepal, Bhutan, Bangladesh and the Maldives. – Bloomsbury Publishing, pp. 448.
63. Grimmett R, Inskipp C, Inskipp T. 2011. Birds of the Indian Subcontinent: India, Pakistan,
Sri Lanka, Nepal, Bhutan, Bangladesh and the Maldives: Bloomsbury Publishing.
64. Bird Life International. 2018. State of the world’s birds: indicators for our changing world.
Cambridge, UK. www.birdlife.org.
65. IUCN. 2019. International Union for conservation of Nature and Natural Resources, Red List
of Threatened Species, Version 2018–2, www.iucnredlist.org.

3139
Website: www.efflatounia.com
Efflatounia
ISSN: 1110-8703
Pages: 3117 – 3143
Volume: 5 Issue 2

66. del Hoyo J, Elliott A. Sargatal J. 1996. Handbook of the Birds of the World, Vol. 3. Hoatzin
to Auks. – Lynx Edicions, Barcelona.
67. Ali S. Ripley SD. 1980. Handbook of the birds of India and Pakistan, together with those of
Bangladesh, Nepal, Bhutan, and Sri Lanka. – Oxford University Press, Delhi, India.
68. Hutto RL, Pletschet SM, Hendricks P. 1986. A fixed-radius point count method for
nonbreeding and breeding season use. The Auk. 103(3): 593–602. DOI: 10.1093/ auk/
103.3.593
69. Chakraborty A, Das S, Ash A, Saha GK, Aditya G.2020. Bird species assemblages in railway
stations: variations along an urban-rural gradient. Ornis Hungarica. 28(2): 85–110.
70. Torre-Cuadros MDLAL, Herrando-Perez S, Young KR. 2007. Diversity and Structure
patterns for tropical montane and premontane forests of central Peru, with an assessment of
the use of higher-taxon surrogacy. Biodiversity and Conservation. 16:2965-2988.
71. Arora K. 2003. Forest Laws. The Wildlife Protection Act, 1972 as amended by the Wild
(Protection) Amendment Act, 2002. Professional Book Publishers, New Delhi, 85pp.
72. Sharma D, Vishwakarma A, Yadav KC. 2014. The Water Birds of Gidhwa & Parsada
Wetlands, Nandghat, Bemetara,Chhattisgarh (India). International Journal of Scientific and
Research Publications. 4(10).
73. Chandrakar AK, S. Dhuria SS. 2019. A checklist of Bird diversity in Guru Ghasidas
University Campus, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh,India. Eco-Chronical. 14(1): 53–59.
74. Rahalkar S, Tiwari A. 2014. Role of small water bodies in sustaining avian diversity: A case
study of Dulahara pond Ratanpur (Distt. Bilaspur, CG). International Journal of Researches In
Biosciences, Agriculture & Technology II(2).
75. Singha RU, Goswami RA, Aich A, Mukhopadhyay SK. 2011. Changes in densities of
waterbird species in Santragachi Lake, India: potential effects on limnochemical variables.
Zoological Studies. 50(1): 76–84.
76. Khan TN. 2010. Temporal changes to the abundance and community structure of migratory
waterbirds in Santragachi Lake, West Bengal, and their relationship with water hyacinth
cover. Current Science. 99: 1570–1577.
77. Chatterjee A, Adhikari S, Pal S, Mukherje SK. 2020. Foraging guild structure and niche
characteristics of waterbirds wintering in selected sub-Himalayan wetlands of India. –
Ecological Indicators. 108: 105693. DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2019.105693
78. Khan MS, Pant A.2016. Conservation status, species composition, and distribution of avian
community in Bhimbandh Wildlife Sanctuary, India. Journal of Asia-Pacific Biodiversity, 30:
1-7.
79. Hazra P, Sinha A, Mondal P, Khan TN. 2012. Calendar-effects and temperature-impacts in
migratory waterbirds at three tropical Indian wetlands. Acta Oecologica. 43: 60–71. DOI:
10.1016/j.actao.2012.05.009
80. Mandal MH, Siddique G. 2018. Water birds at Purbasthali Oxbow Lake: A geographical
study. – RW-JASCR. 9: 7–19.
81. Xiao L, Wang W, He X et al. 2016. “Urban-rural and temporal differences of woody plants
and bird species in Harbin city, northeastern China,” Urban Forestry & Urban Greening. 20:
20–31.
82. Evans BS, Reitsma R, Hurlbert AH, Marra PP. 2018. “Environmental filtering of avian
communities along a ruralto-urban gradient in Greater Washington, DC., USA,” Ecosphere,
vol. 9, no. 11, Article ID e02402.

