REVIEW OF LITERATURE

Nameer P.O“Bird community structure in a few selected forest types of Kerala”

Thesis. Department of Zoology, University of Calicut, 2005
 REVIEW OF LITERATURE

2.1 The Community: introduction and definitions

The term community describes a group of species populations

occurring together, as in a pond or woodland. However, many workers will refer to

communities of birds, insects or plants for example, which cause confusion over the

scale and true ecological meaning of the community. The term assemblage is a more

appropriate description for such a group of similar species populations occurring

together (i.e. an assemblage of birds, insects or plants). A community of organisms

should be viewed more as an organized whole, and any definition should encompass

interactions among constituent populations, i.e. an association of interacting

populations of all trophic levels occurring in a given habitat (Menge and Sutherland,

1976). Species do adapt to the presence of other species, so, just as populations have

properties over and above those of the individuals comprising them, the community is

more than the sum of the individual populations and their interactions (Harper, 1980).

Whittaker's (1 975) definition is the most precise to date, describing a community as a

combination of plant, animal, and bacterial populations, interacting with one another

within an environment, thus forming a distinctive living system with its own

composition, structure, environmental relations, development and function. Despite

this precision, it is difficult to say what a natural community is and how one

recognizes it, so the concept of a community is often an abstraction. Communities

are, in reality, open, generally intergrading continuously along environmental

gradients rather than forming clearly separated zones as envisaged by early thinkers

(Harper, 1980). Similar difficulties in identification have been faced by population

biologists. The same criteria are used by the community ecologist. For example, some

theoreticians simply specify an arbitrary set of species (Vandermeer, 1972). Another

technique delimits communities objectively, using what is known as a species-area

curve. The minimal area that includes the community's representative species

combination is given where the curve reaches its asymptote. Lake and woodland

communities are somewhat easier to delimit, although one often arbitrarily considers

only a part of such systems. Despite difficulties of definition, the study of the

community is an important step in our study of the natural world as a whole.

2.2 Community structure

It is generally believed that communities, as living systems of

interacting species populations, are organized in some way, and that the role of the

community ecologist is to unravel and explain that organisation.

A possible method of investigating community organization is at the

individualistic level, where the behaviour and population dynamics of individual

species are examined in terms of interactions between and within the populations
(May, 1981). While guild is an assemblage of species utilizing a particular resource

or group of resources in a functionally similar manner (Miller, 1980).

2.2.1 Definition

Krebs (1985) defined community as a group of populations of plant

and animals in a given place, while Begon et al. (1986) it as an assemblage of species

populations which occur together in space and time. Southwood (1988) sees

community as an organized body of individuals in a specified location. Community is

made up of group of interacting organisms.

Whittaker (1977) distinguishes four levels of inventory diversity. On

the smallest scale is point diversity, the diversity of a micro-habitat or sample taken

from within a homogeneous habitat. The diversity of this homogeneous habitat, the

second of Whittaker's categories, is termed alpha diversity, and is directly equivalent

to MacArthur's (1965) idea of within-habitat diversity. The next scale of inventory

diversity is gamma diversity, the diversity of a larger unit such as an island or

landscape. As gamma diversity is defined to be the overall diversity of a group of

areas of alpha diversity, the fourth category, is the total diversity of a group of areas

of gamma diversity. Whittaker envisages epsilon diversity applying to large

biogeographic areas.
 Community structure embodies different ways in which individual

members of the community interact with one another. This includes the patterns of

resource allocation and spatial and temporal abundance of species of the community.

It also include the community level properties arising from these relations, such as,

trophic levels, succession, rates and efficiencies of energy fixation and flow, nutrient

cycling etc. However one can examine the structure of communities by concentrating

on two important indices of community organization, namely the number of species

and their relative abundance (Ricklefs, 1980).

2.3 Species diversity

Species diversity is often used as a more representative measure of

community richness, as it incorporates both species number and relative abundance.

