DR - KARNIKA JANI Full Thesis 301 Pages Jun-16 PDF

International Journal of Education & Applied Sciences Research, Vol.
3, special Issue
June- 2016, Ph.D Thesis, EISSN: 2349 –2899, ISSN: 2349 –4808 (Print)
International Journal of Education & Applied Sciences Research, Vol.3, special Issue
“STUDY OF AVIAN DIVERSITY OF SAJJANGARH WILDLIFE SANCTUARY”
NAME- DR.KARNIKA JANI
PRESENT POST- LECTURER ZOOLOGY
COLLEGE- S.P.U.P.G.COLLEGE, FALNA, PALI (RAJASTHAN)
THESIS/DESERTATION- THESIS OF PH.D
SUBJECT/AREA- WILDLIFE AND BIODIVERSITY (SCIENCE)
UNDER GUIDENCE- DR.CHHAYA BHATNAGAR
MOB.NO- 9610668829
EMAIL.ID- janiavsk@gmail.com
UNIVERSITY NAME - MOHANLAL SUKHADIA UNIVERSITY, UDAIPUR
COLLEGE NAME - COLLEGE OF SCIENCE, UDAIPUR
DEPARTMENT OF ZOOLOGY
PH.D AWARDED YEAR- 2009

CONTENTS
CHAPTER TITLE PAGE
1. General Introduction 1-17
2. Review of Literature 18-35
3. Material and Methods 36-45
4. Avian Diversity 46-87
5. Habitat Preference of Birds in and around 88-155

Sajjangarh Wildlife Sanctuary
6. Study of Microscopic Structure of Bird feather 156-174
7. Threatened Birds of Sajjangarh IBA 175-210
8. Ecotourism and its impact on Avian Diversity 211-239
9. Management of Sajjangarh Wildlife 240-249

Sanctuary as an Important Bird Area Site
10. Summary 250-257
11. Literature cited 258-291

LIST OF TABLES
Table No. Title Page No.
1. Approximate number of known species in various taxa 12
2. Functions of Biodiversity 13
3. Comparative numbers of animal species found in India and 16

World
4 Checklist of terrestrial birds in and around Sajjangarh Wildlife 58

Sanctuary
5. Aquatic bird diversity of Lake Bari, Udaipur 65
6. Comparative details of present study and that of Sharma 68

(1998)
7. Comparative analysis of avian-diversity of Sajjangarh Wildlife 82

Sanctuary, Udaipur city
8. Records of vultures seen in and around the sanctuary 89
9. Identification of nightjars by their vocalization 91
10. Colour patterns of three subspecies of variable wheatear 93
11. Identification of various habitat types of Sajjangarh Wildlife 101

Sanctuary
12. The altitude wise distribution of birds in SWLS 106
13. Habitat preference of birds in and around SWLS 118
14. Habitat preference of the birds according to their guild 132

Table No. Title Page No.

observed in and around SWLS
15. Feeding habit of aquatic birds of Lake Bari 143
16. Habitat preference of aquatic birds in the lake ecosystem 150

(Lake Bari)
17. Macroscopic characters of feathers 172
18. Microscopic feather characteristics of some birds 174
19. Conservation status of Terrestrial Birds 181
20. Conservation status of aquatic birds 191
21. Monthly variation in tourist traffic at SWLS 219
22. Revenue generated by tourists at SWLS (last eight years) 220
23. Season-wise tourist activity in various zones of the sanctuary 221
24. Occurrence of birds in high and low tourist activity zones 225
25. Analysis of negative impacts of ecotourism in and around the 236

Sanctuary
LIST OF PLATES
PLATE TITLE TITLE
Plate 1.1 SAJJANGARH WILDLIFE SANCTUARY
Plate 3.1 STUDY AREA
Plate 3.2 MAP OF SAJJANGARH WILDLIFE SANCTUARY SHOWING ZONATION

1 TO 8
Plate 4.1 TERRESTRIAL AND ARBOREAL BIRDS IN AND AROUND OF

SAJJANGARH WILDLIFE SANCTUARY
Plate 4.2 AQUATIC BIRDS IN AND AROUND OF SAJJANGARH WILDLIFE

SANCTUARY
Plate 5.1 HABITAT VARIATIONS OF SWLS
Plate 5.2 HABITAT VARIATIONS OF SWLS
Plate 6.1 MACROSCOPIC AND MICROSCOPIC ANALYSIS OF AQUATIC BIRD

FEATHERS
Plate 6.2 MACROSCOPIC AND MICROSCOPIC ANALYSIS OF TERRESTRIAL

AND ARBOREAL BIRD FEATHERS
Plate 7.1 WATER HOLES IN SAJJANGARH
Plate 7.2 MANAGERIAL ASPECTS OF SANCTUARY
Plate 8.1 SITES OF INTEREST OF ECO-TOURIST IN SWLS
Plate 9.1 RARE AND ENDANGERED BIRDS OF SWLS
Plate 9.2 LOCATION OF FOUR SPECIES OF CRITICALLY ENDANGERED AND

ENDANGERED VULTURE SPECIES IN THE MAP OF STUDY AREA
Plate 9.3 LOCATION OF VULNERABLE WHITE-NAPED TIT IN THE MAP OF

SANCTUARY
Plate 9.4 LOCATION OF MINIVETS IN THE MAP OF STUDY AREA

All the wildlife of the woods, the
insects, birds and animals are well
aware of your presence. No matter
how softly you may tread and they
follow your every move although you
cannot see them.
Thalassa Cruso
ABSTRACT
The concept of forest and wildlife conservation is very old to India. Indian culture and
literature teach nonviolence and respect for even lovely animal forms. Wildlife is a general
term for life in ecosystem, deserts, rain-forests, plains and other areas including the most
built up urban sites – all have distinct form of wildlife.
There are 12 countries in the world, which are rich in biodiversity and are called
“Megadiversity areas”. India is ranked as sixth mega diversity country in the world. Its
immense biological diversity represents about 7% of the world’s flora and six and half of the
world’s fauna. There are about 1225 species of birds in India. Out of these, 78 species of
birds are considered as threatened. India has five Heritage sites and six Ramsar sites.
Amongst the five heritage sites one is present in Rajasthan – The Keoladeo Ghana National
Park. The Keoladeo National Park and Sambhar Lake both are Ramsar sites of Rajasthan.
Rajasthan with an area of 34.2 million ha, which constitutes 10.41% of the land area
of the country, is one of the largest states of India in terms of area. Almost 60% of the
geographical area of Rajasthan is desert but in spite of this about 510 species of birds can
be seen in the state (Grimmett and Inskipp, 2003). There are 02 National Parks and 25
Wildlife Sanctuaries in Rajasthan. Keoladeo National Park is famous for its avifauna and is
the only place in the country where the Siberian Crane used to visit during its winter
migration.
Udaipur Wildlife Division includes four sanctuaries viz. Kumbhalgarh Wildlife

Sanctuary, Kumbhalgarh, Jaisamand Wildlife Sanctuary, Jaisamand, Fulwari ki Nal Wildlife
Sanctuary, Kotda and Sajjangarh Wildlife Sanctuary, Udaipur. Amongst these, the
Sajjangarh Wildlife Sanctuary is the smallest wildlife sanctuary of the largest state of the
country. It covers only 5.19 km 2 area.
Udaipur has eight Important Bird Area sites (Islam and Rahmani, 2004). Important
Bird area (IBA) are sites particularly important for bird conservation because they regularly
hold significant population of one or more globally or regionally threatened endemic or
congregator bird species or highly representative bird assemblages.
Birds form important bio-indicators of the general health of any ecosystem. Habitat
degradation is today a major threat for the extermination of avian species. The conservation
and management of threatened and endangered species is a tremendous challenge. The
present investigation was therefore taken up with a view to analyze the status regarding
diversity of avian species in the available habitat type. An attempt has also been made to
study the habitat preference of these species in order to formulate steps to be undertaken for
improvement of habitat to facilitate better conservation.
To carry out this study, following objectives were laid down:
I. To study the avian diversity of the Sanctuary.
II. To study the habitat and habitat preference of different birds found in the Sanctuary.
III. To study rare and endangered birds of the Sanctuary.
IV. To study management aspects of various birds of Sanctuary and formulate

appropriate strategies for better conservation and protection of the fauna.
V. Microscopic analysis of bird feather to identify important species of the Sajjangarh

Wildlife Sanctuary.
Ecotourism and its impact on birds of the Sanctuary.

Karnika Jani & Chhaya Bhatnagar / Study of Avian Diversity of Sajjangarh Wildlife
Sanctuary
CHAPTER I
GENERAL INTRODUCTION
Mother Earth and the spectacular natural scenario is a precious and most beautiful
gift to the mankind. Its resources like water, air, vegetation and mountains always render
their selfless services to mankind constantly and without any selfish motive. Nature provides
so many things, which are wealth and health of our earth. Wildlife is one of them. Wildlife is a
relatively recent term in the written history. It came into practice when human began to tame
animals and the need was felt to differentiate between wild and domestic creatures. The
essence of wildlife cannot be captured in mere words. It consists of many different level of
organization of living organisms. It is a complete concept, consisting of many relationships
and ties, which we as humans are only beginning to comprehend. Therefore, let us start with
a better understanding of what governs life on earth.
The term wildlife is commonly referred to represent the non-domesticated

animals living in a natural habitat. But in widest range it includes all the flora and
fauna of the natural habitat. The term wildlife generally gives an impression of large
and ferocious animals living in jungles or in water such as lions, tigers, elephants,
rhinoceros, wolves, crocodiles and whales etc., but actually it means any type of
living organism in its natural habitat. Wildlife is a general term for life in ecosystem,
deserts, rain-forests, plains and other areas including the most built up urban sites –
all have distinct form of wildlife. The term wildlife was coined by William Hornday in
the book entitled “Our Vanishing Wildlife”.
The wildlife has great importance because it is a group of elements that is

composed by native fauna and flora, and that have vital importance for the
maintenance and preservation of earth‟s biosphere and consequently of human
being.
Wildlife and wildlife habitat play a vital role in ecological and biological
processes that are essential to life itself. The ecological processes are essential for
agriculture, forestry, fisheries and other endeavors necessary to human life. Wildlife
also helps to maintain environment quality by degrading and otherwise removing
Contact Us : info@arseam.com ; submit paper : editor@arseam.com download full paper : www.arseam.com 1

some pollutants and preventing waste accumulation. Some of the biological

processes in which wild species play a key role are pollination, germination, seed
dispersal, soil generation, nutrient cycle, predation, habitat maintenance, waste
breakdown and pest control.
The economic value of wildlife in the most recent times has emerged as eco-tourism,
which is a new aspect of tourism. Eco-tourism offers the visit able places a chance to use
their native wildlife as resource in a beneficial non-explorative way. Tourism in protected
area is gaining momentum and becoming an important organ of government policy in many
developing countries; since they have realized that it is not only aims to conserving wildlife
and nature- cultural heritage but also provides direct and indirect employment to several
people and thereby uplifts their economic condition and increase the state revenues. Wildlife
has great scientific importance because it acts as gene banks and provides research
material to produce new varieties and species.
The habitat is main factor for the presence of huge number of wildlife because directly
or indirectly wildlife depends upon habitat. India has a very rich and unique wildlife as it
possesses a diverse climate and various topographical features ranging from snowy
Himalayas, sandy Thar Desert, dry deciduous and tropical rain forests, valleys, large number
of freshwater resources and a vast shoreline. The number of animal species is 81,000 out of
which there are 5000 species of mollusks, 57000 species of arthropods, 2546 species of
fishes,204 amphibian,428 reptiles,372 mammals and 1228 species of birds found in the
India. Around 62% of these species are endemic to India (MOEF, 1994).
India has a long history and tradition of wildlife conservation. Wildlife in India
has passed through three phases in its association with man. In the first, which may be
termed mythological, there was a privileged position of protection through religious myths
and sentiments. The first practical expression of changing position is to be round at the time
of Ashoka. In the fifth pillar edict of the 3 rd century, B.C., we find the first law to protect fish
game and forests. The age of exploitation had dawned. The third and most vital phase for
India‟s wild creatures has been ushered in with the general renaissance, which has swept
the country since the attainment of independence.
Prior to the advent of British regime, wildlife was relatively abundant in most areas of
the country, practically in the erstwhile princely states, where hunting by the general public
was strictly forbidden. But later the forest and animals living in them came under heavy
strain during British regime. The forests were cleared for human settlements wild animals
Contact Us : info@arseam.com ; submit paper : editor@arseam.com 2
download full paper : www.arseam.com
Sanctuary
were hunted down for trophies to adorn the drawing rooms and banquet halls. Reckless
hunting too caused the steady depletion of Indian wildlife. Tigers, cheetahs, rhinoceros etc
were ruthlessly killed. But after independence, increase in population and demand for land
for industrialization, hydro-electrical projects, urbanization and agriculture, led to rapid
destruction of wildlife habitats and the forests.
The concept of forest and wildlife conservation is very old to India. Our Indian culture
and literature teach nonviolence and respect for even lovely animal forms. But due to
extensive hunting during the British regime and also by Indian Rulers, large scale clearing of
forests for agriculture, availability of guns, poaching, strong pesticides and the ever-
increasing population have had disastrous effects on India‟s environment. In the Indian
scenario, the fastest animal on earth, the cheetah (Acinonyx jubatus), which roamed in the
central and south India became extinct around half a century ago.
Cheetah was last reported in Chittor district of Andhra Pradesh in the Nagapatia and
Chambal valley of Bhakarapet forest range in 1947. The lesser-horned rhinoceros (Rhinoceros
sodacious), the pink headed duck, the mountain quail have also become extinct in the just
passed 20th century.
To protect the wildlife many laws have come into practice from time to time but none
was much effective. Due to the necessities of wildlife protection, parliament had passed
Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972, (Act No.53 of 1972). The act was passed by the parliament
on September 9, 1972 and came into force from February 1, 1973. The Wildlife (Protection)
Act of 1972 was the first comprehensive act for the protection of wild animals and birds. This
act provides the basic framework to ensure the protection and management of wildlife. The
act was amended subsequently in 1982, 1986, 1991, 1993 and 2002 to accommodate
provisions for its effective implementation. The wildlife protection act regulates sale, barter
etc. of notified wild plants and animal species. It also provides control over keeping of wild
animals in captivity. The act exercises control over wildlife under the Schedules 1 – 6.
Schedule 1 – Lists the rare and endangered species that are totally protected.
Schedule 2 – Includes game species for which licenses can be issued under special
circumstances. Animals of Part II of Schedule 2 are also highly
protected like animals of schedule 1.
Schedule 3 and Schedule 4 – Both comprise species of small games.
Schedule 5 – Includes vermin, common crow, fruit bats, mice and rats.

Schedule 6 – Includes certain rare and endangered plant species.
The main work of Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 is conservation of wildlife. The
conservation means a continuous yield of useful renewable materials and the protection of
non-renewable resources from wastage and rapid depletion.
Conservation gives an overview of all aspects of this rapidly changing and

controversial field with the decline of species and our encroachment on natural habitats,
conservation is increasingly in the public eye. Basically, conservation is of two types. In
choosing conservation strategies, three main dimensions to conservation, i.e. quality,
quantity and time must be considered. Quality reflects both allelic composition and
distribution and their fluctuations within a species and its population. Quantity refers to the
number of ecosystems, species, population, individual, genes and the related amount of the
germplasm that is available for utilization. The time scale is a period over which conservation
activities are projected and ranges from short to long term. Mainly two types of conservation
practices are in vogue:
EX-SITU CONSERVATION – This method involves cultivation of rare plants and holding of
threatened animal species in botanical and zoological gardens and in the arboretums or to
reserve them in the form of seed bank (Gene bank) or some other suitable materials like
“Tissue Culture”. Botanical and Zoological gardens are the secondary repositories of the wild
plants and animal species respectively. But the “ex-situ” conservation has so many
drawbacks. Ex-situ conservation, while helpful in main effort to sustain and protect our
environment, is rarely enough to save a species from extinction. It is used as last resort or as
a supplement to “in-situ” conservation because it cannot recreate as a whole; the entire
genetic variation of species its symbiotic counterparts all are elements which overtime might
help species adapt to its changing surrounding. Furthermore “ex-situ” conservation
technique is often costly.
IN-SITU CONSERVATION – In-situ or on site conservation refers to situations where the

material is maintained in its natural habitat within the community which it form a part. The
aim of “in-situ” conservation is to allow the population to maintain and perpetuate itself within
the community environment to which it is adapted so that it has the potential for continued
evolution.
So that “in-situ” conservation is appropriate way of conservation of wildlife. That is

why the Government of India is now becoming conscious towards creating safe zones for
wildlife within the reserve forests by way of creating what are called “protected areas”.
Sanctuary
“Protected Areas” is a broad term given primarily to National Parks and Sanctuaries
meant for affording protection to wild animals and their habitat. They also include game
reserves and biospheres reserves. The idea of creating protected areas for conserving and
protecting wild animals and their habitats and game reserves though there were meant
mostly for hunting than for protecting wild animals. Even during the British period many
rulers had shooting reserves, which were later accorded the status of protected areas e.g.
Bharatpur national park. The country first wildlife sanctuary was setup towards the close of
the last century as Vadanthangal Bird Sanctuary in Tamil Nadu. However the first National
Park came into existence in 1936 the Hailey national park in Uttar Pradesh. At present it is
called Corbett National Park.
“Protected Areas” in present scenario can be defined as portion of land protected by

special restrictions and laws for the conservation of the natural environment. They include
large tracts of land set aside for the protection of wildlife and its habitat; areas of great
natural beauty or unique interest, areas containing rare forms of plant and animal life; areas
representing unusual geological formation; places of historic and prehistoric interest; areas
containing ecosystems of special importance for scientific investigation and study; and area
which safe-guard the needs of the biosphere*.
Protected area network includes National Parks, Wildlife Sanctuary and Biosphere
reserves. The establishment of this network is for different purpose. So all the three
component of protected areas are different to each other in following manner:
* www.eionet.org
National Park – Areas of outstanding natural beauty, set aside for conservation of flora and
fauna and scenery and for recreation, if this does not conflict with the conservation
objectives of the parks and their landscapes. Fishing, logging, mining, commercial and
livestock grazing are all controlled within national park as in industrial activity.
Wildlife Sanctuary – An area, usually in natural condition, which is reserved (set aside) by a
governmental or private agency for the protection of particular species of animals during part
or all of the year. An area designed for the protection of wild animals, where hunting and
fishing is either prohibited or strictly controlled.
Biosphere Reserve – Protected land and coastal areas that are approved under the Man
and Biosphere programme (MAB) in conjunction with the Convention on International Trade

in Endangered species (CITES). Each reserve has at least one core area where there can
be no interference with the natural ecosystem. A transition zone surrounds this and within it
scientific research is allowed. Beyond this is a buffer zone, which protects the whole reserve
from agricultural, industrial and urban development. Biosphere reserves and buffer zones
are regarded as examples of a new generation of conservation techniques (Source:
WRIGHT).
Nature Parks – Any area or piece of land that harbours important flora and fauna may be
known as Nature Park. This term can be used for any place, which has wild species of plant
and animal.
Closed Areas – Previously there was a provision for declaration of closed area under the
Wildlife (Protection) Act 1972 in the sec-37. The area that had important wild floral and
faunal species was declared as closed area so that hunting and cutting down of trees was
prohibited. Recently the declaration of closed area is abolished after the amendment of
Wildlife (Protection) Act 2002 in the sec-21.
Biological Parks – It is an advanced type of zoo or the modification of zoo in which the
animal is provided with natural habitat in which it lived in wilderness.
Conservation Reserves and Community reserves – These reserves are the protected
areas which typically act as buffer zones to or connectors and migration corridors between
established national parks, wildlife sanctuaries and reserved and protected forests of India.
Conservation reserves are uninhabited and completely owned by the Government of India
but used for subsistence by communities while the community reserves may be the land that
is privately owned. These reserves are under the administrative hold of local people and
agencies such as gram panchayat in similar manner like that of communal forests.
Community reserves are the first instances of private land being accorded protection under
the Indian legislature. These fall under the category of private protected areas of India and
open up the possibility of communally owned for-profit wildlife resorts, and also causes
privately held areas under non-profit organizations like land trusts to be given protection.
These protected area categories were first introduced in the Wildlife (Protection)
Amendment Act of 2002 - the amendment to the Wildlife (Protection) Act of 1972. These
categories were added because of reduced protection in and around existing or proposed
protected areas due to private ownership of land, and land use. Amendments to the Wild life
protection act in 2003, provided a mechanism for recognition and legal backing to the
Sanctuary
community initiated efforts in wildlife protection. It provides a flexible system to achieve
wildlife conservation without compromising community needs. Tiruvidaimarudur
Conservation Reserve, declared on February 14, 2005, is the First Conservation Reserve to
be established in the country. It is an effort of a village community who wanted to protect the
birds nesting in their village. These categories roughly correspond to IUCN Category V
(conservation reserves) and VI (community reserves) protected areas. Keshopur Chhamb
Community Reserve in Gurdaspur District of Punjab, declared in 2007, is the first
Community Reserve in the country.
There are 97 existing national parks in India covering an area of

38,029.18 Km2; this is 1.16% of the geographical area of the country and 508
existing wildlife sanctuaries covering an area of 118,594.54 km2, which is 3.61% of
the geographical area of the country (National Wildlife Database, 2008). There are
14 Biosphere Reserves in the country, including the recently established one in
2005. The latest, named Achanakamar – Amarkantak Biosphere Reserve, covers
part of Anupur and Dindori districts of M.P. and parts of Bilaspur districts of
Chattishgarh state (National Wildlife Database, 2005).
The establishment of a network of protected areas such as national parks,

wildlife sanctuaries and biosphere reserves is created with following objectives:
1. To cover representative samples of all major wildlife ecosystems and with

adequate geographic distribution.
2. The development of appropriate management systems for protected areas,

including a professional cadre of personnel fully trained in all aspects of
wildlife and sanctuary management; as well as proper orientation to all
officers concerned with wildlife.
3. The development of research and monitoring facilities, which provides a

scientific understanding of wildlife populations and habitats essential to their
proper management, also helps in wildlife protection. Wildlife management is
the “manipulation” of population and habitat to achieve a goal. The goal is
usually to increase population but can be to decrease or sustain them.
Improving habitat for a particular kind of wildlife means understanding what the
animals needs to live in. Usually, the more varied the habitat conditions are over a
large area, the greater the variety of wildlife will be found. “Biodiversity” is the term
used by scientists to describe the variety of living forms (plants, animals and even
micro-organisms) upon the earth along with their interactions and environments.
www.wii.gov.in
The biodiversity that exists today comes from billion of years of evolution.
Biodiversity is a neologism and portmanteau word from bio and diversity that came
into publication for the first time in 1988 in the proceeding of National Forum of
biological diversity by famous entomologist E. O. Wilson (Wilson and Peter, 1988).
Dr. Edward Osborne Wilson is considered to be the Father of Biodiversity.
However the word biological diversity was first proposed by Norse and Mcmanus
(1980) for two combined concepts involving genetic diversity and ecological diversity,
among which former relates to the amount of genetic variability within species and
the later refers to the number of species in a community. As biological diversity is a
broad concept, it can be described by a single definition. Many definitions of
biodiversity have been proposed from time by various ecologists, ecological
societies‟ resource managers‟ scientists and research personnel. (Jensen et al.,
1980; Hunter, 1990; Noss, 1990; WRI, IUCN and UNEP, 1992; UNEP, 1992;
Gaston, 1996; Takacs, 1996 and Dar, 2000). Amongst these, the oldest definition of
biodiversity as suggested by Jones Stokes et al. (1987) states “The number of
different native species and individuals in a habitat or geographical area, variety of
different habitats within the area, the variety of interactions that occur between
different species in a habitat and the range of genetic variation among individuals
within the species. Jensen et al. (1980) have defined biological diversity as the full
range of variety and variability within and among living organisms and the ecological
complexes in which they occur and encompass ecosystem or community diversity,
species diversity and genetic diversity. UNEP (1992) defines biodiversity as the
variability among the living organisms from all sources including interalia terrestrial,
marine and other aquatic ecosystems and the ecological complexes of which they
are a part. This includes diversity within species, between species and of ecosystem.
Thus, we can conclude that biodiversity is the accumulated wisdom of nature and
key to its future. Whittaker (1972) described the measurement of biodiversity over
geographic scale as:

Sanctuary
Table 1: Approximate number of known species in various taxa
Taxon Common Name Number of Number as percentage of

species total number of
described* described species*
Bacteria True bacteria 9021 0.5
Archaea Archaebacteria 259 0.01
Bryophyta Mosses 15000 0.9
Lycopodiophyta Club mosses 1275 0.07
Filicophyta Ferns 9500 0.5
Coniferophyta Conifers 601 0.03
Magnoliophyta Flowering plants 233885 13.4
Fungi Fungi 100800 5.8
"Porifera" Sponges 10000 0.6
Cnidaria Cnidarians 9000 0.5
Rotifera Rotifers 1800 0.1
Platyhelminthes Flatworms 13780 0.8
Mollusca Mollusks 117495 6.7
Annelida Annelid worms 14360 0.8
Nematoda Nematode worms 20000 1.1
Arachnida Arachnids 74445 4.3
Crustacea Crustaceans 38839 2.2
Insecta Insects 827875 47.4
Echinodermata Echinoderms 6000 0.3
Chondrichthyes Cartilaginous fishes 846 0.05
Actinopterygii Ray-finned bony fishes 23712 1.4
Lissamphibia Living Amphibians 4975 0.3
Mammalia Mammals 4496 0.3
Chelonia Living Turtles 290 0.02
Squamata Lizards and Snakes 6850 0.4
Aves Birds 9672 0.6
Others 193075 11.0
* The total number of described species is assumed to be 1,747,851 (LeCointre and

Guyader, 2001).
ALPHA DIVERSITY – It means diversity within a particular area, community or ecosystem

and is measured by counting the number of taxa within the ecosystem.
BETA DIVERSITY – It means species diversity between ecosystems. It involves comparing

the number of taxa that are unique to each of ecosystem.
GAMMA DIVERSITY – It means the overall diversity for different ecosystems within a
region.

About 7% of the world‟s total land area is a home to half of the total known species.
Current estimate with the exact number of species on the earth to nearest order of the
magnitude accounts for over 5-30 million species out of which 1.5 million have been
identified including 30,000 species of green plants and fungi; 80,000 species of insects;
40,000 species of vertebrates and 36,000 species of microorganisms. According to
LeCointre and Guyader (2001) the total number of described species is assumed to be
1,747,851. Amongst these, about 4996 species of mammals have been described which
accounts for only 0.3 % of the total. Approximate number of species accounted in a
particular taxon has been coined in Table 1.
Biodiversity has great contribution in order to maintain stable ecosystems.

Ecological health depends on maintaining a diversity of life forms. Diversity indicates
system resilience or its ability to adapt and cope with change. Healthy and intact
ecosystems also build soil, prevent erosion, store and cycle nutrients and provide
economic benefits through such valuable products as wood, fiber, food stuff, dyes,
resins and oils. Biodiversity performs many functions for the maintenance of
ecosystem that can be grouped into three types: Ecosystem services, biological
resources and social benefits. Some examples of these benefits are as follows
(Table 2).
Table 2: Functions of Biodiversity

S. No. Functions of ecosystem Uses
1. Ecosystem services Protection of water resources; Soil formation and
protection; Nutrient storage and cycling; Pollution
breakdown and absorption; Contribution to climate
stability; Maintenance of ecosystems
2. Biological resources Food; Medical resources; Wood Products;
Ornamental plants; Breeding stocks, population
reservoirs; Future resources
3. Social benefits Research , education and monitoring; Recreation;
Cultural values
In recent conditions, biodiversity faces so many threats but the biggest threat is that
of habitat loss. It is the main cause of biodiversity loss. This is due to clearing of forest,
diversion of forest land to non-forest use, mining activities, construction of dams and roads in
forest areas, overgrazing by domestic cattle population, metal and pesticide pollution and
conversion of wetlands for agricultural use. The other causes of loss of biodiversity are
hunting, exploitation, introduction of exotic species, accidental mortality, climate change,

Sanctuary
agricultural ecosystems and domesticated taxa and neglecting the cultural and ethical values
of biodiversity.
There is also a growing awareness of how biodiversity supports livelihoods, allows

sustainable development and fosters co-operation between nations. This awareness is
generated through products such as the IUCN Red list of threatened species. Information
about species and ecosystems is essential for moving towards more sustainable use of own
natural resources. The Red list is an important tool to provide such information. The IUCN
Red list system (International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural resources), was
conceived in 1963, set a standard for species listing and conservation status of species and
promoting their conservation for more than 30 years. The IUCN Red list Categories and
criteria are intended to be an easily and widely understood of the system is to provide an
explicit, objective framework for the classification of the broadest range of species according
to their extinction risk. There are nine categories in the IUCN Red list system. These are:
EXTINCT (EX) – A taxon is extinct when there is no reasonable doubt that the last individual
has died.
EXTINCT IN THE WILD (EW) – A taxon is extinct in the wild when it is known only to survive
in cultivation, in captivity or as a naturalized population (or populations) well outside the past
range.
CRITICALLY ENDANGERED (CR) – A taxon is critically endangered when the best

available evidence indicates that it meets any of the criteria A to E for critically endangered
(as mentioned in IUCN Red List Categories and Criteria) and it is therefore considered to be
facing an extremely high risk of extinction in the wild.
ENDANGERED (EN) – A taxon is endangered when the best available evidence indicates
that it meets any of the criteria for endangered, and it is therefore considered to be facing a
very high risk of extinction in the wild.
VULNERABLE (VU) – A taxon is vulnerable when the best available evidence indicates that
it meets any of the criteria for vulnerable, and it is therefore considered to be facing a high
risk of extinction in the wild.
NEAR THREATENED (NT) – A taxon is near threatened when it has been evaluated against
the criteria but does not qualify for critically endangered, endangered or vulnerable now, but
is close to qualifying for or is likely to qualify for a threatened category in the near future.

LEAST CONCERN (LC) – A taxon is least concern when it has been evaluated against the
criteria and does not qualify for critically endangered, endangered, vulnerable or near threatened.
Widespread and abundant taxa are included in this category.
DATA DEFICIENT (DD) – A taxon is data deficient when there is inadequate information to make
a direct, or indirect assessment of its risk of extinction based on its distribution and/or population
status.
NOT EVALUATED (NE) – A taxon is not evaluated when it has not yet been evaluated against
the criteria.
“Megadiversity areas” and here conservation is priority. These countries are Mexico, Columbia,
Madagascar, Equador, Cameroon, Peru, Brazil, Zaire, China, Malaysia, Indonesia and India.
India is ranked as sixth mega diversity country in the world. Its immense biological diversity
represents about 7% of the world‟s flora and six and half of the world‟s fauna. There are about
614 species of Amphibians and Reptiles, 1225 species of birds and 350 species of mammals in
India. Among the higher animals, 173 species of mammals, 78 species of birds and 15 species of
amphibians are considered as threatened. India is a country of vast biodiversity in the world. It
has diverse bio-geographic and climatic conditions ranging from the cold and high Himalayas in
the North to the hot and humid peninsula in the south; from the extremely wet north-eastern
green forests to extremely dry north-western arid desert. The floristic composition ranges from
wet evergreen forests of the Western Ghats and central India and thorny forest of the Thar
Desert.
India contains about 20% of the world‟s biodiversity in 2% of the earth surface (Belsare,
1994). The richest area from the biodiversity point of view lies in the Himalayas, in Western
Ghats, in two Indian islands (Andamans and Lakshdweep) and the North- Eastern hills of India.
India figured with two hot spots in an identification of 18 biodiversity hotspots carried out in the
eighties (Myers, 1988). Recently, the list of hotspots have been updated and it has now reached
to 25 (Myers et al., 2000). India has ten biogeographic regions including the Trans-Himalayan,
the Himalayan, the Indian desert, the semi-arid zone, the Western Ghats, the Deccan peninsula,
the Gangetic plain, North east India, and the islands and coasts (Rodgers and Panwar, 1988). It
has been estimated that India accounts for 7.31% of the global faunal wealth with a faunal
species count of 89,451 species (MOEF, 1999). A comparison made between the total animal
species of the world and those found in India by Alfred (1998) are presented in Table 3.

Sanctuary
Table 3: Comparative numbers of animal species found in India and World
S. No. Taxa Species in India Species in World Percentage of

species in India
1. Aves 1232 9026 13.66%
2. Mammalia 390 4629 8.42%
3. Reptilia 456 5817 7.84%
4. Amphibia 209 5150 4.06%
5. Pisces 2546 21723 11.72%
Source: Alfred, J.R.B. (1998)
India has five Heritage sites and six Ramsar sites. The Ramsar convention on
wetlands of International importance especially as Water Fowl Habitat was held on 2nd
February, 1971 in Ramsar, a small town near Caspian Sea in Iran by the representatives of
18 countries (Dash, 2002).
The conference recognized the importance of wetlands as “habitats supporting a

characteristic flora and fauna, especially “waterfowl” and a resource of great economic,
cultural, scientific, and recreational value”. Amongst the five heritage sites one is present in
Rajasthan – The Keoladeo Ghana National Park. The Keoladeo National Park and Sambhar
Lake both are Ramsar sites of Rajasthan.
Rajasthan with an area of 34.2 million ha, which constitutes 10.41% of the land area of
the country, is one of the largest states of India in terms of area. The states can be divided
into four major physiographic regions:
a. Western desert with barren hills, as well as rocky and sandy plains
b. The Aravalli hills: running southwest to northeast starting from Gujarat and ending in
Delhi
c. The eastern plains with rich alluvial soil and
d. The south-eastern plateau.

