International Research Journal of Environment Sciences__________________________________ ISSN 2319–1414Vol. 4(12), 82-92, December (2015) Int. Res. J. Environment Sci. International Science Congress Association     
82
 
The Diversity and Spatial Distribution of Birds in a Moderately Developed Urban Habitat of Gulabpura, Rajasthan, IndiaJoshi Ashvini Kumar1*and Bhatnagar Chhaya2 Department of Zoology, M.L.V. Government College, Bhilwara, Rajasthan, INDIA Aquatic Toxicology and Wildlife Laboratory, Department of Zoology, Mohan Lal Sukhadia University, Udaipur Rajasthan, INDIA Available online at: 
www.isca.in, www.isca.me
Received 26th October 2015, revised 4th November 2015, accepted 9th December 2015 AbstractUrbanization is a phenomenon directly related with development. The outcomes of unplanned development appear as deformed and unsustained ecosystems. We studied the bird community composition of various habitats around an urbanized domain from year 2011 to year 2013.The birds of four different habitats namely Open cultivation, Urban, Aquatic and Parks and grassland patches were recorded using line transect and call note methods. Total 129 birds of 48 families have been recorded out of them 44 were migratory and 85 were resident. Urban habitat had least number of birds and open cultivation area had highest number of birds. The maximum numbers of birds were omnivorous guild followed by insectivorous and carnivorous guild.15 bird species among 129 were urban dependent, 24 species were urban semi-dependent and 89 were urban independent. Sorenson’s biodiversity index was calculated to know the community overlapping but no considerable similarity was revealed besides between urban habitat and park and grassland patch habitat.Keywords: Development, guild, open cultivation, sorenson’s, urban dependent. Introduction Birds are the group of feathered vertebrates and contribute in various ecological functions occupying a wide range of positions in ecosystem. These are important indicators of inhabited area and the potential umbrella group of species for biodiversity conservation. The reaction of birds to the change in their habitat is very rapid due to their high mobility, so being an essential ecological tool, the study of avifaunal diversity acts as a significant indicator to evaluate various habitats qualitatively as well as quantitatively. Urbanization is a universal phenomenon and its negative effects on biodiversity in terms of habitat fragmentation, habitat loss, destruction of both native and migratory species are slowly being understood6,7,8. Increasing population and development exerts pressure on the resources of urban areas.
 
Not only the abundance but the type of resources upon which birds survive, such as food, water, perches, roosts and nesting sites, should also change greatly with development9,10. The alarming scenario of urbanization can be viewed from the fact that about 3% of the Earth’s surface is occupied by buildings and other urban structures11. The distribution and diversity of birds in urban area have been studied across the globe including India12-19 and all concluded that human disturbance and urbanization affect bird diversity. Gulabpura ( 25.902879°N, 74.660726°E.) is a town of Bhilwara district of mid- southern Rajasthan. The climate is dry and typical as of Rajasthan state of India. The average minimum and maximum temperature is 11C and 41C respectively with average annual rainfall of 615 mm. The monsoon is the only period of rain and it is from June to September. High temperature in summer and low rainfall makes climate overall dry. The vegetation of the area is chiefly of thorny type characterized by Prosopis cineraria, Ziziphus mauritiana, Acacia nilotica, excessively grown Prosopis juliflora but also have a considerable population of trees like Azadirachta indica and Delbergia sissoo. Industrialization in textile, plastic manufacturing and mining field has generated employment opportunities in the town for last few years. It is exerting pressure on the resources of the urban area. The population is although not very high but the density has grown up to 2,267.9
 
people per square km. The boundaries of human settlements are increasing continuously and new residential colonies are being established on agriculture land. On one hand, it is opening new avenues of livelihood for the society but on the other hand habitat destruction and fragmentation due to the unplanned development and actively growing Prosopis juliflora, may produce new problems for the natural environment and the animals specially birds in the near future. Due to urbanization and industrialization, disappearance of traditional values and natural resources, people’s attitude and socio-cultural practices are also rapidly changing which mostly degrade many sacred groves20 and surrounding habitats. So the current study was taken to know the present status of diversity and distributive pattern of the birds along various habitats of the town and to infer the effect of urbanization on the bird. No work has been done on the birds of this area including the district so far so the data would also be the baseline for future studies. 