The choice of index, from the bewildering variety available, depends on such factors

as the difficulty in appraisal of species abundance and success in sampling and

identifying all species present. For many purposes, the number of species present is

the simplest and most useful measure of local or regional diversity (Whittaker, 1972).
2.4 Trends in species richness

2.4.1 Latitudinal gradients

One method of estimating the number of species occurring within

different regions is to partition maps of large land areas into equal sized quadrats, on

which range maps of individual species are superimposed (Pianka, 1966; Schall and

Pianka, 1978). These and other studies have revealed the well-known latitudinal

gradients of species richness, where, in most groups of organisms, the number of

species increases markedly towards the equator. Nesting birds show a typical

latitudinal gradient and Fischer (1960) describes similar gradients for ants, corals,

tunicates, amphipods, nudibranchs and gastropod molluscs. More recent examples

include American insectivorous birds (Rabenold, 1979), lizards (Schall and Pianka,

1978) and AustraIian endemic Drosophila (Parsons and Bock, 1979). Another is that

there is a greater diversity of habitats in low latitudes (e.g. ranging from tropical to

boreal with altitude) than in higher latitudes, so it is not surprising that on this gross

scale, more species are found in the tropics. Nevertheless, a comparison of similar

habitats still reveals greater species richness in the tropics (Pianka, 1978).

2.4.2 Habitat gradients

Smaller scale studies compare species richness across many different

habitats within latitudinal belts. These usually reveal differences between adjacent
habitats, even though there are no physical barriers preventing species from one

habitat invading another. In addition, consistent trends in species numbers involving

altitude, topographic relief, island size and location, peninsular effects and proximity

to oceans have been documented (Fischer, 1960).

2.4.3 Exceptions to the rule

Latitudinal trends are not universal. The gradients are not shown by

burrowing marine invertebrate groups like Ophiuroids and Holothuroids which show

little diversity anywhere. Similarly, the prosobranch mollusc family Naticidae, a soft

bottom dweller, shows no trends, whereas the epifaunal prosobranchs show good

latitudinal gradients (Fischer, 1960). Latitudinal trends are virtually non-existent

among Australian vertebrate taxa (Schall and Pianka, 1978), and are often not very

clear in plant assemblages apart from forests (Richards, 1952). The prevalent trend is

also occasionaIIy reversed, often by small specialized taxonomic groups. For

example, sandpipers and plovers are more diverse in the Arctic (Ricklefs, 1980), a

greater diversity of breeding birds is found at higher latitudes in Eastern deciduous

forests of the USA (Rabenold, 1979), and marsupials appear to be more diverse in

temperate regions than the tropics (Schall and Pianka, 1978). Red algae and kelps

also show greater diversity in temperate regions (Fischer, 1960). These exceptions to

the rule are, nevertheless, worthy. of further investigation,

2.5 Studies on birds of Kerala

2.5.1 Studies on forest birds of Kerala

Hume (1876, a and b) initiated the studies on birds in Kerala and

published the list of birds of the Travancore Hills. This was followed by Bourdillon

(1 880), Ferguson and Bourdillon (1903) and Ferguson (1 904a, 1904b, 1904~).The

papers by Rose (1904) on birds in the Nilgiris and Wynaad and Wall (1904) and

Baker (1911) on birds in Kannur extended the observations further north, while

Kinloch (1928 & 1929) on the birds of Nelliampathies.

The golden era of ornithology in Kerala started with the ornithological

survey of Travancore and Cochin by Salim Ali. He along with Hugh Whistler

published the results of the survey in eight volumes (Ali and Whistler, 1935a, 1935b,

1935c, 1936a, 1936b, 1936c, 1937a and 1937b). This was later supplemented by Rose

(1938) with observations from Munnar. The "Birds of Kerala" published first in 1969

by Salim Ali is still the authentic record on birds in the State. During the fifties,

Neelakantan initiated studies on the birds of Kerala and published the book in

Malayalam entitled "KeralathiIae Pakshikal" (Neelakantan, 1958a). During his career

spanning around 40 years, he published several papers on various aspects of birds'

biology particularly on bird behaviour. (Neelakantan, 1958b, 1960, 1968, 1969a,

1969b, 1969c, 1970, 1981, 1982, 1983, 1990, 1991a, 1991b, Neelakantan and

Sureshkumar, 1980 and Neelakantan et a1 1980). Neelakantan et al., (1993) also

authored the book entitled "A Book of Kerala Birds". This book listed 488 species of

birds as occurring in Kerala.