The major rivers of the states are the Mahi, Chambal and Banas. The mammalian
fauna of Rajasthan is diverse with nearly 68 species, which constitute about 18% of the total
Indian mammal fauna. Two major carnivores, the Asiatic lion (Panthera leo persica) and the
Asiatic cheetah (Acionyx jubatus venaticus) have become extinct during the last hundred
years and the Indian Wild ass (Equus hemionus khur) had become extinct in Rajasthan
during the last four decades but has been recently sighted in northern extensions (Sangha,
2003). Of these 68 species, 29 species are listed in the Indian Wildlife Protection Act, hence
need protection to a varying degree. Almost 60% of the geographical area of Rajasthan is
desert but in spite of this about 510 species of birds can be seen in the state (Grimmett and
Inskipp, 2003). The southern hilly tracts of the state are known to hold significant populations
of Vulnerable Green munia (Amandava formosa) (Lodhiya, 1999) and White-napped tit
(Parus nuchalis) (Tiwari, 2001).
The grasslands found near the water bodies in the eastern half of the Aravallis
provide habitat to Sarus Crane (Grus antigone) (Birdlife International, 2001).
There are 02 National Parks and 25 Wildlife Sanctuaries in Rajasthan. Amongst

these, the Desert National Park is one of the largest national parks in India. It was
established in 1980 and is situated in Jaisalmer city in the west of state. Besides this,
Ranthambore National Park and Sariska sanctuary are famous for their tiger reserves.
Unfortunately, the number of tigers in both the parks has considerably reduced. Keoladeo
National Park is famous for its avifauna and is also one of the world heritage sites. It is the
only place in the country where the Siberian Crane used to visit during its winter migration.
The Aravalli Hills of Rajasthan are significant habitat for flora and fauna that run from
Palanpur, Gujarat to Delhi (from South-west to North-east of the state) and consist of series
of detached hills and ridges. The Aravalli are the heavily eroded, relict span of Precambrian
uplift, forming steep and rocky terrain in some areas deep drainage, undulating forested hills
and ridges which rise to heights varying from 274 to 1155 meters with the highest altitude at
Gurushikhar rising to a height of 1722 meters above the mean sea level in Mount Abu.
Aravallis are one of the oldest mountain systems of the world. The Aravallis form a green
belt across the edge of the Thar Desert, act as a corridor connecting diverse ecosystems,
and serves as a reserve for threatened and endangered species. As a result, most of the
protected areas in the state are in this range. The prominent ones include Sariska National
Park, Alwar, Mount Abu Wildlife Sanctuary, Mount Abu, Sitamata Wildlife Sanctuary,
Dhariawad, Kumbhalgarh Wildlife Sanctuary, Kumbhalgarh, Jaisamand Wildlife Sanctuary,
Jaisamand, Fulwari ki Nal Wildlife Sanctuary, Kotda and Sajjangarh Wildlife Sanctuary as
Sanctuary
well as Baghdarrah Nature Park, Udaipur. Amongst these, the Sajjangarh Wildlife Sanctuary
is the smallest wildlife sanctuary of the largest state of the country. It covers only 5.19 km 2
area.
It is situated in the most fragile ecosystem of Aravalli in the west of Udaipur. The
Udaipur Wildlife Division includes four Wildlife Sanctuaries and one National Park. Udaipur is
situated on the southeastern flank of the Aravallis.
Udaipur is a romantic city of palaces, temples, beautiful lakes, gardens and

fountains, significant for its position on tourist map of India and world. It is known as the
“Kashmir of Rajasthan” and the Venice of East. The hills, forests and artificial lakes present
a queer combination of scenic and picturesque landscape. Udaipur has eight Important Bird
Area sites (Islam and Rahmani, 2004). Important Bird area (IBA) are sites particularly
important for bird conservation because they regularly hold significant population of one or
more globally or regionally threatened endemic or congregator bird species or highly
representative bird assemblages. In true sense, IBAs are more than a bunch of sites; they
aim to form a network of sites facilitating the migratory species to find suitable breeding,
feeding, stop-over and wintering places along their respective flyways.
Birds form important bio-indicators of the general health of any ecosystem. They are
the most beautiful, widely admired, entertaining and most studied group of animals on the
earth. In capturing our imagination they reign supreme and thus have done more to promote
wildlife conservation and care of environment than all other creatures put together. From the
conservation point of view Sajjangarh Wildlife Sanctuary, being an IBA site of Udaipur, has a
diverse and vivid avian fauna.
Sajjangarh Wildlife Sanctuary (Plate – I: Figs. 1 and 2) came into existence only in
the year 1987. Unfortunately due to lack of policies and clarity of objectives it has remained
unexplored. It has been a neglected sanctuary from the research and monitoring point of
view. Since the Sajjangarh Wildlife Sanctuary is the smallest sanctuary of the state, there is
an immense scope for its development because all its aspects can be monitored easily.
Once the objectives of better preservation of fauna and the habitat improvement
have been achieved in the sanctuary, then this sanctuary can be treated as a model for
making policies for the development of other larger ones.
Faunal wealth of any geographical area is of immense importance because they play
important role in ecological balance. It is well known that the resources for the conservation
are always limited. Thus to maximize the benefits of any action it is the basic need to focus
on the highest conservation priorities. Monitoring and mapping of biological resources is a
major concern from the conservation perspective, since the depletion of biodiversity is an
irreversible change. The conservation importance of an area is typically determined by
assessing its biodiversity the basic unit of which is species.
Habitat degradation is today a major threat for the extermination of avian species. Due to
the diminishing of natural habitat by varied anthropological activities animals are facing a
high risk of extinction. So it is the primary requirement of any conservation program to
analyze the habitat of the area, and the habitat preference of the species within the area, so
that further management policies can be laid upon. The conservation and management of
threatened and endangered species is a tremendous challenge. Because of efforts of state,
regional, and local agencies (sometimes in cooperation with private interests) some
endangered species now have a better chance of survival. The involvement of every
individual is essential. The present investigation was therefore taken up with a view to
analyze the status regarding diversity of avian species in the available habitat type. An
attempt has also been made to study the habitat preference of these species in order to
formulate steps to be undertaken for improvement of habitat to facilitate better conservation.
To carry out this study following objectives were laid down:
I. To study the avian diversity of the Sanctuary.
II. To study the habitat and habitat preference of different birds found in the
Sanctuary.
III. To study rare and endangered birds of the Sanctuary.
IV. To study management aspects of various birds of Sanctuary and formulate

appropriate strategies for better conservation and protection of the fauna.
V. Microscopic analysis of bird feather to identify important species of the Sajjangarh

Wildlife Sanctuary.
VI. Ecotourism and its impact on birds of the Sanctuary.

Sanctuary

CHAPTER 2
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
The birds have been the centre of interest of common man, bird watchers as well as
ornithologists. They are often spectacular, are relatively easily observed and are usually
neither too specious nor too cryptic to identify or study. The birds like Parakeet, Peacock,
Cuckoo and House Sparrow have long entered in the songs and folk tales of Indian Social
Culture. The „Kurja‟ (Demoiselle crane) is being sung all over the Rajasthan as a messenger
migrating and reaching very far to her beloved. A review on the notable about the general
account on bird‟s life, their identification, Avifaunal diversity and their habitat preference,
habitat management, bird species identification from microscopic feather analysis, birds in
relation to ecotourism and socio-ecological studies on avifauna have been studied by
various workers in the past. A review of the available literature is being carried out in the
following text.
The avifauna and game birds of British India regions were studied by Jerdon (1863),
Adam (1873), Butler (1877b), Hume and Marshall (1878), Baker (1921, 22-30), Stockely
(1922-23), Ticehurst (1922-24, 26), Whistler (1928, 38) Norton (1932), Archer and Godman
(1937), Witherby et al. (1938-41), Ali (1941), Christian (1942), Paludan (1959) and Ripley
(1959).
The topography of birds and their checklist have been given time to time by Praters
(1931), Ripley (1954), Delacour (1954), Scott Peter (1957), Ali and Pandey (1978),
Neelkantan (1981), Ali (1953), Martin (1987), Holmes and Parr (1988), Soni (1994), Barroa
(1994) and Bain (1996). Holder and Kingsley (1996) studied about the migratory and non-
migratory species of the world including Rajasthan.
Various migratory bird species were also observed from various parts of the world in
different months. Thornhill (1916) and observed the bird species in Mesopotamia, while
Desiree (1949) and Roseveare (1949, 50) in Burma. Ripley (1949) and Biswas (1960)
studied the migratory birds in Nepal. Other observations are those of Meinerthagan (1930,
54) in Egypt and Arabia and Stickland and Jenner (1977) in Maldives Island.

Sanctuary
Migratory bird species have been observed in various parts of our country. These
studies include areas such as Bharatpur in Rajasthan by Ali and Ripley (1968-74, 87),
Sridharan (1989) and Bhupathy (1991). Ali (1945, 54) and Singhji (1968) chose Gujarat as
their area of study. Migratory birds of North Bihar were observed by George (1964). Other
studies are those of Gauntlett (1972, 85) in Durgapur, West Bengal, Kerala and Keoladeo
(Ali 1935-37, 53), Milner (1946) on birds of Kashmir and Frome (1947) about the migratory
birds of Delhi. Water birds diversity of Ranchi district was reported by (Gupta, 2004).
Diversity of Wetland Birds around the Koshi Barrage Area has been reported by Chhetry
(2006). Birds of Singanallur Lake, Coimbatore with their feeding preference and local status
was documented by (Reginald et al., 2007)
Birds inspire more extreme interest in humans than all other animals (and most
plants). Also, bird communities are frequently used as indicators of environmental quality
(Mayer and Cameron, 2003) and are thought to be a useful proxy for assessing the impact of
human influence on biodiversity (Balmford and Long, 1995; Garson et al., 2002). Biological
diversity can be classified into three types according to Roberts and Gilliam (1995). These
are compositional, structural, and functional diversity. Compositional diversity is the variety
of items within an area; subgroups of compositional diversity include: i. Genetic or the
variation between individuals and populations within a species, ii. Species, or the different
types of plants, animals, and other organisms within an area, and iii. Ecosystem, or the
variety of habitats within an area.
Structural diversity refers to the horizontal or vertical distribution of plants, plant

sizes, or age distributions. The horizontal component is often referred to as “heterogeneity”
while the vertical component is often referred to as “complexity” (August, 1983). Functional
diversity refers to the variety of ecosystem processes present in an area, such as nutrient
cycling, energy flows, and trophic interactions. However, historically, diversity has been
equated with species richness (also known as alpha diversity), or the number of different
species in an area (Peet, 1974). The species has been treated as a fundamental unit in
biology (Hull, 1997) and, more recently, in biodiversity conservation (Sites and Crandall,
1997). Almost all studies in biology, whether at the level of molecules, cells, individual or
populations, are typically referenced to the level of the species. In the field of conservation
biology, assessments of biodiversity are made at the level of the species: typical criteria
include species richness, numbers of endemic species and the number or presence of
endangered species in given areas (Myers et al., 2000). The terms species richness and
species diversity have become key concepts in conservation biology. Therefore, much has
been published on the measurement of the species richness and species diversity of

communities. Some important contributions are those of MacArthur (1955), Hurlbert (1971),
Peet (1974), Pielou (1975), Magurran (1988, 2004), Schluter and Ricklefs (1993), Colwell
and Coddington (1994) and Krebs (1999). Species richness and community structure of
birds are known to vary from region to region (Karr, 1976; Pearson, 1975 and Recher, 1969),
as well as within a region, as abiotic and biotic factors vary from habitat to habitat (Johnsingh
and Joshua, 1994).
Avian communities, by virtue of being ecologically diverse, are one of the most
suitable biological materials for monitoring the health and functioning of an ecosystem. The
diversity and richness of avian species in a community also mirrors the diversity and
richness of the habitat. A large number of studies have explored this relationship. Many
avifaunal studies have been done in India to quantifying and monitoring forest degradation
(Beehler et al., 1987; Daniels, 1989; Johnsingh et al., 1987).
Avian diversity, species richness, habitat preference, management of habitats and

guild structure of birds of Dudhwa National Park was studied by (Javed, 1996).
Species diversity, relative abundance and habitat use of the birds in the Sundarbans
East Wildlife Sanctuary, Bangladesh was reported by (Khan, 2005). A total of 198 species of
birds was reported from above study. An annotated list of the endemic avifauna of the
Nicobar Islands was documented by (Sankaran, 1998). All species and subspecies of birds
endemic to the Nicobar Islands (or the Andaman and Nicobar Islands) are listed, with
information on taxonomy, historical status, a summary of sight records based on recent field
surveys by the author, and threat categories (based on new IUCN criteria). Composition and
dynamics of the bird community of Tavaragundi village, Bellary district, Karnataka was
reported by Basavarajappa and Kanamadi (2002). A total of 121 bird species were recorded.
There was a significant variation in the species richness from month to month within the year
whereas it did not vary from year to year. The species richness was maximum from
December to April and declined from May onwards. The factor considered having most
influence on the distribution and number of birds is feeding conditions as well as the
structure of land surface which afforded the birds protection from predators and hostile
atmosphere conditions (Tryjanowski, 1995). Balasundaram and Rathi (2003) reported avi-
faunal diversity of Tiruverumbur, Taluk, Tamil Nadu. A total of 108 species belonging to 44
families were recorded. Out of the 108 bird species, 36( 33.3%) were carnivores, 35 species
(32.4%) omnivores, 21 species (19.4%) were insectivores, 4 species ( 3.7%) each were
granivores and frugivores and eight (7.4%) were herbivores. Wadatkar (2001) made a
checklist of birds from Amravati University Campus, Maharashtra. A total of 88 species of
Sanctuary
birds were recorded out of which 67 were resident, 4 were local migrants, 2 were resident
migrants, 6 were winter migrants and 9 were migratory birds which arrive here at different
times of the year.
Ninety-four species of bird belonging to 38 families were recorded in the three-year

long study at Kuvempu University Campus, Karnataka by (Nazneen et al., 2001). There
were 84 resident and 10 migratory birds. Fifteen species of waterfowl were also recorded
from the wetlands of the campus. Among the birds recorded in the study, 45% were
insectivores and other dominating types included Piscivores, Carnivores and Frugivores (12
%, 11% and 11%, respectively). Ornithological study of the Eastern Ghats was studied by
(Bhushan, 1994) to know the potential for demarcating new protected areas on the basis of
avian diversity which was found to be excellent. Conservation priorities were identified on the
basis of detailed knowledge of the habitat distribution and species diversity for each
particular region. Study on community ecology and conservation of tropical rainforest birds in
the Southern Western Ghats, India was carried out by Raman (2001). This study involved
describing tropical rainforest bird community structure and its patterns of variation across a
variety of settings.
In India many scientist have documented avian diversity of the educational premises,
cities, states and protected areas of state and country. Some of them are those of
Rathinasabapathy and Kalairasan (1992), Kasinathan et al. (1995), Inskipp et al. (1996),
Padate and Sapana (1996), Thirumurthi and Balaji (1997), Goswami (1999), Oswin (1999),
Mohan (2000), Mahabal (2000), Michael et al. (2000), Palot and Pramod (2000), Rathore
and Sharma (2000), Sivaperuman and Jayson (2000), Ramitha and Vijayalaxmi (2001),
Barua and Sharma (1999) and Kalsi (1998).
Mahabal (2000) studied the birds of Talra Wildlife Sanctuary in lower western
Himalaya and Himachal Pradesh, with notes on their status and altitudinal movements.
Sixty-one species of birds belonging to 19 families were recorded. Out of these thirty-two
species were resident birds confined to Himalayan ecosystem. Some of the birds were
noticed as extending their altitudinal distribution range to higher elevations.
Handbook on Birds of India and Pakistan authored by Ali and Ripley (1983) is a
landmark treaty in ornithology of Indian subcontinent. Many fascinating aspects of birds of
Rajasthan are available in this monumental book. Though, above mentioned work is a
classic one, the history of ornithology of Rajasthan can be traced way back to 1873 when
Adam published his notes about birds of Sambhar Lake and surrounding areas in “Stray
Feathers”. Adam further commented on birds of Sambhar Lake in 1874. Barnes (1885,
1891) contributed about nesting birds of Rajputana. Whistler (1938) made an ornithological
survey of Jodhpur state. Gorip and Vardhan (1980) published various aspects of Great
Indian Bustard in their edited book “Bustard in decline”. Sangha published a note about
occurrence of Black Partridge in Ganganagar in 1984 and Marbled Teal in Rajasthan in
1994. Tehsin and Lokhandwala (1987) commented on unusual nesting behaviours of Red-
wattled Lapwing. Tehsin (1982a, 1982b, 1987, 1993, and 2002) produced valuable notes
about varied facts of avian diversity of Mewar region of Rajasthan. Jamdar (1998) reported
southern Black headed Munia from Keoladeo National Park. Ewans (1992) produced a book,
entitled “Bharatpur Bird Paradise” highlighting different aspects of avian life of Ghana
National Park.
`In recent years, a large number of publications dealing with multifarious aspects of
birds of Rajasthan have been published by Sharma (1987, 1991, 1995, 1997b, 1999, 2000,
2001c, 2001, 2005). Sharma and Tehsin (1994) listed birds of southern Rajasthan. Vyas
published his birding notes about Kota district in 1992. Reddy (1996) reported presence of
Purple-rumped Sunbird in Banswara district for the first time in Rajasthan. Islam and
Rahmani (2004) listed 24 sites of Rajasthan as Important Bird Area (IBA). Out of 24 IBA
sites, 10 are from southern Rajasthan including Sajjangarh Wildlife. Sharma (1998) gave a
complete checklist of terresterial avifauna of Sajjangarh Wildlife Sanctuary. (Sharma, 2004)
also reported the new sight records of White-naped tit in Rajasthan. Tehsin (1989) gave a
faunal history of Fatehsagar Lake, Udaipur, and observed the availability of rich avifauna at
the lake and habitat conservation.
Rajasthan is second largest state of India and it supports 510 species of birds
(Grimmett and Inskipp, 2003). An annotated checklist of the birds of Sariska Tiger Reserve
was made by (Shahabuddin et al., 2006). A total of 183 species of birds were recorded.
Twenty-seven bird species have been added to the earlier checklist for Sariska (Sankar et
al.1993). Bhatnagar et al. (2007) made a note on vanishing habitats of aquatic birds in the
city of lakes, Udaipur. Mount Abu avian diversity has been preliminary documented by Butler
(1875, 1876 and 1877).
In the introductory section of Indian hill birds, Ali (1979) tabulated 72 taxa from Mount
Abu. Recent accounts of the birds of Mount Abu were provided by Devarshi and Trigunayat
(1989) and Prakash and Singh (1989), a total of 136 bird species were documented and ten
casual records by others have been combined to produce a comprehensive checklist of 146
bird species for Mount Abu. Bhatnagar et al. (2008) studied the aquatic bird diversity of Lake
Bari with special reference to the habitat management of this lake. Dookia and Pandey
(2004) made additions to the birds of Jodhpur city, Rajasthan. A preliminary list of 20
Sanctuary
species of water birds was prepared by Agoramoorthy and Mohnot (1986) from the water
bodies of Jodhpur city. Eight new species were recorded for the first time from the city by
(Dookia and Pandey, 2004). Chhangani (2002) published a comprehensive checklist of the
birds of Jodhpur with 158 species. Chhangani (2002) also documented the avifauna of
Kumbhalgarh Wildlife Sanctuary in the Aravalli hills of Rajasthan and a total of 201 bird
species belonging to 61 families were reported. The sanctuary provides wide range of
climate with great altitudinal variation and microhabitats. The variation of habitats such as
deciduous, dry-deciduous, dry savannah forest, euphorbia scrub and dry grassland supports
the avian diversity with eight species of Threatened birds of world (Birdlife International,
2000) and it is an important wintering ground for migratory birds from Palaeartic region and
South-east region. Sivaperuman et al. (2004) reported avifauna of Desert regional station,
Zoological Survey of India campus, Jodhpur.
A total of 89 species belonging to 38 families were documented from campus.

Bhupathy et al. (1997) studied the population ecology of waterfowl in Keoladeo National
Park and reported that migratory birds spend more than half or two third of their life annually
in wintering area and the water level appears to play a major role in the arrival and departure
of waterfowl. Khatri (1998) studied the physico-chemical and biological parameters of
Chundasagar of Gajner Sanctuary during the stay of migratory birds. Saurus crane is a
mascot of our wetlands and cropland. The detailed study of Sarus crane regarding their
status, distribution, habitat and population in Rajasthan has been done by Vyas (2002).
Understanding human impacts on species biodiversity is of critical importance for

developing appropriate conservation plans and management guidelines (Ricketts and
Imhoff, 2003). Specifically, the type of relationship that exists between human impacts and
species inhabiting the landscape will govern the conservation and management approaches
that can be used. Thus, conservation efforts should focus on areas where human activities
are already high so as to offset impending conflicts between biodiversity protection and
development (Balmford et al., 2001; Ricketts and Imhoff, 2003; Carroll et al., 2004).
Increased human domination of the Earth‟s ecosystems (Vitousek et al., 1997) and
intensifying human land use (Foley et al., 2005) raise the question of how biodiversity will be
affected by these factors. The habitats are the primary factors that affect species diversity
have been addressed in the past with respect to breeding bird communities (Ambuel and
Temple, 1983; Blake and Karr, 1987). Flocking granivorous species that move across very
large foraging patches during winter may not be related to environmental variables at any
scale (habitat or landscape) as found by Pearson (1993). Yet, this may also support the idea
that food abundance may become as important as habitat structure in affecting habitat use

by non-breeding birds (Hutto, 1981, 1985a, b; Meents et al., 1982; Robinson and
Sutherland, 1999; Donald et al., 2001; Johnson and Sherry, 2001; Moorcroft et al., 2002).
The study of habitat use and selection in birds has a long tradition (Grinnell, 1917;
Block and Brennan, 1993). More recently habitat selection studies have shown that many
factors such as landscape structure can influence exactly how “ideal” and “free” animals are
while moving through a landscape and selecting habitats (Karr and Freemark, 1983; Petit
and Petit, 1996). Habitat- selection studies have recently assumed a new urgency, partially
as a result of the importance of incorporating both habitat and demographic information into
conservation planning (Caughley, 1994). Nevertheless, ornithologists tend to be inconsistent
in their conceptual framework and terminology with regard to –
(a) What constitutes habitat use versus selection?
(b) The behavioural and evolutionary content of their findings, and
(c) The order or scale of their study from microhabitat to geographic range (Johnson,
1980 and Orians and Wittenberger, 1991).
The purpose of this review thus concerns a thorough survey of recent literature and
highlight areas where improvements or advances can be made in avian habitat ecology.
Habitat refers to a distinctive set of physical environmental factor that a species uses for its
survival and reproduction (Block and Brennan, 1993). Habitat use refers to the way in which
an individual or species uses habitats to meet its life history needs (Block and Brennan,
1993). The study of habitat use patterns describes the actual distribution of individuals
across habitat types (Hutto, 1985). Habitat selection refers to a hierarchical process of
behavioural responses that may result in the disproportionate use of habitats to influence
survival and fitness of individuals (Hutto, 1985; Block and Brennan, 1993).
Habitat preferences are assumed to be adaptive without demonstration of increased

fitness in preferred habitats (Robertson, 1972; Martin, 1998). In addition, many non-habitat
related phenomena influence habitat selection in birds (Cody, 1981 and 1985), including
nest predation (Sonerud, 1985 and Martin, 1993), competition (Martin, 1993; Petit and Petit
1996), intraspecific attraction (Danchin et al., 1998; Forsman et al., 1998; Poysa et al.,
1998), and food limitation (Martin, 1993 and McCollin, 1998).
The scientific research works have also been done on various aspects of the birds
life including food of birds (Voous, 1950; Ali, 1953; Mukherjee, 1974; Zewart, 1976), Flight
Sanctuary
pattern (Hingston, 1928), Dominance (Heep and Hair, 1984), Roosting (Zahavi,1977; Gadgil,
1972; Gadgil and Ali, 1975), Feeding pattern in flocks (Murton, 1971) and seasonal
occurrence (Gaston, 1978) amongst various bird species. The effect of rainfall and habitat
on abundance and diversity of birds in a fenced protected area in the central Saudi Arabian
desert has been studied by Newton and Newton (1997). Bird species diversity and habitat
diversity in Australia and North America was recorded by (Recher, 1969).
The ecology and behaviour of three species vultures of the genus Gyps, namely, G.
bengalensis, G. indicus and G. fulvus were studied by (Grubh, 1974) in Gir Forest. The study
led towards an understanding of plumage variations and field identification of vultures, their
status and distribution in the Gir, feeding habits, population and the factors which made it
possible for the three species to co-exist. Feeding habits including frequency of feeding,
forage flights and how vultures detect food, utilization of food and mode of feeding, and food
requirement, were studied by observing free ranging birds as well as birds in captivity. Free
ranging birds were observed at carcasses, roosts, and in flight.
The foraging ecology of some Indian bird species has also been studied in cultivated
and natural habitats (Dhindsa and Saini, 1994). As the predators of insects, birds stand
supreme among vertebrates (Patel et al., 1987; Chakravarthy, 1988; Parasharya et al.,
1988, 1994).
Ali and Ripley (1983) regarded the Indian Roller as highly beneficial to agriculture
since it destroys vast quantities of insect pests. There is some amount of information on the
general aspects of the Indian Roller (Lowther, 1994; Panicker, 1980; Rajasekar, 1982;
Thiyagesan, 1991; Asokan, 1995). Population, diurnal activity pattern, roosting behaviour
and feeding ecology of the Indian roller was studied by (Sivakumaran and Thiyagesan,
2003).
The Red-vented Bulbul, Pycnonotus cafer, is widely distributed throughout the Indian
sub-continent and is represented by seven races. It is a resident arboreal species commonly
found in gardens and in forests. It is non-territorial and can occur in pairs or large flocks. The
feeding preference of Red-vented bulbul was the ripe fruits of Lantana camara, (Bhatt and
Kumar, 2001). Bulbuls are dominant or important frugivores and seed dispersers of open
secondary vegetation throughout tropical and subtropical Asia (Lever, 1987 and Corlett,
1998).

The Jungle Babbler (Turdoides striatus) lives in the closed canopy woodlands and
other areas with plenty of plant cover. This bird has a large bill. It often hammers the larger
items of prey and swallows them whole. Jungle babbler feeds on insects of Orthoptera,
Isoptera, Coleoptera, Hymenoptera, and Lepidoptera, the wild fruits and berries of plants like
Lantana, Passiflora, Physalis, and Macaranga and the starch of Cassava and rice
(Zacharias, 1978). The structural adaptations of the bill and tongue of the birds to facilitate
nectar-feeding and the modifications of the corolla of the bird-flower to facilitate nectar-
feeding by the birds are described.
The four species of specialised nectar-feeding birds - Dicaeum concolor, Nectarinia

minima, N. asiatica and Zosterops palpebrosa have specialized adaptations of the bill and
tongue for a nectar diet (Davidar, 1979). The sunbirds N. minima and N. asiatica, which feed
entirely on nectar and insects, have a greater specialization for a nectar diet. D. concolor
and Z. palpebrosa that take fruits in addition, are less specialized for a nectar diet as
compared to the sunbirds (Davidar, 1979).
The habitat preference shows seasonal variations according to the availability of

habitat. The most preferred habitat of the Whistling Teal is the rooted floating vegetation,
whereas in the case of Spot-bill Duck it is open water. Habitat preferred by Cotton Teal is
open waters and open water with floating vegetation. Grass patches are preferred by Comb
Duck in Keoladeo National Park (Sridharan, 1989). The Lesser Whistling Teal was found
nesting on mounds, grassy patches and the utilized nests of Pied Myna on Acacia trees. The
Southern Crow-pheasant Centropus sinensis parroti is distributed in the Indian peninsula,
south of the Gangetic plain from North Gujarat, Kutch and Saurashtra east through Madhya
Pradesh, Andhra and Orissa, south through Maharashtra, Mysore, Tamil Nadu, Kerala and
Ceylon (Ali and Ripley, 1983). The coucals or crow-pheasants are considered to be highly
destructive to eggs and nestlings of other birds (Natarajan, 1990). The coucal was recorded
to roost in nine tree species; the most preferred being Prosopis chilensis, followed by
Pandanus tectorius and Manilkara hexandra. It was observed that White-browed Bulbul and
Red-vented Bulbul, play a dominant role in the seed dispersal in Point Calimere Sanctuary,
and it is felt that these birds have a definite role to play in the ecosystem of this type of
natural habitat (Balsubramanian, 1990).
Ecological investigations on various organisms are essential to formulate a proper

management plan for any protected area. Among the animals, perhaps birds are the best
indicators to know the health of an ecosystem. A total of 157 terrestrial bird species were
recorded from Keoladeo National Park, with a high number of species diversity occurring in
mixed vegetation (Sundaramoorthy, 1991). The preferred habitats of Pavo cristatus were
observed in the following order: scrub > open barren land > crop fields > plantation by
Sanctuary
(Yasmin, 1995) in Aligarh region. It was observed in above study that peafowl feeds primarily
on plant matter.
Woodpeckers are important components of forest communities and play a vital role
in forest ecosystems. Being insectivorous, they help in controlling bark insects directly by
feeding on them and indirectly by altering the microclimatic condition in tree barks.
Forestry practices such as selective logging can be detrimental to woodpecker

populations. Removal of dead trees or snags and large trees with decaying trunks or dead
branches reduce nesting and foraging sites for woodpeckers (Santharam, 1995). Heatwole
(1965) and Grubb (1976) have shown that the cattle egret feeding in close association with
cattle, catch insect prey at significantly higher rate and expend less energy than those
foraging alone. Cattle egrets always jerk back the head characteristically when swallowing
the prey (Hancock and Kushlan, 1984).
Aquatic vegetation is a critical food source for many migratory waterfowl, and
numerous studies have shown that water bodies with abundant aquatic plants receive the
greatest use (White and Malaher, 1964; Hobaugh and Teer, 1981; Johnson and Montalbano,
1989). In cases where aquatic vegetation is restricted or absent, waterfowl use is generally
low (Heitmeyer and Vohs, 1984). Additionally, declines in migratory waterfowl have been
correlated with loss of submersed aquatic vegetation in numerous water bodies (Jorde et al.,
1995; Orth and Moore, 1981; Haramis, 1991).The benefits of aquatic vegetation for
waterfowl may be dependent upon the species of vegetation present, with studies showing
that migratory waterfowl appear to prefer native aquatic plants as opposed to exotic species
(Smith, 2001 and Benedict and Hepp, 1996). Although reasons for this preference are not
clear, native plants are held to be more nutritious than exotic species and are therefore more
valuable to waterfowl (Paulus, 1982 and Sudgen, 1973). Native aquatic plants may also
provide better habitat for invertebrate recruitment, an important supplemental food source for
many waterfowl species (Keast, 1984). Conversely, invasion and establishment of less
beneficial exotic aquatic plants such as hydrilla (Hydrilla verticillata) and Eurasian water
milfoil (Myriophyllum spicatum) may limit waterfowl utilization of water resources.
It was studied by Dick et al. (2004) that Puddle ducks (Family Anatidae, Subfamily
Anatinae) are largely freshwater species that feed at the surface or by tipping up (with heads
below the surface) in shallow water; most species feed heavily on aquatic or flooded
terrestrial vegetation.
Diving ducks (Family Anatidae, Subfamily Aythyinae) commonly occur in freshwater

or saltwater and feed by diving beneath the surface; most species feed on aquatic

vegetation and/or invertebrates. Migratory waterfowl showed clear preferences for ponds
dominated by native vegetation over those dominated by water milfoil or Hydrilla.
Jacanidae, a circumtropical family of shorebirds that inhabits freshwater swamps and

marshes, is represented in the Indian subcontinent by two species, namely the Pheasant-
tailed Jacana (Hydrophasianus chirurgus) and Bronze-winged Jacana (Metopidius indicus).
The Pheasant-tailed as well as Bronze-winged Jacanas actively select their habitats.
Seasonal and annual variations were observed in number of habitats utilized by each
species (Vijayan, 1993). The highest preferred habitat of the Pheasant-tailed in all seasons
except in winters was submerged vegetation, followed by submerged with floating
vegetation. During winter it preferred habitat formed by recrudescent grass patch. Preferred
habitats of the Bronze-winged were submerged vegetation Ipomoea patch, or Eichhornia
patch or the combination of any of these. A combination of these habitats placed abutting
one another constitutes the habitat of the Bronze-winged Jacana. Based on the intensity of
usage, the habitat of the Pheasant-tailed and Bronze-winged Jacanas could be clustered
into five and six groups respectively. Preening followed by bath in both the species of
Jacanas was performed on floating platform formed of vegetation such as Ipomoea aquatica,
Paspalum distichum, Nymphaea nouchali or Eichhornia crassipes (Vijayan, 1993).
Green and Williams (1997) reported the foraging, diet diving behaviour of species
Phalacrocroax (cormorants). The feeding sites of White stork were shallow water bodies
amongst forested areas.
The White Stork forages by walking slowly or standing, visually searching for prey in
puddles or small water bodies in forested areas and grasslands. Feeding behaviour of the
Painted Stork was linked closely to environmental conditions such as presence or absence
of aquatic vegetation and water turbidity.
In calm, low turbidity areas the bird walked slowly with bill dipped in water and on
touching a prey the bill was closed immediately. Unlike many wading bird species that forage
visually, it feeds by tacto-location. They walk through water with bills open and partially
submerged and they catch fishes encountered during the activity, but this feeding strategy
requires high densities of prey. Open-bill Stork usually feeds by tactile or visual methods (Kahl,
1971b). The staple diet of Open-bill Stork is Pila which is quickly extracted by its probing bill
without breaking the shell. The Painted Storks were observed feeding on fishes in Keoladeo
National Park (Ishtiaq, 1998).
Large numbers of bird species are threatened due to habitat alternation. Many
studies reveal alarming reasons for the dwindling of bird species. Populations of
Sanctuary
Gyps vulture in south Asian countries have been declining precipitously during
recent past. The once abundant Indian White-rumped vulture and Long-billed
vulture now face extinction (Gadhiv and Dodia, 2006). Prakash (1999) reported more
than 95% decline in the population of Indian White-backed and Long-billed Vultures
in Keoladeo National Park, Bharatpur, Rajasthan), between 1988 and 1999. This
was the first alarm call of the crisis in the country. The Gyps vultures are now
classified as “Critically Endangered” (BirdLife International, 2001). Prakash (1999)
evaluated the possible causes for the vulture decline such as availability of food,
nesting habitat, chemical contamination and disease, and concluded that disease
and chemical contamination were the most likely causes (Prakash, 1999 and
Prakash et al., 2003). Protected areas (PAs) are established for protecting a
particular area with clear management objectives (Bolton, 1997). The most common
size for a protected area on a worldwide basis is only 10-30km2 (Johnston, 1992).
Scientifically planned protected areas should include endemic centers, however
small they are, as this would ensure saving species of restricted distribution (Nayar,
1996).
Wildlife conservation is not always in conflict with the aims of protected area
management. Although several studies have focused on the problem of loss of
undisturbed forests and its threats to the survival of rain forest species, very little
research has been done in this context in India, where habitat loss is considerable.
According to a survey carried out in the mid-1980s, over 65 percent of the

protected areas were characterized by human settlements and resource use (Kothari
et al., 1989). Factors such as encroachment of habitats, poaching and grazing are
responsible for the depletion and extinction of wildlife resources. The cases of
encroachment of habitats and activities like poaching and grazing are threatening a
majority of the wildlife habitats around the world (Panwar, 1991). With the passage of
time, human influences on habitats had an alarming impact. Sharavathi valley wildlife
sanctuary harbours endemics and threatened species of flora and fauna, and hence
requires immediate protection and conservation measures.
Birds, due to their mobility and habit of searching appropriate habitat and food, go
here and there. The confliction of birds with human habitation sometimes may cause great
mortality of bird species. Birds are internationally recognized as hazard to aircrafts as bird
strikes are a major concern for air safety. Therefore, it is necessary to identify the bird

species in the vicinity of the aerodromes and air traffic so that they can be shifted to a similar
habitat elsewhere. The birds can also be identified from their body remains. Passeriformes
and Laridea are also often identified after bird strikes worldwide (Pinos, 1997). A bird's skin
hosts very high numbers of feathers, depending on its size. Brown et al. (1987) have
reported that among European species this varies from 1500 feathers for the Swallow
(Hirundo rustica) to 25000 for the Tundra Swan (Cygnus columbianus bewickii). With the
combination of macroscopic and microscopic identification one can often reach species level
of identification (Prast and Shamoun, 1997). With growing numbers of airplanes in the air,
more reliable information on the risks of bird strikes is needed.
This type of information is highly dependent on data collecting and proper

identification of bird remains after bird strikes. Once the species is known, preventive
measures can be taken to avoid repetition of such hazardous and costly events in the future.
Determination of the bird species involved depends on the identification of pieces of

feather, skin, and blood. Chandler (1914, 1916) was one of the first scientists to examine
and describe the microscopic variation of downy feather barbs among many different groups
of birds. His work was based on pterylology (the arrangement of feathers in definite areas of
growth). For his detailed work on the taxonomic significance of microscopic structures of
both downy and pennaceous feathers he took help of the studies of pennaceous feather
structure of Nitzsch (1867). The early studies of Chandler (1916) showed that the
microstructures of feather varied enough to allow group designation from feather structures
alone. Chandler (1916) was also the first to note the applied importance of identifying
species of birds from feathers seized by U.S. Customs agents.
The feather identification technique gained importance as an applied science in the

early 1960s when Roxie Laybourne, research scientist at the Smithsonian Institution, was
called upon to identify bird remains recovered from the crash of a Lockheed Electra aircraft
at Logan International Airport (Lipske, 1982). When Laybourne identified the culprits of that
crash (which killed 62 people) as European Starlings (Sturnus vulgaris), the aviation industry
began to search for ways to control birds on airfields and reduce the risk of damage to
engines. Bird strike identification is currently the most demanding application of feather
identification. If the species of birds involved in bird strikes is known, airfield personnel can
implement habitat management schemes that discourage bird to use the airfields. The