International Research Journal of 
Environment Sciences 
Vol. 4(12), 82-92, December (2015)
 
 International Science Congress 
Association
Google earth image showing habitats of the study area
Material and Methods 
The study was accomplished in and around Gulabpura town of 
Rajasthan state from January 2011 to December 2012. Twelve 
sites belonging 
to four different habitats were selected for 
surveying the birds. The study area distinctively has four types 
of habitats: Three seasonal wetlands (A), Urbanized area (U), 
Open cultivation area including pasture land (O) and Public 
parks and seasonal patc
hes of grassland (P).Three sites in each 
of the habitat were selected for data collection, thus total 12 
points were selected. Data were collected in early morning 
hours from 7.00 to 9.00 in winters and 6.00 to 8.00 in summers 
in every three months time, s
o total twelve visits of each site 
were made. Line transect method21 
was followed to study the birds. 
Transects of different lengths according to the habitat type were 
laid
. 
The length was 500 m in urban area and Parks, 800 m in 
wetland area and 1000 m in 
Open cultivation area.
of open agriculture land were not straight because the route in 
this habitat was undulating. Walking on the transect with 
uniform pace the birds seen at 50 meters on both side of the 
transect were recorded or photograp
hed using Celestron 
binoculars (8x42) and Canon 550D SLR camera with 75
Environment Sciences 
__________________________________
___________
Association
 
Image-1 
Google earth image showing habitats of the study area
  
The study was accomplished in and around Gulabpura town of 
Rajasthan state from January 2011 to December 2012. Twelve 
to four different habitats were selected for 
surveying the birds. The study area distinctively has four types 
of habitats: Three seasonal wetlands (A), Urbanized area (U), 
Open cultivation area including pasture land (O) and Public 
hes of grassland (P).Three sites in each 
of the habitat were selected for data collection, thus total 12 
points were selected. Data were collected in early morning 
hours from 7.00 to 9.00 in winters and 6.00 to 8.00 in summers 
o total twelve visits of each site 
was followed to study the birds. 
Transects of different lengths according to the habitat type were 
The length was 500 m in urban area and Parks, 800 m in 
Open cultivation area.
 The transects 
of open agriculture land were not straight because the route in 
this habitat was undulating. Walking on the transect with 
uniform pace the birds seen at 50 meters on both side of the 
hed using Celestron 
binoculars (8x42) and Canon 550D SLR camera with 75
-300 
mm zoom lens. Call notes of birds were also used for locating 
and identifying birds. The birds were identified
field books22. 
The birds were also categorized by tr
based on Ali and Ripley23
and field observations. The residential 
status of the birds was categorized as “winter migratory”, 
“summer migratory”, “resident” and “passage migratory”. The 
birds those were seen regularly in the study area were 
cat
egorized as “resident”; birds encountered only in winter and 
summer seasons were kept under “winter migratory” and 
“summer migratory” and birds encountered only once or twice 
during the study period were considered as “passage migratory”.
The birds were a
lso classified on their dependence on urban 
area. Birds those were always sighted in urban area were 
classified as urban dependent, the birds those come to the urban 
area for foraging, roosting purposes and nest here occasionally 
were classified as urban semi-
dependent and the birds usually 
avoid urban areas for fulfilling their life requirements were put 
into category of urban independent birds.
 
Sorenson’s coefficient (C) was calculated to understand the 
community overlapping or similarity of avian specie
composition of different habitats
 
Where ‘a’ is the number of species shared by the habitats, ‘b’ is 
___________
ISSN 2319–1414
Int. Res. J. Environment Sci.
            
83
  
mm zoom lens. Call notes of birds were also used for locating 
and identifying birds. The birds were identified
and listed using 
The birds were also categorized by tr
ophic guilds 
and field observations. The residential 
status of the birds was categorized as “winter migratory”, 
“summer migratory”, “resident” and “passage migratory”. The 
birds those were seen regularly in the study area were 
egorized as “resident”; birds encountered only in winter and 
summer seasons were kept under “winter migratory” and 
“summer migratory” and birds encountered only once or twice 
during the study period were considered as “passage migratory”.
 
lso classified on their dependence on urban 
area. Birds those were always sighted in urban area were 
classified as urban dependent, the birds those come to the urban 
area for foraging, roosting purposes and nest here occasionally 
dependent and the birds usually 
avoid urban areas for fulfilling their life requirements were put 
into category of urban independent birds.