Jackson (1954a, 1954b) published many new records of the birds in

Kerala, while Pillai (1960) and Khan (1960, 1967, 1971) published the ecological

aspects of leaf warblers and the general problems of the birds of Kerala. Some of the

autecological studies on the birds of Kerala and adjacent forests include, Vijayan

(1975) on bulbuls, Khan (1977) on Black and Orange Flycatcher, Zacharias (1978) on

babblers, Shukkur and Joseph (1980) on black drongo, Yahya (1980) on barbets,

Vijayan (1 984) on drongo, Islam (1985) on laughingthrushes, Santhanakrishnan

(1988) on Barn Owls, Zacharias and Mathew (1988) on babblers, Venugopal (1991)

on Red-wattled Lapwing, Yahya (1988) examined the breeding biology of Barbet and

Vijayan (1992) reported the breeding biology of Malabar Wood shrike, Santharam

(1993), studied the ecology of sympatric species of Woodpeckers, and Kannan (1994)

studied the ecology of Great Pied Hornbills.

During the nineties, many workers initiated studies on the birds of

Kerala and this resulted in a large number of new records from Kerala and listing of

birds from more areas. Nair (1994, 1995 and 1996) published behavioural aspects of

Golden-backed Woodpecker, sunbird and pipit. In the same period Nameer (1992a)

added information to the bird fauna in Kerala. ~ashikumar(1989, 1990, 1991 and
1994) and Sashikumar. el 01. (1 99 1 and l 995) reported the occurrence of many new

species.

2.5.2 Studies on the water birds of Kerala

The ornithological studies of Kerala wetlands commenced after

Neelakantan's extensive explorations on the water bodies in the State, which were

greatly rewarding (Neelakantan, 1969a & 1969b; 1970; 198 1; 1982; Neelakantan et

al., 1980; Neelakantan and Sureshkumar, 1980). Uthaman and Namassivayan (199 1)

had carried out an intensive study on the birdlife at Kadalundi estuary. That study

also had come out with many interesting observations (Namassivayan et al., 1989;

Namassivayan and Venugopal, 1989; Uthaman, 1990; Uthaman and Namassivayan

(1 992). Recently couple of detailed ecological studies on the birds of wetlands of the

state was carried out at Bharatapuzha estuary and Malabar coast (Kurup, 1987, 1990

and 1991, 1996) and at Kole wetlands (Jayson and Sivaperuman, 1999 and Jayson,

2002), and Jayson and Easa (2000).

The studies on the waterfowl of the State got an impetus after the

inception of the Asian Waterfowl Census (AWC) in 1987. The Kole Wetlands and

Vembanad Lake (now Ramsar sites, since 2002) were practically unknown to the

birdwatchers before the inception. of Asian Waterfowl Census. Comprehensive bird

surveys were carried out as part of the AWC at Kole wetlands for three consecutive
years from 1992 to 1994 (Nameer, 1992b; 1993a, 1993b, 1994a, 2002a and 2002b)

and at Vembanad lake during 1993 (Nameer, 1993c) then from 2001 to 2004

(Sreekumar, 200 1,2002,2003 and 2004).

2.6 Studies on the birds of protected areas of India

There are quite a few studies on the birds of the protected areas

(wildlife sanctuaries and national parks) of the country. The following are some of the

examples.

2.6.1 Studies on the birds of protected areas before 1980's

Donahue, (1964) on the birds of the Keoladeo Ghana Sanctuary,

Futehally, (1968) on the birds of the Gir Sanctuary, Neginhal, (1971) on the birds of

Dandeli Sanctuary, Neginhal, (1976) on the birds of Ranganathittu Bird Sanctuary,

Khacher (1978) on the birds of Nanda Devi Sanctuary, Vijayan (1978) on the birds

of Parambikulam Wildlife Sanctuary, Kerala, and Reed (1979) on the birds of Rishi

Ganga Valley and the Nanda Devi Sanctuary.