Sanctuary
aircraft manufacturers can better design engines and aircrafts to withstand the impact of bird
collisions.
Throughout the years, the ability to determine species of birds from feather fragments
has been applied to various disciplines: archeological studies of excavated artifacts
(Hargrave, 1965 and Messinger, 1965), determination of food habits from prey remains
(Day, 1966; Gilbert and Nancekivell, 1982; Griffin, 1982; Ward and Laybourne, 1985; Joy et
al., 1994), forensic science investigations (Davies, 1970; Deedrick and Mullery, 1981),
examination of food contaminants (Olsen, 1981), identification of fossil feather remains
(Bennike and Dyck, 1986; Steadman, 1988; Humphery et al., 1993; Laybourne et al., 1994)
and analysis of bird - aircraft collisions (Manville, 1963; Laybourne, 1974; Rosalind and
Grubh, 1986; Brom, 1991). Although these studies demonstrated the applied importance of
using feather characters for bird identifications, none fully explored the systematic potential
of these characters. Chandler‟s (1916) gave an early statement on the taxonomic values of
feather characters as the morphology or epiphyology of feathers of birds is as valuable from
a taxonomic point of view as is osteology, mycology or the systematic morphology of any
other organ or system of organs of the body. Collision of birds and other animals with
vehicles and trains are common. Although there are published studies of collision of birds
with aircraft in India (Ali and Grubh, 1984; Grubh, 1988; Satheesan, 1990, Satheesan et al.,
1992) there is little information available on the bird taxa killed in road accidents, and the
frequency of road-kills.
Satheesan (1990) studied the ecology and behaviour of the Pariah Kite and
investigated the extensiveness and intensity of kites as a problem to aviation. The ecology
and behaviour of the Pariah Kite mainly with reference to feeding and resting and to a lesser
extent to roosting, nesting and other behavioural traits were studied.
Studies were conducted at various places such as Agra, Bombay, Bangalore,

Trivandrum, Hyderabad and at Madras, inside the aerodromes as well as in the buffer zone
within a radius of 25 km of the aerodrome. Comparative data from a forested area was
obtained from the Gir Wildlife Sanctuary in 1983 and 1986.
Whether the kites exist independent and away from human habitations was also
investigated. Suggestions on measures, mainly ecological, to alleviate the kite problem were
provided. This study revealed that vultures (26.11%) and kites (21.36%) were the main
hazards to aviation in India.
Kite strikes occurred often at lower altitudes, during flight phases within the
aerodrome (90.8%) and in the forenoon hours (72.1%) with a peak around 07.00 – 08.00
hours. The highest incidence of Kite strikes was in the autumn season (34.7%), the peak being
in October (16%).
The food and feeding habits of the kites were analyzed in depth. The kites at Agra
roosted and nested on tall and large trees situated close to feeding sites. Personal
observations as well as those made by other naturalists revealed that the Pariah Kite does
not exist independent of and away from human habitation and is a commensal with man
providing non-vegetarian garbage. An aerodrome provided the kites with the vast open
areas, freedom from disturbance and safety (afforded by its protected nature), which they
required for their daily activities. Such a favourable habitat close to a feeding site attracted
the kites to aerodromes more than the actual food available inside: the bulk of food taken by
kites was from outside the aerodromes (Satheesan, 1990).
Birds use a variety of environmental resources, especially habitats. However,

currently these habitats are only available in patches over most of the tropical world. Further
whatever is left is under constant human pressure. So the landscape approach of habitat is
important aspect for management of habitats and conservation of birds. All habitats are
“open” and exchange energy, mineral nutrients and species. It thus makes the landscape
mosaic a more important unit for study and management than individual, isolated habitat
patches (Noss, 1983). Preserving species based on some assigned values has also been much
in focus currently. Though it has not been fully decided whether species are to be valued for „their
own sakes‟ or „for our sakes‟, it is apparent that conservation evaluation and strategies are more
effective if there are systems of attaching values to species.
As a result, different ways of valuing species and/or communities have been

proposed (The Nature Conservancy, 1983; Usher 1986; Daniels et al., 1991).
A landscape approach for conservation of birds has been carried out by (Daniels,
1994). Past studies have provided invaluable information on habitat requirements, foraging
behaviour, avian community dynamics, and the responses of birds to habitat perturbations
(Conner and Adkisson, 1975; Webb et al., 1977; Conner et al., 1979; Crawford et al., 1981,
Franzreb and Ohmart, 1978; Thompson and Fritzell, 1990). Population viability of many bird
species within a regional context is reported to be dependent on large tracts of contiguous
habitat that are minimally isolated from similar habitats (Whitcomb et al., 1981; Lynch and
Whigham, 1984; Harris, 1984; Jones et al., 1985; Verner et al., 1986; Thomas et al., 1990).
Often, area-sensitive species are not present or do not breed successfully in isolated, small,

Sanctuary
or fragmented tracts of land (Whitcomb et al., 1981; Ambuel and Temple, 1983; Hayden et
al., 1985; Robbins et al., 1989; Faaborg et al., 1993).
The landscape context in relation to a given habitat can have an important effect on
avian demography, especially reproductive success, and, hence, population health (Martin,
1992). As the size of an area increases, the number of bird species present generally
increases until species accumulation curves reach a plateau (Bond, 1957; MacArthur and
Wilson, 1963, 1967; Galli et al., 1976; Robbins et al., 1989). The heterogeneity of habitats,
including the diversity of seral stages and microhabitats within an area, also influence bird
species richness and presence/absence of individual species. Because species differ in
home range or territory sizes, geographic distributions, microhabitat requirements, seasonal
habitat uses, and responses to habitat alterations, the complex array of habitat needs can be
bewildering (Finch et al., 1993; Block et al., 1995).
By keeping in mind that the loss of an endangered species ultimately means a

reduction in biological diversity, it is easier to understand how a management plan to meet
both objectives (endangered species and biological diversity) might be designed using the
same approach (Finch and Ruggiero, 1993).
Noss et al. (1995) advocate conservation of endangered ecosystems, defining an

ecosystem as any assemblage of species and/or habitat features that can be classified at
some hierarchical level and delineated on a map. Bird habitat conservation may require
different management strategies for different seasonal bird assemblages. Shochat and
Tsurim (2004) studied habitat use by winter birds in forest and scrubland habitat patches in
the northern Negev, Israel. The main goal of study was to assess whether differences in
responses to landscape and habitat structure between breeding and non-breeding seasons
require changes in future conservation plans that have been suggested for the Negev
breeding bird community.
Landscape composition may become a more important factor accounting for the
variation in winter bird species richness and diversity (e.g. Pearson, 1993). The intrinsic
factors that affect bird habitat selection differ between seasons (Hutto, 1985b), resulting in
habitat shift during winter (Lack 1971).
A study of the ecological requirements of waterfowl at man-made reservoirs in

Kheda district, Gujarat with view towards conservation, management and planning has
studied (Mukherjee et al., 2002). They studied that habitat size and complexity were

important factor for species diversity. The nesting success of Sarus crane from the site also
observed.
Ecotourism is becoming very popular, especially in protected areas where wildlife

concentrate and is easier to observe, but the consequences of associated disturbance have
seldom be quantified other than in the short-term, making the sustainability of this activity
untested.
Guillemain (2007) studied a historical, an empirical and an experimental approach to

assess the long-, medium- and short-term consequences of disturbance to wintering wildfowl
(Anatidae) in a wetland of international importance in the Camargue, Southern France.
In the short-term, disturbance made teal (Anas crecca) move away temporarily from
observation blinds without leaving the waterbody. Wildfowl fed more after disturbance,
disrupting their normal resting activities. In the medium-term, waterbodies with more tourists
did not host fewer birds: conversely the most heavily disturbed one hosted the highest
wildfowl density. In the long term, wildfowl numbers were not related with the number of
visitors. When practiced with appropriate guiding of people, and where appropriate facilities
are provided to limit human disturbance as done here, ecotourism may not affect wintering
wildfowl other than reversibly in the very short term. The legitimate demand of the public for
access, even in fragile protected areas, may therefore be sustainable under some
conditions.
Biological resources conservation through ecotourism development was studied by

(Sayed, 2003). Biological resources conservation could be achieved by natural selection and
adaptation processes. Ecotourism is one way to ensure the process of conservation
(effective use of resources). There are numerous administrative and technical means for
conserving the biological resources and biodiversity in the arid environments. Successful
techniques include ecosystems identification, wildlife resources identification, geological
aspects of land use, and environmental feasibility of conservation and rehabilitation. This
paper discusses the application of Ecotourism techniques that ensure biodiversity
conservation and elaborates their effectiveness under the socio-climatic and socio-cultural
conditions of Kuwait. Ecotourism which is considered the marriage of development and
conservation may serve as an economic component that can strengthen the cooperative and
peace-building effect of conservation efforts. Ecotourism in post-conflict: A new tool for
reconciliation was studied by (Strong-Cvetich, 2007) in Montery Institute, U.S.A.

Sanctuary
The fast pace of tourism development around the world is causing untold damage to
some of the most endangered ecological systems. From Dubai to Honolulu and from Cancun
to Beijing, the environmental impacts of tourism are alarming.
Blangy and Mehta, (2006) suggested that ecological restoration (ER) of disturbed
lands should be an important approach to sensitive tourism planning. This paper addresses
the need for restoring biodiversity and how ecotourism has shown to be a strong force in the
field of ER. Two examples (one each of private and community based ecotourism)
incorporating ER was highlighted in this paper. These were Phinda Game Reserve, South
Africa and the Baboon Sanctuary in Belize. Devlin and Meredith, (2001) studied the role of
forests in recreation and the relationships between recreation, forests and tourism, outlining
some of the concepts involved and some of the issues which forest managers need to
consider.
Ecotourism has a potentially vital role to play in conservation by generating economic

incentives for nature conservation. However, some authors contend that this potential may
be limited by narrow viewing preferences among visitors to protected areas, suggesting that
most tourists are primarily interested in seeing charismatic mega-fauna largely confined to
government or privately-owned parks. Lindsey et al. (2007) studied preferences among
tourists at four protected areas in South Africa to test the validity of this contention. Mega-
herbivores and large carnivores were the most popular species, particularly among first-time
and overseas visitors, but African visitors and experienced wildlife viewers were more
interested in bird and plant diversity, scenery, and rarer, less easily-observed and/or less
high-profile mammals. Several of these favoured species are extinction prone and often
absent from wildlife areas due to sensitivity to human encroachment and competition with
more abundant species. Hence, ecotourism may provide incentives for the conservation of
intact guilds, and management for ecotourism may align more closely with biodiversity
conservation objectives than suggested by critics.
This potential could be enhanced by diversification of tour operator advertising to

feature aspects of biodiversity other than the „big five‟. Nonetheless, charismatic mega-fauna
have a vital flagship role by attracting most overseas and first-time visitors to protected
areas.
Lowman (2004) studied Ecotourism and Its Impact on Forest Conservation and he
concluded that Ecotourism, in partnership with research, has the potential to significantly
affect forest conservation in many positive ways. Ecotourism has an impact on natural
ecosystems, but more importantly, it offers a way to promote conservation in ecologically
fragile regions.
From the above review, it is evident that a large number of studies have been
conducted on the avifauna of the world. These studies have covered varied aspects
such as diversity, habitat selection, preferences and food and foraging habits of
birds. The review also records studies on microscopic structure of feathers and
ecotourism.

CHAPTER 3
MATERIAL AND METHODS
STUDY AREA
Sajjangarh Wildlife Sanctuary is the smallest amongst the 25 wildlife sanctuaries of

the largest state of Indian Union in terms of area. Sajjangarh Wildlife Sanctuary is in close
proximity situated only 5 kms away from the heart of the most romantic city, Udaipur. It is a
recently established one, notified as a wildlife sanctuary vides Government of Rajasthan
Notification No. F11 (64)/Raj8/86 dated 17.02.1978 under the provision of Section 18 of
Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 (Central Act No.53). The main criteria behind the declaration
of the area as a wildlife sanctuary were its environmental as well as ecological importance.
Sajjangarh Wildlife Sanctuary spreads over an area of 5.19 km 2 including only one forest
block Sajjangarh. Area of the sanctuary is entirely enclosed with stone wall and forms one
single range called Sajjangarh Wildlife Range (Bhatnagar and Gupta, 2003). There are only
two protected areas in Rajasthan that are surrounded by walls - one is Keoladeo National
Park, Bharatpur and the other is Sajjangarh Wildlife Sanctuary itself.
Geographically, it is situated between 73º 39‟- 73 º 40‟ East longitudes and 24º 35‟-
24º 39‟ North latitudes. Altitude varies from 630 - 936m above MSL. The periphery of the
sanctuary is constituted by Udaipur City and three villages namely Hawala, Bari, and Gorella
which lie adjacent to its boundaries. Five other villages namely Sisarma, Kodiyat, Barda,
Morvania and Rampura (Ratakhet) are in 5 kms range and fall into the zone of influence of
the sanctuary. Udaipur city is on the south- eastern side of the sanctuary while on its
western, northern and southern aspects, the villages Gorella, Bari and Hawala are situated
respectively.
The villagers inhabiting these villages are dependent directly or indirectly on the
sanctuary. In Plate 3.1, Fig. A shows the location of Udaipur city in the state of Rajasthan
while Fig. B is the map of Sajjangarh Wildlife Sanctuary and the villages and other areas
surrounding it.

Sanctuary
Sajjangarh Wildlife Sanctuary is under the administrative control of Wildlife Division,
Udaipur. This sanctuary being in close proximity to Udaipur City is a centre for attraction as
an historical spot, ideal place for outings of school going children and local inhabitants and a
sun-set point for indigenous and foreign tourists. Besides, it also displays a unique habitat
for diverse flora and fauna. Within the boundaries of Sajjangarh Wildlife Sanctuary, a famous
Monsoon Palace is situated at the height of 936 MSL. It was a palatial monsoon residence of
erstwhile rulers of the Mewar. It was built by Maharana Sajjan Singh in 1884 thus also
known as Sajjangarh Palace. It got its name Monsoon Palace due to the reason that it looks
its best during the rainy season. It offers a panoramic overview of the city, surrounding lakes,
palaces and natural beauty. Monsoon Palace is an illustrative example of rainwater
harvesting. As every drop of the rain falling on any part of the palace is tapped down, filtered
and stored in the huge tanks constructed beneath.
The sanctuary area lies in one of the oldest geological formation in the world – the
Aravallis. It is situated atop the Bansdara Hill in the most fragile ecosystem of Aravallis.
Once there was a time when this Bansdara Hill was having dense vegetation and thick forest
cover. The area was rich in wildlife and natural resources during those times. Tigers were
reported in the area till around the middle of 20 th century (Dr. Satish Sharma, pers.com.).
The area currently within the limits of sanctuary was used as „Shikargaha’ (hunting ground)
by the erstwhile rulers. Seven shooting boxes (commonly known as „Odhis’) were
constructed around the hills to facilitate hunting. Unfortunately, the over exploitation and
non-judicious harnessing of biological and non-biological resources of the Aravallis in the
name of rapid development much beyond the sustainable limits, has left the Bansdara Hills
in a much precarious condition.
Prior to the year 1986, the wildlife of the area was critically destructed. It was
observed that the area was drastically deprived off of any vegetation and wildlife. Later by
realizing its strategic location and importance from aesthetical, environmental and ecological
point of view, this area was elevated to the status of wildlife sanctuary in 1987. Since then,
effective measures for the protection coupled with scientific management have resulted in the
re-establishment of the past glory of the area to some extent. Looking into its importance as a
good habitat for a variety of animals this sanctuary is now being developed as a biological park.
As per the classification given by Champion and Seth (1968), the forests of this
sanctuary fall under the II Category of Tropical Dry Deciduous forests which can be sub-
classified as:
(i) 5A Southern Tropical Dry Deciduous 2C1, 2C2 types.

(ii) 5B Northern Tropical Dry Deciduous 2C2, Tropical Dry Mixed Deciduous (DS-1, DS-
3) and Dry Edaphic types E-1, E/DS-1 types.
Forests of the sanctuary are composed of wide floral diversity dominated by mixed
miscellaneous forests. The main tree species of the area are Anogeissus pendula, Boswellia
serrata, Lannea coromandelica, Bauhinia racemosa, Acacia catechu and Wrightia
tomentosa. Hill slopes at the top are dominated by Lannea grandis and Boswellia serrata,
while in the middle slopes Anogeissus latifolia, Anogeissus pendula, Cassia fistula and
Albizzia labbeck are present. In the lower slopes, Zizyphus species, Acacia catechu,
Dichrostachys cinerea, Acacia leucofloea, Grewia flevecence etc. are mainly found.
The forest tract of the sanctuary is highly undulating with broken ranges of hills. A
wide variation of the temperature is observed round the year. Summers are generally hot
with an average temperature reaching up to 42ºC; while in winters it ranges to a minimum of
around 06ºC. Humidity is generally low. In summers, wind blows from south-west to north-
east during summer while the direction is reversed during winter seasons. Rainfall in the
area is erratic and unevenly distributed. It receives an average of approximately 650mm
rainfall annually.
METHODOLOGY
Establishing ecological baseline is the most important requisite for

ecological assessment of any developmental initiative. Applications of robust,
reliable and rapid methodologies that employ basic tools for data collection
are necessary. Ecological field surveys are pragmatic approaches for
collecting primary and secondary information on species, communities and
habitat and other relevant ecological parameters. This helps in the
identification of the thrust areas that demand considerations in impact
evaluation. The methodological approaches adopted for the Study of
Mammalian Diversity of Sajjangarh Wildlife Sanctuary are discussed below.
PRELIMINARY SURVEY
Rapid and extensive preliminary field surveys were carried out in Sajjangarh Wildlife
Sanctuary and its surroundings, during the first week of the study period. All forest trails and
tracks were searched to gather information regarding the presence and absence of the avian
species, and the habitat structure of the area. The area was traversed on foot within the
sanctuary and on vehicle along the road inside and on the periphery of the sanctuary. This
Sanctuary
was done in order to get familiarized to the study area. A rapid assessment of different
habitats was carried out in the study area. The term habitat has been used here in a broader
sense for general land cover rather than for a particular species. For the assessment of the
habitat structure the basic criteria used was Land Cover viz. dense vegetation, scrub
vegetation, slopes, valleys, barren areas, man-made infrastructures etc.
On the basis of the information gathered from the preliminary survey of the area and
land cover; the study area was divided into 8 zones to accomplish further study. The three
types of forests (dense forest, open forest and scrub forest) were differentiated by observing
the canopy cover. According to this, the density refers to the spacing of trees.
Dense forest has density above 0.6 while in open forests, it varies from 0.3 - 0.5. In a
highly degraded forest the density is below 0.3. This categorization of the study area was
helpful to explore each and every part of the sanctuary and to gather data regarding the
avian species of the sanctuary, habitat and the habitat preference led by the species in the
area. The zones of the sanctuary area were:
Zone I : Rocky habitat with sparse vegetation
Zone II : Thickets with rich vegetation cover
Zone III : Steep hillsides with rich vegetation cover
Zone IV : Peripheral area outside the wall of sanctuary
Zone V : Other infrastructures and cliffs and ruins within the limits of study area
Zone VI : Scrub at middle slopes with sparse vegetation cover
Zone VII : Open low land scrub with sparse vegetation at foothills
Zone VIII : Aquatic
Plate 3.2 (Figs. 1–8) shows all the eight zones demarcated in Sajjangarh Wildlife Sanctuary
in the present study as mentioned above.
For the collection of data, the bird survey techniques were used all along the major
trekking routes and some trails or localities in all the zones. All along these routes, birds that
were sighted, and their evidences that were encountered were recorded. Intensive surveys
were also made around sites outside the sanctuary area. Encounter rates (number of
species seen/visit) were obtained for bird encounters (direct) for all survey routes and also
the intensively surveyed areas. Data on altitude, habitat and location using GPS were
recorded for some important species or their evidences. Informal interviews were held with
the administrative authorities, local villagers, livestock owners to gather information. Grimmet
and Inskipp (2003), was used as reference book for identification of species when sighted

and for recognition by villagers during informal interviews. A standard frequency of three
visits per month was set for the whole study period (2004 – 2006) for the collection of data.
DATA COLLECTION OF THE AVIAN DIVERSITY
I. Primary data collection
One of the most critical and most basic aspects of the problem is to provide an
answer to “How many”. Birds live in different habitats, have varied social structures and also
show behavioural responses. Birds may live in open areas like grasslands or agricultural
systems, and are easier to see. Conversely, they may inhabit dense vegetation, which
obstruct a straightforward view. Some birds may be gregarious and may live in flocks of
thousands, whereas other may be solitary or in pairs. Counting birds using visual
observations, calls, and other indirect methods is fascinating and challenging. To analyze
avian diversity (species richness) of Sajjangarh Wildlife Sanctuary, the Timed Species Count
method was used.
Timed Species Count Method – This method was developed by Pomeroy and Tengecho
(1986). They assumed that in a bird survey, common species are generally detected earlier
than rare forms. Therefore the time taken to detect a bird becomes a measure of its
abundance.
The observer walks through the study area at a slow pace for one hour. This one-
hour observation period is divided into six 10 minutes time periods. All the species seen in
the first 10 minutes time period are recorded. In the next 10 minutes period of the remaining
50 minutes, only those species not seen earlier are recorded. The idea, therefore, is to
record a species only once in its appropriate time period. In this way, all earlier observed
species are ignored in subsequent time periods.
Analysis
All species recorded are ranked according to their time period. Thus, species
recorded in first 10 minutes interval are ranked 6 followed by 5 for the species recorded in
the second 10 minutes interval and so on. Unrecorded species are ranked 0. An index of
relative abundance of species across all survey visit to the site, therefore, score between a
maximum value of six and a minimum value of 1.
II. STUDY OF RARE AND ENDANGERED BIRDS OF THE SANCTUARY
On the basis of timed species count method (direct) we encountered the bird species
in different seasons in Sajjangarh Wildlife Sanctuary and according their encounter

Sanctuary
frequency we categorized the bird species in following manner in the local condition. The
Bird species categorization according to Timed Species Count method
0-10 mins = Most Common
10 -20 mins = Common
20-30 mins = Less Common
30-40mins = Uncommon
40-50mins = Rare
50-60mins = Very Rare
The species encountered from the study area were also checked for their status from
the list prepared by the IUCN (The Red List, 2008) and Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972,
Amendment 2002. Accordingly, the species were classified as endangered, vulnerable and
threatened.
III. MICROSCOPIC FEATHER ANALYSIS FOR IDENTIFICATION OF

SOME BIRD SPECIES
For the identification of species by the indirect evidences (such as the feathers)
encountered during study period various macroscopic and microscopic techniques were
carried out.
Feather Analysis
1. Collection of contour feathers: from dead birds and also from bird cages in the zoo.
2. Using forceps remove downy barbs from the base of the contour feather of one
species and gently lay four or five barbs into water in a watch glass.
3. The length of barb is measured using a scale in cm.
4. Barbs were stained with eosin and mounted in DPX.
5. The slide was observed under the microscope.
6. Measurement of Barbule-Length was carried out by Micrometry using oculometer.
IV. STUDY OF HABITAT PREFERENCE OF DIFFERENT BIRDS FOUND

IN THE SANCTUARY.
To analyze the habitat preference of a bird is very difficult because according to different
activities like feeding, nesting and roosting, the habitat will be different. But the actual
meaning of habitat preference is the place where the bird spends its major time of life, the
place where good amount of food, shelter and protection is available. The habitat preference
of birds was analyzed by three methods in the present study.
1. Altitude wise categorization of birds
The first method is based on occurrence of a bird in the sanctuary according to

altitude wise zonation of the sanctuary by Global Positioning System. The basis of altitude
wise zonation was different types of vegetation, which are found at different altitudes. The
first zone was recorded at a height of 634MSL to 734MSL.The areas covered in this zone
are from the Sanctuary Main Entry Gate up to the Gorella View Point. The plant types found
in this zone are Tephrosia purpurea, Melanocenchris jacquemontii, Aristida adscensionis,
Dichrostachys cinerea, Apluda mutica, Heteropogon contortus, Bothriochola pertusa, Acacia
senegal, Ziziphus nummularia and Cassia auriculata, Acacia leucofloea, Anogessius
pendula, Rhus mysurensis and Lantana camara. The second zone (734MSL-834MSL) was
marked from the Gorella View Point up to the beginning of first U-pin bend the accent to the
Monsoon Palace.
Vegetation types present dominantly on this altitude are Wrightia tinctoria,

Securinega leucopyrus, Woodfordia fruticosa, Grewia flavescens, Dichrostachys cinerea,
Boerhaavia diffusa, Zinnia elegans and Apluda mutica. The third zone ranged from the first
U-pin bend up to the Monsoon Palace (834 MSL to 936MSL). The vegetation type of this
zone is Boswellia serrata, Lannea grandis, Sterculia urens, Ficus arnottiana, Dendropthoe
fulcata, Lantana camara, Euphorbia nerifolia, Wrightia tinctoria, Dendrocalamus strictus,
Dicleptera verticilata, and Peuraria tuberosa.
2. Guild-wise categorization of bird’s species
The feeding activity of birds plays a major role in habitat preference. There is a direct
co-relation in the feeding habit of a bird and its habitat. Following eight types of guilds have
been identified in birds: Insectivorous, Omnivorous, Piscivorous, Frugivorous, Carnivorous,
Granivorous, Scavanger and Necterivorous. This guild characterization is helpful in locating
the habitat. For example: Piscivorous birds will be found near water bodies, necterivores in
the flowering zones, frugivores in the region where fruit trees are at plenty and so on.
3. Sighting frequency of birds/visit in different habitats
Direct sighting of bird frequency/ visit in different habitats shows the high occurrence
of birds in that particular habitat. The observations of the study were also confirmed by
consulting the literature such as Grimmett and Inskipp (1999), Ali and Ripley (1983), Grewal
(1993) etc.

Sanctuary
Analysis of the present status of ecotourism in the sanctuary and the other
perspectives related to it was also carried out. Information was gathered from various
sources including the Department of Forests, Rajasthan, Tourism Department etc. To
determine the needs and opinions of tourists regarding to the initiatives taken for the further
development of ecotourism in the sanctuary, a set of questionnaire was prepared. To obtain
the responses of visitors, a questionnaire was provided at Sajjangarh Main Entry Gate. The
sample of questionnaire sheet is given below :
Name of visitor
Status of visitor Indian (Local /External)/ Foreigner
Source Tourist Reception Centre/ Internet/ City

Guide/ other
Know about the SWLS
Age group 0-30, 30-60, above 60 years
Provision of ticket Yes / No
Amount reasonable Yes / No
Have they visited SWLS Yes / No
Have they visited any sanctuary so far Yes / No
Preference Sanctuary/ Palace
Preference Flora / Fauna / Landscap
Satisfaction Yes / No
Opinion and Suggestions and other

remarks
Impact of tourist activity on birds and their habitats was carried out by direct
observation and an attempt was also carried out to know the effect of eco-tourism on the
sanctuary as a whole.


Sanctuary

CHAPTER 4
AVIAN DIVERSITY
Species diversity is the variety and abundance of different types of organisms,

which inhabit an area. Biological diversity is the variety of life and its processes; and
it includes the variety of living organisms, the genetic differences among them, and
the communities and ecosystems in which they occur. A definition of biodiversity that
is altogether simple, comprehensive, and fully operational is unlikely to be found
(Noss, 1990). Diversity can be defined as the number of different items and their
relative frequency. World Resources Institute, World Conservation Union, and United
Nations Environment Programme and Global Biodiversity Strategy, 1992 define
biodiversity as the totality of genes, species and ecosystems in a region. “What
stage” are the words of Ernst Mayr (1997) for Biodiversity, which is a science that is
still in its infancy. The inventorying and monitoring of biological diversity have just
started for a few taxonomic groups and have yet to be initiated for most taxa.
The most beautiful, widely admired, more entertaining and most studied group
on the animals of the earth is “BIRDS”. In capturing our imagination they regime
supreme and thus have done more to promote wildlife conservation and care of
environment than all other capture put together. Though the Indian subcontinent is
gifted with rich diversity of bird life and an equally diverse set of habitat types, our
knowledge on the subject is still elementary (Ali and Ripley, 1983). Moreover,
species richness and community structure of birds vary from region to region
(Recher, 1969; Pearson, 1975 and Karr, 1976) as well as within a region, as abiotic
and biotic factors vary from habitat to habitat. The variety is enormous and 8600
species of birds have been estimated over the world by Ali (1941).
Woodcock (1980) has estimated nearly 1250 species of birds from Indian
subcontinent while Grimmet et al. (1998) documented 1300 species of birds in the
same geographical area. About 510 species of birds can be seen in the state of
Rajasthan (Grimmet and Inskipp, 2003). The southern part of Rajasthan is lush
Sanctuary
green, which supports great avian diversity and the present study area falls into this
zone of the state. Lot off work on the avian fauna of various wildlife sanctuaries of
Rajasthan has been carried out but still Sajjangarh Wildlife Sanctuary remained
untouched. Except for a few documentations no systematic and ecological data
regarding to avian fauna are available in the scientific literature. Therefore the
present study was carried out to document the avian species in this sanctuary and its
surroundings that form an IBA. The methodology used for this investigation has
already been mentioned in Chapter 3 – Material and Methods.
A total number of 129 bird species were encountered and identified during
the present study. A checklist of the terrestrial birds is given below in Table 1. Plate
4.1 records some of the common terrestrial and arboreal birds observed in and
around the sanctuary area in the present study. Grimmett et al., (1999), have
documented the variety of birds of Indian Subcontinent in their treatise “Birds of
Indian Subcontinent”. The update nomenclature, which is adopted by Grimmett et al.
(1999) has been followed in present work. The arrangement of taxa in families is
carried out by following Ali and Ripley (1983) pattern. Table 2 shows the checklist of
aquatic birds observed during the present study. Some of these species have been
photographed in Plate 4.2. The third table compares the observations of present
study with the available past data of the sanctuary.

International Journal of Education & Applied Sciences Research, Vol.3, special Issue June- 2016, Ph.D Thesis, EISSN: 2349 –
2899, ISSN: 2349 –4808 (Print)
Table 1: Checklist of terrestrial birds in and around Sajjangarh Wildlife Sanctuary
S.NO. Family Scientific Name English Name Species Frequency Local

Rank of Species Status**
(TSC) (TSC)*
1 Accipitridae Elanus caeruleus BLACK-SHOULDERED KITE 2 C R

Milvus migrans BLACK KITE 1 MC R
Accipiter badius SHIKRA 1 MC R
Gyps indicus LONG-BILLED VULTURE 6 VR R
Sarcogyps calvus RED-HEADED VULTURE 6 VR R
Gyps bengalensis WHITE-RUMPED VULTURE 6 VR R
Neophron percnopterus EGYPTIAN VULTURE 4 UnC R
2 Phasianidae Francolinus pictus PAINTED FRANCOLIN 4 UnC R

Fracolinus pondicerianus GREY FRANCOLIN 3 LC R
Pavo cristatus INDIAN PEAFOWL 1 MC R
Perdicula asiatica JUNGLE BUSH QUAIL 4 UnC R
Galloperdix spadicea RED SPURFOWL 6 VR R
3 Charadriidae Vanellus indicus RED-WATTLED LAPWING 1 MC R
4 Burhinidae Burhinus oedicnemus EURASIAN THICK-KNEE 3 LC R
5 Columbidae Columba livia ROCK PIGEON 1 MC R

Karnika Jani & Chhaya Bhatnagar / Study of Avian Diversity of Sajjangarh Wildlife Sanctuary

(TSC) (TSC)*
Streptopelia decaocto EURASIAN COLLARED DOVE 1 MC R
Streptopelia tranquebarica RED COLLARED DOVE 3 LC R
Streptopelia chinensis SPOTTED DOVE 3 LC R
Streptopelia senegalensis LAUGHING DOVE 4 UnC R
6 Psittacidae Psittacula eupatria ALEXANDRINE PARAKEET 2 C R

Psittacula krameri ROSE-RINGED PARAKEET 1 MC R
Psittacula cyanocephala PLUM-HEADED PARAKEET 3 LC R
49
7 Cuculidae Eudynamys scolopacea ASIAN KOEL 2 C R

Centropus sinensis GREATER COUCAL 2 C R
8 Strigidae Bubo bubo EURASIAN EAGLE OWL 4 UnC R

Athene brama SPOTTED OWLET 3 LC R
9 Caprimulgidae Caprimulgus asiaticus INDIAN NIGHTJAR 2 C R

Caprimulgus affinis SAVANNA NIGHTJAR 4 UnC R
10 Apodidae Apus affinis HOUSE SWIFT 2 C R

Tachymarptis melba ALPINE SWIFT 5 R R
11 Alcedinidae Halcyon smyrnensis WHITE-THROATED KING FISHER 2 C R

2899, ISSN: 2349 –4808 (Print)

(TSC) (TSC)*
Ceryle rudis PIED KINGFISHER 3 LC R
12 Meropidae .Merops orientalis GREEN BEE- EATER 1 MC R
13 Coraciidae Coracias benghalensis INDIAN ROLLER 2 C R

Coracias garrulous EUROPEAN ROLLER 6 VR PM
14 Upupidae Upupa epops COMMON HOOPOE 2 C R
15 Bucerotidae Ocyceros birostris INDIAN GREY HORNBILL 3 LC R
16 Megalaimidae Megalaima haemacephala COPPERSMITH BARBET 3 LC R
17 Picidae Dinopium benghalense BLACK-RUMPED FLAMEBACK 2 C R
18 Alaudidae Mirafra erythroptera INDIAN BUSHLARK 3 LC R

Eremopterix grisea ASHY-CROWNED SPARROW LARK 2 C R
19 Hirundinidae Hirundo concolor DUSKY CRAG MARTIN 1 MC R

Hirundo smithii WIRE-TAILED SWALLOW 3 LC R
Hirundo daurica RED-RUMPED SWALLOW 2 C R
20 Laniidae Lanius vittatus BAY-BACKED SHRIKE 4 UnC R

Lanius meridionalis SOUTHERN-GREY SHRIKE 2 C R


(TSC) (TSC)*
21 Oriolidae Oriolus oriolus EURASIAN GOLDEN ORIOLE 3 LC R
22 Sturnidae Sturnus pagodarum BRAHMINY STARLING 2 C R

Sturnus roseus ROSY STARLING 2 C WM
Sturnus contra ASIAN PIED STARLING 6 VR R
Acridotheres tristis COMMON MYNA 1 MC R
Acridotheres ginginianus BANK MYNA 4 UnC R
23 Dicruridae Dicrurus macrocercus BLACK DRONGO 1 MC R

51
Dicrurus caerulescens WHITE-BELLIED DRONGO 4 UnC R
24 Corvidae Dendrocitta vagabunda RUFOUS TREEPIE 2 C R

Corvus splendens HOUSE CROW 1 MC R
Corvus macrorhynchos LARGE-BILLED CROW 3 LC R
25 Campephagidae Tephrodornis pondicerianus COMMON WOODSHRIKE 3 LC R

Pericrocotus cinnamomeus SMALL MINIVET 3 LC R
Pericrocotus erythropygius WHITE-BELLIED MINIVET 6 VR R
26 Pycnotidae Pycnonotus cafer RED-VENTED BULBUL 1 MC R
27 Muscicapidae Turdoides caudatus COMMON BABBLER 1 MC R

2899, ISSN: 2349 –4808 (Print)

(TSC) (TSC)*
Turdoides malcolmi LARGE GREY BABBLER 1 MC R
Turdoides striatus JUNGLE BABBLER 3 LC R
Rhipidura aureola WHITE-BROWED FANTAIL 2 C R
Rhipidura albicollis WHITE-THROATED FANTAIL 3 LC R
Culicicapa ceylonensis GREY-HEADED CANARY FLYCATCHER 1 MC WM
Prinia socialis ASHY PRINIA 1 MC R
Orthotomus sutorius COMMON TAILORBIRD 2 C R
Phylloscopus collybita COMMON CHIFFCHAFF 3 LC WM
Copsychus saularis ORIENTAL MAGPIE ROBIN 2 C R
Saxicoloides fulicata INDIAN ROBIN 1 MC R
Oenanthe picata VARIABLE WHEATEAR 4 UnC WM
Cercomela fusca BROWN ROCK-CHAT 1 MC R
Oenanthe deserti DESERT WHEATEAR 4 UnC WM
28 Irenidae Aegithina tiphia COMMON IORA 3 LC R
29 Paridae Parus major GREAT TIT 3 LC R

Parus xanthogenys BLACK-LORED TIT 5 R R
Parus nuchalis WHITE-NAPED TIT 1 MC R


(TSC) (TSC)*
30 Motacillidae Anthus rufulus PADDYFIELD PIPIT 3 LC R

Anthus campestris TAWNY PIPIT 3 LC WM
Motacilla alba WHITE WAGTAIL 1 MC WM
Motacilla maderaspatensis WHITE-BROWED WAGTAIL 3 LC R
Motacilla flava YELLOW WAGTAIL 3 LC WM
Motacilla cinerea GREY WAGTAIL 2 C WM
31 Nectarinidae Nectarinia asiatica PURPLE SUNBIRD 1 MC R

53
32 Zosteropidae Zosterops palpebrosus ORIENTAL WHITE-EYE 3 LC R
33 Ploceidae Passer domesticus HOUSE SPARROW 3 MC R

Ploceus philippinus BAYA WEAVER 1 C R
Lonchura malabarica INDIAN SILVERBILL 2 C R
Lonchura punctulata SCALY-BREASTED MUNIA 4 UnC R
Acronyms:
MC = More Common, C = Common, LC = Less Common, UnC = Uncommon, R = Rare, VR = Very Rare, WM = Winter Migrant,
PM=Passage Migrant, R= Resident

International Journal of Education & Applied Sciences Research, Vol.3,
special Issue June- 2016, Ph.D Thesis, EISSN: 2349 –2899, ISSN:
2349 –4808 (Print)
Summary of Table 1:
Families reported: 33, Genera reported: 62, Species reported: 91
Frequency-wise number of bird species sighted in different time zones:

More Common = 23, Common = 22, Less Common = 25,
Uncommon = 12, Rare = 2, Very Rare = 7
Local Status: Winter Migrants = 8, Passage Migrants = 2, Residents = 81
Sajjangarh Wildlife Sanctuary does not enclose any fresh water

body within its limits. But the sanctuary is supported by a peripheral lake
ecosystem named Lake Bari which lies in close proximity on the western
boundary. The obligatory freshwater lake species as well as large number
of terrestrial birds are also dependent on the lake system. Birds have a
tendency to go in surrounding areas and return back. When they go
outside they use lake as water hole. A unique combination of terrestrial as
well as aquatic habitat supports a variety of bird species thereby forming a
part of IBA site. Udaipur city also embodies a necklace of interconnected
lakes that together with sanctuary area forms an IBA site. Many resident as
well as winter and summer migrants maintain the health of the lake
ecosystem. The wildlife sanctuary forms the catchment area of Lake
Ecosystem. The sanctuary and its surrounding rocks are the roosting site
for various bird species. The lake provides a comparatively less disturbed
and very congenial environment for the winter, summer and passage
migrants like Great White Pelican, Ruddy Shelduck, Mallard, Woolly
Necked Stork and Common Sand Piper. The diversity of aquatic birds
observed in the lake is tabulated in Table 2.