 
Sorenson’s coefficient (C) was calculated to understand the 
community overlapping or similarity of avian specie
s 
 
using formula 2a/ (2a+b+c) 
Where ‘a’ is the number of species shared by the habitats, ‘b’ is 
International Research Journal of Environment Sciences ______________________________________________ISSN 2319–1414Vol. 4(12), 82-92, December (2015) Int. Res. J. Environment Sci. International Science Congress Association             
84
the number of species in habitat one and ‘c’ is the number of species in habitat two24. The value of coefficient (C) is between 0 to 1, where 0 shows total dissimilarity and 1 shows total similarity. The different values between 0 and 1 indicate the degree of similarity. Results and Discussion Total 129 birds of 48 families have been recorded during the study, 44 out of them were migratory and 85 birds were resident, table-1. The maximum number of birds belong to family Anatidae (n=10) and Scolopacidae (n=10) followed by Muscicapidae (n=9), Ardeidae (n=6) and Motacilidae (n=6). Three among the total bird species, Painted Stork (Micteria leucocephalia), Black headed Ibis (Threskiornis melanocephalus) and River Tern (Sterna aurantia) were Near Threatened and one species Wooly-necked Stork (Ciconia episcopus) was under vulnerable category in IUCN redlist 2015. Maximum avian richness was found in open cultivation area (n= 81) and Muscicapidae (n=9) was the largest bird community. The urban area had least avian richness (n=30) consists mainly of family Sturnidae (n=5) Columbidae (n=3) and Cisticolidae (n=3). Third maximum bird species were recorded at Public parks and the seasonal grassland patches (n=58).The bird community of this habitat comprised mainly of Sturnidae (n=5), Muscicapidae (n=5), Motacilidae (n=5), Cuculidae (n=4) and Columbidae (n=3). Aquatic habitat had avian richness of (n=51) birds. The Maximum part of bird species belongs to family Anatidae (n=10) and Scolopacidae (n=10). As far as guild concern table-2 and figure-1shows the distribution of birds according to their feeding guild in different habitats of study area. The most abundant feeding guild was omnivorous (n=48.37.21%). In Open cultivation area the chief feeding guild was Omnivorous (n= 32, 39.51%) and Insectivorous (n=28, 34.57%). The same i.e. Omnivorous (n=11, 36.67%) and Insectivorous (n=8, 26.67%) were the principal feeding guild of the Urban habitat. In Public parks and patchy grassland habitat the maximum birds were associated with Insectivorous feeding guild (n=23, 39.66%), followed by Omnivorous (n=22, 37.93%) and the major feeding guild of the aquatic bird community was Omnivorous (n=19, 37.25%), Carnivorous (n=18, 35%) and Insectivorous (n=14, 27.45%). In context of urban dependence 15 bird species were categorized as urban dependent. 24 species were urban semi- dependent out of which maximum no of birds were from Timallidae (n=3), Cisticolidae (n=3) followed by Accipitridae (n=2), Ardeidae (n=2) and Muscicapidae (n=2). 89 bird species of total birds were urban independent as they fulfill their requirements from the habitat other than urban.  Among all habitats the number of birds in the urban area was least and maximum number of the birds was in the open cultivation area. The urbanized area has maximum bird species abundance but minimum richness. Blair25 and Salahudeen et.al.17 suggested that the human disturbance negatively affect the richness and diversity of birds. We had the same observations that the both number and richness of birds was least in urban area because of the disturbance made by various human activities. Some birds were found to look for their food and nesting sites in urban localities but majority of birds avoid this disturbance. Not all birds avoided the urban habitat but the birds, familiar with human activities and get adequate food and shelter here tended to stay. The birds didn’t like human disturbance or got insufficient food in urban areas, were found to spend their time in other habitats having no or insignificant human interruptions, such as open cultivation fields or the transition area between the two. In our study, the maximum birds were present in the less disturbed open cultivation area. The Urbanized areas lack suitable vegetation patches, shrubs and canopy cover that limit the
 