2.6.2 Studies on the birds of protected areas between 1980 to 1990

Abdulali (198 1) on the birds of Borivli National Park, Mumbai, Aitken

(1981) on the birds of Nanda Devi Sanctuary, Sugathan (1982) on the birds of Point

Calimere Sanctuary, Tamil Nadu, Pittie (1983) on the birds of Eturnagaram Wildlife

Sanctuary, Green (1986) on the birds of the Kedarnath Sanctuary, Uttar Pradesh,

Santharam (1986) on the birds of Guindy National Park, Ara (1987) on the birds of

Mula-Mutha Sanctuary, Poona, Katti, (1989) on the birds of Dachigam National Park,

Manakadan and Rahmani (1989) on the birds of Rollapadu Wildlife Sanctuary,

Pandey, (1989) on the birds of Pong Dam Lake Bird Sanctuary, Tyabji (1990) on the

birds of Bandhavgarh National Park.

2.6.3 Studies on the birds of protected areas between 1990 to 2000

Easa, (1991) on the birds of Peechi Vazhani Wildlife Sanctuary,

Kerala, Nameer and George (1991) on the birds of Chinnar Wildlife Sanctuary,

Rahmani (1991) on the birds of the Karera Bustard Sanctuary, Madhya Pradesh, Kar,

(1991) on the birds of Bhitarkanika Wildlife Sanctuary, Orissa, Nameer (1992~)on

the birds of Chimmoni Wildlife Sanctuary, Kerala, Manakadan (1992) on the birds of

Point Calimere Sanctuary, Robertson and Jackson (1992) on the birds of Periyar

Tiger reserve, Bashir and Nameer (1 993) on the birds of Silent Valley National Park,

Kerala, Gaston, et al. (1993) on the birds of Great Himalayan National Park,
Ilimachal Pradcsh, Ghosh, et U/. (1993): on thc birds of Udhuwa Lake Bird

Sanctuary, Bihar, Karthikeyan, et al. (1993) on the birds of Dandeli Wildlife

Sanctuary, Mahabal and Sharma (1 993) on the birds of Nainadevi Wildlife Sanctuary,

Nair (1993) on the birds of Neyyar Wildlife Sanctuary, Kerala, Raj (1993) on the

birds of Orang Wildlife Sanctuary, Rao and Mohapatra (1993) on the birds of Pulicat

Bird Sanctuary, South India, Pramod et al, (1993) on the birds of Pulicat Bird

Sanctuary, Shrivastava et al. (1993) on the birds of Periyar Tiger reserve, Uthaman

(1993) on the birds of Wayanad Wildlife Sanctuary, Vasanth (1993) on the birds of

Kalakad Wildlife Sanctuary, Tamil Nadu, Sangha (1994) on the birds of Desert

National Park, Sankaran (1994) on the birds of Nanda Devi National Park,

Choudhury (1994) on the birds of Dibru-Saikhowa Wildlife Sanctuary, Gupta and

Gupta (1994) on the birds of Sepahijala Wildlife Sanctuary, Tripura, Kumar, (1994)

on the birds of Manjira Wildlife Sanctuary, Nameer (1994) on the birds of

Parambikulam Wildlife sanctuary, Pandey et al, (1994) on the birds of Rajaji National

Park, Kailash and Rajan (1994) on the birds of Mount Harriett National Park, South

Andaman, Tyabji (1994) on the birds of Bandhavgarh National Park, Madhya

Pradesh, Kerala, Kasinathan et al, (1995) on the birds of Grizzled Giant Sqirrel
_L_

Wildlife Sanctuary, Tamil Nadu. Katju (1995) on the birds of Amravathi area and

Chinnar Wildlife Sanctuary, Choudhury, (1995) on the birds of Dibru-Saikhowa

Wildlife Sanctuary, Balachandran (1995) on the Shore birds of the Marine National

Park in the Gulf of Mannar, Tamil Nadu, Barua (1995) on the birds from Chakrashila

Wildlife Sanctuary, Nameer (1995) on the birds of Silent Valley National Park,
Kerala, Pittie (1995) on the birds of Rollapadu Bustard Sanctuary, Andhra Pradesh,

Shah et al. (1995) on the birds of Wild Ass Sanctuary, Gujarat, Sugathan and

Varghese (1996) on the birds of Thattekkad Bird Sanctuary, Kerala, Nameer (1996)

on the birds of Chinnar Wildlife sanctuary, Ahmed (1996) on the birds of Shendurney