Karnika Jani & Chhaya Bhatnagar / Study of Avian Diversity of Sajjangarh
Wildlife Sanctuary
TABLE 2: Aquatic bird diversity of Lake Bari, Udaipur
S.N 1) Family Section 1.02 Sci Section 1.03 Co Local

o. entific Name mmon Name Statu
s*
1 Pelecanidae Pelecanus GREAT WHITE WM
onocrotalus PELICAN
2 Podicipedidae Tachybaptus LITTLE GREBE R
ruficollis
3 Phalacrocoracidae Phalacrocorax GREAT R
carbo CORMORANT
4 Phalacrocorax LITTLE R
niger CORMORANT
5 Ardiiedae Ardea cinerea GREY HERON WM
6 Ardeola grayii INDIAN POND R
HERON
7 Bubulcus ibis CATTLE EGRET R
8 Mesophoyx INTERMEDIATE R
intermedia EGRET
9 Egretta garzetta LITTLE EGRET R
10 Ardea purpurea PURPLE HERON R
11 Ciconiidae Mycteria PAINTED STORK R
leucocephala
12 Anastomus ASIAN R
oscitans OPENBILL
STORK
13 Ciconia WOOLY- R
episcopus NECKED STORK
14 Article II. Threskior Threskiornis BLACK-HEADED R
nithidae melanocephalus IBIS
15 Pseudibis BLACK IBIS R
papillosa
16 Platalea EURASIAN R
leucorodia SPOONBILL
17 Phoenicopteridae Phoenicopterus GREATER WM
ruber FLAMINGO
18 Phoenicopterus LESSER WM
minor FLAMINGO
19 Anatidae Anas clypeata NORTHERN WM
SHOVELER
Contact Us : info@arseam.com ; submit paper : editor@arseam.com download full 55

paper : www.arseam.com
2349 –4808 (Print)
20 Tadorna RUDDY WM
ferruginea SHELDUCK
21 Anas MALLARD WM
platyrhynchos
22 Aythya ferina COMMON WM
POCHARD
23 Anas crecca COMMON TEAL WM
24 Anser indicus BAR- HEADED WM
GOOSE
25 Gruidae Grus antigone SARUS CRANE R
26 Rallidae Porphyrio PURPLE R
porphyrio MOORHEN
27 Fulica atra COMMON COOT R
28 Gallinula COMMON R
chloropus MOORHEN
29 Amaurornis WHITE- R
phoenicurus BREASTED
WATERHEN
30 Jacanidae Hydrophasianus PHEASANT- R
chirugus TAILED
JACANA
31 Metopidius BRONZE- R
indicus WINGED
JACANA
32 Recurvirostridae Himantopus BLACK-WINGED R
himantopus STILT
33 Recurvirostra PIED AVOCET WM
avosetta
34 Rostratulidae Gallinago COMMON SNIPE WM
gallinago
35 Charadrius LITTLE RINGED R
dubius PLOVER
36 Charadrius KENTISH WM
alexandrinus PLOVER
37 Actitis COMMON WM
hypoleucos SANDPIPER
38 Laridae Sterna aurantia RIVER TERN R
ACRONYMS: WM = Winter Migrant, R = Resident
Summary of Table 2:
Families: 14, Genera: 32, Species: 38

Wildlife Sanctuary
Local Status of aquatic bird species: Winter Migrants = 14, Residents = 24
Sharma (1998) made an attempt to record the terrestrial birds observed in

and around the sanctuary area. The number of birds found common in both
studies is 76. There are 38 birds which were seen in the previous study (Sharma,
1998) but either not found or could not be observed in the present case. There
are 15 new species of birds, which were observed during the present study and
not seen by Sharma (1998). The comparative details of both studies are provided
in Table 3 as under:
Contact Us : info@arseam.com ; submit paper : editor@arseam.com download full 57

paper : www.arseam.com
2899, ISSN: 2349 –4808 (Print)
Table 3: Comparative details of present study and that of Sharma (1998)
S.No. Taxa Occurrence of birds reported

During present By Sharma (1998) In both studies
study only only
1. Elanus caeruleus 
(BLACK-SHOULDERED KITE)
2. Milvus migrans 
(BLACK KITE)
3. Accipiter badius 
(SHIKRA)
4. Aquila rapax 
(TAWNY EAGLE)
5. Accipiter nisus (EURASIAN SPARROWHAWK) 
6. Gyps indicus 
(LONG-BILLED VULTURE)
7. Gyps bengalensis 
(WHITE-RUMPED VULTURE)
8. Sarcogyps calvus 
(RED-HEADED VULTURE)
9. Neophron percnopterus 
(EGYPTIAN VULTURE)
10. Falco chicquera 
(RED-NECKED FALCON)


study only only
11. Falco tinnunculus 
(COMMON KESTREL)
12. Francolinus pictus 
(PAINTED FRANCOLIN)
13. Francolinus pondicerianus 
(GREY FRANCOLIN)
14. Coturnix coturnix 
(COMMON QUAIL)
15. Coturnix coromandelica 
(RAIN QUAIL)
16. Perdicula argoondah 
(ROCK BUSH QUAIL)
17. Pavo cristatus
(INDIAN PEAFOWL) 
18. Perdicula asiatica 
(JUNGLE BUSH QUAIL)
19. Galloperdix spadicea 
(RED SPURFOWL)
20. Vanellus indicus 
(RED-WATTLED LAPWING)
21. Burhinus oedicnemus 

2899, ISSN: 2349 –4808 (Print)

study only only
(EURASIAN THICK-KNEE)
22. Pterocles exustus 
(CHESTNUT-BELLIED SANDGROUSE)
23. Treron phoenicoptera 
(YELLOW-FOOTED GREEN PIGEON)
24. Columba livia 
(ROCK PIGEON)
25. Streptopelia decaocto 
(EURASIAN COLLARED DOVE)
26. Streptopelia chinensis 
(SPOTTED DOVE)
27. Streptopelia tranquebarica 
(RED COLLARED DOVE)
28. Streptopelia senegalensis 
(LAUGHING DOVE)
29. Psittacula eupatria 
(ALEXANDRINE PARAKEET)
30. Psittacula krameri 
(ROSE-RINGED PARAKEET)
31. Psittacula cyanocephala 
(PLUM-HEADED PARAKEET)


study only only
32. Clamator jacobinus 
(PIED CUCKOO)
33. Hierococcyx varius 
(COMMON HAWK CUCKOO)
34. Cuculus micropterus 
(INDIAN CUCKOO)
35. Cacomantis passerinus 
(GREY- BELLIED CUCKOO)
36. Eudynamys scolopacea 
(ASIAN KOEL)
37. Phaenicophaeus leschenaultii 
(SIRKEER MALKOHA)
38. Centropus sinensis 
(GREATER COUCAL)
39. Bubo bubo 
(EURASIAN EAGLE OWL)
40. Athene brama 
(SPOTTED OWLET)
41. Caprimulgus asiaticus 
(INDIAN NIGHTJAR)
42. Caprimulgus affinis 

2899, ISSN: 2349 –4808 (Print)

study only only
(SAVANNA NIGHTJAR)
43. Apus affinis 
(HOUSE SWIFT)
44. Tachymarptis melba 
(ALPINE SWIFT)
45. Halcyon smyrnensis 
(WHITE–THROATED KINGFISHER)
46. Ceryle rudis 
(PIED KINGFISHER)
47. Merops philippinus 
(BLUE-TAILED BEE-EATER)
48. Merops orientalis 
(GREEN BEE-EATER)
49. Coracias benghalensis 
(INDIAN ROLLER)
50. Coracias gurrulus 
(EUROPEAN ROLLER)
51. Upupa epops 
(COMMON HOOPOE)
52. Ocyros birostris 
(INDIAN GREY HORNBILL)


study only only
53. Megalaima haemacephala 
(COPPERSMITH BARBET)
54. Celeus brachyurus 
(RUFOUS WOODPECKER)
55. Dinopium benghalense 
(BLACK-RUMPED FLAMEBACK)
56. Dendrocopos mahrattensis 
(YELLOW-CROWNED WOODPECKER)
57. Mirafra erythroptera 
(INDIAN BUSHLARK)
58. Eremopterix grisea 
(ASHY-CROWNED SPARROW LARK)
59. Ammomanes phoenicurus 
(RUFOUS-TAILED LARK)
60. Calandrella brachydactyla 
(GREATER SHORT-TOED LARK)
61. Galerida cristata 
(CRESTED LARK)
62. Hirundo concolor 
(DUSKY CRAG MARTIN)
63. Hirundo rustica 

2899, ISSN: 2349 –4808 (Print)

study only only
(BARN SWALLOW)
64. Hirundo smithii 
(WIRE-TAILED SWALLOW)
65. Hirundo daurica 
(RED-RUMPED SWALLOW)
66. Lanius vittatus 
(BAY-BACKED SHRIKE)
67. Lanius meridionalis 
(SOUTHERN GREY SHRIKE)
68. Oriolus oriolus 
(EURASIAN GOLDEN ORIOLE)
69. Sturnus pogodarum 
(BRAHMINY STARLING)
70. Sturnus roseus 
(ROSY STARLING)
71. Sturnus contra 
(ASIAN PIED STARLING)
72. Acridotheres tristis 
(COMMON MYNA)
73. Acridotheres ginginianus 
(BANK MYNA)


study only only
74. Dicrurus macrocercus 
(BLACK DRONGO)
75. Dicrurus caerulescens 
(WHITE-BELLIED DRONGO)
76. Dendrocitta vagabunda 
(RUFOUS TREEPIE)
77. Corvus splendens 
(HOUSE CROW)
78. Corvus macrorhynchos 
(LARGE-BELLIED CROW)
79. Tephrodornis pondicerianus 
(COMMON WOODSHRIKE)
80. Caracina macei 
(LARGE CUCKOOSHRIKE)
81. Pericrocotus cinnamomeus 
(SMALL MINIVET)
82. Pericrocotus erythropygius 
(WHITE-BELLIED MINIVET)
83. Aegithina tiphia 
(COMMON IORA)
84. Pycnonotus cafer 

2899, ISSN: 2349 –4808 (Print)

study only only
(RED-VENTED BULBUL)
85. Turdoides caudatus 
(COMMON BABBLER)
86. Turdoides malcolmi 
(LARGE GREY BABBLER)
87. Turdoides striatus 
(JUNGLE BABBLER)
88. Chrysomma sinense 
(YELLOW –EYED BABBLER)
89 Rhipidura aureola 
(WHITE-BROWED FANTAIL)
90. Rhipidura albicollis 
(WHITE-THROATED FANTAIL)
91. Culicicapa ceylonensis 
(GREY-HEADED CANARY FLYCATCHER)
92. Prinia socialis 
(ASHY PRINIA)
93. Orthotomus sutorius 
(COMMON TAILORBIRD)
94. Phylloscopus collybita 
(EURASIAN CHIFFCHAFF)


study only only
95. Copsychus saularis 
(ORIENTAL MAGPIE ROBIN)
96. Saxicoloides fulicata 
(INDIAN ROBIN)
97. Oenanthe picata 
(VARIABLE WHEATER)
98. Cercomela fusca 
(BROWN ROCK- CHAT)
99. Ficedula parva 
(RED-THROATED FLYCATCHER)
100. Cyornis tickelliae 
(TICKELL‟S BLUE FLYCATCHER)
101. Terpsiphone paradisi 
(ASIAN PARADISE-FLYCATCHER)
102. Cisticola juncidis 
(ZITTING CISTICOLA)
103. Prinia hodgsonii 
(GREY- BREASTED PRINIA)
104. Prinia inornata 
(PLAIN PRINIA)
105. Silvia curruca 

2899, ISSN: 2349 –4808 (Print)

study only only
(LESSER WHITE THROAT)
106. Luscinia calliope 
(SIBERIAN RUBYTHROAT)
107. Phoenicurus ochruros 
(BLACK REDSTART)
108. Saxicola torquata 
(COMMON STONECHAT)
109. Saxicola caprata 
(PIED BUSHCHAT)
110. Oenanthe deserti 
(DESERT WHEATEAR)
111. Monticola solitarius 
(BLUE ROCK THRUSH)
112. Parus major 
(GREAT-TIT)
113. Parus xanthogenys 
(BLACK-LORED TIT)
114. Parus nuchalis 
(WHITE-NAPED TIT)
115. Anthus hodgsoni 
(TREE PIPIT)


study only only
116. Anthus rufulus 
(PADDYFIELD PIPIT)
117. Anthus campastris 
(TAWNY PIPIT)
118. Motacilla alba 
(WHITE WAGTAIL)
119. Motacilla maderaspatensis 
(WHITE-BROWED WAGTAIL)
120. Motacilla cinerea 
(GREY WAGTAIL)
121. Motacilla flava 
(YELLOW WAGTAIL)
122 Nectarinia asiatica 
(PURPLE SUNBIRD)
123. Zosterops palpebrosus 
(ORIENTAL WHITE- EYE)
124. Passer domesticus 
(HOUSE SPARROW)
125. Pateronia xanthocollis 
(CHESTNUT- SHOULDERED PETRONIA)
126. Ploceus philippinus 

2899, ISSN: 2349 –4808 (Print)

study only only
(BAYA WEAVER)
127. Lonchura malabarica 
(INDIAN SILVERBILL)
128. Lonchura punctulata 
(SCALY-BREASTED MUNIA)
129. Melophus lathami 
(CRESTED BUNTING)
Summary of Table:
Total number of bird species seen in present and past study both = 76
Number of bird species seen by Sharma (1998) but not seen during present investigation = 38
Total number of bird species seen in present investigation and not by Sharma (1998) = 15

Birds cannot be restricted to a particular area, especially when the area is a sanctuary. They can easily fly in and out of this region.
Therefore an attempt was also carried out to record the birds seen in the city area as well. Table 4 shows a comparative account of birds
observed within the sanctuary region and the entire city.
Table 4: Comparative analysis of avian-diversity of Sajjangarh Wildlife Sanctuary, Udaipur city and of both places
S.NO. Family Scientific Name English Name Species Species Species

present in present in present in
SWLS only Udaipur City both places
1 Accipitridae Elanus caeruleus BLACK-SHOULDERED KITE 
2 Milvus migrans BLACK KITE 

3 Accipiter badius SHIKRA 
4 Gyps indicus LONG-BILLED VULTURE 
5 Sarcogyps calvus RED-HEADED VULTURE 
6 Gyps bengalensis WHITE-RUMPED VULTURE 
7 Neophron percnopterus EGYPTIAN VULTURE 

8 Phasianidae Francolinus pictus PAINTED FRANCOLIN 
9 Fracolinus pondicerianus GREY FRANCOLIN 
10 Pavo cristatus INDIAN PEAFOWL 

2899, ISSN: 2349 –4808 (Print)

11 Perdicula asiatica JUNGLE BUSH QUAIL 
12 Galloperdix spadicea RED SPURFOWL 
13 Charadriidae Vanellus indicus RED-WATTLED LAPWING 
14 Burhinidae Burihinus oedicnemus EURASIAN THICK-KNEE 
15 Columbidae Columba livia ROCK PIGEON 
16 Streptopelia decaocto EURASIAN COLLARED DOVE 
17 Streptopelia RED COLLARED DOVE 

tramquebarica
18 Streptopelia chinensis SPOTTED DOVE 
19 Streptopelia senegalensis LAUGHING DOVE 
20 Psittacidae Psittacula eupatria ALEXANDRINE PARAKEET 
21 Psittacula krameri ROSE-RINGED PARAKEET 
22 Psittacula cyamocephala PLUM-HEADED PARAKEET 

23 Cuculidae Eudynamys scolopacea ASIAN KOEL 
24 Centropus sinensis GREATER COUCAL 


25 Strigidae Bubo bubo EURASIAN EAGLE OWL 
26 Athene brama SPOTTED OWLET 

27 Caprimulgidae Caprimulgus asiaticus INDIAN NIGHTJAR 
28 Caprimulgus affinis SAVANNA NIGHTJAR 
29 Apodidae Apus affinus HOUSE SWIFT 
30 Tachymarptis melba ALPINE SWIFT 
31 Alcedinidae Halcyon smyrensis WHITE-THROATED KING 
FISHER
32 Ceryle rudis PIED KINGFISHER 
33 Meropidae Merops orientalis GREEN BEE-EATER 
34 Coraciidae Coracias benghalensis INDIAN ROLLER 
35 Coracias garrulus EUROPEAN ROLLER 
36 Upupidae Upupa epopos COMMON HOOPOE 
37 Bucerotidae Ocyros birostris INDIAN GREY HORNBILL 
38 Megalaimidae Megalaima COPPERSMITH BARBET 
haemacephala
39 Picidae Dinopiun benghalensis BLACK-RUMPED FLAMEBACK 
40 Alaudidae Mirafra erythroptera INDIAN BUSH LARK 

2899, ISSN: 2349 –4808 (Print)

41 Eremopterix grisea ASHY-CROWNED SPARROW 
LARK
42 Hirudinidae Hirundo concolor DUSKY CRAG MARTIN 
43 Hirudo smithii WIRE-TAILED SWALLOW 
44 Hirndo daurica RED-RUMPED SWALLOW 

45 Laniidae Lanius vittatus BAY-BACKED SHRIKE 
46 Lanius meridionalis SOUTHERN GREY SHRIKE 

47 Oriolidae Oriolus oriolus EURASIAN GOLDEN ORIOLE 
48 Sturnidae Sturnus pagadarum BRAHMINY STARLING 
49 Sturnus roseus ROSY STARLING 

50 Sturnus contra ASIAN PIED STARLING 
51 Acridotheres tristris COMMON MYNA 

52 Acridotheres ginginianus BANK MYNA 
53 Dicruridae Dicrurus adsimillis BLACK DRONGO 
54 Dicrurus caerulescens WHITE-BELLIED DRONGO 


55 Corvidae Dendrocitta vagabunda RUFOUS TREEPIE 
56 Corvus splendens HOUSE CROW 
57 Corvus macrorhynchus LARGE-BILLED CROW 
58 Campephagidae Tephrodornis COMMON WOODSHRIKE 
pondicerianus
59 Pericrocotus SMALL MINIVET 
cinnamomeus
60 Pericrocotus erythropygus WHITE-BELLIED MINIVET 
61 Pycnotidae Pycnonotus cafer RED-VENTED BULBUL 
62 Muscicapidae Turdoides caudatus COMMON BABBLER 
63 Turdoides maicolmi LARGE GREY BABBLER 
64 Turdoides striatus JUNGLE BABBLER 
65 Rhipidura aureola WHITE-BROWED FANTAIL 

66 Rhipidura albicollis WHITE-THROATED FANTAIL 
67 Culicicapa ceylomensis GREY-HEADED CANARY 
FLYCATCHER
68 Prinia socialias ASHY PRINIA 
69 Orthotomus sutorius COMMON TAILORBIRD 

2899, ISSN: 2349 –4808 (Print)

70 Phylloscopus collybita EURASIAN CHIFFCHAFF 
71 Copsychus saularis ORIENTAL MAGPIE ROBIN 
72 Saxicoloides fulicata INDIAN ROBIN 
73 Oenanthe picata VARIABLE WHEATEAR 
74 Cercomela fusca BROWN ROCK -CHAT 

75 Oenanthe deserti DESERT WHEATEAR 
76 Irenidae Aegithina tiphia COMMON IORA 
77 Paridae Parus major GREAT TIT 
78 Parus xanthogenys BLACK-LORED TIT 
79 Parus nuchalis WHITE-NAPED TIT 
80 Motacillidae Anthus novaeseelandiae PADDYFIELD PIPIT 
81 Anthus campestris TAWNY PIPIT 
82 Motacilla alba WHITE WAGTAIL 
83 Motacilla WHITE-BROWED WAGTAIL 
maderaspantensis
84 Motacilla flava YELLOW WAGTAIL 
85 Motacilla cinerea GREY WAGTAIL 
86 Nectarinidae Nectarinia asiatica PURPLE SUNBIRD 


87 Zosteropidae Zosterops palpebrosa ORIENTAL WHITE-EYE 
88 Ploceidae Passer domesticus HOUSE SPARROW 
89 Ploceus philippinus BAYA WEAVERBIRD 
90 Lonchura malabarica INDIAN SILVERBILL 
91 Lonchura punctulata SCALY-BREASTED MUNIA 
Summary of Table 4:
 Total number of terrestrial bird species=91

 Bird species present in both places=36
 Bird species present in Sanctuary only=55
 Birds present in city area only=0
During the present investigation four species of vultures were observed. These were Red -headed vulture Long-billed
vulture, White-rumped vulture and Egyptian vulture. These were observed in and around the sanctuary area. A record of these
four species of vultures as observed is given below (Table 5):
Table 5: Records of vultures seen in and around the sanctuary

2899, ISSN: 2349 –4808 (Print)
S.No. Scientific Name English Name No of Locality Remark Date

Birds seen
1. Sarcogyps Red-headed 1 SWLS Perching on a tree near Maharana 16.iii.04

calvus Vulture Pratap Natural Trail. It was observed
after 16 years in this sanctuary
(S.K.Sharma pers.com.)
1 SWLS 25.vi.05
Flying over the Biological park (under
construction)
2. Gyps indicus Long-billed 2 Bari Lake Far from lake Bari sitting on a rock 20.ix.04
Vulture
3. Gyps White-rumped 1 SWLS Sitting on Barren rock outside the 8.ii.05
benghalensis Vulture sanctuary
4. Neophron Egyptian Vulture 2 Udaipole bus Flying in the sky 23.xi.07

percnopterus stand

2349 –4808 (Print)
Belonging to the family Phasinidae are two wild species of fowls, namely,
Aravalli Red Spurfowl (Galloperdix spadicia) and Grey jungle fowl (Gallus
sonnertii). A third species of spurfowl, the Painted Spurfowl (Galloperdix lunulata)
is also spotted within in Rajasthan but it is totally absent in Sajjangarh Wildlife
Sanctuary and the other parts of Southern Rajasthan. In Sajjangarh, Aravalli Red
Spurfowl was spotted near the Jhar Mahadev region of the sanctuary. The
probable reason for this is presence of most abused weed Lantana camara that is
playing a positive role in many pockets of Aravallis to save the members of family
Phasianidae. Impenetrable thickets of this weed provide protection to the birds.
Records of Aravalli Red Spurfowl (Galloperdix spadicea) in Sajjangarh

Wildlife Sanctuary
Locality Past Status Present Status
Sajjangarh Wildlife Common before 1970 (R. Rare, some times seen
Sanctuary Tehsin pers. com.) at water hole at Jhar
Mahadev
The presence of Columbidae family was endorsed in large numbers due to

the presence of old buildings, fort, hilly zones and thickets. Asian koel is also a
brood parasite, which lays its eggs in the nest of large-billed and house crow.
Koel is commonly seen in large trees like mango groves. It becomes much vocal
during summer which is the breeding season of the bird that coincides with the
breeding season of the crow of the area.
Two species of Nightjars (Caprimulgus asiaticus) and (Caprimulgus affinis)

can be recorded in the sanctuary. During summer nights, they become quite vocal
and can be here and there. The Savanna nightjar calling can be heard from the
Hawala region side in the sanctuary area. This species is an early riser bird and
starts calling about sunset during summers.
Nightjars habitually perch along and not across the branches, as their feet
are short and weak. They roost and lay their eggs on the ground without building
any kind of nest during breeding season. Nightjars prefer open areas during
summer season, especially during moonlit nights. Identification of nightjars is a bit
2349 –4808 (Print)
difficult due to their cryptic colouration. However, they can be identified easily by
vocalization as tabulated below (Table 6):
Table 6: Identification of nightjars by their vocalization
S. No. Species Calling location Vocalization
1. Indian Nightjar On Ground Chunk -- chunk –

(Caprimulgus asiaticus) chunk –Tokarro
2. Savanna Nightjar (C . affinis) On Wing Dhet --- Dhet ---

Dhet
Two species of Family Apodidae namely Apus affinis (House Swift) and
Tachymarptis melba (Alpine Swift) are present in Sajjangarh Wildlife Sanctuary.
The presence of ruins and palace supports the species Apus affinis. The other
species is rare in this sanctuary. A few sighting of Tachymarptis melba were
made flying in air with house swifts near the palace.
The Barbets (Family Megalaimidae) are less common in the sanctuary,

due to absence of big fruit trees. Barbets supporting habitat like Ficus religiosa,
F. benghalensis, and F. racemosa etc. are very few and localized in Jhar region or
near the lake. So the presence of Coppersmithbarbet is recorded from Jhar Mahadev
and near Bari lake area.
Arboreal habitat of Safari Park region of Sajjangarh Wildlife Sanctuary

attracts the Woodpecker (Family Picidae). Two subspecies of Black-rumped
Woodpecker (Dinopium benghalensis) occur in Southern parts of Udaipur district
(Sharma, 1999).
The Northern Black-rumped woodpecker (Dinopium benghalensis

benghalensis Linn.) is common every where in Sajjangarh as well as in all parts of
Rajasthan but Southern Black-rumped Woodpecker (Dinopium benghalensis
punticolle Malherbe) has been reported in Gujar-ki-naal forest in March, 1998
(Sharma, 1999).
Contact Us : info@arseam.com ; submit paper : editor@arseam.com download full paper : 80

www.arseam.com
special Issue June- 2016, Ph.D Thesis, pp 01-05 EISSN: 2349 –2899,
ISSN: 2349 –4808 (Print)
During hot noons of summer, Ashy crowned sparrow lark (Eremopterix

grisea) can be seen sitting on telephone wires around the sanctuary. This species
is common and resident in this area.
Common Myna is the most common species in the sanctuary. Bank Myna
is very rare in and around the sanctuary. Pied Myna is also rare in Sajjangarh
Wildlife Sanctuary and was observed only once. This species is present in
Udaipur, Banswara, Bhilwara and Chittorgarh cities in Southern Rajasthan.
However, Pied Myna was also seen in the Govardhan Vilas area of the city.
Family Dicruridae is represented by two species namely, Black Drongo

(Dicrurus macrocercus) and White- bellied Drongo (D. caerulescens). White
bellied drongo is more arboreal in nature and seen in deeper areas of the forest
near Jhar Mahadev while black drongo is much confined to outskirts and open
areas. It is also seen sitting on the back of grazing cattle around the sanctuary.
Small Minivet and White-bellied Minivet belonging to Family

Campephagidae are easily sighted in this sanctuary. The habitat of scrubs in
Sajjangarh supports the rare species of White-bellied Minivet.
Family Pycnotidae is represented by one species of Bulbul, namely, Red-

vented bulbul (Pycnonotus cafer), which is quite common or rather abundant. The
Red-vented bulbul is also responsible for spread of Lantana camara in the area.
Member of Family Muscicapidae, the White-browed fantail (Rhipidura

aurola) is common in Aravallis and adjacent area. A similar looking species White-
throated Fantail (R. albicollis) is confined to southern Aravallis only. Both species
were encountered in the sanctuary area during the present study.
Two species of Wheatears are seen during winters, as suitable habitat is

present for wheatears in the Sanctuary. Among two, the variable wheatear
(Oenanthe picata) is more common. There are three colour forms of this species
known to science in India. Their colour pattern is as follows (Table 7):
Table 7: Colour patterns of three subspecies of variable wheatear

www.arseam.com
2349 –4808 (Print)
S. No. Taxon Colour pattern of male
Head Belly
1. Oenanthe picata picata Black White
2. O. picata capistrata White White
3. O. picata opistholeuca Black Black
Three species of tits are present in and around Sajjangarh Wildlife

Sanctuary. Great Tit (Parus major) is a common bird and sighted near the first
water hole of Safari Park, while white-naped tit (P. nuchalis) is an endemic bird in
Indian context. It is a common species in Sajjangarh Wildlife Sanctuary. It prefers
thorn-scrub forest (Ali and Ripley, 1983; Grimmet et al., 1999). Sajjangarh Wildlife
Sanctuary has suitable habitat for this endemic bird. The other habitats for Parus
nuchalis in Udaipur district are Baghdara, Machhla Magra, Kaler, Banki and
surrounding areas of district.
Three species of wagtails (Family Motacillidae) are seen in Sajjangarh.