density and variety of food, placement of nests, predator avoidance and escape15 so usually avoided by the birds but the open cultivation area due to least human disturbance, food availability, variety of nesting sites and ecologically better conditions supports a big number of bird species. The supporting factors motivated the birds of this area to avoid urban penetration and make them urban-independent. Thus it became evident that the habitat quality has strong influence on bird population26. In the same way the birds of wetlands rarely move to urban and fulfill their daily requirements from their aquatic habitat  so the greater mass of these birds were classified as urban- independent. A few birds of them were categorized as urban semi-dependent such as Black headed Ibis, Threskiornis melanocephalus and Pond Heron, Ardeola grayii which were foraging in sewage flow of urban areas. Shikra, Accipiter badius, Black- shouldered Kite, Elanus caeruleus and Owls were also kept in this category of urban semi-dependent birds due to their presence in the urban locations having nests of sparrows, mynas and other small birds looking for prey. Figure-1 Birds associated with different feeding guilds in different habitats 
101520253035
Omnivorous
Insectivorous
Carnivorous
Grainivorous
Frugivorous
Nectivorous
International Research Journal of Environment Sciences ______________________________________________ISSN 2319–1414Vol. 4(12), 82-92, December (2015) Int. Res. J. Environment Sci. International Science Congress Association             
85
Table-1 The birds in various habitats of the urban area of Gulabpura (Rajasthan)Families Common name Zoological Name Habitat Residential status Feeding guild Urban dependance 
Phasianidae Grey Francolin Francolinus pondicerianus O R Omnivorous No 
Rock Bush Quail Perdicula  argoondah O R Omnivorous No 
Jungle Bush Quail Perdicula asiatica O R Omnivorous No 
Red Jungle fowl Gallus gallus U R Omnivorous Yes 
 Indian Peafowl Pavo cristatus U,O,P R Omnivorous SD 
Painted francolin Francolinus pictus O R Omnivorous No 
Anatidae Lesser Whistling Duck Dendrocygna javanica A R Omnivorous No 
Knob-billed Duck Sarkidiornis melanotos A,O R Omnivorous No 
Ruddy Shelduck Tadorna ferruginea A M Omnivorous No 
Eurasian Wigeon Anas penelope A M Omnivorous No 
Spot-billed Duck Anas poecilorhyncha A R Omnivorous No 
Northern Shoveler Anas clypeata A M Omnivorous No 
Northern Pintail Anas acuta A M Omnivorous No 
 Garganey Anas querquedula A M Omnivorous No 
 Common Teal Anas crecca A M Omnivorous No 
 Gadwall Anas strepera A M Omnivorous No 
Podicipedidae Little Grebe Tachybaptus ruficollis A R Carnivorous No 
Ciconiidae Painted Stork Mycteria leucocephala A R Carnivorous No 
Woolly-necked Stork Ciconia episcopus A R Carnivorous No 
Threskiornithidae Black-headed Ibis Threskiornis melanocephalus A,O R Carnivorous SD 
Indian Black Ibis Pseudibis papillosa O R Carnivorous No 
 Glossy Ibis Plegadis falcinellus O R Carnivorous No 
Ardeidae Black-crowned Night Heron Nycticorax nycticorax A R Carnivorous No 
Indian Pond Heron Ardeola grayii A,U R Carnivorous SD 
 Cattle Egret Bubulcus ibis A,O R Carnivorous SD 
 Grey Heron Ardea cinerea A R Carnivorous No 
International Research Journal of Environment Sciences ______________________________________________ISSN 2319–1414Vol. 4(12), 82-92, December (2015) Int. Res. J. Environment Sci. International Science Congress Association             
86
Families Common name Zoological Name Habitat Residential status Feeding guild Urban dependance 
Intermediate Egret Mesophoyx intermedia A R Carnivorous No 
 Little Egret Egretta garzetta A R Carnivorous No 
Pelecanidae Great White Pelican Pelecanus onocrotalus A M Carnivorous No 
Phalacrocoracidae Little Cormorant Phalacrocorax niger A R Carnivorous No 
Accipitridae Shikra Accipiter badius U,O,P R Carnivorous SD 
Black-winged Kite Elanus caeruleus O,P R Omnivorous SD 
Rallidae White-breasted Waterhen Amaurornis phoenicurus A,O R Omnivorous No 
Common Moorhen Gallinula chloropus A R Omnivorous No 
 Eurasian Coot Fulica atra A M Omnivorous No 
Burhinidae Great Thick-knee Esacus recurvirostris A R, Carnivorous No 
Recurvirostridae Black-winged Stilt Himantopus himantopus A R Omnivorous No 
 Pied Avocet Recurvirostra avosetta A PM Insectivorous No 