3140
Website: www.efflatounia.com
Efflatounia
ISSN: 1110-8703
Pages: 3117 – 3143
Volume: 5 Issue 2

83. Andrade R, Bateman HL, Franklin J. Allen D. 2018. “Waterbird community composition,
abundance, and diversity along an urban gradient,”. Landscape and Urban Planning. 170:
103–111.
84. Lee M.B, Peabotuwage I, Gu H, Zhou W, Goodale E. 2019. “Factors affecting avian species
richness and occupancy in a tropical city in southern China: importance of human disturbance
and open green space,” Basic and Applied Ecology. 39: p.48.
85. Mansouri I, Squalli W, Abdelbari E A, Hichou BB, Hassani AE, Ghadraoui LE, Dakki M.
2021. Avifauna Diversity in the Gate between Humid Atlas and Saharan Desert: Midelt
Province, Morocco. International Journal of Zoology. Article ID 5557921, 10 pages
https://doi.org/10.1155/2021/5557921
86. Roy MB, Chatterjee D, Mukherjee T, Roy PK. 2016. Environmental threat to wetland bio-
diversity on migratory bird: a case study of peri-urban area of West Bengal. Asian Journal of
Current Research. 1(1): 30-38.
87. Vyas V, Vishwakarma M, Dhar N. 2010. Avian diversity of Bhoj wetland: A Ramsar site of
central India. Our Nature. 8:34-39.
88. Akram F, Ilyas O. 2021. Seasonal variation in water bird community structures in Shekha
wetland an IBA site and their association with physico-chemical parameters. International
Journal of Fauna and Biological Studies. 8(4): 04-11.
89. Keke MM, Elizabeth AO. 2018. Aquatic bird assemblages of a tropical African man-made
lake. UkrainianJournal ofEcology. 8(4):41-45.
90. Dal P. Vaghela AK. 2015. Preliminary survey of avifaunal diversity around Shetrunji River,
Dhari,India. J. Biol. Earth Sci. 5(1): 19-24.
91. Basavarajappa S. 2006. Avifauna of agro-ecosystems of maidan area of Karnataka. Zoos’
Print Journal. 21(4): 2217-2219.
92. Menon M, Devi MP, Nandagopalan V, Mohanraj R. 2015. Species diversity and functional
assemblages of bird fauna along the riverine habitats of Tiruchirappalli, India. – In:
Ramkumar M, Kumaraswamy K, Mohanraj R. (eds.) Environmental Management of River
Basin Ecosystems. Springer, Cham, pp. 729–748.
93. Sinha A, Talukdar S, Das GC, Sarma PK, Singha H. 2015. Diversity of winter avifauna in
Dheer beel, Assam, India. Indian BIRDS. 10 (3&4): 99–103.
94. Hossain A, Aditya G. 2016. Avian diversity in agricultural landscape: records from Burdwan,
West Bengal, India. Proceedings of the Zoological Society. 69(1): 38–51. DOI:
10.1007/s12595-014-0118-3
95. Ali S. Ripley SD. 1987. Compact Handbook of the Birds of India and Pakistan together with
those of Bangladesh, Nepal, Bhutan and Sri Lanka. Oxford University Press, Delhi.
96. Kosiński Z. 1999. Effects of lake morphometry, emergent vegetation and shore habitat on
breeding bird communities. Acta Ornithologica. 34: 27–35.
97. Kumar P, Gupta SK. 2009. Diversity and abundance of wetland birds around Kurukshetra,
India. Our Nature. 7: 212–217.
98. Kaminski MR, Baldassarre GA. Pearse AT. 2006. Waterbird responses to hydrological
management of wetlands reserve program habitats in New York. – Wildlife Society Bulletin.
34(4): 921–926. DOI: 10.2193/0091-7648(2006)34[921:WRTHMO]2.0.CO;2
99. Hallmann CA, Sorg M, Jongejans E, Siepel H, Hofland N, Schwan H, Stenmans W, Muller
A, Sumser H, Hörren T, Goulson D, da Kroon H. 2017. More than 75 percent decline over 27