Out of the three species of Wagtails, two are migratory, seen in winter
everywhere. White-browed wagtail (Motacilla madraspatensis) is a resident
species.
One species of Sunbird (Nectarinia asiatica) is seen in Sajjangarh, which

is very common. It is nectarivorous in habit and is seen near the plantation
hovering over flowers having tubular corolla.
One species of white-eye (Family Zosteropidae) is present in Sajjangarh

around the plantation area. One species each of sparrow and baya and two
species of munia, all belonging to Family Ploceidae are present in the study area.
Indian Silverbill (Lonchura malabarica) is a common bird of the area seen
parasitizing the nest of baya weaver (Ploceus philippinus). Baya weaver is a
common bird of agriculture fields and open areas, where it makes its nest and is
commonly seen during monsoon period. Baya opt thorny plants for nesting (Ali
and Ripley, 1983; Sharma 1991, 1995) but sometimes it may nest on telephone
and electric wires also. It was seen near Gorella village on the periphery of the
sanctuary.

www.arseam.com
ISSN: 2349 –4808 (Print)
Thus, the present study reports a total of 129 bird species. These belong
to both terrestrial as well as aquatic categories. As compared to the earlier study
of terrestrial birds we find that 114 species were reported in the past by Sharma,
1998. But the number of terrestrial birds observed in the present study has
reduced to 91. The possible reason for this loss of 23 species can be the
destruction of congenial habitat. It is also noted that 15 species observed in the
present study were not reported in the earlier one. This could be due to
displacement and movement of birds in search of better environment.
From this study it is also observed that certain birds are found in and
around the sanctuary area and also they have been seen in the city area. The
possible explanation is that these birds have differentiated between their roosting
and feeding areas. Birds such as Passer domesticus, Nectarinia asiatica,
Turdoides caudatus, Pycnonotus cafer, Corvus splendens, Dicrurus macrocercus,
Acridotheres tristis, , Sturnus pagodarum, Ocyceros birostris, Upopa epops,
Coracias benghalensis, Merops orientalis, Halcyon smyrnensis, Apus affinis,
Athene brama, Eudynamys scolopacea, Psittacula krameri, Columba livia,
Streptopelia decaocto, Vanellus indicus, Francolinus pondicerianus, Milvus
migrans are found in both these places.
Certain birds such as Vultures, Red Spurfowl, Quails, Eurasian thick-knee,

Laughing Dove, Nightjars, Larks and Swallows, Shrikes, Minivets, Tits and Pipits,
Wagtails, Munias, etc. These bird species are found only in the sanctuary area as
they have neither their roosting nor their feeding sites in the city area.
The inference drawn by the present study can be summarized as under:
1. Number of bird species seen by Sharma (1998) but not seen during present
investigation = 38
2. Total number of bird species seen in present and past study both = 76

www.arseam.com
2349 –4808 (Print)
(i) 3. Total number of bird species seen in present investigation only

= 15
The total number of bird species can be categorized in following manner

(according to Timed Species Count Method)
A. Total number of Terrestrial bird species = 91
B. According to frequency of sighting (TSC)
More Common Less Uncommon Rare Very

common common Rare
23 22 25 12 2 7
C. According to their Local Status
Winter Migrants Passage Migrants Resident

8 2 81
D. Total number of aquatic bird species = 38
According to their local status: WM=14, R =24
E. Total number of terrestrial bird species= 91 out of which:
Bird species present in Udaipur city and Sanctuary = 36
Bird species present only Sajjangarh Wildlife Sanctuary = 55
Bird species present in Udaipur city only = 0
Thus from the above data it can be concluded that:
1. The sanctuary supports a moderately good avian diversity.
2. Presence of some rare and threatened birds proves it to be an IBA site in

true terms.

www.arseam.com
ISSN: 2349 –4808 (Print)
3. The mosaic type of habitat of the sanctuary and the interlinked channels of
lakes make it very congenial to support a wide variety of bird species.
4. Being in close proximity of the city, the area can be developed as a good
site for bird watchers and eco-tourists.

www.arseam.com
2349 –4808 (Print)

www.arseam.com
ISSN: 2349 –4808 (Print)

www.arseam.com
2349 –4808 (Print)
CHAPTER 5
HABITAT PREFERENCE OF BIRDS IN

AND AROUND SAJJANGARH
WILDLIFE SANCTUARY
Every animal has their own basic requirements like food, water, cover and
place. In the context of people, where the all four requirements are fulfilled is
known as home. But in case of birds and wildlife, the place is called “Habitat”.
Habitat is not just trees, shrubs, grasses or crops. It is a complex mixture of plant
communities, water, weather, animals and other environmental features which
provide the cover and food that a bird needs. Habitat can be broken into four
parts: Food, water, shelter and space, where all parts blend together. Birds not
only survive on habitat but they thrive well. Remove any one of the four and bird
must travel to find the missing component. All habitats on earth are part of the
biosphere. Since the earth is always changing, habitats are continually evolving
as well over billions of years; the natural habitats have supported a great variety
of species. Another major factor affecting habitats are humans. Things one does
can increase and decrease the number of certain species.
Habitat can be defined in many ways. In general terms habitat is any

place where a particular animal or plant species lives. It can also be thought of as
the environment or surroundings of a species e.g. a habitat include a laboratory, a
stream or even a drop of water. The scientific definition of habitat given by
Clements and Shelford came in light for the first time in 1939. They defined the
word habitat as physical conditions that surround a species or species population
or an assemblage of species or community. After that habitat has been defined a
number of times. Some of them have been incorporated here to understand the
concept.
Habitat is the resources and conditions present in an area that produces

occupancy including survival and reproduction by a given organism (Hall et al.,
1997). The habitat is subset of physical environment factors that a species require
www.arseam.com
ISSN: 2349 –4808 (Print)
for its survival and reproduction (Block and Brennam, 1993). An area with the
combination of resources (like food, cover, water) and environment conditions
(temperature, precipitation, presence or absence of predator and competitors)
that promotes occupancy by individual of a given species (or population) and
allows those individual to survive and reproduction (Morrison et al., 1992).
The Indian subcontinent has rich variety of avian-fauna and an equally

diverse set of habitat types. The community structure and species richness of
birds vary from region to region (Recher, 1969; Pearson, 1975 and Karr, 1976) as
well as within a region as abiotic and biotic factors vary from habitat to habitat
(Johnsingh and Joshua, 1994). Several studies indicate that any change in these
factors is responsible to cause variation in avian-fauna from habitat to habitat
outside India (Anderson, 1970 and Beedy, 1981) and within India (Johnsing et al.,
1987; Katti, 1989 and Rai, 1991).
Birds are effective indicators of habitat and biodiversity for a particular

area among other vertebrates. So, it can be said that the habitat type has a
positive and negative impact on bird‟s community. The diversity of birds shows
the real situation of habitat in particular area. The Sajjangarh Wildlife Sanctuary
has a mosaic type of habitat. It has rocks with sparse vegetation, thickets with rich
vegetation cover, steep hills with rich vegetation cover, scrub at middle slope and
peripheral lake ecosystem. These variations support some rare, endangered and
endemic birds like white-naped tit, aravalli red spurfowl, white-bellied minivet, red-
headed vulture, white-rumpeded vulture, and long-billed vulture and wooly-necked
stork. The small area with unique habitat types gives shelter to a great avian
diversity. Due to the presence of above mentioned birds this site (the sanctuary
and its surroundings including lakes of the city) has been declared as an IBA
(Important bird area) site.
Important bird area (IBA) site
The following categories and criteria are used as the standard guidelines
for the identification of IBAs. These guidelines were used and formulated with
scientific knowledge and common sense IBA. Accordingly, following
categories of IBA sites are identified (Bibby et al., 1998):

www.arseam.com
2349 –4808 (Print)
(A1) Globally Threatened species – The site regularly holds significant

numbers of a globally threatened species, or other species of global
conservation.
(A2) Restricted Range species – The site is known or thought to hold a

significant component of restricted range species whose breeding
distributions define an endemic bird area (EBA) or secondary area (SA).
(A3) Biome – Restricted assemblages – The site is known or thought to hold

a significant component of the group of species whose distribution are
largely or wholly confined to one biome.
(A4) Congregation – This category applies to those species that congregates

at sensitive sites whence breeding or wintering, or while on passage. The
term water bird is used here in the same sense as the Ramsar Convention
uses “Waterfowl” and covers the list of families more precisely defined by
wetland international. Congregatory non waterbird species (A4ii) include
both terrestrial species and families of seabird. This congregatory category
has four subdivisions:
(A4i) Site known or thought to hold on a regular basis, 1% of a biogeographic

population of a congregatory waterbird species. For the threshold of this
criterion, relevant flyway populations are combined to produce
biogeographic population estimates.
(A4ii) Site known or thought to hold on a regular basis, 1% of the global

population of a congregatory or terrestrial species. This category covers
non-water birds/ terrestrial/ sea birds.
(A4iii) Site known or thought to hold, on a regular basis, 20,000 water birds or
10,000 pairs of seabirds of one or more species. Use of this criterion is
discouraged where data quality permits A4i and A4ii to be used.
(A4iv) Site known or thought to be a “Bottle neck” site where at least 20,000
storks, raptors or cranes pass regularly during spring or autumn migration.

www.arseam.com
ISSN: 2349 –4808 (Print)
Sajjangarh Wildlife Sanctuary comes in criteria of Ai and Aiii of IBA site (Islam and
Rahmani, 2004).
It is the primary step to have a deep and intensive knowledge of the

habitat structure of the area. It is also a very important tool for conserving trigger
species of an IBA site. Due to the importance of this site as an IBA, it is very
essential to know the habitat preference of birds present in and around the area.
On the basis of studies related to the habitat and habitat preference, it is easy to
formulate policies and enhance the efforts for the betterment of area and for the
further management of it.
The study of habitat preference in context of birds is difficult because in

relation to birds, the habitat may change in accordance to their activity. The
preferred habitat is the place, which is most utilized by an animal for its various
life activities. Keeping in mind the various activities of birds, an attempt has been
made to analyze their habitat preference by different methods, which are
mentioned earlier in chapter 3.
The habitat types of Sajjangarh Wildlife Sanctuary have been divided in

eight categories as shown in Table 1 and these eight habitat types are also shown
in Plates 5.1 and 5.2.

www.arseam.com
2899, ISSN: 2349 –4808 (Print)
Table 1: Identification of various habitat types of Sajjangarh Wildlife Sanctuary
Zones Name of zone Location in SWLS General information about the surrounding, vegetation, structure terrain etc.
I Rocky habitat with Part of Hawala The major land cover of this zone is rocky with sparse vegetation having patches
sparse vegetation region and of trees. This habitat type comprises of hilly tracts with rocky hills having very less
Maharana Pratap vegetation cover. Main vegetation this zone includes: Acacia leucofloea,
Nature Trail Anogeissus pendula, Rhus mysurensis, Ziziphus nummularia, Lantana camara,
Apluda mutica, Heteropogon contortus and Acacia senegal.
II Thickets with rich Jhar and Bari This zone has rich vegetation including following important flora: Apluda mutica,
vegetation cover region Heteropogon contortus, Bothriochola pertusa, Acacia senegal, Ziziphus
nummularia and Cassia auriculata.
III Steephillsides with Monsoon Palace Monsoon palace is situated atop the hill at a height of 936 MSL. There is an
rich vegetation and its intense anthropogenic activity and disturbance in this zone. Highly undulating
cover Surroundings terrain and with steep hillsides. The major flora of this region is Boswellia serrata,
Lannea grandis, Sterculia urens, Ficus arnottiana, Dendropthoe fulcata, Lantana
camara, Euphorbia nerifolia, Wrightia tinctoria, Dendrocalamus strictus, Dicleptera
verticilata, and Peuraria tuberosa.
IV Peripheral area Villages Periphery is bound by three villages having trees like Acacia nilotica,
outside the wall of surroundings the Dendrocalamus strictus, Madhuca indica, Acacia senegal, Butea monosperma,
sanctuary wildlife sanctuary. Cassia tora, Lantana camara, Acacia catechu, Lannea grandis, Boswellia serrata
and Diospyros montana.

www.arseam.com
International Journal of Education & Applied Sciences Research, Vol.3, special Issue June- 2016, Ph.D Thesis, pp 01-05
EISSN: 2349 –2899, ISSN: 2349 –4808 (Print)
Zones Name of zone Location in SWLS General information about the surrounding, vegetation, structure terrain etc.
V Other All man made Plants growing in the man-made units or infrastructures are termed as “Ruderal
infrastructures and infrastructure flora”.Plants species found in these are: Lindenbergia muraria, Lannea grandis,
cliffs and ruins excluding Monsoon Actinopterus raditum, Ficus religiosa, F.arnottiana, F.benghalensis, Kickxia
within the limits of Palace (Forest ramosissima (Dr. S.K.Sharma, Pers.com.)
study area office buildings,
odhis, fencing walls
and anicut.
93
VI Scrub at middle Gorella View Point This zone is of steep ascent to Monsoon Palace and its major plant species are:
slopes with sparse to Monsoon Palace Wrightia tinctoria, Securinega leucopyrus, Woodfordia fruticosa, Grewia
vegetation cover flavescens, Dichrostachys cinerea, Boerhaavia diffusa, Zinnia elegans and Apluda
mutica are few of the common species of plants found in this zone (Dr.
S.K.Sharma, Pers.com.)
VII Open low land Sanctuary Main This is a low lying area with scanty vegetation cover that compreses of:Tephrosia
scrub with sparse Entry Gate to old purpurea, Melanocenchris jacquemontii, Aristida adscensionis, Dichrostachys
vegetation at Range office cinerea.
foothills
VIII Aquatic Lake Bari with Acacia senegal,Prosopis juliflora, Acacia leucophloea, Azadirachta indica,
surrounding area Boswelia serrata, Lantana camara, Lannea grandis

2349 –4808 (Print)
Vertebrate animals are important dispersal agents and among them birds
are perhaps most commonly associated with seed dispersal (Van der Pijl, 1972).
Avian frugivory and seed dispersal have been a subject of many recent studies
(Whitney et al., 1998; Wenny and Levey, 1998; Hamann and Eberhard, 1999;
Holbrook and Smith, 2000; Cain et al., 2000; Wenny, 1999; 2000). Zizyphus
nummularia is an important shrub of a dry deciduous forest of Sajjangarh Wildlife
Sanctuary. Zizyphus nummularia is shown to maintain itself naturally in the forest
through seed dispersal and natural regeneration. Among the frugivorous bird
species the Pycnonotus cafer (Red-vented Bulbul) play important role in seed
dispersal of Zizyphus in the Sanctuary. The bird usually swallowed whole fruit
during feeding and voided intact seeds by defecation beneath the canopy of trees
and shrubs of the forest.
The bird community in light of trophic relations presents a specific pattern

of food resources. The proportion of birds according to the type of guilds like
insectivores, fruigivores, necterivores, omnivores and carnivores has been
discussed by many workers (Dhindsa and Saini, 1994; Makuloluwa et al., 1997;
Srinivasulu et al., 1997 and Bhatt and Sharma, 2000). Bhatt and Sharma (op cit.)
has tried to break-up major food categories into various guilds for more specific
approach towards the feeding behavior of species. Karr et al. (1990) emphasized
the presence of food resources available to and exploited by Aves in defining the
trophic structure of the community. In the same way, Wiens (1989) stressed that
similarities or differences among species in diet composition are especially
relevant to the test of niche or guild concept. Hence, this is concluded that the
feeding behavior play a vital role to determine habitat preference of birds.
According to the guild of birds, they can be categorized as follows:
a. Frugivorous Group – This group of birds has sharp, deeply hooked and a
very strong beak adapted for breaking the seeds and nuts, which form their staple
diet. The most common feeding technique, adopted by the frugivores, is plucking
fruits with the help of bill while perched on the branch supporting fruits or nearby
branch close to a fruit. Birds usually swallow whole fruit during feeding, including

www.arseam.com
ISSN: 2349 –4808 (Print)
seed and pulp mass. It has been observed by Hegde et al. (1991) and Rey et al.
(1997) that swallowing of entire fruits is common behaviour of frugivorous seed
dispersers in other forests also.
b. Carnivorous Group – The beaks of carnivorous birds are short, pointed

having sharp edges and greatly hooked to tear flesh. The carnivorous species
catch the prey by their clawed feet. After picking the prey they select the top height of
a tree or any other secure place to eat the prey.
c. Scavenger Group – These birds feed on the carcass and other remains
of the dead animals. They possess a sharp-edged, strong beak to tear the flesh
over the carcass.
d. Insectivorous Group – The beak of these birds is small in size, wide and
delicate in order to scoop up their living insect prey while still on wing. But an
exception to this kind of beak is that of Hoopoe, Upupa epops, where it is long,
slender and slightly curved and meant for turning the leaves or probing into the
soil for grubs and pupae. In aquatic birds, the beaks are very long, slender and
used as probe for searching the deep waters and mud for larvae and worms.
Some aquatic birds also have a water-straining beak, which is broad and flat with
horny, serrated edges.
e. Omnivorous Group – The beak of this group is characterized by long and

slender form with cutting edges that have various uses.
f. Granivorous Group – The birds belonging to this group have a short,

stout and peg-like beak that is conical in shape. The weak beaks are meant for
piercing the small seeds while the stronger ones are for crushing shelled seeds
and fruit stones.
g. Nectarivorous Group – The beak of this group is very thin, pointed and
long rapier like so as to be inserted in the corollar tube of the flowers and suck up
nectar.

www.arseam.com
2349 –4808 (Print)
h. Piscivorous Group – The birds belonging to this category have a long

and narrow beak having sharp backwardly directed teeth like process to capture fish.
Some may also have a spatulate or spoon-like bill to capture food. Pelicans have
large gular pouch to collect enormous quantity of fish.
Sajjangarh Wildlife Sanctuary was deeply explored to study the habitat

and habitat preferences of the birds inhabiting it. The sanctuary area was divided
into three zones using GPS. These zones were categorized on the basis of
altitude and the different vegetation type or canopy cover. The altitude wise
vegetation variations have been described in Chapter 3 (Material and Methods).
The three zones were – foot hill zone (634-734 MSL), middle zone (734-834 MSL)
and top hill zone (834-936 MSL). Table 2 records the altitude-wise preference of
habitat of birds in the sanctuary.

www.arseam.com
EISSN: 2349 –2899, ISSN: 2349 –4808 (Print)
Table 2: The altitude wise distribution of birds in SWLS
S. No. Family Scientific Name with Common Foot hill Thickets Middle hill Thickets Top hill Thickets
Name cover Cover Cover
(634-734 MSL) (734-834 MSL) (834-936 MSL)
1 Accipiteridae Sarcogyps calvus 

(RED-HEADED VULTURE)
2 Gyps indicus 
(LONG-BILLED VULTURE)
97
3 Gyps bengalensis 
(WHITE-RUMPED VULTURE)
4 Neophron percnopterus 
(EGYPTIAN VULTURE)
5 Elanus caeruleus 
(BLACK-SHOULDERED KITE)
6 Milvus migrans govinda 

(BLACK KITE)
7 Accipiter badius 
(SHIKRA)
8 Phasianidae Francolinus pictus 

2899, ISSN: 2349 –4808 (Print)
(634-734 MSL) (734-834 MSL) (834-936 MSL)
(PAINTED FRANCOLIN)
9 Francolinus pondicerianus 
(GREY FRANCOLIN)
10 Pavo cristatus 
(INDIAN PEAFOWL)
11 Perdicula asiatica 
(JUNGLE BUSH QUAIL)
12 Galloperdix spadicea 
( ARAVALLI RED SPURFOWL)
13 Charadriidae Vanellus indicus 

(RED-WATTLED LAPWING)
14 Burhinidae Burhinus oedicnemus 

15 Coloumbidae Columba livia 

(ROCK PIGEON)
16 Streptopelia decaocto 

www.arseam.com
EISSN: 2349 –2899, ISSN: 2349 –4808 (Print)
(634-734 MSL) (734-834 MSL) (834-936 MSL)
(EURASIAN COLLARED DOVE)
17 Streptopelia tranquebarica 
(RED COLLARED DOVE)
18 Streptopelia chinensis 
(SPOTTED DOVE)
99
19 Streptopelia senegalensis 
(LAUGHING DOVE)
20 Psittacidae Psittacula eupatria 

21 Psittacula krameri 
(ROSE-RINGED PARAKEET)
22 Psittacula cyanocephala 
23 Cuculidae Eudynamys scolopacea 

(ASIAN KOEL)
24 Centropus sinensis 

2899, ISSN: 2349 –4808 (Print)
(634-734 MSL) (734-834 MSL) (834-936 MSL)
(GREAT COUCAL)
25 Strigidae Bubo bubo 
(EURASIAN EAGLE OWL)
26 Athene brama 
(SPOTTED OWLET)
27 Caprimulgidae Caprimulgus asiaticus 

(INDIAN NIGHTJAR)
28 Caprimulgus affinis 
(SAVANNA NIGHTJAR)
29 Apodidae Apus affinis 

(HOUSE SWIFT)
30 Tachymarptis melba 
(ALPINE SWIFT)
31 Alcedinidae Halcyon smyrnensis 

(WHITE-THROATED KINGFISHER)
32 Ceryle rudis 

www.arseam.com
EISSN: 2349 –2899, ISSN: 2349 –4808 (Print)
(634-734 MSL) (734-834 MSL) (834-936 MSL)
(PIED KINGFISHER)
33 Meropidae Merops orientalis 

(GREEN BEE-EATER)
34 Coraciidae Coracias benghalensis 

(INDIAN ROLLER)
101
35 Coracias garrulus 
(EUROPEAN ROLLER)
36 Upupidae Upupa epops 

(COMMON HOOPOE)
37 Bucerotidae Ocyros birostris 

(INDIAN GREY HORNBILL)
38 Megalaimidae Megalaima haemacephala 

39 Picidae Dinopium benghalense 

(BLACK-RUMPED FLAMEBACK)
40 Alaudidae Mirafra erythroptera 
2899, ISSN: 2349 –4808 (Print)
(634-734 MSL) (734-834 MSL) (834-936 MSL)
(INDIAN BUSHLARK)
41 Eremopterix grisea 
(ASHY-CROWNED
SPARROWLARK)
42 Hirudinidae Hirundo concolor (DUSKY CRAG  

MARTIN)
43 Hirundo smithii 
44 Hirundo daurica 
(RED-RUMPED SWALLOW)
45 Laniidae Lanius vittatus 

(BAY-BACKED SHRIKE)
46 Lanius meridionalis 
47 Oriolidae Oriolus oriolus 

(EURASIAN GOLDEN ORIOLE)
48 Sturnidae Sturnus pogodarum 

www.arseam.com
EISSN: 2349 –2899, ISSN: 2349 –4808 (Print)
(634-734 MSL) (734-834 MSL) (834-936 MSL)
(BRAHMINY STARLING)
49 Sturnus roseus 
(ROSY STARLING)
50 Sturnus contra 

103
51 Acridotheres tristis
(COMMON MYNA)
52 Acridotheres ginginianus 
(BANK MYNA)
53 Dicruridae Dicrurus macrocercus 

(BLACK DRONGO)
54 Dicrurus caerulescens 
55 Corvidae Dendrocitta vagabunda  

(RUFOUS TREEPIE)
56 Corvus splendens 
2899, ISSN: 2349 –4808 (Print)
(634-734 MSL) (734-834 MSL) (834-936 MSL)
(HOUSE CROW)
57 Corvus macrorhynchos 
(LARGE-BILLED CROW)
58 Campephagidae Tephrodornis pondicerianus 

(COMMON WOODSHRIKE)
59 Pericrocotus cinnamomeus 
(SMALL MINIVET)
60 Pericrocotus erythropygius 
61 Irenidae Aegithinia tiphia 

(COMMON IORA)
62 Pycnotidae Pycnonotus cafer 

(RED-VENTED BULBUL)
63 Muscicapidae Turdoides caudatus 

(COMMON BABBLER)
64 Turdoides malcolmi 

www.arseam.com
EISSN: 2349 –2899, ISSN: 2349 –4808 (Print)
(634-734 MSL) (734-834 MSL) (834-936 MSL)
(LARGE GREY BABBLER)
65 Turdoides striatus 
(JUNGLE BABBLER)
66 Rhipidura aureola 
(WHITE- BROWED FANTAIL)

105
67 Rhipidura albicollis
(WHITE-THROATED FANTAIL)
68 Culicicapa ceylonensis 
(GREY- HEADED CANARY
FLYCATCHER)
69 Prinia socialis 
(ASHY PRINIA)
70 Orthotomus sutorius 
(COMMON TAILORBIRD)
71 Phylloscopus collybita 
(COMMON CHIFFCHAFF)
2899, ISSN: 2349 –4808 (Print)
(634-734 MSL) (734-834 MSL) (834-936 MSL)
72 Copsychus saularis 
(ORIENTAL MAGPIE ROBIN)
73 Saxicoloides fulicata 
(INDIAN ROBIN)
74 Oenanthe picata 
(VARIABLE WHEATEAR)
75 Cercomela fusca 
(BROWN ROCK-CHAT)
76 Oenanthe deserti (DESERT 

WHEATEAR)
77 Paridae Parus major 

(GREAT TIT)
78 Parus xanthogenys 
(BLACK- LORED TIT)
79 Parus nuchalis 
(WHITE-NAPED TIT)

www.arseam.com
EISSN: 2349 –2899, ISSN: 2349 –4808 (Print)
(634-734 MSL) (734-834 MSL) (834-936 MSL)
80 Motacillidae (b) Anthus rufulus 

(PADDYFIELD PIPIT)
81 Anthus campestris 
(TAWNY PIPIT)
82 Motacilla alba 
107
(WHITE WAGTAIL)
83 Motacilla maderaspatensis 
(WHITE- BROWED WAGTAIL)
84 Motacilla flava 
(YELLOW WAGTAIL)
85 Motacilla cinerea 
(GREY WAGTAIL)
86 Nectarinidae Nectarinia asiatica 

(PURPLE SUNBIRD)
87 Zosteropidae Zosterops palpebrosus 

(ORIENTAL WHITE-EYE)
2899, ISSN: 2349 –4808 (Print)
(634-734 MSL) (734-834 MSL) (834-936 MSL)
88 Ploceidae Passer domesticus 

(HOUSE SPARROW)
89 Ploceus philippinus 
(BAYA WEAVER)
90 Lonchura malabarica 
(INDIAN SILVERBILL)
91 Lonchura punctulata 
(SCALY- BREASTED MUNIA)
Summary of the table:
Bird species found on:

Foothill thickets (634 – 734 MSL) = 85 Species
Middlehill vegetation (734 – 834 MSL) = 6 species
Tophill vegetation (834 – 936 MSL) = 2 species
The observations on the habitat preferences of the birds have been made by encountering a bird in a particular on each time of visit. The
observations in the present study are also in accordance with those as described by Grimmett et al, (1999). The present observations
confirm the habitat preferences of birds mentioned in the book because the birds were found in the similar habitat as described. Table 3
records the habitat preference of birds as observed in and around the sanctuary.

www.arseam.com
EISSN: 2349 –2899, ISSN: 2349 –4808 (Print)
Table 3: Habitat preference of birds in and around SWLS
S. No. Family Scientific Name Common Name Known habitat Preferred location and
preference Grimmett, the type of habitat in
1999 SWLS
1. Accipitridae Elanus caeruleus BLACK- Grassland with cultivation PS (Open habitat with
SHOULDERED KITE and open scrub human habitation)
Milvus migrans BLACK KITE Mainly around habitation PS (Open habitat with
also mountain. human habitation)
109
Accipiter badius SHIKRA Open woods and PS (Open habitat with

Grooves human habitation)
Gyps indicus LONG-BILLED Around Habitation PS (Open habitat with
VULTURE human habitation)
Sarcogyps calvus RED-HEADED Open country near MPNT (Rocky and hilly
VULTURE habitation and well with sparse vegetation)
wooded hills
Gyps WHITE-RUMPED Around Habitation PS (Open habitat with
bengalensis VULTURE human habitation)
Neophron EGYPTIAN VULTURE Around Habitation PS (Open habitat with

percnopterus human habitation)
2899, ISSN: 2349 –4808 (Print)
1999 SWLS
2. Phasianidae Francolinus pictus PAINTED Tall grassland and SP- GR(Open habitat
FRANCOLIN cultivation with scattered with thorny and scrubby
trees open thin forest patches)
Fracolinus GREY FRANCOLIN Dry grassland thorn SP to GR (Open habitat
pondicerianus scrub with thorny and scrubby
patches)
Pavo cristatus INDIAN PEAFOWL Forest under growth in SP (Open habitat)
wild: villages and
cultivation
Perdicula asiatica JUNGLE BUSH Dry grass and scrub SMEG- RO - old (Open
QUAIL deciduous forest lowland Scrub)
Galloperdix RED SPURFOWL Scrub, bamboo thickets JM (Dense forest)

spadicea caurina and secondary growth
3. Charadriidae Vanellus indicus RED-WATTLED Open flat ground near BL (Aquatic habitat)
LAPWING water
4. Burhinidae Burhinus EURASIAN THICK- Desert, stony hills open HR (Rocky and hilly
oedicnemus KNEE dry and fields habitat with sparse
vegetation)

www.arseam.com
EISSN: 2349 –2899, ISSN: 2349 –4808 (Print)
1999 SWLS
5. Columbidae Columba livia ROCK PIGEON Around cliffs and ruins MP (Cliffs and Ruins
Streptopelia EURASIAN Open dry country with SMEG-RO - old (Open
decaocta COLLARED DOVE cultivation and grooves low land scrub)
Streptopelia RED COLLARED Light woodland and trees SP-GR (Open dry
tranquebarica DOVE in open country deciduous forest)
Streptopelia SPOTTED DOVE Cultivation, habitation PS (Open forest)
111
chinensis and open forest
Streptopelia LAUGHING DOVE Dry cultivation and scrub GVP-MP(Scrub at middle

senegalensis covered hills slopes with sparse
vegetation cover)
6. Psittacidae Psittacula eupatria ALEXANDRINE Forest and well wooded JM (Dense forest)
PARAKEET areas
Psittacula krameri ROSE-RINGED Forest, wooded areas SMEG-RO - old ( Open

PARAKEET and cultivation lowland Scrub with
sparse vegetation)
Psittacula PLUM-HEADED Forest and well-wooded JM (Dense Forest)

cyanocephala PARAKEET areas
2899, ISSN: 2349 –4808 (Print)
1999 SWLS
7. Cuculidae Eudynamys ASIAN KOEL Open woodland gardens PS (Open Forest )
scolopacea and cultivation
Centropus sinensis GREATER COUCAL Open woodland gardens SMEG-RO - old (Open
and cultivation lowland scrub with sparse
vegetation)
8. Strigidae Bubo bubo EURASIAN EAGLE Cliffs,rocky hills and MPNT (Rocky and hilly
OWL wooded areas habitat with sparse
vegetation)
Athene brama SPOTTED OWLET Habitat and Cultivation PS (Open habitat)
9. Caprimulgidae Caprimulgus INDIAN NIGHTJAR Open wooded country in SMEG-RO -old (Open
asiaticus plains and foothills Lowland Scrub)
Caprimulgus affinis SAVANNA NIGHTJAR Open forest, stony areas HR (Rocky and Hilly
with scrub habitat with sparse
vegetation)
10. Apodidae Apus affinis HOUSE SWIFT Habitation, Cliffs and MP (Steep hillsides with
ruins rich vegetation cover and
presence of cliffs and
ruins)

www.arseam.com
EISSN: 2349 –2899, ISSN: 2349 –4808 (Print)
1999 SWLS
Tachymarptis ALPINE SWIFT Mainly hills and Along the coal tar road
melba Mountains towards the MP (Scrub
at middle slopes with
sparse vegetation cover)
11. Alcedinidae Halcyon WHITE-THROATED Garden and freshwater BL (Aquatic habitat)
smyrnensis KINGFISHER wetland
113
Ceryle rudis PIED KINGFISHER Freshwater slow moving BL (Aquatic habitat)

river and stream
12. Meropidae Merops orientalis GREEN BEE- EATER Open Country PS (Open habitat with
human habitation)
13. Coraciidae Coracias INDIAN ROLLER Gardens, open woodland PS (Open habitat)
benghalensis
Coracias garrulus EUROPEAN ROLLER Open woodland PS (Open habitat)
cultivation
14. Upupidae Upupa epops COMMON HOOPOE Open country cultivation PS (Open habitat with
and villages human habitation)
15. Bucerotidae Ocyceros birostris INDIAN GREY Open forest and wooded SP (Open forest)
HORNBILL areas with fruiting trees
2899, ISSN: 2349 –4808 (Print)
1999 SWLS
16. Megalaimidae Megalaima COPPERSMITH Open wooded country JM (Dense forest)
haemacephala BARBET and grooves
18. Picidae Dinopium BLACK-RUMPED Light forest plantation SP-GR (Open dry
benghalense FLAMEBACK grooves and trees in deciduous forest)
open country
19. Alaudidae Mirafra erythroptera INDIAN BUSHLARK Stony scrub and fallow HR (Rocky and hilly
Cultivation habitat with sparse
vegetation)
Eremopterix grisea ASHY-CROWNED Open dry scrub and dry SMEG-RO –old (Open
SPARROWLARK cultivation lowland scrub with sparse
vegetation)
20. Hirudinidae Hirundo concolor DUSKY CRAG Cliffs,grooves and old MP (Cliffs and Ruins)
MARTIN buildings
Hirundo smithii WIRE-TAILED Open country and PS (Open habitat)
SWALLOW cultivation near
freshwater

www.arseam.com
EISSN: 2349 –2899, ISSN: 2349 –4808 (Print)
1999 SWLS
Hirundo daurica RED-RUMPED Summer-grassy hills Summer- GVP (Scrub at
SWALLOW Winter-open country and middle slopes with sparse
forest cleaning vegetation cover)
Winter-SMEG-RO - old
(Open lowland Scrub)
21. Laniidae Lanius vittatus BAY-BACKED Open dry scrub and SMEG-RO - old (Open
SHRIKE bushes in cultivation lowland Scrub)
115
Lanius meridionalis SOUTHERN GREY Scrub and open forest in Surroundings the RO(
SHRIKE dry country old) (Open lowland scrub
habitat)
22. Oriolidae Oriolus oriolus EURASIAN GOLDEN Open woodland and SP (Open Forest)
ORIOLE trees in cultivation
23. Sturnidae Sturnus BRAHMINY Dry well wooded areas SP-GR (Open dry
pagodarum STARLING and thorn scrub deciduous forest)
Sturnus roseus ROSY STARLING Cultivation and damp PS (Open habitat with
grassland grassy patches)
Sturnus contra ASIAN PIED Cultivation, damp PS (Open habitat with
STARLING grassland and habitation grassy patches)
2899, ISSN: 2349 –4808 (Print)
1999 SWLS
Acridotheres tristris COMMON MYNA Habitation and Cultivation PS (Open habitat near
human habitation)
Acridotheres BANK MYNA Cultivation damp PS (Open habitat with

ginginianus grassland and cultivation grassy patches)
24. Dicruridae Dicrurus BLACK DRONGO Around habitation and PS (Open habitat with
macrocercus cultivation human habitation)
Dicrurus WHITE-BELLIED Open forest and well SP-GR (Open forest)
caerulescens DRONGO wooded areas
25. Corvidae Dendrocitta RUFOUS TREEPIE Gardens with trees and PS (Open habitat)
vagabunda bushes open wooded
country
Corvus splendens HOUSE CROW Around habitation PS (Open habitat near
the human habitation)
Corvus LARGE- BILLED Wide range of habitat PS (Open habitat)

macrorhynchos CROW
26. Canpephagidae Tephrodornis COMMON Open broad leaved forest SP (Open forest)
pondicerianus WOODSHRIKE sec. growth and well
wooded areas

www.arseam.com
EISSN: 2349 –2899, ISSN: 2349 –4808 (Print)
1999 SWLS
Pericrocotus SMALL MINIVET Open wooded areas SP (Open forest)
cinnamomeus
Pericrocotus WHITE-BELLIED Dry open scrub SPEG (Open dry lowland
erythropygius MINIVET scrub)
27. Pycnotidae Pycnonotus cafer RED-VENTED Open deciduous forest SP (Open dry deciduous
BULBUL and sec. growth forest)
117
28. Muscicapidae Turdoides COMMON BABBLER Dry scrub in plains and SMEG-RO – old (Open
caudatus low hills lowland scrub)
Turdoides malcolmi LARGE GREY Open dry scrub and SMEG-RO - old ( Open
BABBLER cultivation lowland scrub)
Turdoides striatus JUNGLE BABBLER Deciduous forest and SP-GR (Open dry
cultivation deciduous forest)
Rhipidura aureola WHITE-BROWED Forest and wooded areas SP (Open dry deciduous
FANTAIL forest)
Rhipidura albicollis WHITE THROATED Forest and wooded areas SP-GR (Open dry
FANTAIL deciduous forest)
2899, ISSN: 2349 –4808 (Print)
1999 SWLS
Culicicapa GREY- HEADED Forest and wooded areas SP (Open dry deciduous
ceylonensis CANARY forest)
FLYCATCHER
Prinia socialis ASHY PRINIA Tall grass and SPand Ist waterhole
scrub,open sec.growth (Open lowland scrub with
and reed beds grassy patches)
Orthotomus COMMON Bushes in garden, Surroundigs of RO - Old

sutorius TAILORBIRD cultivation edges and (Open lowland scrub)
forest edges
Phylloscopus EURASIAN Forest, bushes, crops HR (Rocky and hilly

collybita CHIFFCHAFF and reedbeds habitat with sparse
vegetation)
Copsychus saularis ORIENTAL MAGPIE Gardens, groves and SMEG-SPEG (Open

ROBIN open broad leaved forest lowland scrub)
Saxicoloides INDIAN ROBIN Dry stony areas with SMEG and 1st waterhole
fulicata scrub and cultivation of SP(Open dry
edges deciduous forest with dry
scrubby patches)

www.arseam.com
EISSN: 2349 –2899, ISSN: 2349 –4808 (Print)
1999 SWLS
Oenanthe picata VARIABLE Stony desert foothills and HR (Rocky and hilly
WHEATEAR cultivation habitat with sparse
vegetation)
Cercomela fusca BROWN Rocky hills, cliffs and old Other infrastructure of
ROCK- CHAT building sanctuary(Cliffs and
ruins)
119
Oenanthe deserti DESERT WHEATEAR Winters in barren semi- PS (Open habitat)

desert
29. Irenidae Aegithina tiphia COMMON IORA Open forest and well SP (Open dry deciduous
wooded areas forest)
30. Paridae Parus major GREAT TIT Forest and well-wooded SP (Open dry deciduous
country forest)
Parus xanthogenys BLACK-LORED TIT Open forest, forest edges 1st Chouki between the
and plantations SMEG – SPEG and PS
(Open lowland scrub with
plantation)
2899, ISSN: 2349 –4808 (Print)
1999 SWLS
Parus nuchalis WHITE-NAPED TIT Thorn-scrub forest MPNT (Rocky and hilly
habitat with sparse
vegetation), Path
between SP-GR(Open
dry deciduous forest with
thorns)
31. Motacillidae .Anthus rufulus PADDYFIELD PIPIT Short grassland and Agricultural fields of PS
cultivation (Open habitat)
Anthus campestris TAWNY PIPIT Stony semi-desert and HR (Rocky and hilly
fallow cultivation habitat with sparse
vegetation)
Motacilla alba WHITE WAGTAIL Winters near water in BL (Aquatic habitat)

open country
Motacilla WHITE-BROWED Freshwater Wetland BL(Aquatic habitat)

maderaspantensis WAGTAIL
Motacilla flava YELLOW WAGTAIL Damp Grassland PS (Agriculture patches

of periphery)

www.arseam.com
EISSN: 2349 –2899, ISSN: 2349 –4808 (Print)
1999 SWLS
Motacilla cinerea GREY WAGTAIL Breeds by mountain SMEG-SPEG (Open
streams; winter by slower lowland scrub with sparse
in lowlands and foothills vegetation)
32. Nectarinidae .Nectarinia asiatica PURPLE SUNBIRD Open deciduous forest SP (Open dry deciduous
and gardens forest)
33. Zosteropidae Zosterops ORIENTAL Open broad leaved forest JM (Dense forest)
121
palpebrosa WHITE-EYE and wooded areas

34. Ploceidae Passer domesticus HOUSE SPARROW Breeds in habitation; also PS (Open habitat near
in cultivation in winter human habitation)
Ploceus philippinus BAYA WEAVER Cultivation and grassland PS and GR (Open forest
with agriculture fields)
Lonchura INDIAN SILVER BILL Dry cultivation, grassland SP-GR(Open dry
malabarica and thorn scrub deciduous forest with
thorny patches)
Lonchura SCALY-BREASTED Open forest, bushes and SMEG-RO (Old) (Open

punctulata MUNIA cultivation lowland habitat)
2349 –4808 (Print)
ACRONMYS:
SP = Safari Park, PS = Periphery of Sanctuary, JM = Jhar Mahadev,