Charadriidae Yellow-wattled Lapwing Vanellus malabaricus A,O R Insectivorous No 
Red-wattled Lapwing Vanellus indicus A,O,P R Omnivorous SD 
Little  Ringed Plover Charadrius dubius A M Carnivorous No 
 Kentish Plover Charadrius alexandrinus A M Carnivorous No 
Rostratulidae Greater Painted-Snipe Rostratula benghalensis A,P M Omnivorous No 
Scolopacidae Common Snipe Gallinago gallinago A M Insectivorous No 
Black-tailed Godwit Limosa limosa A M Omnivorous No 
Common Redshank Tringa totanus A M Insectivorous No 
Green Sandpiper Tringa ochropus A M Insectivorous No 
Wood Sandpiper Tringa glareola A M Insectivorous No 
Marsh Sandpiper Tringa stagnatilis A M Insectivorous No 
Common Sandpiper Actitis hypoleucos A M Insectivorous No 
 Little Stint Calidris minuta A M Insectivorous No 
 Ruff Philomachus pugnax A,O M Omnivorous No 
Common Greenshank Tringa nebularia A M Insectivorous No 
International Research Journal of Environment Sciences ______________________________________________ISSN 2319–1414Vol. 4(12), 82-92, December (2015) Int. Res. J. Environment Sci. International Science Congress Association             
87
Families Common name Zoological Name Habitat Residential status Feeding guild Urban dependance 
Laridae River Tern Sterna aurantia A R Carnivorous No 
Columbidae Common Pigeon Columba livia U,O,P R Grainivorous Yes 
Eurasian Collared Dove Streptopelia decaocto U,O,P R Grainivorous Yes 
Red Collared Dove Streptopelia tranquebarica O R Grainivorous SD 
 Laughing Dove Streptopelia senegalensis U,O,P R Grainivorous Yes 
Psittacidae Rose-ringed Parakeet Psittacula krameri U,O,P R Frugivorous Yes 
Cuculidae Jacobin Cuckoo Clamator jacobinus O,P SM Insectivorous No 
Common Hawk Cuckoo Hierococcyx varius O,P SM Omnivorous No 
 Common Koel Eudynamys scolopaceus U,O,P R Omnivorous SD 
Southern Coucal Centropus sinensis U,O,P R Omnivorous SD 
Tytonidae Barn Owl Tyto alba U,O,P R Carnivorous SD 
Strigidae Spotted Owlet Athene brama U,O,P R Carnivorous SD 
Caprimulgidae Indian Nightjar Caprimulgus asiaticus O,P R Insectivorous No 
Apodidae Little Swift Apus affinis U,O,P R Insectivorous Yes 
Coraciidae Indian Roller Coracias benghalensis O R Carnivorous No 
 Eurasian Roller Coracias garrulus O PM Carnivorous No 
Alcedinidae White-throated Kingfisher Halcyon smyrnensis A R Carnivorous No 
 Pied Kingfisher Ceryle rudis A R Carnivorous No 
Meropidae Green Bee-eater Merops orientalis O,P R Insectivorous SD 
Upupidae Common Hoopoe Upupa epops O R Insectivorous No 
Bucerotidae Indian Grey Hornbill Ocyceros birostris O,P R Omnivorous No 
Ramphastidae Coppersmith Barbet Megalaima haemacephala U,O,P R Omnivorous No 
Picidae Lesser Golden-backed Woodpecker Dinopium benghalense O,P R Insectivorous No 
Campephagidae Large Cuckoo-shrike Coracina macei O R Insectivorous No 
Common Woodshrike Tephrodornis pondicerianus O R Insectivorous No 
Laniidae Isabeline Shrike Lanius isabellinus O M Carnivorous No 
International Research Journal of Environment Sciences ______________________________________________ISSN 2319–1414Vol. 4(12), 82-92, December (2015) Int. Res. J. Environment Sci. International Science Congress Association             
88
Families Common name Zoological Name Habitat Residential status Feeding guild Urban dependance 
Bay-backed Shrike Lanius vittatus O,P R Carnivorous No 
Long-tailed Shrike Lanius schach O,P R Carnivorous No 
Southern Grey Shrike Lanius meridionalis O,P R Carnivorous No 
Dicruridae Black Drongo Dicrurus macrocercus U,O,P R Insectivorous SD 
Corvidae Rufous Treepie Dendrocitta vagabunda O,P R Omnivorous No 
 House Crow Corvus splendens U,O,P R Carnivorous Yes 
Hirundinidae Wire-tailed Swallow Hirundo smithii O,P R Insectivorous No 
Dusky Crag Martin Ptyonoprogne concolor U,O R Insectivorous Yes 
Red-rumped Swallow Cecropis daurica O R Insectivorous No 
Streak-throated Swallow Petrochelidon fluvicola O R Insectivorous NO 
Alaudidae Singing Bushlark Mirafra cantillans O R Omnivorous No 
Oriental Skylark Alauda gulgula O R Omnivorous No 
Indian Bush-Lark Mirafra erythroptera O R Omnivorous No 
Ashy-crowned Sparrow-Lark Eremopterix grisea O R Omnivorous No 
Cisticolidae Ashy Prinia Prinia socialis U,O,P R Insectivorous SD 
 Plain Prinia Prinia inornata U,O,P R Insectivorous SD 
Common Tailorbird Orthotomus sutorius U,P R Insectivorous SD 