3141
Website: www.efflatounia.com
Efflatounia
ISSN: 1110-8703
Pages: 3117 – 3143
Volume: 5 Issue 2

years in total flying insect biomass in protected areas. PloS One. 12: e0185809.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0185809
100. Douglas M. 2019. Why insect populations are plummeting and why it matters.
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/animals/2019/02/why-insect-populations-are
plummeting -and-why-it-matters/. Electronic version accessed 21 July 2020.
101. Lamichhane S, Lamichhane BR, Pokharel K, Regmi PR, Dahal TP, Bhattarai S,
Pokheral CP, Gotame P, Trishna RT, Kandel RC, Gurung A. 2021. Birds of Barandabhar
Corridor Forest, Chitwan, Nepal. Journal of Threatened Taxa. 13(11): 19509–19526.
102. Schrauth FE, Wink M. 2018. Changes in species composition of birds and declining
number of breeding territories over 40 years in a nature conservation area in Southwest
Germany. Diversity. 10: 97.
103. Delgado OB, Ojeda-Ben S, Marquez-Benavides L. 2007. Comparative analysis of
hazardous household waste in two Mexican regions. Waste Management. 27:792-
801.
104. Barbaro L, Giffard B, Charbonnier Y, van Halder I, Brockerhoff EG.2014. Bird
functional diversity enhances insectivory at forest edges: a transcontinental experiment.
Diversity and Distributions, (Diversity Distrib.). 20: 149–159
105. Jain A. 2015. Studies on the Status of the birds Inhabitating Sirpur Lake Indore, MP,
with Reference to the Changing Environment. Research Journal of Recent Sciences. 4:18-21.
106. Kumar A, Kanaujia A. 2015. Waterbird diversity of Samaspur Bird Sanctuary, Rae
Bareli District, Uttar Pradesh. Discovery Nature. 9(23): 48-57.
107. Kanaujia A, Kumar A, Kumar A, Kushwaha S, Kumar A. 2014. Blooming Faunal
Diversity of Nawabganj Bird Sanctuary, Unaao,Uttar Pradesh, India. G- Journal of
Environmental Science and Technology. 2(2):14-24.
108. Kushwaha S, Kanaujia A, Kumar A, Kumar A, Maheshwari S. 2015. Avifaunal
Diversity of Tikamgarh District, Madhya Pradesh, India. Discovery Nature. 9(20): 20-32.
109. Rajashekara S, Venkatesha MG.2011. Community Composition of Aquatic Birds in
Lake of Bangalore, India. Journal of Environmental Biology. 32 (1): 77-83.
110. Joshi PS. 2012. An annotated checklist of aquatic avifauna of Rajura, Godada and
Dhanora lakes of Buldhana district of (M. S.) India. Science Research Reporter. 2(1): 30-33.
111. Ramesh T, Sridharan N, Kalle R. 2011. Birds of Kuno Wildlife Sanctuary, Central
India. Zoos. 4(12) :25-29.
112. Gaur P, Pichhode M, Dudwe J, Shrivastava CS, Gaherwal S. 2021. Residential, IUCN
and WPA Status of the Avian Fauna Observed in Indore city (M.P.), India. Nature
Environment and Pollution Technology. 20(1):113-121.
113. Agasi DM, Bisen MK, Markam MS, Kothe TS, Soni AS. 2021. Study on avifaunal
diversity of Wainganga river basin at Balaghat district of Madhya Pradesh. Journal of
Entomology and Zoology Studies. 9(5): 205-213
114. Deshkar S, Rathod J, Padate G. 2010. Avifaunal diversity and water quality analysis
of an inland wetland. Journal of Wetlands Ecology. 4:1-32.
115. Jha KK, Mckinley CR. 2015. Composition and dynamics of migratory and resident
avian population in wintering wetlands from northern India. Notulae Scientia Biologicae.
7(1):1-15.

3142
Website: www.efflatounia.com
Efflatounia
ISSN: 1110-8703
Pages: 3117 – 3143
Volume: 5 Issue 2

116. Rajashekara S, Venkatesha MG. 2017. Seasonal Incidence and Diversity Pattern of
Avian Communities in the Bangalore University Campus, India. Proceedings of the
Zoological Society.70(2):178–193).
117. Houhamdi M. 2002. Ecologie des peuplements aviens du Lac des Oiseaux
(Numidie orientale). PhD Thesis, University Badji Mokhtar Annaba, Algeria. 133p.
118. Olsson P, Folke C, Hahn T. 2004. Social-ecological transformation for ecosystem
management: the development of adaptive co-management of a wetland landscape in
southern Sweden. Ecol. Soc. 9(4): 2.http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol9/iss4/art2/
119. Türkmen G, Kazanci N. 2010. Applications of various biodiversity indices to benthic
macroinvertebrate assemblages in streams of a national park in Turkey. Rev. Hydrobiol.
3(2):111-125.
120. Dash MC. 2003. Fundamental of Ecology. 2nd Edition Tata McGraw Hill publishing
company limited, New Delhi.
121. Shah JA, Pandit AK. 2013. Application of diversity indices to crustacean community
of Wular Lake, Kashmir Himalaya. International Journal of Biodiversity and Conservation.
5(6): 311-316.
122. Whittaker RH.1965. Dominance and diversity in land plant communities. Science
(Washington, D.C.), 147:250–260.
123. Sethy J, Samal D, Sethi S, Baral B, Jena1 S, Payra A, Das GN, Boruah B, Sahu HK.
2015. Species Diversity and Abundance of Birds in and around North Orissa University,
Takatpur, Baripada, Mayurbhanj, Odisha. International Journal of Innovative Research in
Science, Engineering and Technology. 4(2): 300-308.
124. Sax DF, Steven D. 2003. “Gaines Species diversity: from global decreases to local
increases”. TRENDS in Ecology and Evolution, 18: 561– 566.
125. Hoyer MV, Canfield DE. 1994. Bird abundance and species richness on Florida
lakes: influence of trophic status, lake morphology, and aquatic macrophytes. In Aquatic birds
in the trophic web of lakes. Springer, Dordrecht, pp. 107-119.
126. Paszkowski CA, Tonn WM. 2000. Community concordance between the fish and
aquatic birds of lakes in northern Alberta, Canada: the relative importance of environmental
and biotic factors. Freshwater Biology. 43(3): 421-437.
127. Barik S, Mazumder S. Saha, GK. 2019. Composition and richness of avifauna in a
suburban landscape of mid West Bengal, India. – In: Sanyal, A. K. (eds.) Wings of Life,
Seminar & Public Lecture Series, pp. 178–207. The Asiatic Society, Kolkata, India.

3143
Website: www.efflatounia.com