GR = Gorella Region, MP = Monsoon Palace,
RO = Range Office, HR = Hawala Region, MPNT = Maharana Pratap Natural
Trail, BL = Bari Lake, GVP = Gorella View Point,
GVP-MP = Gorella View Point to Monsoon Palace,
SMEG = Sanctuary Main Entry Gate, SPEG = Safari Park Entry Gate
The number of bird species that prefer particular habitat and location in and
around the Sanctuary
PS=28, MP=2, SP=12, MPNT=3, JM=3, SMEG-RO=11, GVP-MP=1,

GVP=1, RO (Old)=1, SMEG-SPEG=3, SMEG=1, SPEG=1, HR=6, BL=5, Other
infrastructure=2, SP-GR=10 and Coal Tar Road=1
It has been observed that the birds may be found in a particular area if it
caters to the need of bird, especially its food. Thus a bird will be more frequently
observed in an area where its food is available in plenty and the plants and trees
are providing shelter also. Table 4 shows the habitat preference of birds
according to their guild.

www.arseam.com
EISSN: 2349 –2899, ISSN: 2349 –4808 (Print)
Table 4: Habitat preference of the birds according to their guild observed in and around SWLS
S. No. Major Bird groups according the Food Preferred location in the Sajjangarh
Guild and Species Wildlife Sanctuary
I SCAVANGERS
1 Sarcogyps calvus Carrion feeder; Caracasses from Maharana Pratap Nature Trail
(RED-HEADED VULTURE) surrounding villages of Sanctuary
2 Gyps benghalensis Carrion feeder; sometimes at tiger Periphery of Sanctuary
(WHITE-BACKED VULTURE) and panther kill at forest
3 Gyps indicus Carrion feeder Periphery of Sanctuary and surrounding
123
(LONG-BILLED VULTURE) lake Bari

4 Neophron percnopterus Carrion offal and garbage and to Periphery of sanctuary and Monsoon Palace
(EGYPTIAN VULTURE) large extent human ordure
II CARNIVOROUS
5 Elanus caeruleus Locust, Grasshopper, Field Rat, Periphery of Sanctuary
(BLACK-SHOULDERED KITE) Lizard and Mouse
6 Accipiter badius All living animals of manageable size Periphery of Sanctuary
(SHIKRA) like field rat, striped squirrel, mice,
quails, babbler, dove, Calotes, frog
7 Bubo bubo Small mammals, birds and reptiles Maharana Pratap Nature Trail
( EURASIAN EAGLE OWL)
8 Athene brama Beetles, insects, lizards, mice Periphery of the Sanctuary
2899, ISSN: 2349 –4808 (Print)
( SPOTTED OWLET)
9 Centropus sinensis Caterpillars, large insects, snails, Sanctuary Main Entry Gate to Range Office
(GREAT COUCAL) lizard and young mice
III GRANIVOROUS
10 Columba livia Grass seeds, cereals, pulses and Palace Zone

(ROCK PIGEON) groundnuts
11 Streptopelia decaoto Seeds and Grains, gleaned on Sanctuary Main Entry Gate-Range Office
(EURASIAN COLLARED DOVE) ground
12 Streptopelia tranquebarica -do- Safari Park-Gorella Region

(RED COLLARED DOVE)
13 Streptopelia chinensis -do- Periphery of Sanctuary

(SPOTTED DOVE)
14 Streptopelia senegalensis -do- Gorella View Point-Monsoon Palace

(LAUGHING DOVE)
15 Passer domesticus -do- Periphery of Sanctuary

www.arseam.com
EISSN: 2349 –2899, ISSN: 2349 –4808 (Print)
(HOUSE SPARROW)
16 Lonchura punctulata Grass seeds, rice, Lantana, berries Sanctuary Main Entry Gate- Range Office
(SCALY- BREASTED MUNIA)
IV INSECTIVOROUS
17 Francolinus pictus Small Insects, beetles, butterflies, Safari Park-Gorella Region

(PAINTED FRANCOLIN) caterpillars, bugs and Termites
125
18 Motacilla alba Insects, small caterpillars and Near Bari Lake

(WHITE WAGTAIL) beetles
19 Motacilla maderaspatensis -do- Near Bari Lake

(WHITE-BROWED WAGTAIL)
20 Motacilla flava Insects, small caterpillars and bugs Periphery of Sanctuary

(YELLOW WAGTAIL)
21 (c) Motacilla cinerea Insects, butterflies and sometimes Sanctuary Main Entry Gate- Safari Park
(GREY WAGTAIL) molluscs Entry Gate
22 Vanellus indicus -do- Periphery of the Sanctuary

(RED-WATTELD LAPWING)
23 Burhinus oedicnemus -do- Towards the Hawala Region
2899, ISSN: 2349 –4808 (Print)
24 Caprimulgus asiaticus -do- Sanctuary Main Entry Gate-Range Office

(INDIAN NIGHTJAR)
25 Caprimulgus affinis -do- Towards Hawala Region

(SAVANA NIGHTJAR)
26 Apus affinis -do- Palace Zone

(HOUSE SWIFT)
27 Tachymarptis melba -do- Near the Gorella View Point

(ALPINE SWIFT)
28 Meropus orientalis -do- Periphery of the Sanctuary

(GREEN BEE-EATER)
29 Coracias bengalensis Large insects, beetles, locust, Sanctuary Main Entry Gate- Range Office
(INDIAN ROLLER) crickets taken on air
30 Coracias garulus Large insects, beetles, locust, Periphery of the Sanctuary

(EUROPEAN ROLLER) crickets taken on ground
31 Upupa epops Underground grubs, pupae of beetles Sanctuary Main Entry Gate- Range Office
(COMMON HOOPOE)

www.arseam.com
EISSN: 2349 –2899, ISSN: 2349 –4808 (Print)
32 Hirundo concolor -do- Palace Zone
(DUSKY CRAG MARTIN)
33 Hirundo rustica -do- Periphery of Sanctuary
34 Hirundo daurica -do- Summer - Gorella View Point
(RED-RUMPED SWALLOW) Winter - Sanctuary Main Entry Gate
35 Lanius meridionalis -do- Sanctuary Main Entry Gate-Range Office
127

36 Lanius vittatus -do- Safari Park
(BAY-BACKED SHRIKE)
37 Tephrodornis pondicerianum Beetels, moths, Caterpillars and Near old Range Office
(COMMON WOOD SHRIKE) other Insects
38 Pericrocotus cinnamomeus Beetels, moths, Caterpillars and In Safari Park

(SMALL MINIVET) other Insects
39 Pericrocotus erythropygus -do- Sanctuary Main Entry Gate

40 Aegithina tiphia Insects and their Larvae Safari Park-Gorella Region
(COMMON IORA)
2899, ISSN: 2349 –4808 (Print)
41 Rhipidura aureola Insects chiefly Diptera and Sanctuary Main Entry Gate-2nd Water hole
(WHITE-BROWED FANTAIL) Hemiptera of Safari Park
42 Rhipidura albicollis -do- Sanctuary Main Entry Gate-Safari Park

(WHITE-THROATED FANTAIL) Entry Gate
43 Culicicapa ceylonensis -do- Second Water hole of Safari Park

(GREY- HEADED CANARY
FLYCATCHER)
44 Prinia socialis Insects Sanctuary Main Entry Gate-Old Range
(ASHY PRINIA) Office
45 Phylloscopus collybita -do- Hawala Region

(EURASIAN CHIFFCHAFF)
46 Copsychus saularis -do- Sanctuary Main Entry Gate-Safari park
(ORIENTAL MAGPIE ROBIN) Entry Gate
47 Saxicoloides fulicata Insects and Spiders Safari Park

(INDIAN ROBIN)
48 Oenanthe picata -do- Hawala Region
(VARIABLE WHEATEAR)
49 Cercomela fusca Beetles and other insects Other Infrastructure within the limits of
(BROWN ROCK- CHAT) sanctuary

www.arseam.com
EISSN: 2349 –2899, ISSN: 2349 –4808 (Print)
50 Oenanthe deserti Insects and Spider Barren Rocks of Hawala Region
(DESERT WHEATEAR)
V OMNIVOROUS
51 Milvus migrans govinda Chiefly offal and garbage Periphery of Sanctuary
(BLACK KITE)
52 Parus xanthogenys Insects, caterpillars, spiders, berries, 1st Chouki between the Sanctuary Main
(BLACK-LORED TIT) and nectar Entry Gate- Safari Park Entry Gate and
129
Periphery of Sanctuary
53 Parus nuchalis Insects, caterpillars, pupae and Towards Gorella region, Maharana Pratap
(WHITE-NAPED TIT) nectar Nature Trail
54 Parus major Insects, caterpillars, flower buds, Safari Park

(GREAT TIT) seeds and berries
55 Anthus campestris Insects and weed seeds Hawala Region

(TAWNY PIPIT)
56 Anthus rufulus Insects, bugs, spiders, weed seeds, Periphery of Sanctuary
(PADDYFIELD PIPIT) grass blades
57 Ploceus philippinus Chiefly grass, weed seeds, cereal Towards Gorela Region
2899, ISSN: 2349 –4808 (Print)
(BAYA WEAVER) grains, insects, beetles, caterpillars
58 Lonchura malabarica Seeds, grasses, ants, beetles, small Safari Park-Gorella Region
(INDIAN SILVERBILL) insects, occasionally nectar
59 Francolinus pondicerianus Weed seeds, cereal grains, shoots of Sanctuary Main Entry Gate-Range Office
(GREY FRANCOLIN) grass, drupes, insects, termites
60 Perdicula asiatica Grass and weed seeds, lentils, Sanctuary Main Entry Gate-Range Office
(JUNGLE BUSH QUAIL) millets, termites
61 Dinopium bengalensis Insects, larvae, predominantly ants Jhar Mahadev

(BLACK-RUMPED FLAMEBACK) piucked from tree trunks, sometimes
fruits and berries
62 Dicrurus macrocercus Insects, flower nectar, occasionally Sanctuary Main Entry Gate-Range Office
(BLACK DRONGO) small birds
63 Dicrurus caerulescens Insects, flower nectar Periphery of the Sanctuary
64 Sturnus pagodarum Chiefly berries, wild fig and insects Safari Park-Gorella Region
(BRAHMINY STARLING)
65 Sturnus roseus Locust, Banyan, Peepul figs, Lantana Periphery of the Sanctuary
(ROSY STARLING) and Nector

www.arseam.com
EISSN: 2349 –2899, ISSN: 2349 –4808 (Print)
66 Sturnus contra -do- Periphery of the Sanctuary
67 Acridotheres tristis Fruits, Insects and Kitchen scraps Jhar Mahadev
(COMMON MYNA)
68 Acridotheres ginginianus -do- Periphery of the Sanctuary
(BANK MYNA)
69 Dendrocitta vagabunda Fruits,Insects,Lizard , Frogs, Gorela View Point
131
(RUFOUS TREE-PIE) Centipid and even Carrion
70 Turdoides caudatus Mainly insects, ants, caterpillars, Sanctuary Main Entry Gate-Old Range
(COMMON BABBLER) termites, grains and berries Office
especially Lantana
71 Turdoides malcolmi Mostly insects also grains, seeds and The first chouki on the route of the SMEG-
(LARGE GREY BABBLER) berries, ripening jowari on cob in RO
standing field
72 Turdoides striatus Insects, grain, seed, Banyan Safari park- Gorella Region
(JUNGLE BABBLER) figs,Lantana, Zizyphus and other
berries
73 Pavo cristatus Grain, Tubers and Vegtables with Safari Park
(INDIAN PEAFOWL) small insects, Lizards
2899, ISSN: 2349 –4808 (Print)
74 Orthotomus sautorius Tiny insects and Flower nector Sanctuary Main Entry Gate - Safari Park
(COMMON TAILOR BIRD) Main Entry Gate
75 Galloperdix spadicea Seeds, tubers, berries,drupes and Jhar Mahadev

(RED SPURFOWL) insects
76 Mirafra erythroptera Seed ans insects Towards Hawala Region
(INDIAN BUSH LARK)
77 Eremopterix grisea -do- Sanctuary Main Entry Gate-Old Range
(ASHY –CROWNED Office
SPARROWLARK)
78 Corvus splendens -do- Periphery of the Sanctuary
(HOUSE CROW)
79 Corvus macrorhynchus -do- Periphery of the Sanctuary
(LARGE-BILLED CROW)
80 Eudynamys scolopacea Chiefly fruits and berries also Jhar Mahadev
(ASIAN KOEL) caterpillars and insects
81 Ocyceros birostris Largely fruits, wild figs, berries,flower Jhar Mahadev
(INDIAN GREY HORNBILL) petals and also insects
82 Oriolus oriolus Insects, Banyan and peepul figs and Safari Park-Gorela
(GOLDEN ORIOLE) other fruit parts Region

www.arseam.com
EISSN: 2349 –2899, ISSN: 2349 –4808 (Print)
83 Zosterops palpebrosa Insects caterpillars,berries, buds, Jhar Mahadev
(ORIENTAL WHITE- EYE) seed and nector
VI NECTARIVOROUS
84 Nectarinia asiatica Nector Feeder Sanctuary Main Entry
(PURPLE SUNBIRD) Gate-Safari Park Entry Gate
VII FRUIGIVOROUS
85 Psittacula eupatria Buds,Grass and Stems,Shurbs Safari Park-Gorella Region
133
86 Psittacula krameri -do- Sanctuary Main Entery Gate-Old Range
(ROSE-RINGED PARAKEET) Office
87 Psittacula cyanocephala -do- Jhar Mahadev
88 Megalaima haemacephala -do- Jhar Mahadev
89 Pycnonotus cafer -do- Safari Park-Gorela
(RED-VENTED BULBUL) Region
The numbers of bird species according to their feeding habit are:
Scavanger = 4, Carnivorous = 5, Granivorous = 7, Insectivorous = 34, Omnivorous = 33, Nectarivorous = 1 and Fruigivorous = 5
2899, ISSN: 2349 –4808 (Print)
Like terrestrial birds the aquatic birds also have their own habitat preferences. Their preferences are also based on the type of guild.
Therefore, certain birds are present in shallow waters, some in clear waters, some in the area of reeds and cattails while some occupy the
floating vegetations. Table 5 lists the feeding habit of aquatic birds as observed in the present study while Table 6 records the habitat
preferences of the aquatic birds.
Table 5: Feeding habit of aquatic birds of Lake Bari
S.No Family Scientific Name with Insectivorous Piscivorous Omnivorous Carnivorous Granivorous
Common Name
1. Pelecanidae Pelecanus onocrotalus Mainly fish
(GREAT WHITE PELICAN)
2. Podicipedidae Tachybaptus ruficollis Aquatic Fish Frog and
(LITTLE GREBE) Insects Tadpole
3. Phalacrocoracidae Phalacrocorax carbo Mainly Fish
(GREAT CORMORANT)
Phalacrocorax niger Mainly Fish Tadpole and
(LITTLE CORMORANT) crustaceans
4. Ardiiedae Ardea purpurea Aquatic Fish Crustaceans
(PURPLE HERON) Insects

www.arseam.com
EISSN: 2349 –2899, ISSN: 2349 –4808 (Print)
Common Name
Ardeola grayii Aquatic Fish Crustaceans
(POND HERON) Insects small
Rodents and
Young Birds
(d) Ardea cinerea Aquatic Fish Crustaceans
(GREY HERON) Insects small
Rodents and
Young Birds
135
Bubulcus ibis Mainly insects

(CATTLE EGRET)
Mesophoyx intermedia Mainly insects Fish Crustaceans
(INTERMEDIATE EGRET)
Egretta garzetta Mainly insects Fish Crustaceans
(LITTLE EGRET)
5. Ciconiidae Mycteria leucocephala Fish Crustaceans,
(PAINTED STORK) frogs and
reptiles
Anastomus oscitans Chiefly
(ASIAN OPEN BILL) molluscs
2899, ISSN: 2349 –4808 (Print)
Common Name
Ciconia episcopus Large insects Crabs and
(WOOLY-NECKED reptiles
STORK)
6. Threskiornithidae Threskiornis Insects Fish Worms,
melanocephalus molluscs,
(BLACK-HEADED IBIS) other small
animals
Pseudibis papillosa Insects Fish
(BLACK IBIS)
Platalea leucorodia Small
(EURASIAN SPOONBILL) fish,tadpole,
frog,
vegetable
matter
7. Phoenicopteridae Phoenicopterus roseus Chironomous
(GREATER FLAMINGO) larva, tiny
seeds of
lacustrine
plant
Phoenicopterus minor Algae and
(LESSER FLAMINGO) Diatoms

www.arseam.com
EISSN: 2349 –2899, ISSN: 2349 –4808 (Print)
Common Name
8. Anatidae Anas clypeata Water
(NOTHERN SHOVELER) insects and
aquatic
weeds
Tadorna ferruginea Grains,
(RUDDY SHELDUCK) tender
shoots and
tubers,
137
aquatic
insects
Anas platyrhynchos Shoots of
(MALLARD) Gramini and
other aquatic
plant and
rice
Aythya ferina Mainly
(COMMON POCHARD) vegetarian
but
sometimes
crustacea
and insects
2899, ISSN: 2349 –4808 (Print)
Common Name
Anas crecca Shoots,tuber
(COMMON TEAL) s,seeds and
grains
Anser indicus Grass,
(BAR- HEADED GOOSE) tubers,Paddy
in stubbles
9. Gruidae Grus antigone Locust,
( SARUS CRANE) Grasshopper
, grains and
corns of
aquatic plant
10. Rallidae Porphyrio porphyrio Mainly
(PURPLE MOORHEN) seeds,grains,
insects and
vegetable
matter
Fulica atra Shoots and
(COMMON COOT) seeds of
aquatic plant,
rice and
worm insect

www.arseam.com
EISSN: 2349 –2899, ISSN: 2349 –4808 (Print)
Common Name
Gallinuia chloropus Seeds,Grain
(COMMON MOORHEN) s, Shoots,
Insects and
larvae
Amaurornis phoenicurus Seeds,Grain
(WHITE-BREASTED s, Shoots,
WATERHEN) Insects and
Larvae
139
11 Jacanidae Hydrophasianus Vegetable

chirugus matter,insect
(PHEASANT-TAILED s and their
JACANA) larvae
Metapidius indicus Vegetable
(BRONZE-WINGED matter,insect
JACANA) s and their
larvae
12 Recurvirostridae Himantopus himantopus Small insects
(BLACK-WINGED STILT) and Marshy
Plants
Recurvirostra avosetta Tiny Mollusc
(PIED AVOCET) and
Crustacean
2899, ISSN: 2349 –4808 (Print)
Common Name
13 Rostratulidae Gallinago gallinago Tiny Mollusc
(COMMON SNIPE) and worms
14 Charadriidae Charadrius dubius Insects Tiny Crabs
(LITTLE RINGED PLOVER) and worms
Charadrius alexandrinus Insects Small crabs,
(KENTISH PLOVER) Sandhoppers
Actitis hypoleucos Insects Tiny Mollusc
(COMMON SANDPIPER) and worm
15 Laridae Sterna aurantia Insects Mainly fishes
(RIVER TERN)
16. Alcedinidae Halcyon smyrensis Large insects, Fish Small
( WHITE-THROATED Grasshoppers Secondary animals
KINGFISHER) and crickets item
Ceryle rudis Insects as Mainly fish
( PIED KINGFISHER) supplementar
y items
Summary of table
Total number of Insectivorous birds = 16 Total number of Piscivorous birds = 15

Total number of Omnivorous birds = 14 Total number of Carnivorous birds = 17
Total number of Granivorous birds = 3

www.arseam.com
EISSN: 2349 –2899, ISSN: 2349 –4808 (Print)
Table 6: Habitat preference of aquatic birds in the lake ecosystem (Lake Bari)
S.No. 1) Family Section 2.02 Scientific Section 2.03 Common Name Preferred
Name Habitat
1. Pelecanidae Pelecanus onocrotalus GREAT WHITE PELICAN CW

2. Podicipedidae Tachybaptus ruficollis LITTLE GREBE CW
3. Phalacrocoracidae Phalacrcorox carbo GREAT CORMORANT CW
Phalacrocorax niger LITTLE CORMORANT CW
4. Ardiiedae Ardea purpurea PURPLE HERON CW
141
Ardeola grayii POND HERON SL

Bubulcus ibis CATTLE EGRET SL
Mesophoyx intermedia INTERMEDIATE EGRET CW
Egretta garzetta LITTLE EGRET CW
Ardea cinerea GREY HERON SL
5. Ciconiidae Mycteria leucophala PAINTED STORK CW
Anastomus oscitans ASIAN OPENBILL CW
Ciconia episcopus WOOLY-NECKED STORK CW
Xenorhynchus asiaticus BLACK NECKED STORK SL
6. Article III. Threskiornithidae Threskiornis melanocephalus BLACK-HEADED IBIS SL
Pseudibis papillosa BLACK IBIS SL
2899, ISSN: 2349 –4808 (Print)
Name Habitat
Platalea leucorodia EURASIAN SPOON BILL CW

7. Phoenicopteridae Phoenicopterus ruber GREATER FLAMINGO CW
Phoenicopterus minor LESSER FLAMINGO CW
8. Anatidae Anas clypeata NOTHERN SHOVELER CW
Tadorha ferruginea RUDDY SHELDUCK CW
Anas platyrhynchos MALLARD CW
Aythya ferina COMMON POCHARD CW
Anas crecca COMMON TEAL CW
Anser indicus BAR- HEADED GOOSE SL
9. Gruidae Grus antigone SARUS CRANE AG Fields
10. Rallidae Porphyrio porphyrio PURPLE MOORHEN R and C
Fulica atra COMMON COOT R and C
Gallinuia chloropus COMMON MOORHEN R and C
Amaurornis phoenicurus WHITE-BREASTED R and C
WATERHEN
11. Jacanidae Hydrophasianus chirugus PHEASANT-TAILED JACANA FV
Metopidius indicus BRONZE-WINGED JACANA FV

www.arseam.com
EISSN: 2349 –2899, ISSN: 2349 –4808 (Print)
Name Habitat
12. Recurvirostridae Himantopus himantopus BLACK-WINGED STILT CW

Recurvirostra avosetta PIED AVOCET CW
13 Rostratulidae Gallinago gallinago COMMON SNIPE SL
Charadrius dubius LITTLE RINGED PLOVER SL
Charadrius alexandrinus KENTISH PLOVER SL
Tringa hypoleucos COMMON SANDPIPER SL
143
14. Laridae Sterna aurantia RIVER TERN SL
ACRONYMS:
CW: Clear Water, SL: Shore Line, R and C: Reeds and Cattails, FV: Floating vegetation
Summary of table:
Clear water birds = 21
Shoreline birds = 11
Floating vegetation inhabit birds = 2
Reed and Cattails birds = 3
Agriculture fields surrounding the wetland birds = 1
2349 –4808 (Print)
From the above mentioned results it is clear that the birds occupy various
habitats present in the sanctuary. In spite of being a small sanctuary in terms of
area, it is supporting a vast variety of birds. Thus this sanctuary and the
surrounding area along with the lakes of the city have been rightly declared as an
Important Bird Area site.
Altitude plays an important role in categorization of habitat because the

vegetation differs according to the altitude. The birds therefore also differ
according to their preference. The members of Family Accipiteridae generally
prefer to live in close proximity to human settlements and dumping grounds (Ali
and Futehally, 1989; Grewal, 1993). The feeding habit of a bird plays an important
role in selecting a habitat. The vultures are categorized as scavengers and kites
and Shikra fall in the carnivorous group (Reginald et al., 2007). In Sajjangarh
Wildlife Sanctuary, the suitable habitat is located on the periphery of the
sanctuary and altitude-wise it is on the foot hills (634 MSL) of the sanctuary.
Exception to this distribution is seen in case of Sarcogyps calvus. The high
occurrence zone of this species is Maharana Pratap Nature Trail (834 MSL). The
trail provides proper height to take flight and soaring and is near the vicinity of
Gorella village. The valley of the trail gives a clear view, so the bird can see near
and far from the area and easily get the carcasses for feeding. Animal and human
excrement are also significant part of the diets of a few species including
Neophron percnopterus (Snyder, 2001; Thiollay, 1994). The Pariah Kite does not
exist independent of and away from human inhabitation and is a commensal with
man providing non-vegetarian garbage (Satheesan, 1990).
The members of Family Phasinidae are found in dry grasslands thorn scrub
forest, dry grass and scrub deciduous forest and scrub bamboo thickets
(Johnsgard, 1983; Johnsgard, 1999; Madge and McGowan, 2002). The feeding
habits of the members of this family are varied*. The Francolins feed upon
insects, while the Jungle Bush Quail, Indian Peafowl and Aravalli Red Spurfowl
are omnivorus. It is also observed that the Red Spurfowl is a shy bird and always
seeks cover (Dewar and Yeats, 1979).
* http://animal-world.com
The preferred habitats of Pavo cristatus are in the following order: scrub >
open barren land > crop fields > plantation (Yasmin, 1995). In Sajjangarh Wildlife
Sanctuary the suitable habitat of these species lies at 634 MSL covering the area
Wildlife Sanctuary
like Safari Park, Jhar Mahadev and the path between the sanctuary main gate
and old range office, which form the zone of high occurrence.
Vanellus indicus (Family Charadridae) generally preferred the habitat like

drying-up beds of village tanks and sun-baked fallow fields but some unusual
sites have occasionally been reported such as the flat concrete roof of a
bungalow and stone and metal between the rails on a regularly used railway
track. In feeding habits it is an insectivorous bird. (Ali and Futehally,1989). The
foothill thickets 634 MSL of the sanctuary provides suitable habitat for this
species.
The members of Family Burhinidae are frequently found in open scrub and
bush country, ploughed and fallowed land and dry shingle beds in rivers. It may
occasionally be also found in light deciduous jungle and shady mango groves
near villages. Its food consists mainly of insects, worms, slugs, small reptiles etc.,
which are swallowed along with grit is commonly swallowed (Green et al., 1999).
In this sanctuary it inhabits the foothill thicket area at 634 MSL.
Members of Family Columbidae like pigeons and doves are categorized in

grainivorous group according to their guild (Reginald et al., 2007). Rock pigeon
generally preferred the human habitation, open country area with cliffs and rocky
hills and avoided heavy forest (Ali and Futehally, 1989). In the context of this
sanctuary, the pigeons were very frequently sighted at the top hills with old
Monsoon Palace (936 MSL). On other hand, the three species namely Eurasian
collared Dove, Red collared Dove and Spotted Dove were highly spotted at foot
hill thickets at 634 MSL but Laughing dove occurred frequently at middle hill
thickets (834 MSL).
In wild, the Parakeets (Family Psittacidae) like to eat fruits, grains and
groundnuts* but they are categorized in frugivorous (Reginald et al., 2007). The
Rose-ringed Parakeets commonly roost in grooves of trees often within the
precincts of noisy cities but the Alexandrine Parakeet and Plum- headed Parakeet
generally prefer the well-wooded areas (Ali and Futehally, 1989). In this sanctuary
the high occurrence zone Rose- ringed Parakeet is the pathway between
Sanctuary Main Entry gate to Safari Park and periphery of sanctuary. The
Alexandrine and Plum-headed preferred the area of Jhar Mahadev. All these
habitats are situated on the foothill thickets at 634 MSL.

www.arseam.com
2349 –4808 (Print)
Coucal and Koel belong to Family Cuculidae. Cuckoo prefers tall forests,
suburban areas, open moorlands and desert to tropical rainforest*. They are
omnivorous and feed on fruits, insects, caterpillars, grasshoppers, lizards, small
snakes and small mammals. They feed in the canopy of the trees (Reginald et al.,
2007). According to their habitat and feeding preference, they were highly
encountered at foothill thickets at 634 MSL in this sanctuary.
Owl and owlets belong to the Family Strigidae. The Spotted Owlet prefers
the open forest, cultivation and vicinity of habitation. The Great horned Owl
prefers the ravines, cliffsides, scrub and open country (Grewal, 1993). They are
categorized in carnivorous category according their guild*. In this sanctuary high
occurrence zone of the family is on foothills thickets at 634 MSL.
Nightjars (Family Caprimulgidae) are categorized as insectivorous

according to their guild (Ali and Futehally, 1989). The Indian nightjar is commonly
seen on roadside at night but the Savanna nigthjar prefers the open forest, stony
areas with scrub (Grimmet et al., 1999). In this sanctuary, Savanna nightjar was
largely reported towards Hawala region while Indian nightjar occurred along the
road from foothill thickets to top hill thickets. So altitude wise Savanna nightjar is
present at foothill thickets (634 MSL) and Indian Nightjar is present on foothills
(634MSL), Middle hills (834MSL) and top hills (936 MSL).
* www.ecoindia.com *** www.zipcode.zoo
**www.jaxzoo.org
Swifts (Family Apodidae) are terresterial species that require foraging

habitat with high number of aerial insects. Habitat of swifts includes scrub, farm or
grassland, urban areas, forest and canopy*. They can be found from sea level to
4000m because water is an integral aspect of the breeding biology of many of
these species. Swifts are, therefore, usually found near the water. Traditionally,
the roosting and breeding site requirements of swifts are caves or hollow trees,
but more recently they are found to inhabit the man made structures also. This
sometimes necessitates travel of varying distances between roosting and feeding
sites. (Campbell and Lack, 1985; Chantler, 1999; Chantler and Driessens, 2000;
Collins, 2001). In the study area the house swift largely occurred at Monsoon palace
at top hill thickets at 936 MSL and Alpine swift occurred at middle hill thickets along
the road towards the monsoon palace at 834 MSL.

www.arseam.com
Wildlife Sanctuary
Kingfishers (Family Alcedinidae) generally preferred the areas that are

near water (Grewal, 1993). They are categorized in Piscivorous group (Reginald
et al., 2007) in their guild. In this sanctuary the preferable site for kingfishers is
surrounding the Bari Lake.
Bee-eaters (Family Meropidae) are found everywhere in open habitats

(Shahabuddin et al., 2006). Guild wise it comes in insectivorous group.
Sometimes they cause the damage to apiary bees (Ali and Futehally, 1989). It is
frequently seen on the periphery of the study area at the foot hills thickets at 634
MSL.
Rollers (Family Coraciidae) generally preferred the degraded scrub and

cultivation areas (Shahabuddin et al., 2006). They are insectivorous in feeding
habit (Ali and Futehally, 1989). In this sanctuary rollers largely occurred on the
periphery of sanctuary at foothill thickets 634 MSL.
Hoopoe (Family Upupidae) mostly occurred in the degraded habitat

(Shahabuddin et al., 2006). It is insectivorous in feeding and beak is modified for
collecting the insects from soil in being little curved from anterior region. In this
sanctuary, it is present in Safari Park region at foothill thickets at 634 MSL.
*http://animaldiversity.com
Hornbills (Family Bucerotidae) and Barbets (Family Megalainidae) both

are categorized as frugivorous types according to their guild. The fruits of
scattered trees of banyan, peepal and other species of wild fig-these fruits form
their staple food (Ali and Futehally,1989). Both species preferred the wooded area
with fruit bearing trees*. In the study area both the family found in Jhar Mahadev
at foot hills thickets 634 MSL.
Family Picidae includes the Flamebacks or Woodpeckers which are

important components of forest communities and play a vital role in forest
ecosystems. Being insectivorous, they help in controlling bark insects directly by
feeding on them and indirectly by altering the microclimatic condition in tree barks.
Forestry practices such as selective logging can be detrimental to woodpecker
populations (Davidar, 1995). Removal of dead trees or snags and large trees with
decaying trunks or dead branches reduce nesting and foraging sites for woodpeckers
(Davidar, 1995). In the study area woodpeckers are present at Safari Park zone at
foothill thickets 634 MSL.
Larks (Family Aludidae) are commonly seen in rocky, open areas

(Shahabuddin et al., 2006). They are categorized in omnivorous habit (Ali and
www.arseam.com
2349 –4808 (Print)
Futehally, 1989). In the study area they are found in Safari park region at foothill
thickets at 634MSL.
Martins and Swallows (Family Hirundidae) are mostly seen near the
jheels, reservoirs and rocky slopes but the Red-rumped Swallow prefers the open
areas near ditches and rocky slopes (Shahabuddin et al., 2006). Feeding wise
they are categorized in insectivorous guild*. In the study area the Dusky crag
martin and Wire-tailed Swallow has a high occurrence zone near the Lake Bari
but the Red- rumped Swallow largely occurred at middle hill thickets at 834 MSL.
Shrikes (Family Laniidae) is represented by two species namely Southern

grey shrike, which prefers dry open country, and the Bay-backed shrike that
prefers the less arid, better-wooded and watered country (Ali and Futehally,
1989). In feeding habit they are carnivorous*. In the sanctuary, the Southern grey
Shrike occurred at the periphery of sanctuary and Bay-backed Shrike near the
lake Bari at foothill thickets (634MSL).
* www.zipcode.zoo *** www.animaldiversity.com
**www.animal-world.com
Orioles belong to the Family Oriolidae. The species is commonly seen

singly in wooded country. Although of a shy and retiring disposition, this bird may
freely enter the gardens with large leafy trees in the vicinity of villages. They may
be found even in the heart of noisy cities*. According to their guild they are
categorized in frugivorous group and its food consists chiefly of fruits and berries,
especially those of banyan, peepal and lantana being amongst commonest*. In this
study area the species occurred in the Safari Park to Jhar Mahadev region as the area
has above mentrioned trees. It is also seen at the periphery of sanctuary at the foothill
thickets at 634 MSL.
Members of Family Sternidae are Starlings and Myna. The common myna
is generally seen around human habitation and cultivation. The Bank Myna and
Rosy Starling occur in damp grassland and cultivation. The Brahminy Starling
generally present in dry well wooded areas and thorn scrub*. The Mynas are
categorized as omnivorous while Starlings are insectivorous (Ali and Futehally,
1989). In the study area, both common as well as bank myna are largely found at
the periphery of the sanctuary while the Brahminy starling is present from Safari
Park to Gorella region. Rosy starling was also seen in peripheral agriculture fields.
All these habitats are situated at foothills 634 MSL.

www.arseam.com
Wildlife Sanctuary
Black and White bellied Drongos exemplify family Dicruridae and inhabit
different areas in the sanctuary. Black Drongo is generally seen around habitation
and cultivation but the white bellied Drongo is found in open forests and wild
wooded areas*. Both the birds are insectivores**. In the study area, Black Drongo
is commonly sighted every where in the foot hill region while the White Bellied
Drongo is seen mostly in undisturbed habitats like Safari Park to Gorella region.
They are categorized as insectivorous in feeding habit*
Crows and tree-pies (Family Corvidae) generally occur around human

habitation and outskirts of villages but the treepie may also be present in lightly
wooded country and open forest (Grewal, 1993). Both the crows (Common crow
and Long-billed crow) are omnivorous but the
* www.wvu.edu **** www.wikipweida.org

** www.absoluteastronomy.com ***** www.seaworldadventurepark.info
*** http://animaldiversity.ummz ****** www.amazon.com
treepie is categorized as insectivorous*. In this sanctuary the crows preferred the
peripheral region of sanctuary at foothills 634 msl due to the availability of food in
this region but treepie occurred at middle hill thickets at 834 MSL.
The Family Campephagidae is represented by three species namely,

common wood shrike, small minivet and white-bellied minivet. All three species
are generally seen in open broad-leaved forest and dry open scrub**. These three
birds are categorized as insectivorous*. This type of habitat in the study area is
located near Safari Park Entry Gate to Chital point. The zones of high occurrence
were old range office, Safari Park entry gate and the pathway between the Safari
park to Chital point at foothill thickets at 634 MSL.
Family Pycnotidae is represented by a single species in Sajjangarh in the