Wildlife Sanctuary, Kerala, Alagar (1996) on the avifauna of the Tropical Dry

Evergreen Forest of Point Calimere Wildlife Sanctuary, Tamil Nadu, Chandra and

Rajan (1996) on the birds Mount Harriett National Park, South Andaman,

Susanthkumar (1997) on the birds of Shendurney Wildlife Sanctuary, Kerala,

Bhattacharjee (1997) on the birds of Kaziranga National Park, Choudhury (1 997) on

the birds of Dibru-Saikhowa Sanctuary, Assam, Gokula and Vijayan (1997) on the

birds of Mudumalai Wildlife Sanctuary, Kazmierczak and Allen (1997) on the birds

of Dibru-Saikhowa Wildlife Sanctuary, Mishra (1997) on the birds of Majhatal

Harsang Wildlife Sanctuary, Himachal Pradesh, Pandav (1997) on the birds of

Bhitarkanika mangroves, eastern India, Allen et al. on the birds of Buxa Tiger

reserve, Choudhury (1998a), on the birds of Nongkyllem Wildlife Sanctuary,

Meghalaya, Choudhury (1998b), on the birds of Mehao Wildlife Sanctuary,

Arunachal Pradesh, Javed and Rahmani (1998) on the birds of Dudwa National Park,

Kalsi (1998), on the birds of Kalesar Wildlife Sanctuary, Haryana, Kumar (1998) on

the birds of Jaldapara Wildlife Sanctuary, Relton (1998) on the birds of Karaivetti

Bird Sanctuary, Tamil Nadu, Kazmierczak et al. (1998) on the birds of Harike Bird

Sanctuary, Punjab, Uthaman (1998) on the birds of Birds of the Eravikulam National

Park, Kerala, Barua and Sharma (1999) on the birds of Kaziranga National Park,
Datta et al. (1999) on the birds of Pakhui Wildlife Sanctuary in western Arunachal

Pradesh, Ahmad (1999) on the birds in Dachigam National Park, Jammu & Kashmir.

Ahmed (1999) on the birds of Maenam Wildlife Sanctuary, Sikkim, Andheria

(1999a) on the birds of Mudumalai National Park, Tamil Nadu, Andheria (1999b) on

the birds of Nagarhole National Park, Karnataka, Lahkar (1999) on the birds of

Pobitora Wildlife Sanctuary.

2.6.3 Studies on the birds of protected areas after 2000

Mahabal (2000) on the birds of Talra Wildlife Sanctuary in lower

western Himalaya, Datta (2000) on the birds of Chakrashila Wildlife Sanctuary,

Nameer (2000) on the birds of Idukki Wildlife sanctuary, Aravind et al. (2001) on the

birds of Biligiri Rangaswanly Temple Wildlife Sanctuary, Western Ghats, Nameer

(2003)on the birds of Idukki Wildlife sanctuary, Andheria (2000) on the birds of

Ranthambhore National Park, Rajasthan, Mohan (2000) on the birds of Sri

Venkateshwara Wildlife Sanctuary, Andhra Pradesh, Sashikumar et al. (2000) on

the birds of Aralam Wildlife Sanctuary, Kerala, Saikia and Kakati (2001) on the birds

of Nameri National Park. Choudhury (2002) on the birds of Nagaland, Choudhury

(2003) on the birds of Eaglenest Wildlife Sanctuary and Sessa Orchid sanctuary,

Arunachal Pradesh, Urfi (2003) on the birds of Okhla barrage bird sanctuary, Delhi,

Birand and Pawar (2004) on the birds of north-east India.

2.7 Studies on bird communities

2.7.1 Studies on bird communities - outside India

Kwok and Corlett (1999) reported 71 bird species from the natural

secondary forest at Tai PO Kau Nature Reserve in Hong Kong, China. However, three

resident habitat-generalists, such as the great tit Parus major, light-vented bulbul

Pycnonotus sinensis and ~ a ~ a n k white-eye

se Zoslerops japonicus, accounted for 65%

of the mean total bird density of 38 per hectare. Insectivores and insectivore-

frugivores accounted for 80% of the species and 98% of the total bird density.