Sylviidae Common Lesser Whitethroat Sylvia curruca U,O,P M Insectivorous No 
Clamorous Warbler Acrocephalus stentoreus P M Insectivorous No 
Common Chiffchaff Phylloscopus collybita O M Insectivorous No 
Sulphur-bellied Warbler Phylloscopus griseolus P R Insectivorous No 
Pycnonotidae Red-vented Bulbul Pycnonotus cafer U,O,P R Frugivorous Yes 
maliidae Yellow-eyed Babbler Chrysomma sinense O,P R Omnivorous No 
Common Babbler Turdoides caudate O,P R Omnivorous SD 
Large Grey Babbler Turdoides malcolmi O,P R Omnivorous SD 
International Research Journal of Environment Sciences ______________________________________________ISSN 2319–1414Vol. 4(12), 82-92, December (2015) Int. Res. J. Environment Sci. International Science Congress Association             
89
Families Common name Zoological Name Habitat Residential status Feeding guild Urban dependance 
 Jungle Babbler Turdoides striata O,P R Omnivorous SD 
Sturnidae Bank Myna Acridotheres ginginianus U,O,P R Omnivorous Yes 
 Common Myna Acridotheres tristis U,O,P R Omnivorous Yes 
Asian Pied Starling Gracupica contra U,O,P R Omnivorous Yes 
Brahminy Starling Sturnus pagodarum U,O,P R Omnivorous Yes 
 Rosy Starling Pastor roseus U,O,P M Omnivorous SD 
Muscicapidae Bluethroat Luscinia svecica O,P M Insectivorous No 
Oriental Magpie-Robin Copsychus saularis O,P R Insectivorous SD 
 Indian Robin Saxicoloides fulicatus O,P R Insectivorous SD 
 Black Redstart Phoenicurus ochruros O,P M Insectivorous No 
Common Stonechat Saxicola torquatus O M Insectivorous No 
 Pied Bushchat Saxicola caprata O M Insectivorous No 
Desert Wheatear Oenanthe deserti O M Insectivorous No 
Brown Rock Chat Cercomela fusca U,O,P R Insectivorous Yes 
Red-breasted Flycatcher Ficedula parva O,P WM Insectivorous No 
Nectariniidae Purple Sunbird Cinnyris asiatica U,O,P R Nectivorous SD 
Passeridae House Sparrow Passer domesticus U,O,P R Omnivorous Yes 
Ploceidae Baya Weaver Ploceus philippinus O R Omnivorous No 
Estrildidae Indian Silverbill Lonchura malabarica O,P R Omnivorous No 
Motacillidae Yellow Wagtail Motacilla flava A,P M Insectivorous No 
 Citrine Wagtail Motacilla citreola A,P M Insectivorous No 
 Grey Wagtail Motacilla cinerea A,P M Insectivorous No 
 White wagtail Motacilla alba A,P M Insectivorous No 
White-browed Wagtail Motacilla maderaspatensis A,P M Omnivorous No 
Paddyfield Pipit Anthus rufulus O R Insectivorous No 
A= Aquatic; O= Open cultivation; U=Urban; P= Public parks and seasonal grassland patches; M=Migratory; R= Resident; PM=Passage Migratory; WM=Winter Migratory; SD= Semi-dependent Table -2 Feeding guilds of the birds according to the habitat type
International Research Journal of Environment Sciences ______________________________________________ISSN 2319–1414Vol. 4(12), 82-92, December (2015) Int. Res. J. Environment Sci. International Science Congress Association             
90
Feeding guild No of bird species %  in total no. of bird species Aquatic (% in the birds of the habitat) Urban     (% in the birds of the habitat) Open (% in the birds of the habitat) Parks (% in the birds of the habitat) 
Omnivorous 48 37.21% 37.25% 36.67% 39.51% 37.93% 
Insectivorous 44 34.11% 27.45% 26.67% 34.57% 39.66%
Carnivorous 30 23.26% 35.29% 16.66% 17.28% 12.07% 
Grainivorous 4 3.10% 00% 10% 4.93% 5.17% 
Frugivorous 2 1.55% 00% 6.66% 2.46% 3.44% 
Nectivorous 1 0.77% 00% 3.33% 1.23% 1.72% 
The chief urban-dependent birds in our study belong to family Sturnidae, Columbidae, Passeridae, and Corvidae. These birds were closely associated with human population and stay in the urban area in remarkable diversity. The possible reasons of their high diversity in urban area were their dependence primarily on the left-over of food disposed in open areas around the residences, restaurants and grain-shops. The roadside vegetation also helped them in terms of getting food besides other daily activities including roosting and foraging. People also feed the birds in temples or around their homes due to spiritual values in culture. All these factors motivated the birds to remain around human dwellings. Indian Rock Pigeon, Columba livia dominated all other species in urban habitat followed by Common Myna, Acridotheres tristis and House Sparrow, Passer domesticus. The birds of family Cisticolidae were recorded