Safari Park area. The Red-vented Bulbul is observed in the dry deciduous forest
(Ali and Futehally, 1989) and the sanctuary is dominantly tropical dry deciduous
type with the presence of plant species like Anogessius pendula, Zizyphus
nummularia, Acacia leucofloea, Cassia tora, Prosopis juliflora and Lantana
camara. These species strongly support the red-vented bulbul. Red-vented bulbul
is present in good numbers in the foothills while their number decreases with the
increase in altitude. This bird is frugivorous and helps in seed dispersal of
Lantana, which is its food of choice (Bhatt and Kumar, 2001).
Babblers, fantails, prinia, tailor birds, robins, wheatears, chats belong to

Family Muscicapidae. Common babbler and Large grey babbler generally
occurred in degraded scrub forest but the Jungle babbler is present mostly in

www.arseam.com
2349 –4808 (Print)
dense vegetation, Ashy prinia occurred mostly in disturbed scrub forest while the
tailor bird is seen mostly in all habitats especially in riparian. Common chiffchaff
may sometimes be seen in scrub vegetation and near jheels. White- browed and
White-throated fantails prefer undisturbed habitats while the Grey-headed canary
flycatcher is mostly seen in undisturbed riparian forest. Brown rock-chat may be
commonly seen in rocky riparian habitat.
* www.ecoindia.org *** http://animal-world.com

** http://animaldiversity.ummz
The Indian Robin is commonly seen in habitats with human interference
every where but Oriental Magpie Robin is generally seen in undisturbed riparian
and scrub forest (Shahabuddin et al., 2006).Regarding the feeding habit,
Babblers are omnivorous while the Tailorbird is insectivorous but partially nector
feeder. Robins are chiefly insectivorous (Ali and Futehally, 1989). In this study the
family was generally observed at foothill thicket at 634 MSL.
Family Irenidae is represented by a single species, the Common Iora,

which is a completely arboreal insectivorous bird of gardens and groves of trees
on the outskirts of village*. In the study area its high occurrence zone was in
Safari Park at foothill thickets 634 MSL.
Three members of Family Paridae, Parus major, Parus xanthogenys and

Parus nuchalis are observed in the study area. These birds are grainivorous in
habit. Amongst these Parus nuchalis is classified as vulnerable (IUCN, 2008).
This bird is endemic in India and confined to Rajasthan and Gujarat (Ali and
Ripley, 1987, Hussain et al., 1992, Tiwari and Rahamani, 1996, Tiwari, 2001). It
prefers dry deciduous and thorny habitat that is found in Sajjangarh due to the
presence of Anogessius pendula, Acacia nilotica, Acacia leucophloea, Acacia
Senegal, etc. in foot hill zone and middle slopes. This bird is seen on the
Maharana Pratap Natural Trail and from Safari park to Gorella.
Wagtails and pipits (family Motacillidae) usually forage on the ground but
will occasionally catch aerial insects. They also forage in shallow water for aquatic
invertebrates and catch insects on foliage or near the surface of water. Tail length
affects the bird ability to maneuver and therefore their ability to catch insects in
flight. The species with longer tails tends to do more fly catching. Wagtails
sometimes forage alongside of group of cattle, sheep and wild ungulates. These
animals stir up insects and make it easier for the birds to find and catch them

www.arseam.com
Wildlife Sanctuary
(Alstrom and Mild, 2003; Badyaey and Hendericks, 2001; Campbell and Lack,
1985; Fry et al., 1992; Simms, 1992; Verbeck and Hendricks, 1994; Wood, 1985).
* www.birdlife.org
The members of Family Nectarinidae show structural adaptations of the
bill and tongue of the birds to facilitate nectar-feeding and the modifications of the
corolla of the bird-flower to facilitate nectar-feeding by the birds. Family
Nectarinidae is represented by a single member, Nectarinia asiatica in the study
area. The sunbird N. asiatica feeds entirely on nectar and has a greater
specialisation for a nectar diet (Davidar, 1979). In Sajjangarh Wildlife Sanctuary
this bird is found along the path from Sanctuary main entry gate to Safari Park
(634 MSL).
White eye (Family Zosteropidae) occurs mostly in undisturbed habitats,
particularly in the riparian (Shahabuddin et al., 2006). Zosterops palpebrosa take
fruits in addition to nectar, but they are less specialised for a nectar diet as
compared to the sunbirds (Davidar, 1979). In the study area the occurrence zone
of this species is near plantation towards first chouki and Safari Park at foothill
thickets 634 MSL.
Sparrows, weaverbirds, silver bills and munias belong to the Family
Ploceidae. Indian silverbill (Lonchura malabarica) generally prefers dry areas,
cultivation, scrub and grass land. Sometimes they may also be found in light,
open forests. Spotted munia prefers open scrub, cultivation, especially where
interspersed with trees. They may also be found in gardens. The weaverbirds prefer
the open country, tree and palm-dotted cultivation (Grewal, 1993). Ploceidae family is
categorized as Granivorous*. In the study area, the family occurred at foothill thickets
at 634 MSL.
The mosaic type of habitat in Sajjangarh Wildlife Sanctuary gives full
choice to bird species for their occurrence. The sanctuary area provides suitable
amount of food with proper roosting sites and protection to a bird species.
Sanctuary plays an important role in providing a stopover point for terresterial
passage migrants such as Rosy Starling (Sturnus roseus), European Roller
(Coracias garrulus) and Alpine Swift (Tachymarptis melba). The Sanctuary also
provides wintering grounds for many species such as Grey- headed canary
flycatcher (Culicicapa ceylonensis), Eurasian chiffchaff (Phylloscopus collybita),
Varaible Wheatear (Oenanthe picata), Desert Wheatear (Oenanthe deserti),
White Wagtail (Motacilla alba), Yellow Wagatail (Motacilla flava) and Grey
Wagtail (Motacilla cinerea).

www.arseam.com
2349 –4808 (Print)
* www.wvu.edu
The waterfowls indicate the health of any lake ecosystem. The mixed
habitat of a lake attracts variety of aquatic birds. Generally, 5 types of habitats can
be identified in a lake. These are clear water, shoreline, floating vegetation, reeds
and cattails and islands within the lake. According to the feeding habit and
availability of roosting site, the zones of high occurrence or habitat preference of
aquatic birds can be determined. In the present study 38 waterfowls belonging to
14 families were observed. The Families - Pelicanidae, Podicipedidae,
Phalacrocoracidae, Ardiidae, Ciconidae, Threskiornithidae, Anatidae,
Recurvirostridae and Laridae belong to the piscivorous guild (Reginald et al.,
2007). The availability of good amount of food for this type of guild is in clear
water zone. Hence, accordingly, in the present study Great White Pelican,
Coromorants, Grey Heron, Painted Stork, Woolly Necked Stork, Common
Pochard, Common Teal, Pied Avocet are found in clear water zone of Lake Bari.
The families Rallidae, Jacanidae and Charadriidae are categorized in

Insectivorous and Omnivorous guild (Reginald et al., 2007). Little grebe
(Tachybaptus ruficollis) under water it swims with great facility, for the paddles
which take the place of legs in its anatomy are so placed that they do not work
only under its body (Ali and Loke, 1947). Northern Shoveler, Ruddy Shellduck,
Mallard, Common Pochard and Bar-headed Goose are the dabbling and diving
ducks that dive into water to get their food. For this purpose they require clear
water area*. Members of Family Charadriidae are also insectivorous in habit.
Their preferred variety of insects is found in the muddy shore area of the water
body. Therefore, Little-ringed Plover, (Charadrius dubius) and Kentish plover
(Charadrius alexandrinus) are found in marshy area of Lake Bari.
The members of Family Rallidae – Fulica atra (Coot), Porphyrio porphyrio

(Purple moorhen), Amaurornis phoenicurus (White breasted waterhen) and
Gallinula chloropus (Common moorhen) are omnivorous, but as they are shy
birds they occupy the reed and cattails vegetation zone of the water body
(Gooders, 1982). Except for the coots, other birds were not observed in Lake Bari.
* www.seaworldadventurepark.info
But these moorhens and waterhens were observed in another nearby lake
– Lake Pichhola, which is a component of IBA site, Udaipur lake ecosystem.
Moorhens are insectivorous and swallow a large amount of sand and gravel for

www.arseam.com
Wildlife Sanctuary
grinding their food. During both day and night they can be seen actively swimming
in a characteristic clock-work manner with their heads bobbing and tails flicking.
Similarly, Family Jacanidae, a circumtropical family of shorebirds, that

inhabits freshwater swamps and marshes, also prefers floating vegetation like
Nymphea, Nelumbo, Eichorrnia crassipus (water hyacinth) for roosting and
nesting. Bronze-winged Jacana and Pheasant-tailed Jacana were also observed
in Lake Pichhola. The Pheasant-tailed as well as Bronzewinged Jacanas actively
selected their habitats. The number of habitats utilized by each species varied
seasonally and annually. The highest preferred habitat of the Pheasant-tailed in
all seasons except in winter was submerged vegetation, followed by submerged
with floating vegetation. During winter it preferred habitat formed by recrudescent
grass patch. Preferred habitats of the Bronze-winged were submerged vegetation
Ipomoea patch, or Eichhornia patch or the combination of any of these. A
combination of these habitats placed abutting one another constitutes the habitat
of the Bronze-winged Jacana. Based on the intensity of usage, the habitat of the
Pheasant-tailed and Bronze-winged Jacanas could be clustered into five and six
groups respectively. Preening followed by bath in both the species of Jacanas
was performed on floating platform formed of vegetation such as Ipomoea
aquatica, Paspalum distichum, Nymphaea nouchali or Eichhornia crassipes
(Vijayan, 1993).
Thus from the above study it is clear that the habitat found in Sajjangarh
Wildlife Sanctuary is a mosaic one comprising of dry deciduous, open scrub,
rocky with sparse vegetation, thickets with rich vegetation cover, steep hill sidea
with rich vegetation cover and cliffs andruins. Besides this the peripheral area has
agricultural fields, human habitation and aquatic (Lake Bari) habitats. In the eight
types of habitats identified in the study, 129 species of birds belonging to 33
families were identified. The area also supports many rare and endangered birds
and has therefore rightly been designated as an Important Bird Area.

www.arseam.com
2349 –4808 (Print)

www.arseam.com
Wildlife Sanctuary

www.arseam.com
2349 –4808 (Print)
CHAPTER 6
STUDY OF MICROSCOPIC
STRUCTURE OF BIRD FEATHER
Birds are some of the most successful animals on Planet Earth. They live
in nearly all climates from dry deciduous, arid forests, tropical rainforests, and
temperate forests to icy seas near the poles. Birds can endure temperature
extremes better than mammals, reptiles, amphibians, and insects can and if the
weather gets too bad, they can fly somewhere else. Among other things, the
wings enable birds to fly and to stay warm. Although different organism have
converged on various methods of flight, birds are most notably known to have
evolved the intricate, delicate, extraordinary complex and interlocking
appendages of the integument known as feathers. Feathers are the body covering
that distinguishes birds from the rest of the animal kingdom and also form a
diagnostic tool to easily identify a bird. They are one of the most prominent
features of a bird‟s anatomy and are unique to bird.
Feathers are among the most uniquely designed, beautiful exoskeleton in

nature and have evolved to serve a variety of functions (e.g. protection,
recognition, attraction, aerodynamics, insulation, etc.). Firstly, they provide
insulation that is very essential feature in a warm-blooded animal (body
temperature of most birds is maintained at around 40º C). It is believed by
scientist that this insulating effect was the primary force driving the evolution of
feathers, i.e. ancestors developed feathers to keep themselves warm *. Feathers
also protect birds from UV light.
Secondly, the feathers help in flight. Scientist believe that flight evolved in
birds as a result of the basic feathers and that this added selective pressure to the
evolution of feathers making them larger, softer refining their structure (). Thirdly,
feathers show what a bird looks like. A plucked chicken or pigeon is different than
a fully feathered one. Feathers provide the bird with colours allowing for
camouflage, sexual characteristics and sexual display.
* www.earthlife/net-birds.org
Feather evolved from reptilian scales, and in fact birds still possess scales in
the lower parts of feet. The fact that Archaeopteryx lithographica had feathers
www.arseam.com
Wildlife Sanctuary
indistinguishable from those of modern birds was instrumental in the early

classification of this fossil animal*. Even recent controversies of bird-dinosaur
relationships have cited the presence of feathers on fossil specimens of
Theropods as “unambiguous” proof that birds descended from dinosaurs (Ji et al.,
1998). The evolutionary achievement of the early invention of feathers serves the
success of the avian class of Vertebrates.
Structure of a typical Feather

The feathers of a bird cover its body and can be also known as the
survival suit for birds. Like the hair and fingernails of mammals, a feather is made
up of a protein called keratin. A feather has a basic form of a central hollow
supporting shaft called a „rachis‟ and a number of fine branches. These side
branches have even finer sub- branches in contour feathers. The side branches in
these are linked together by a set of barbule hook-lets sometimes called „Hamuli‟.
Barb branches out into still smaller units called barbules. They contain a series of
hook-lets that are slightly convex in form to catch the barbules from the next barb
along the surface. The diagram of feather (Fig. 1) is showing the details the
structure of a typical feather. The side branch (or barbs) are absent on the lower
part called calamus or quill. The base of this calamus has an entrance that was
used by blood veins to enter the calamus of the growing feather when it was alive.
This is called inferior umbilicus.
Types of Feathers
The body of a bird bears many different types of feathers (e.g., contour,
semiplume, down, bristle and filoplume). The contour (present on body, wing and
tail) feathers are the most diagnostic to the casual observer. Recognition of the
plumage (a collective term for all of the feathers that cover a bird‟s body) is one of
the most common ways to identify many different species of birds. The individual
feathers (which together make up the plumage) also vary among and within
species, and even exhibit difference on a single bird‟s body. Following five types
of feathers may be observed in a bird:
1. Contour (Quill or Flight) feather
The typical flight feathers or quills have a very strong shaft and vanes. The
largest feathers are contour feathers. It consists of a stiff rachis, or main shaft,
with vanes on either side. In many contour feathers, a secondary structure or
after-feather (downy in appearance) is attached to the main feather at the

www.arseam.com
2349 –4808 (Print)
calamus. Vanes on each side of the rachis are usually made up of two types of
barbs. Pennaceous barbs are the primary branches off the rachis that are further
subdivided into flattened barbules. These barbules are typically characterized by
having interlocking hooklets (especially on flight feathers). Plumulaceous barbs
(downy) also branch off the rachis of most contour feathers (Fig. 2) but these
barbs are located at the very base of feather and are fluffy in appearance. A
barbule is the smallest unit of the feather, divided into a base and a pennulum,
and can be visualized as a stalk of single cells (segments), which are
differentiated along the axis. The base is the most proximal portion of the stalk
that attaches to the rachilla and is typically flattened strap-like in appearance. The
remaining segments of the stalk make up the pennulum. The cells along the
pennulum are elongated and often expanded near the distal end to form nodes.
Sometimes these nodes have various associated structures such as spine,
prongs, points or rings that vary among groups of birds. The morphological
variation in the microscopic characters of the node (Fig. 3A and 3B), internode
(segment between nodes), and pigmentation patterns (Fig. 3C) along the
plumulaceous barb aids in the identification of groups of birds from feather
fragments alone. They are characterized by the presence of barbules with an
interlocking arrangement. They can be further classified as:
a. Remiges - Flight feather of a wing are termed pinions, remiges or wingquills.

One of the wing flight feather, remiges are asymmetrical i.e. the vane on one side
of rachis is much smaller than the other. This is because the pressure of edges on
the part that faces forward is far greater than those on the trailing edge. If the
leading edge vane was as large as the trailing edge it would soon become very
ragged and not work properly.
b. Rectrices - Rectrices are arranged in a semicircle or fan- like manner on the

tail. The two halves of the vane of rectrices are almost equal in size. The rectrices
function as a brake to slow down and also in steering the flight.
c. Coverts- Bases of wingquill are covered by upper and under wing-coverts and
the bases of tail quills by upper and under tail-coverts. Coverts are smaller in size
than the quill feather to which they are structurally similar. They close the
interstices between quills of flight feather, thus presenting a continuous area to
oppose the buoyancy of air.

www.arseam.com
Wildlife Sanctuary
2. Down Feather
The next most important feather on a bird is down feathers. These are smaller in
size and lack the barbules and their accompanying hook-lets are not zipped
together. Thus they are soft and fluffy. They provide the best insulation. In a down
feather the side branches are longer than the rachis.
3. Filoplume (Hair feather or pin feather)
These feathers are much smaller in size than the rest and are sparsely
placed over the body. Filoplumes have only a very few barbs at their tips and are
believed to have a sensory function. They help the birds to keep their feathers in
order. A filoplume consists of a short calamus, and a long thread-like rachis with a
few weak barbs and barbules at the free tip.
4. Rictal bristles
This feather has practically no barbs at all and has a stiff texture. They
occur around the eyes and mouth of some birds and are provide protection to
these organs. They are particularly evident in Coppersmith Barbet, which feeds
on fruits and needs protection from thorns.
5. Semiplume
These look like a combination of contour and down feathers. Like the
down feathers, they help to trap heat next to the skin. Besides these a few
variations are also observed such as Powder down feathers and Tactile feathers.
The powder down feathers occur in many birds and are usually aggregated into
special patches, such as the paired pectoral and pelvic yellowish patches on the
skin of herons and bittern and sometimes in scattered tracts and tufts as in
parrots, rollers and immature dammergeier. These are simply down feathers of
which the tops never develop beyond the early stage and continually break down
into a powdery substance. It has been suggested that they help to keep the
plumage clean and in good condition – a sort of talcum powder.
Tactile feathers or vibrissae occur at the root of beak or round the eyes
and are best developed in nocturnal birds. Some of the peculiar feathers, such as

www.arseam.com
2349 –4808 (Print)
the bristles at the gape of Nightjars, eye lashes of Hornbills, wires of birds of
paradise, and ornamental plumes of many species may be derived from the
contour feathers.
Chandler (1914, 1916) was one of the first to examine and describe the
microscopic variation of downy feather barbs among many different groups of
birds. His work was based on studies of pennaceous feather structure by Nitzsch
(1867) and pterylology ( the arrangement of feathers in definite areas of growth)
for his detailed work on the taxonomic significance of microscopic structures of
both downy and pennaceous feathers. The early studies of Chandler (1916)
showed that the microstructures of feather varied enough to allow group
designation from feather structures alone. Chandler (1916) was also the first to
note the applied importance of identifying species of birds from feathers seized by
U.S. Customs agents.
The feather identification technique gained importance as an applied

science in the early 1960s when Roxie Laybourne, research at the Smithsonian
Institution, was called upon to identify bird remains recovered from the crash of a
Lockheed Electra aircraft at Logan International Airport (Lipske 1982).
When Laybourne identified the culprits of that crash (which killed 62

people) as European Starlings (Sturnus vulgaris), the aviation industry began to
search for ways to control birds on airfields and reduce the risk of damage to
engines. Bird strike identification is currently the most demanding application of
feather identification. If the species of birds involved in bird strikes is known,
airfield personnel can implement habitat management schemes that discourage
bird to use the airfields. The aircraft manufacturers can better design engines and
aircrafts to withstand the impact of bird collisions.
By studying the variation in microscopic plumulaceous (downy) feather

characters such as barb and barbule lengths, nodal morphology, and
pigmentation patterns in conjunction with entire feather characters of size, texture,
color, and pattern, positive identification of species of birds is possible from
fragmentary feathers. This is done by comparing the unknown sample to a
museum collection of study of skins and a microslide reference collection of
known species. The identification of species by use of micro- and macroscopic
feather characters, together with circumstantial evidence (locality, date, time of
day) pertaining to the unknown sample, has led to the field of forensic ornithology.

www.arseam.com
Wildlife Sanctuary
Throughout the years, the ability to determine species of birds from feather
fragments has been applied to various disciplines: archeological studies of
excavated artifacts (Hargrave, 1965; Messinger, 1965), determination of food
habits from prey remains (Day, 1966; Gilbert and Nancekivell, 1982; Griffin, 1982;
Ward and Laybourne, 1985; Joy et al., 1994), forensic science investigations
(Davies, 1970; Deedrick and Mullery, 1981), examination of food contaminants
(Olsen, 1981), identification of fossil feather remains (Bennike and Dyck, 1986;
Steadman, 1988; Humphery et al., 1993; Laybourne et al., 1994) and analysis of
bird- aircraft collisions (Manville, 1963; Laybourne, 1974; Rosalind and Grubh,
1986; Brom, 1991). Although these studies demonstrated the applied importance
of using feather characters for bird identifications, none fully explored the
systematic potential of these characters.
Chandler‟s (1916) gave an early statement on the taxonomic values of

feather characters as the morphology or epiphyology of feathers of birds is as
valuable from a taxonomic point of view as is osteology, mycology or the
systematic morphology of any other organ or system of organs of the body.
In contrast to very early studies that focused on pennaceous feather

structure, more recent researchers have started to seriously investigate the
taxonomic and systematic significance of the microstructures of plumulaceous
feathers. The fact that interspecific variation exists in microscopic characters of
downy barbs of feathers is now well documented (Chandler, 1916; Messinger,
1965; Day, 1966; Reaney et al., 1978; Robertson et al., 1984; Horton, 1990;
Brom, 1991; Dove, 1994, 1997; 1998b; Laybourne et al., 1994; Shamoun, 1994).
These investigations have focused on the plumulaceous part of the feather
because this is where the most diagnostic variation is observed. A reasonable
priority assumption for the observed differences in feather types (pennaceous vs.
plumulaceous) is due to function because one of the main functions of feathers is
to aid flight, evolutionary and environmental restrictions act to limit the amount of
variation the pennaceous feather can undergo and still perform optimally. For
example, a finite number of ways exists in which a hooklet can vary and still
function as an interlocking structure. Plumulaceous feathers, on the other hand,
are located at the base of the contour feather and are more protected from
environmental influences by the overlapping pennaceous feathers. This

www.arseam.com
2349 –4808 (Print)
arrangement may explain why we see more variation in plumulaceous feathers-

these structures are freer from functional constraints.
Chandler (1916) and Messinger (1965) voiced concerns about

intraspecific variation in vane symmetry and within-vane variation of same feather.
Dove (1997) examined plumulaceous barbs of North American plovers and
showed that if the same vane region of feathers from the same feather tract
position is studied across taxa, then it is possible to use plumulaceous feather
characters to discriminate closely related species. Gilroy (1987) studied the
variation of the plumulaceous barbs among feather tracts of the Rock Dove
(Columba livia) and found diagnostic characters with little variability in all 52 tracts
surveyed. These studies provide quantitative proof that microscopic feather
characters can be used to aid in species identification and therefore may have
some phylogenetic significance.
In the present study an attempt has been made to study the macroscopic
as well as the microscopic characters of eight known bird species. These
characters have been recorded in Plates 6.1 and 6.2. Table – 1 shows the
macroscopic characters of contour feathers of eight species of birds. These
feathers were collected from the bird cages of local zoological garden. The
feathers of these known bird species were collected in order to study and develop
a key for identification of microscopic feather characteristics to correctly detect a
bird species. The down or plumulaceous barbs of the contour feather are chosen
for microscopic study (Dove, 1998b; Laybourne et al., 1994; Shamoun, 1994).
Various macroscopic characters such as lengths of feather, plumaceous region,
rachis and calamus; width of rachis and feather from different parts along with the
feather colouration were recorded. A variation in the measurement of these
characters is observed according to the species.

www.arseam.com
Table 1: Macroscopic characters of feathers
S.No Family Latin Name Common Feather Feather Plumulaceous Rachis Calamus Width from different Rachis Width Feather
. Name collection length length (cm) length Length portion of feather (cm) (cm) Colouration
(cm) (cm) (cm)
Upper Middle Lower Right Left
portion portion
1. Pelecanidae Pelecanus Great Body 19.3 8 15.5 4.2 4.2 6.0 7.5 3.8 3.4 White
oncrotalus White Coverts
Pelican
2. Ardiiedae Bubulcus ibis Cattle Body 12 5.5 8.8 2.2 5.5 5.5 5.5 3.3 3.3 White
Egret Coverts
3. Columbidae Columba livia Blue Body 9 2.5 8.3 1.7 2.7 2.8 2.2 1.6 2.1 Grey Colour
Rock Coverts
Pigeon
4. Phasianidae Pavo cristatus Indian Body 10 3.5 8.7 1.9 3 2.8 4 2.9 2.8 Blue and
163
Francolinus Peafowl Coverts Black

pondicerianus Grey Body 8.1 4 7.4 1.3 2.5 2.3 2 1.5 1.8
Francolin Coverts Grey Colour
5. Psittacidae Psittacula Rose- Body 8.7 2 6.6 2.1 2.9 3.4 2.8 1.6 2.8 Yellow and
krameri ringed Coverts Green
Parakeet
6. Anatidae Anas indicus Bar- Body 14.5 2 11.7 2.8 4.4 4.9 4.2 2.7 3 GreyishBrown
headed Coverts
Goose
Anas Eurasian Body 11.2 5 9.5 1.7 3.5 2.9 2.2 2 2.1 Brown
penelope Wigeon Coverts
2349 –4808 (Print)
The macroscopic features of different species as seen in the above table

are helpful in their identification. Likewise there are certain microscopic characters
that are also species specific. The finer microscopic details of the downy barbs
and barbules were further studied to determine the specificity of these characters
according to the family. Table – 2 records the microscopic measurements of
various characteristics. However, Reaney, et al. (1978) used scanning electron
microscopy to show that plumulaceous microstructures are valuable in
identification of certain families of birds. Robertson et al. 1984) quantified
characters used in forensic feather identification. The systematic comparison of
nodes and barbules from a standardized, plumulaceous barb region of the same
feather vane are helpful in describing the inter- and intraspecific variations without
dealing with inconsistencies in feather regions or types.

www.arseam.com
Table 2: Microscopic feather characteristics of some birds
S. Microscopic Bird species

No. feather Pelecanus Bubulcus Anser Anas Pavo Francolinus Psittacula Columba livia
characters oncrotalus ibis indicus penelope cristatus pondicerianus eupatria
1. Subpennaceous 39.99 106.64 79.98 119.97 266.6 19.99 25.32 13.33
length (in µm)
2. Basal cell length 19.99 253.27 26.66 19.99 6.66 26.66 26.66 13.33
(in µm)
3. Pennulum length 118.64 39.99 119.97 153.29 213.28 119.97 275.93 106.64
(in µm) (10x)
4 Barb length (cm) 3 2.5 2.9 1.3 3.1 2.5 1.7 2.3
165
5. Barbule length 138.62 293.26 199.95 173.29 239.94 146.63 302.59 119.97
(in µm) (10x)
6. Internode length 21.33 um 13.33 22.66 13.33 35.99 239.99 23.99 65.31
(in µm) (10x)
7. Node shape Straight Flared Straight Normal Normal Normal Normal Normal
8. Node specificity Prongs Points Spines Points Spines Spines Spines Spines
9. Pigment shape Loosely Long and Round Round Long and Short and Diffused Pigment dark on
diffused constricted constricted constricted node and
diamond diamond diamond diffused between
nodes
10. Nodes per 12 5 12 16 32 40 30 18
Barbule
2349 –4808 (Print)
From the present study, it is evident that variations occur in microscopic

characteristics according to the family of birds. For this study, the contour feathers
of Pelicanus onocrotalus (Pelicanidae), Bubulcus ibis (Ardiiedae), Anser indicus
and Anas penelope (Anatidae), Pavo cristatus and Francolinus pondicerianus
(Phasinidae), Psittacula eupatria (Psittacidae) and Columba livia (Columbidae)
were obtained. The subpennaceous length is the length of entire subpennaceous
region from the base of the barb to the point where normal downy barbules are
encountered. This length was maximum for Pavo cristatus and minimum for
Columba livia. The barbule length is the length of barbule taken from the rachilla
to the tip of the barbule. This length is not dependent on the size of the bird
implying that some large birds can have very short barbule (cranes) while small
bird like woodcock can have long barbule (Dove, 2000). The barbule lengths of
the feathers of birds in the present study varied from 302.59 µm (Psittacula
eupatria ) to 119.97 µm (Columba livia). The basal cell length refers to the length
of cell(s) that make up the base or strap like portion of the barbule. The base
usually ends just before the first node. This area of the barbule appears strap like
because the base is wider and thinner than the more rounded pennulum and
twists and flattens during microslide preparation. The basal cell measurement was
longest for Bubulcus ibis (253.57 µm) and shortest for Pavo cristatus (6.66 µm).
The pennulum length is the length of barbule excluding the basal cell length. This
length was found to be maximum for Psittacula eupatria being 275.93 µm and
minimum for Bubulcus ibis being 39.99 µm. The barb length is the distance
between point of insertion of barb at the rachis and the tip of the barb. This length
varied from 3.1cm (Pavo cristatus) to 1.3cm (Anas penelope). The internode
length is the distance between two successive nodes on a barbule. This length
was maximum in case of Francolinus pondicerianus being 239.99 µm and
minimum in case of Bubulcus ibis and Anas penelope for both being 13.33 µm.
The shape of nodes in birds may vary to be normal, flared, oblong and
straight (Fig. 3A). In the present study the flared node was seen in case of
Bubulcus ibis, straight shape for Pelicanus onocrotalus as well as Anser indicus,
while normal shapes were observed for the rest of the five species.
Node specificity refers to the structures present on the nodes. These may
be of three types: prongs, points and spines (Fig. 3B). Prongs are much
elongated structures while spines are short to medium length while points are
transparent and slightly rounded structures found on the nodes. In the present
Wildlife Sanctuary
study, prongs were found in case of Pelicanus onocrotalus, points were observed
for Bubulcus ibis and Anas penelope and spines were seen for the remaining five
species. Shape of pigmentation on nodes also has a phylogenetic significance.
The shapes of pigment may vary from long and constricted diamond shaped to
short and constricted diamond shaped, loosely confined, round, diffused and node
clear types (Fig. 3C). Long and constricted diamond shaped was observed in
case of Bubulcus ibis and Pavo cristatus. Short and constricted diamond shaped
was seen for Francolinus pondicerianus. Round shape was observed for Anser
indicus and Anas Penelope. Diffused shape of pigment was reported for
Psittacula eupatria while loosely diffused shape was seen in case of Pelicanus
onocrotalus. Lastly, Pigment dark on node and diffused between nodes was found
in case of Columba livia. The number of nodes found on a barbule is also a
characteristic feature of the species. This number varied from 12, 5, 12, 16, 32,
40, 30 and 18 in case of Pelecanus oncrotalus, Bubulcus ibis, Anser indicus,
Anas penelope, Pavo cristatus, Francolinus pondicerianus, Psittacula eupatria
and Columba livia, respectively.
From the above reported study of microscopic characters it can be inferred
that these characters are species specific. The present study includes two
members each of Phasinidae (Pavo cristatus, Francolinus pondicerianus) and
Anatidae (Anser indicus, Anas penelope). In members of Family Phasinidae eight
out of ten characteristics studied are different; the only common characters were of
node shape and node specificity being normal and spines respectively. Amongst
members of Anatidae nine characters studied were different and only the shape of
pigment was same being round for both.
Thus, we can conclude that the microscopic characters of feather differ
among the various families of birds and also within the members of the same
family. A key for identification of species of bird can be developed by studying
various microscopic characteristics of contour feathers. This key shall come
handy in forensic study for identifying a bird even if a single feather is available.

www.arseam.com
2349 –4808 (Print)

www.arseam.com
Wildlife Sanctuary

www.arseam.com
2349 –4808 (Print)

www.arseam.com
Wildlife Sanctuary

www.arseam.com
2349 –4808 (Print)

www.arseam.com
Wildlife Sanctuary

www.arseam.com
2349 –4808 (Print)

www.arseam.com
Wildlife Sanctuary
CHAPTER 7
THREATENED BIRDS OF
SAJJANGARH IBA
Since the appearance of man, the planet‟s biodiversity has been exploited
to an extent that different forms of life are threatened and a large number is
always on the verge of getting extinct. Many species are declining to critical
population levels, important habitats are being destroyed, fragmented and
degraded, and ecosystem are destabilized through climate changes, pollution,
invasive species, and direct human impact. There is an undeviating confliction
between increasing human population and the bio-resources. Biodiversity loss is
one of the world‟s most pressing crises and there is growing global concern about
the status of the biological resources on which so much of human life depends.
The estimated current species extinction rate is between 1,000 and 10,000 times
higher than it would have naturally been.
Faunal wealth of any geographical areas is of immense importance

because they play important role in ecological balance. Amongst the rich and
varied biodiversity, the birds are on apex as the biodiversity indicators. Birds
contribute most significantly to the diversity of terrestrial vertebrates. Birds also
have a special role in conservation as they not only help identify areas most worth
saving, but also have the capacity to make conservation an “affair of the heart”.
Birds play a major role in the health and functioning of ecosystems, as consumers
of insects (especially those that defoliate trees), dispersers of seeds, and
pollinators of flowers. They are also of considerable value to regional economies.
When forest birds eat insects, the result is greater tree growth and a longer period
between insect outbreaks - services that may be worth as much as $5000 per
year for each square mile of forest land. Millions of people watch birds as a hobby
and many of them flock to areas where birds concentrate, where they spend
millions of dollars on ecotourism.

www.arseam.com
2349 –4808 (Print)
Human beings cause the majority of threats to species, sites and habitats.
These threats are often interconnected and reinforce each other. Habitat
destruction and conversion for agricultural and forestry activities – and the
associated degradation and fragmentation – are the biggest problems. We cause
nearly all of the many immediate threats that directly impact bird species and the
sites and habitats in which they live.
Situated amidst the Aravallis and adorned by the necklace of lakes, is

located the historical city of Udaipur, which is also known as the Venice of the
East. It is also important from the avian point of view because it has eight
Important Bird Area (IBA) sites. Amongst them Sajjangarh Wildlife Sanctuary and
lake system of Udaipur have their own importance. This is because both the IBAs
have significant number of threatened birds, which has categorized in different
status according to IUCN.
Birds cannot be restricted to a particular area by constructing high walls

etc. as these creatures can fly far and high. Therefore, the area surrounding the
sanctuary has also to be taken in to consideration. Any activity carried out in the
surrounding areas like Ubeshwar, Kaler, Banki, Gorella, Neemuch Mata, Hawala,
Machchala Magra, Badi etc. will have a direct impact on birds in the study area.
This is because all the regions are very closely situated and have a continuity of
habitat. Sajjangarh is the catchment area of these surrounding regions.
Article IV. GENERALTHREATS TO NATIVE BIRD SPECIES
The terrestrial birds are affected by anthropogenic activities such as

destruction of habitat by cutting down large trees for constructing highways,
development and modernization various reasons for habitat loss and consequent
biodiversity loss have been analyzed. Some of them are:
a. Deforestation practices: in the name of development, forests are cleared

for constructing four-lane roads for highways passing through Udaipur city.
b. Pollution of land by greater use of chemicals in the form of pesticides,

weedicides and fertilizers in surrounding areas of Gorella, Badi, Hawala,
etc.
c. The city garbage and dumping of wastes in open areas, especially in the
region of Bari Lake, has caused destruction of habitat. The sanctuary area
www.arseam.com
Wildlife Sanctuary
is also polluted by the garbage like empty drinking water bottles, plastic
carry bags, medicine foils, empty cigarette packets, etc.
d. Forest fires also lead to habitat destruction. During the course of study
forest fire was encountered twice – once in 2004 and then in 2006 in Jhar
and Safari Park regions. Jhar is the most-dense zone of the sanctuary.
The fire caused heavy destruction of habitat for Plum-headed and
Alexandrine Parakeets, Redspur fowl, Coppersmith Barbet, Oriental
White-eye, etc.
e. Global climate and environmental change. There has been a steady

decline in the average rainfall of the city during the last decade. The
continuous and prolonged period of drought is one of the factors
responsible for forest fires.
f. Road kills and accidents due to heavy load of traffic in the sanctuary is a
threat to diversity. All the tourists visiting the sanctuary use one or the
other vehicle for commuting. The traffic also affects the nesting and
breeding potential of the birds. It was observed that the nests in this area
are scanty as compared to the relatively undisturbed area of the
sanctuary. This was specially noted in case of nests of Red-vented Bulbul.
g. The birds are also facing the danger of electrocution by network of high
tension wires near the sanctuary entrance gate and in the vicinity of new
range office in the sanctuary.
h. The anthropogenic disturbances such as that of ecotourists and labourers

engaged for infrastructure development is also a threat to birds.
Due to the combined effect of all the above mentioned perils, the birds have
become vulnerable and an easy target to succumb to these threats. In order to
save the birds from extinction it is necessary to identify the threat, work out to
nullify it and conserve these precious gifts of nature. Table 1 shows the
conservation status of the terrestrial birds in and around Sajjangarh Wildlife
Sanctuary.