Robinson (1999) observed that small tropical forest reserves such as Barro Colorado

Island (1600 ha) may not preserve high levels of regional avian diversity over long

periods of time. He also noted that the chances of extinction of forest-interior species

of birds are extremely persistent in small patches of forests. Dale et al. (2000) studied

the edge effects on the understory bird community in a logged forest in Uganda and

found that commoner species were found near the edge, whereas the interior of the

forest had less common species. Guild composition also changed with distance from

the edge. Frugivore-insectivores and nectarivores were most common close to the

edge. Among insectivores, ground foragers, bark-gleaners, and leaf-gleaners were

most common in the interior of the forest, whereas sallying insectivores favored the

edge. Graminivores were unaffected by the edge. Ribon et al. (2003) studied the

conservation status of Atlantic forest birds in 43 forest fragments ranging in size from
1 to 384 ha in the Vicosa region of southeastern Brazil. They observed that 28 bird

species had become locally extinct, 43 were critically endangered, and 25 were

vulnerable, representing 60.7% of the original forest bird con~munityknown to exist

in the region. Vulnerability to fragmentation differed among guilds, forest strata, and

endemicity status. Birds that feed on fruit and seeds, and those that feed on insects,

were more threatened than omnivores and carnivores. Nectarivorous species were less

threatened than other guilds. Marsden and Whiffin (2003) who studied the

relationship between population density, habitat position and habitat breadth within a

neotropical forest bird community in a large Atlantic forest reserve in Espirito Santo,

Brazil noted that amongst the 31 species for which density estimation was possible,

there were no correlations between local abundance and breadth of habitat use on any

of the habitat axes. Robinson et al. (2004) studied the bird diversity in a vulnerable

neotropical landscape, Soberania National Park, and found that the park contains 92%

of the region's forest-dwelling species. Donatelli et al. (2004) recorded 216 species,

from Fazenda Rio Claro, Lencois Paulista, Sao Paulo, Brazil, 82 of which were non-

Passeriformes and 134 Passerifonnes. Insectivores accounted for almost half the total

number of species recorded in the quantitative survey (44%), followed by frugivores

(24.9%), omnivores (16.4%), carnivores (8.5%), detritivores (1.4%), and a small

proportion of nectarivores.
2.7.2 Studies on bird commurlitics - witllin lndia

Studies 011 the bird communities of the Indian region are few and far

between. Toor et al. (1986) studied the con~munitystructure and feeding ecology of

birds at a grain store in Punjab. Khan et al. (1993) studied the community ecology of

birds of Aligarh. Thiollay (1993) studied the raptor community response to shrinking

area of tropical rain forests. Javed (1996) and Shafiq et al. (1997) studied the bird

community structure of Kumaon Himalayas. Raman et al. (1998) who investigated

the recovery of rainforest bird community structure and composition in relation to

forest succession after slash-and-bum shifting cultivation, observed that the number
m

of bird species in guilds associated with forest development and woody plants

(canopy insectivores, frugivores, bark feeders) was correlated with PC1 scores of the

sites. Species in other guilds (e.g. granivores, understorey insectivores) appeared to

dominate during early and mid-succession. It is suggested that the non-linear

relationships imply that fallow periods less than a threshold of 25 years for birds, and

about 50-75 years for woody plants, may cause substantial community alteration. As

5- 10-year rotation cycles prevail in many parts of north-east India, it is concluded that

there is a need to protect and conserve tracts of late-successional and primary forest.

Chettri et a1 (2001) reports that bird species richness and diversity were higher at the

open canopy conditions compared with closed canopy in Sikkim Himalayas.

 /
2.7.3 Studies on bird communities - within Kerala

Con~munityecological studies on the birds of Kerala and nearby areas

are very few. They include the studies done by Palat (1983), Gandhi (1986),

Johnsingh (1987), Daniels (1989), Jayson (1990 and 1994) and Pramod (1995),

Pramod et al. (1997a and 1997b) and Pramod (1999) and Raman (2001) on the

various synecologocal aspects of birds of Kerala and nearby areas. Zacharias and

Gaston (1999) gave details of the distribution and status of the endemic species of

birds of forests of Kerala.

On a perusal of the literature it is evident that very little information is

available about the bird communities of the various forest types in Kerala. Hence the

main objective of the present study is to understand the bird community structure in

the few selected major forest types of Kerala, such as evergreen forests, moist

deciduous forests, dry deciduous forests and shola forests.