from the trees and shrubs of the lawns of the houses. The maximum numbers of urban independent birds were from open cultivation and aquatic habitat (figure-2) as these had the potential to support birds in a complete way. The omnivorous guild superseded other guild in all habitats besides public parks. Insectivorous birds stood first in public parks due to the supportive conditions like high humidity, presence of grasses, flowering plants and decorative lights at night which ensures availability of insect food for insect-eating birds. The noticeable bird diversity in this habitat confirmed that the vegetation cover, water and food are deciding factors for birds. Kim et.al.14 also concluded similar results that if water resources and the multiple vegetation structure, are maintained then, the small patches (parks and seasonal grassland here) can be valuable to support bird diversity rather than the large habitat. We calculated Sorenson’s index to know the similarity in bird communities among different habitats of the study area. The insignificant values of the index were concluded as dissimilarity of species composition among the habitats. The value of the index for open cultivation and park habitat was higher (S=0.413) than others, indicated some resemblance in bird composition and ecological conditions of the two habitats. Urban and Park habitat (S=0.388) and the Urban and Open cultivation area (S=0.327) are next two habitats showing a little overlapping in bird community. The urban and aquatic habitats (S=0.02) clearly showed strict dissimilarity in their bird types and ecological factors.  Figure-2 The urban dependence of the birds of different habitats The study revealed that the urbanization posing serious threats to the biodiversity of this area. Habitat fragmentation due to the unplanned residential colonies, reducing agricultural land and habitat degradation due to water and land pollution were the principal problems of the area. Besides, the upcoming hazard to the biodiversity was identified as the exorbitantly growth of Vilayati Babool, Prosopis juliflora. It’s growth was maximum in the pasture land otherwise it was growing more or less everywhere. Sajeev et al.27 concluded that dense impenetrable thickets of Prosopis juliflora pose serious threat to native flora and fauna as it can dry out the soil and compete with other plants for water so this species should be checked in the context of global environment change wherein the resilience of native species would be compromised. The effect of urbanization was also seen on the behavior and type of nesting materials used by the birds. The birds of the urban area prefer threads, papers, light plastic items, safety pins, polythene and clothe as nesting 
1020304050
Number of BirdsHabitat
Dependent
Semi-Dependent
Independent
International Research Journal of Environment Sciences ______________________________________________ISSN 2319–1414Vol. 4(12), 82-92, December (2015) Int. Res. J. Environment Sci. International Science Congress Association             
91
material in addition to grasses. These birds were likely to adjusting and making themselves more and more familiar to the humans so as to get easy food. For this purpose the birds were compromising with their natural behavior of feeding, nesting and other activities as we found a large number of Black Drongos, Dicrurus macrocercus and Rosy Starlings, Sturnus roseus feeding on the waste-remains of snacks at a shop in urban area.  Table-3 Sorenson’s index for different habitats of the study areaHabitat A U O P 
A 1.0 0.02 .095 0.11 
U - 1.0 0.327 0.338 
O - - 1.0 0.413 
P - - - 1.0 
Conclusion Urbanization is an impact and aspect of development. It affects not only the diversity but the behavior of the birds also. Increasing population is leading to destroy the natural habitats of animals that can move the birds permanently from that habitat. Planned human settlements, plantation in pasture land and around industries, developing small green area as gardens and public parks, eradication of Prosopis juliflora, water harvesting and arousing awareness in people towards environment may some steps that can secure the future of the biodiversity of this area. References1.Sekercioglu C.H., Increasing awareness of avian ecological functions .TRENDS Ecol. Evol., 21(8), 464-471 (2006) 2.Blair R.B., Birds and butterflies along an urban gradient: surrogate taxa for assessing biodiversity?, Ecol. Appl., 9(1), 164-170 (1999)3.Branton, M. and Richardson J.S., Assessing the value of the umbrella species concept for conservation planning with Meta analysis, Conserv. Biol., (25), 9-20 (2011)4.Morrisson M.L., Bird populations as indicators of environmental changes,Curr. Ornithol., (3), 429–451 (1986)5.Bilgrami K.S., Concept and conservation of biodiversity, CBS Publishers and Distributors, Delhi (1995)6.Sullivan B.K. and Flowers M., Large Iguanid Lizards of urban mountain preserves in northern Phoenix, Arizona, Herpetol. Nat. Hist., (6), 13-22 (1998)7.Mckinney M.L., Urbanization, biodiversity and conservation, Biosci., 52(10), 883-890 (2002)8.Faeth S.H., Warren P.S., Shochat E. and Marussich W.A., Trophic dynamics in urban communities, Biosci., (55), 299-407 (2005) 9.Emlen J.T., An urban bird community in Tucson, Arizona: derivation, structure, regulation, Condor, (76),184-197 (1974)10.Mills G.S., Dunning J.B. Jr. and Bates J.M., Effects of urbanization on breeding bird community Structure in southwestern desert habitats, Condor, (91), 416-428 (1989)11.Meyer W.B. and Turner B.L. II, Human population growth and global landuse/cover change, Ann. Review Ecol. Syst., (23), 39–61 (1992)12.Melles S., Glenn S. and Martin K., Urban bird diversity and landscape complexity: Species–environment associations along a multi scale habitat gradient, Conserv. Ecol., 7(1), 5 (2003)13.Manhăes M.A. and Ribeiro A.L., Spatial Distribution and Diversity of Bird Community in an Urban Area of Southeast Brazil, Braz. Arch. Biol. Technol., 48(2), 285-294 (2005)14.Kim J., Chae J. and Koo T.H., Variation in bird diversity in relation to habitat size in the urban landscape of Seoul, South Korea. Acta Ornithol., 42(1), 39-44 (2007)15.Bhatt D. and Joshi K.K., Bird assemblages in natural and urbanized habitats along elevational gradient in Nainital district (Western Himalaya) of Uttarakhand state, India, Curr. Zool., 57(3), 318-329 (2011)16.Hong S.H, Choi J.W. and Kim M., Distribution Patterns Of Avian Species In And Around Urban Environments: A Case Study Of Seoul City, Korea, Alam Cipta 6(1), 83-92 (2013) 17.Salahudeen M., Saranya E, Gunasekaran C. and Vadivalagan C., Studies on the Abundance and Distribution of Birds in Three Different Habitats of Karur District, South India, J. Entomol. Zool. Stud., 1(3), 57-63 (2013)  18.Pandotra A. and Sahi D.N., Avifaunal Assemblages in Suburban Habitat of Jammu, J and K, India, Int., Res. J. Environment  Sci., 3(6), 17-24 (2014)19.Rajashekara S. and Venkatesha M.G., Temporal and Spatial avian community composition in urban landscapes of the Bengaluru region, India,  J. Env. Biol.,36), 607-616 (2015) 20.Source-http://www.citypopulation.de/php/india-rajasthan.php?cityid=0842402000 (2015) 21.Mondal R.P., Pati S., Sarkar S., Gayen A., Guin P. and Mishra T., General awareness and Perceptions about  
International Research Journal of Environment Sciences ______________________________________________ISSN 2319–1414Vol. 4(12), 82-92, December (2015) Int. Res. J. Environment Sci. International Science Congress Association             
92
Sacred Groves and Biodiversity Conservation in Urban people of Bankura District, West Bengal, India, Int. Res. J. Environment  Sci., 4(2),16-21 (2015)22.Bibby C.J., Burgess N.D. and Hill D.A., Bird Census Techniques (2nd edition). Academic Press, London (2000)23.Grimmett  R., Inskipp  C. and  Inskipp  T., Birds of the Indian Subcontinent (2nd Edition), Oxford  University Press, New Delhi (2011)24.Salim A. and Ripley S.D., Handbook of the birds of India and Pakistan, BNHS and Oxford University Press, (2007)25.Balmer D., Species lists in ecology and conservation: Abundances matter, Conserv. Biol., 16(4), 1160-1161 (2002)26.Blair R.B., Land use and avian species diversity along an urban gradient, Ecol. Appl., 6(2), 506-519 (1996)27.Vaclav R.H. Hoi and Blomquist D., Food supplementation affects extra pair paternity in House Sparrows. Behav. Ecol.,(14), 730-735 (2003)28.Sajeev T.V., Sankaran K.V. and Suresh T.V., Are Alien Invasive Plants a Threat to Forests of Kerala? Forest Health Programme Division, Kerala Forest Research Institute (2012) 
<end>