www.arseam.com
2899, ISSN: 2349 –4808 (Print)
Table 1: Conservation status of Terrestrial Birds
S.No. Family Scientific Name English Name Conservation Status
IUCN WLPA Local

(2008)* (1972) Status**
1 Accipitridae Elanus caeruleus BLACK-SHOULDERED KITE LC I C
2 Sarcogyps calvus BLACK KITE LC I MC
3 Milvus migrans SHIKRA LC I MC
4 Accipiter badius LONG-BILLED VULTURE CR I VR
5 Gyps indicus RED-HEADED VULTURE CR IV VR
6 Gyps bengalensis WHITE-RUMPED VULTURE CR I VR
7 Neophron EGYPTIAN VULTURE EN IV UnC

percnopterus
8 Phasianidae Francolinus pictus PAINTED FRANCOLIN LC IV UnC
9 Fracolinus GREY FRANCOLIN LC IV LC

pondicerianus
10 Pavo cristatus INDIAN PEAFOWL LC I MC
11 Perdicula asiatica JUNGLE BUSH QUAIL LC IV UnC

www.arseam.com
IUCN WLPA Local

(2008)* (1972) Status**
12 Galloperdix spadicea RED SPURFOWL LC IV VR
13 Charadriidae Vanellus indicus RED-WATTLED LAPWING LC IV MC
14 Burhinidae Burhinus oedicnemus EURASIAN THICK-KNEE LC IV LC
15 Columbidae Columba livia ROCK PIGEON LC IV MC

179
16 Streptopelia decaocto EURASIAN COLLARED DOVE LC IV MC
17 Streptopelia RED COLLARED DOVE LC IV LC

tranquebarica
18 Streptopelia chinensis SPOTTED DOVE LC IV LC
19 Streptopelia LAUGHING DOVE LC IV UnC

senegalensis
20 Psittacidae Psittacula eupatria ALEXANDRINE PARAKEET LC IV C
21 Psittacula krameri ROSE-RINGED PARAKEET LC IV MC
22 Psittacula PLUM-HEADED PARAKEET LC IV LC

cyanocephala
2899, ISSN: 2349 –4808 (Print)
IUCN WLPA Local

(2008)* (1972) Status**
23 Cuculidae Eudynamys ASIAN KOEL LC IV C
scolopacea
24 Centropus sinensis GREATER COUCAL LC IV C
25 Strigidae Bubo bubo EURASIAN EAGLE OWL LC IV UnC
26 Athene brama SPOTTED OWLET LC IV LC
27 Caprimulgidae Caprimulgus asiaticus INDIAN NIGHTJAR LC IV C
28 Caprimulgus affinis SAVANA NIGHTJAR LC IV UnC
29 Apodidae Apus affinis HOUSE SWIFT LC IV C
30 Tachymarptis melba ALPINE SWIFT LC IV R
31 Alcedinidae Halcyon smyrnensis WHITE-THROATED KING LC IV C

FISHER
32 Ceryle rudis PIED KINGFISHER LC IV LC
33 Meropidae Merops orientalis GREEN BEE- EATER LC IV MC
34 Coraciidae Coracias benghalensis INDIAN ROLLER LC IV C

www.arseam.com
IUCN WLPA Local

(2008)* (1972) Status**
35 Coracias garrulus EUROPEAN ROLLER LC IV VR
36 Upupidae Upupa epops COMMON HOOPOE LC IV C
37 Bucerotidae Ocyceros birostris INDIAN GREY HORNBILL LC IV LC
38 Megalaimidae Megalaima COPPERSMITH BARBET LC IV LC

emacephala
181
39 Picidae Dinopium benghalense BLACK-RUMPED LC IV C

FLAMEBACK
40 Alaudidae Mirafra erythroptera INDIAN BUSHLARK LC IV LC
41 Eremopterix grisea ASHY-CROWNED SPARROW LC IV C

LARK
42 Hirundinidae Hirundo concolor DUSKY CRAG MARTIN LC IV MC
43 Hirundo smithii WIRE-TAILED SWALLOW LC IV LC
44 Hirundo daurica RED-RUMPED SWALLOW LC IV C
45 Laniidae Lanius vittatus BAY-BACKED SHRIKE LC IV UnC
2899, ISSN: 2349 –4808 (Print)
IUCN WLPA Local

(2008)* (1972) Status**
46 Lanius meridionalis SOUTHERN-GREY SHRIKE LC IV C
47 Oriolidae Oriolus oriolus EURASIAN GOLDEN ORIOLE LC IV LC
48 Sturnidae Sturnus pagodarum BRAHMINY STARLING LC IV C
49 Sturnus roseus ROSY STARLING LC IV C
50 Sturnus contra ASIAN PIED STARLING LC IV VR
51 Acridotheres tristis COMMON MYNA LC IV MC
52 .Acridotheres BANK MYNA LC IV UnC

ginginianus
53 Dicruridae Dicrurus macrocercus BLACK DRONGO LC IV MC
54 Dicrurus caerulescens WHITE-BELLIED DRONGO LC IV UnC
55 Corvidae Dendrocitta vagabunda RUFOUS TREEPIE LC IV C
56 Corvus splendens HOUSE CROW LC V MC
57 Corvus macrorhynchos LARGE -BILLED CROW LC IV LC

www.arseam.com
IUCN WLPA Local

(2008)* (1972) Status**
58 Campephagidae Tephrodornis COMMON WOODSHRIKE LC IV LC
pondicerianus
59 Pericrocotus SMALL MINIVET LC IV LC

cinnamomeus
60 Pericrocotus WHITE-BELLIED MINIVET LC IV VR

183
erythropygius
61 Pycnotidae Pycnonotus cafer RED-VENTED BULBUL LC IV MC
62 Muscicapidae Turdoides caudatus COMMON BABBLER LC IV MC
63 Turdoides malcolmi LARGE GREY BABBLER LC IV MC
64 Turdoides striatus JUNGLE BABBLER LC IV LC
65 Rhipidura aureola WHITE-BROWED FANTAIL LC IV C
66 Rhipidura albicollis WHITE- THROATED FANTAIL LC IV LC
67 Culicicapa ceylonensis GREY-HEADED CANARY LC IV MC

FLYCATCHER
68 Prinia socialis ASHY PRINIA LC IV MC
2899, ISSN: 2349 –4808 (Print)
IUCN WLPA Local

(2008)* (1972) Status**
69 Orthotomus sutorius COMMON TAILORBIRD LC IV C
70 Phylloscopus collybita COMMON CHIFFCHAFF LC IV LC
71 Copsychus saularis ORIENTAL MAGPIE ROBIN LC IV C
72 Saxicoloides fulicata INDIAN ROBIN LC IV MC
73 Oenanthe picata VARIABLE WHEATEAR LC IV UnC
74 Cercomela fusca BROWN ROCK -CHAT LC IV MC
75 Oenanthe deserti DESERT WHEATEAR LC IV UnC
76 Irenidae Aegithina tiphia COMMON IORA LC IV LC
77 Paridae Parus major GREAT TIT LC IV LC
78 Parus xanthogenys BLACK-LORED TIT LC IV MC
79 Parus nuchalis WHITE-NAPED TIT VU IV R
80 Motacillidae Anthus rufulus PADDYFIELD PIPIT LC IV LC
81 Anthus campestris TAWNY PIPIT LC IV LC

www.arseam.com
IUCN WLPA Local

(2008)* (1972) Status**
82 Motacilla alba WHITE WAGTAIL LC IV MC
83 Motacilla WHITE-BROWED WAGTAIL LC IV LC

maderaspatensis
84 Motacilla flava YELLOW WAGTAIL LC IV LC
85 Motacilla cinerea GREY WAGTAIL LC IV C

185
86 Nectarinidae Nectarinia asiatica PURPLE SUNBIRD LC IV MC
87 Zosteropidae Zosterops palpebrosus ORIENTAL WHITE-EYE LC IV LC
88 Ploceidae Passer domesticus HOUSE SPARROW LC IV MC
89 Ploceus philippinus BAYA WEAVER LC IV C
90 Lonchura malabarica INDIAN SILVERBILL LC IV C
91 Lonchura punctulata SCALY-BREASTED MUNIA LC IV UnC
Acronyms:
* LC = Least concern, CR = Critically endangered, En = Endangered, VU = Vulnerable, NT = Near threatened,
** LC = Less Common, C = Common, MC = More Common, UnC = Uncommon, R = Rare, VR = Very Rare
2899, ISSN: 2349 –4808 (Print)
Summary of Table 1:
Critically endangered = 03; Endangered = 01; Vulnerable = 02, Near threatened = 03; Least concerned = 87
More Common = 23; Common = 22; Uncommon = 25; Rare = 02; Very rare = 07

www.arseam.com
ISSN: 2349 –4808 (Print)
The sanctuary is supported by the peripheral lake ecosystem of Bari. As

already mentioned the lake system of Udaipur city has been declared as an IBA
site. All the water bodies are interconnected and hence a disturbance in the
ecosystem of any one water body will disturb all the lakes. Therefore, not only the
terrestrial ones, but the aquatic birds are also threatened due to habitat
destruction and various other risks. In an earlier study, a total of 66 birds were
observed in Lake Fatehsagar alone (Tehsin, 1989), but during the present study,
their number was reduced to 32. This also reflects upon a decline in the quality of
habitat and other disturbances.
Some of the major threats confronted by the aquatic birds are:
a. Habitat loss is seen due to siltation and reclamation of wetlands. Due to

siltation the reeds and cattails have been destroyed. This area is
approximately 1.190 km 2 in lake Pichhola. These were the nesting sites of
many birds. The number of resident species - especially of family Rallidae-
Fulica atra (Coot), and rails - Porphyrio porphyrio (Purple Moorhen),
Gallinuia chloropus (White- breasted Waterhen), Amaurornis phoenicus
(Common Moorhen) is therefore going down as their habitat has been
destroyed.
b. The Eichhornea crassipes is another weed that affects the water quality as
well as it looks unaesthetic. Hence it is regularly deweeded from the water
body. Since Jacanas inhabit Eichhornea infested waters, the deweeding of
water hyacinth causes the dwindling of the number of these aquatic birds.
c. Various civil structures have been constructed on land area surrounding

the lakes and many of these are no more available to birds. Hence
breeding and roosting sites of many species like Vanellus indicus (Red
Wattled Lapwing), Bubulcus ibis (Cattle egret), Burhinus oedicnemus
(Eurasian thick-knee) are under pressure.
d. Noise pollution on the peripheral part of the lake due to vehicles and
tourist activity is also playing an important role in decline of the number of
bird species.
e. Drought is also one of the major causes of loss of aquatic bird as well as
land diversity. Since last 7 to 8 years, drought has been repeatedly

www.arseam.com
2349 –4808 (Print)
affecting the lake city of Udaipur, due to which sufficient food and water is
not available for birds.
f. Aquatic pollution via entry of organic matter in the form of domestic waste,
garbage and eutrophication are affecting the quality of water.
g. Recreational activity, tourism, oil spillage from mechanized boats, are also
disturbing the birds.
h. The shallow water zone in Lake Bari is restricted to its southern tip only
and due to this unavailability of shallow zones birds like flamingos, sarus
crane, bar-headed goose, etc. do not visit this lake any longer.
i. Lake Bari does not have islands in it. For this reason the birds like
Pelicans, Thick-knee and Cormorants, which prefer to rest at such places,
are not found in this lake. Also the habitat having reeds and cattails is
lacking in Lake Bari. A lack of big trees round this lake is also wanting so
that the birds do not have perching sites. Thus it can be said that the
environment in Lake Bari is not very congenial for aquatic birds and their
number is on decline.
The conservation status of aquatic birds according to IUCN, WPA and the
local status was also analyzed in the present study. These have been recorded in
Table 2.

www.arseam.com
EISSN: 2349 –2899, ISSN: 2349 –4808 (Print)
Table 2: Conservation status of aquatic birds
S.No. 1) Family Section 4.02 Scientif Section 4.03 Common Conservation Status
ic Name Name
IUCN WLPA Local
(2008)* (1972) Status**
1. Pelecanidae Pelecanus GREAT WHITE LC IV WM
Onocrotalus PELICAN
2. Podicipedidae Tachybaptus LITTLE GREBE LC IV R
Ruficollis
3. Phalacrocoracidae Phalacrcorox GREAT LC IV R
Carbo CORMORANT
189
4. Ardiiedae Phalacrocorax LITTLE LC IV R

Niger CORMORANT
Ardea cinerea GREY HERON LC IV WM
5. Ardeola grayii INDIAN POND LC IV R
HERON
6. Bubulcus ibis CATTLE EGRET LC IV R
7. Mesophoyx INTERMEDIATE LC IV R
Intermedia EGRET
8. Egretta garzetta LITTLE EGRET LC IV R
2899, ISSN: 2349 –4808 (Print)
ic Name Name
IUCN WLPA Local
(2008)* (1972) Status**
9. Ardea purpurea PURPLE HERON LC IV R
10. Ciconiidae Mycteria PAINTED STORK NT IV R
leucocephala
11. Anastomus ASIAN OPENBILL LC IV R
oscitans STORK
12. Ciconia WOOLY-NECKED LC IV R
episcopus STORK
13.Article V. Threskiornithidae Threskiornis BLACK-HEADED NT IV R
melanocephalus IBIS
14. Pseudibis BLACK IBIS LC IV R
papillosa
15. Platalea EURASIAN LC I R
leucorodia SPOONBILL
16. Phoenicopteridae Phoenicopterus GREATER LC IV WM
rubber FLAMINGO

www.arseam.com
EISSN: 2349 –2899, ISSN: 2349 –4808 (Print)
ic Name Name
IUCN WLPA Local
(2008)* (1972) Status**
17. Phoenicopterus LESSER NT IV WM
minor FLAMINGO
18. Anatidae Anas clypeata NORTHERN LC IV WM
SHOVELER
19. Tadorna RUDDY LC IV WM
ferruginea SHELDUCK
20. Anas MALLARD LC IV WM
platyrhynchos
191
21. Aythya feria COMMON LC IV WM

POCHARD
22. Anas crecca COMMON TEAL LC IV WM
23. Anser indicus BAR –HEADED LC IV WM

GOOSE
24. Gruidae Grus antigone SARUS CRANE VU IV R
25. Rallidae Porphyrio PURPLE MOORHEN LC IV R
porphyrio
2899, ISSN: 2349 –4808 (Print)
ic Name Name
IUCN WLPA Local
(2008)* (1972) Status**
26. Fulica atra COMMON COOT LC IV R
27. Gallinula COMMON LC IV R
chloropus MOORHEN
28. Amaurornis WHITE- LC IV R
phoenicurus BREASTED
WATERHEN
29. Jacanidae Hydrophasianus PHEASANT LC IV R
chirugus TAILED JACANA
30. Metopidius BRONZE- LC IV R
indicus WINGED JACANA
31. Recurvirostridae Himantopus BLACK-WINGED LC IV R
himantopus STILT
32. Recurvirostra PIED AVOCET LC IV WM
avosetta
33. Rostratulidae Gallinago COMMON SNIPE LC IV WM
gallinago

www.arseam.com
EISSN: 2349 –2899, ISSN: 2349 –4808 (Print)
ic Name Name
IUCN WLPA Local
(2008)* (1972) Status**
34. Charadrius LITTLE–RINGED LC IV R
dubius PLOVER
35. Charadrius KENTISH LC IV WM
alexandrinus PLOVER
36. Actitis COMMON LC IV WM
hypoleucos SANDPIPER
37. Laridae Sterna aurantia RIVER TERN LC IV R
193
2899, ISSN: 2349 –4808 (Print)
Acronyms:
* LC = Least concern, CR = Critically endangered, En = Endangered, VU = Vulnerable, NT = Near threatened
** R = Resident; WM = Winter migratory
Summary of Table 2:
Near threatened birds = 3; Vulnerable = 01; Least concerned = 34
Resident Birds = 24; Winter migratory = 14

www.arseam.com
Table 1 shows the conservation status of terrestrial bird species of sanctuary according to
International Union of Conservation Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN), Wildlife
Protection Act (WLPA) and their local status. According to IUCN bird species like Sarcogyps
calvus, Gyps indicus and Gyps bengalensis are categorized in Critically Endangered. One
species of vulture namely Neophron percnopterus present in Endangered category. Among
the terrestrial birds species one species Parus nuchalis, which is quite common in this
sanctuary has categorized in Vulnerable bird category. Remaining all the eighty-seven bird
species represented as Least Concened.
Wildlife (Protection) Act of India made six different schedules and in context of this
sanctuary six species of bird like Elanus caeruleus, Milvus migrans, Accipiter badius, Gyps
indicus, Gyps bengalensis and Pavo cristatus categorized in Schedule I. Only one species of
family Corvidae namely Corvus splendens comes in Schedule V. All the other eighty-four
bird species are categorized in Schedule IV. In case of their local status twenty-three birds
are More Common, twenty-two birds are common, twenty-five birds are uncommon, two bird
species are rare and seven bird species are very rare in regarding to this sanctuary.
On the other hand table 2 is showing the conservation status of thirty-eight aquatic
bird species, which are reported from Lake Bari and their surroundings. According to IUCN
conservation status Mycteria leucocephala, Threskiornis melanocephalus and
Phoenicopterus minor are categorized in Near Threatened group. One species of aquatic
bird regarding to this study area Grus antigone is vulnerable. All remaining thirty- four bird
species considered as Least Concern. In WLPA, only one species Platalea leucorodia is
categorized in Schedule-I and all thirty-seven bird species fall in Schedule - IV. The local
status of aquatic birds analyzed reveals twenty four birds as resident and fourteen birds as
winter migrants.
In the present study it was seen that the IBA site of Sajjangarh Wildlife
Sanctuary has a congenial habitat for some of the critically endangered,
endangered, vulnerable and near threatened species. The birds falling into
these categories have been deeply studied.
Critically endangered species:
Vultures occupy a very special place amongst the birds from the
ecological and environmental point of view because they are scavengers and
therefore provide us a clean and healthy environment. Vultures also play a
key role in the wider landscape as providers of ecosystem services. But today
their population has dwindled to a dangerously low number imposing a threat
of extinction. The number of all three species of Gyps vulture in the Indian
subcontinent is continuously declining which is a bad indication from
environmental point of view. If the number will continue to decline at this rate
our environment will be polluted and will be a threat for other species also.
The decline in number of vultures in India has raised many urgent

problems including a search for the very causes of that phenomenon as well
as measuring its actual degree. Studies by many workers (Prakash, 1989,
1999; Prakash and Rahmani, 2000) showed that there has been a great
decline (over 90%) of White-rumped Vulture (Gyps bengalensis) within
Keoladeo National Park in 1990s. Yet many other studies on the matter also
indicated decline or crash of vulture populations towards the end of the 20 th
century (Rahmani, 1998; Satheesan, 2000a, 2000b; Thiollay, 2000; Watson,
2000; Threatened Birds of the World, 2000; Threatened Birds in Asia: the
BirdLife International Red Data Book, 2001).
The conservation status of vultures has been threatened (critically

endangered) on global scale. Vultures belong to Order Falconiformes of the
Accipitridae Family. The Indian subcontinent supports nine species of
vultures. In Rajasthan, there are seven species out which four have been
reported in Sajjangarh wildlife Sanctuary. They all are known to be its
residents. These are Sarcogyps calvus (King vulture), Gyps indicus (Long
billed vulture), Gyps bengalensis (Indian white-rumed vulture), Neophron
percnopterus (Egyptian vulture).
A. KING VULTURE
Latin Name – Sarcogyps calvus
Local Name – Rajgidh, Lalgidh
Conservation Status: Critically endangered
General Habit – It is less gregarious than the other large vultures. Even at
animal carcasses it has been usually seen solitary. It is very rare to come
across a pure gathering of this bird (up to 20 or 30 birds) at a time. It is called
King Vulture because of its extraordinary boldness among the other vultures.
June- 2016, Ph.D Thesis, pp 01-05 EISSN: 2349 –2899, ISSN: 2349 –4808 (Print)
It has the capacity of monopolizing a carcass until it has had its pick of the
choicest part. Due to its less gregarious habit it has been sighted in this
sanctuary solitarily during the course of study. It is scavenger in feeding habit.
General Habitat – This species of vulture prefers to live in close proximity to

human settlements and dumping grounds (Ali and Futehally, 1989; Grewal,
1993).
Location of habitat in Sajjangarh Wildlife Sanctuary – This vulture has

been sighted twice in Sajjangarh Wildlife Sanctuary during the course of study
on Maharana Pratap Nature Trail and its surrounding, which has rocky and
sparse vegetation type of habitat. The trail provides proper height to take a
clear flight and soaring and is also in vicinity of Gorella village. The valley of
the trail gives a clear view, so the bird can see near and far from the area and
easily locate the carcasses for feeding. The habitat in this area is rocky and
comprises of sparse vegetation including a few big trees and some shrubs.
The habitat includes plants like Anogeissus pendula, Anogeissus latifolia, and
Lannea grandis. This kind of habitat is very congenial for this vulture because
it makes its nest in big trees and always prefers the top branches. The habitat
is also beneficial from the feeding point of view as this place gives a good
view of neighbouring areas including the Bari Lake. The area towards Gorella
and the lake is utilized by the local inhabitants as the dumping ground for
carcass of their livestock. Thus, the requirements of King Vulture are full filled
by this habitat.
B. LONG- BILLED VULTURE
Latin Name – Gyps indicus
Common name – Gidh
Conservation Status – (Critically Endangered)
General Habit - This vulture is commonly seen in gathering of 20 to 30 birds at animal

carcasses on the countryside or outskirts of towns and villages.
General Habitat – Long-billed vulture is found in cities, towns and villages near cultivated
areas, and in open and wooded areas inhabiting large trees such as silk, cotton, banyan and
peepul. This species feeds almost entirely on carrion, and often associates with the White-
rumped Vulture (G. bengalensis) when scavenging at rubbish dumps and slaughterhouses.
It nests almost exclusively in small colonies on cliffs and ruins.
Location in Sajjangarh Wildlife Sanctuary – This vulture has been sighted in the
sanctuary in the area surrounding the Bari Lake. It has been found in the sanctuary in the
area where the habitat has tree, shrubs and mountain climbers. The habitat comprised of
Cassia auriculata, Zizyphus nummularis, Acacia senegal, Apluda mutica, Heteropogon
contortus, Bothriochola pertusa, Madhuca indica etc. This habitat full fills all requirements of
this vulture like feeding, nesting etc. The nest of this vulture is made of sticks and twigs at a
height of 7 to14 meters in above mentioned trees.
The number of this species was good in past years. As many as 10 individuals of this
species were reported far away from sanctuary in 1992 (Sharma S. K. pers. com.). Again, in
2002, 13 individuals were sighted around Lake Badi (Sharma, 2007). During the course of
present study also, it has been reported from the surroundings of Lake Bari but the number
of individuals was only 2, which shows the decline in number of species.
C. WHITE-RUMPED VULTURE:
Latin Name – Gyps bengalensis
Common Name – Gidh
Conservation Status – Critically Endangered
General Habit – It is usually seen in small groups, commonly in association with the long-
billed and other vultures. It is seen perched or hunched upon tree tops of palms and mahua on
the countryside, on roofs or boundary walls in the vicinity of slaughter houses, municipal dumps
and out skirts of village and habitation. This vulture becomes a serious local nuisance in coconut
groves, mango, orchards, forest plantations, etc. It is a carrion feeder.
General Habitat – It occurs mostly in plains and less frequently in hilly regions where it
utilizes light woodland, villages, cities, and open areas. It feeds on carrion, both putrid and
fresh. While feeding considerable aggregations can form, and regular communal roost sites
are used. It is social and usually found in conspecific flocks. It breeds in colonies in tall trees,
often near human habitation.
Location in Sajjangarh Wildlife Sanctuary – In Sajjangarh Wildlife Sanctuary this

vulture has been evidenced on the first turn towards Gorella point. This is a forest road and
the vultures are generally seen sitting on bare rocks. It has also been sighted from the
surroundings of the sanctuary. The vulture is present in this area due to the availability of
carcasses of animals like buffaloes, cows and goats thrown here. The flora present in the
area includes Acacia leucophloea, Zizyphus numularis, Heteropogon contortus, Cassia tora,
Centalum album.
Threats to Sarcogyps calvus, Gyps indicus and Gyps bengalensis –
In the present investigation, it was observed that some of the critically endangered
species of vultures are occasionally seen here, although in small numbers. This is
suggestive of the fact that the habitat of the area in and around the sanctuary is supportive
to these birds. An attempt was made to analyze potential threats to these vultures in the
sanctuary. Some of the threats identified are summarized as under:
Food Scarcity – Feeding is important factor for the presence of any
animal species. The people of surrounding villages like Gorella, Badi and
Hawala no longer use the site as dumping ground for carcasses. The reason
behind this seems that the literate villagers prefer jobs instead of carrying out
their traditional livelihood of farming. Therefore the number of livestock is
decreasing. The presence of panther in the sanctuary area is also a major
threat to the livestock. Hence, the number of livestock in the villages is on
decline. Therefore there is less availability of food for the vulture in present
context.
Unavailability of proper nesting sites – This vulture always prefers the top
height of big trees to make the nest. It is built at a height of 9 to 12 meters on
the highest branch of a large tree like peepul (Ficus religiosa) or mango
(Mangifera indica). This sanctuary basically has dry deciduous type of habitat,
so the number of big trees is few. Hence this vulture does not get proper site
for nesting.
Scarcity of Cliffs and Ruins in and around the Sanctuary – In regards to

this sanctuary only Monsoon Palace and a few odhis are the old building and
ruins, which can be used as nesting sites by Gyps indicus. Also it was noted
that the eastern face of the hills between Palace and main entry gate of the
sanctuary was utilized by long-billed vulture till few years back. This was one
of the oldest vultury of Udaipur district (Satish Sharma, pers.com.). This
vultury was destroyed due to population crash.
Unavailability of proper plantations- As per the habit of these vultures, the

tops of huge and large trees are used for perching of this species. Palms
trees and other big trees are unavailable in and around the sanctuary. So the
available habitat is not very congenial for these species.
Endangered Species:
D. EGYPTIAN VULTURE
Latin Name - Neophron percanopterus
Common Name - Safed gidh
Conservation Status – Endangered
General habit – Broad diet of this species includes carrion, tortoises, organic wastes,
insects, young vertebrates, eggs and even faeces. Usually solitary, but they will congregate
at feeding sites and forms roosts of non-breeding adults.
General habitat – These vultures typically nest on ledges or in caves on low cliffs (Sara and
Vittorio, 2003), crags and rocky outcrops, but occasionally also in large trees. It can be found
foraging in lowland and mountain regions over open, often arid, country. They also scavenge
at human settlements.
Location in Sajjangarh Wildlife Sanctuary – As mentioned above, this vulture can be

found in open, often arid, country. Also scavenges at human settlements. This habitat is well
represented in and around Sajjangarh Wildlife Sanctuary. The forest of the sanctuary is open
dry deciduous kind and there are six villages on the periphery. This vulture was sighted on
the periphery of the sanctuary and has also been observed in flying condition over the
palace building because of it always prefers a high altitudinal area.
Threats to Neophron percnopterus- This species is not much threatened in context to

this sanctuary. It has been observed frequently over the Monsoon Palace. This vulture has a
very congenial environment for survival in this sanctuary and with right monitoring their
number can be increased in future.
Recommendations for conservation of Critically

Endangered Vultures in this sanctuary:
On the basis of this study, following recommendations are being proposed:
A. Awareness:
1. En mass public awareness be created to conserve the vulture for maintaining the
healthy ecosystem. For this, vultures can be highlighted in the brochure of
sanctuary.
2. Create awareness amongst the local people, which are living surrounding the
sanctuary. So the people can supply proper amount of food (carcasses of dead cattle) to
vultures.
3. Constructing vulture watching points in and around the sanctuary to attract the
attention of visitors.
B. Improvement of habitat and food availability:
1. The area bordering Lake Bari can be easily used as dumping ground for
carcasses. So forest personnel may suggest the surrounding villagers to throw
carcasses at this place only in order to attract vultures.
2. Plantation of big trees like Mahua, Peepal, Banyan and Mango in and around
the sanctuary to make the habitat richer.
C. Research and monitoring:

1. Regular monitoring on the status of vulture in and around the sanctuary.
2. Propose a recovery plan to rejuvenate the vulture population. This can be

brought about by habitat improvement and restoration.
3. It is an aspect of research so forest personnel should permit to conduct

research on vulture in and around the sanctuary because they are globally
important bird species.
4. The banned veterinary drug, Dichlophenac sodium, has been highlighted as

one of the reasons for decline of vulture population. To ascertain this, an in-
depth study should be carried out.
Vulnerable Species of Sajjangarh Wildlife Sanctuary
The sanctuary supports two vulnerable bird species namely, WHITE-NAPED TIT and
SARUS CRANE
White-naped Tit is undergoing a rapid population decline, as a result of the loss,

degradation and fragmentation of its tropical thorn-scrub habitat. It has a moderately
large range, but populations are severely fragmented and low in number. It therefore
qualifies as Vulnerable. In relation to Sajjangarh Wildlife Sanctuary, this bird can be
commonly sighted and occurs in good numbers.
Sarus crane is listed as Vulnerable because it is suspected to have suffered a rapid

population decline, which is projected to continue, as a result of widespread
reductions in the extent and quality of its wetland habitats, exploitation and the
effects of pollutants. This bird was reported from Fateh Sagar, another lake closely
situated (within the municipal limits of Udaipur City) and falling under IBA (Tehsin,
1989). But due to habitat destruction the bird can be seen in areas of 50 km radius
and not in Lake Fatehsagar in the city.
E. WHITE-NAPED TIT
Latin Name – Parus nuchalis
Common name – White-naped tit
Conservation Status – Vulnerable
General habit – The White-naped tit is basically an insectivorous bird that also feeds on
insects, fruits, nectar etc. in its natural habit. Plenty of food is available in the sanctuary and
forest area in the vicinity. They roost in natural hollows or fissure in dead trees and show a
strong fidelity to roost sites.
General habitat – This bird is endemic to India and it prefers thorn-scrub forest (Ali and
Ripley, 1983; Grimmett et al., 1999).
Location in and around the Sanctuary – This sanctuary has suitable habitat for this
endemic bird. The high occurrence zones of this species are Maharana Pratap
Nature trail which is having vegetation namely Acacia leucofloea, Ziziphus
nummularia and Acacia senegal mainly. These types of vegetation support this
species in this area of sanctuary. Some observations are also taken towards the
Gorella. The other habitats for Parus nuchalis in areas surrounding Udaipur city are
Baghdara, Machhla Magra, Kaler, Banki and surrounding areas of district.
Threat – No threat is observed regarding the area in and around the sanctuary and
the species occurs in good numbers.
Conservation Proposed – Sanctuary having the ideal habitat for this species so
maintain the habitat. Alteration of habitat should not apply otherwise it make negative
impact on this species.
F. SARUS CRANE
Latin Name – Grus antigone
Common name – Sarus
Conservation Status – Vulnerable
General habit – This bird occurs in small groups of 2 – 5 individuals. They forage while
walking in sallow waters ore in field. They probe with their long bill and are omnivorous in
habit. They feed on small plants and animals.
General habitat – It inhabits open wet and dry grasslands, agricultural fields, marshes and
pools.
Location in and around the Sanctuary – It is completely absent in and around the
sanctuary because habitat of sanctuary in and around does not support this species. Many
years ago this species has been reported from Fatehsagar (Tehsin, 1989). The alternation of
habitat is main cause of replacement of the species.
Threat – Alteration of its natural habitat and loss of wetlands with grasses and marshes is
one of the major causes of disappearance of this bird from the area.
Conservation proposed – Protection of the wetlands.

Near Threatened Species
Three species of aquatic birds are categorized as Near Threatened, which inhabits in and
around the sanctuary. These are Black-headed Ibis, painted stork and lesser flamingo.
G. BLACK-HEADED IBIS
Latin Name – Threskiornis melanocephalus
Common name – Black-headed Ibis
Conservation Status – Near threatened
General habit – This is a wading bird of Ibis family. Usually with its long decurved bill and
long neck, the bird probes the surface of its wetland habitat for aquatic crustaceans. They
usually feed in large groups. They walk slowly while foraging. They are highly sociable in
roosting and also fly in flocks.
General habitat – It inhabits freshwater marshes, lakes, rivers, flooded grasslands, paddy
fields, tidal creeks, mudflats, salt marshes and coastal lagoons.
Location in and around the Sanctuary – It is easily seen in the lakes of Udaipur like Lake
Bari, Lake Pichhola, Lake Fatehsagar and Madar ki pal. These all water bodies are situated
surrounding the sanctuary. The sanctuary provides the catchment area of these lakes.
Threats to the species – In the present study threats that have been identified include lake
pollution, tourist disturbances, plowing of powerboats and conversion of natural Islands into
parks and hotels. Such activities have destroyed the habitat of this bird.
Conservation Proposed – It is desirable to maintain the natural habitat of the bird. The
tourist activities that cause disturbance to the bird should not be allowed.
H. PAINTED STORK
Latin Name – Threskiornis melanocephalus
Common name – Black-headed Ibis
General habit – This bird walks slowly and steadily in shallow waters or adjacent area and
grassland seeking its prey. The food includes frogs, fishes and large insects. It sweeps its
head from side to side with its beak half open as it hunts for fish. It is seen roosting in
colonies thus showing social nature.
General habitat – It frequents freshwater marshes, lakes and reservoirs, flooded fields, rice
paddies, freshwater swamp forest, river banks, intertidal mudflats and saltpans.
Location in and around the Sanctuary – It is easily seen in the lakes of Udaipur like Lake
Bari, Lake Pichhola, Lake Fatehsagar and Madar ki pal. These all water bodies are situated
surrounding the sanctuary.
Threats to the species – The increasing impact of habitat loss, disturbance and pollution
are the main threats identified in this study.
Conservation Proposed – Maintenance and preservation of its natural
habitat is essential for conserving this beautiful bird. Activities around the lake should
be minimized so as to prevent the lake pollution.
I. LESSER FLAMINGO
Latin Name – Phoenicopterus minor
Common name – Lesser Flamingo
General habit – This species feeds primarily on Spirulina, a Cyanobacteria which grows
only in very alkaline lakes. Although blue green in colour, the bacteria contains the
photosynthetic pigment that gives then bird its pink colour. Their deep bill is specialized for
filtering tiny food articles due to the presence of lamellae. The algal bloom attracts this bird.
It is a social bird.
General habitat – This bird generally prefers the shallowness of water. It is most commonly
seen on the shoreline of lake in huge flock. It is non-swimmer bird and has long feet so it is
generally seen in 2 to 3 meters of depth of water.
Location in and around the Sanctuary – The huge flock of this species was sighted in
Lake Pichhola during the study period, which is a part of Lake Ecosystem of Udaipur.
Threats to the species – The bird faces the threat from carnivorpous mammals such as
jackal. In the present study one such occasion was encountered. Probable environmental
changes such as droughts or floods also play a major role in driving away this species. Lake
pollution due to various anthropogenic activies also pose a serious threats to this bird.
Conservation Proposed – Maintenance and preservation of its natural
habitat is essential for the survival of species. This is also necessary to attract the
bird in the area. Prevention of lake pollution due to various human activities is a
must.
Thus, an in depth study has been carried out in view of presence of nine threatened
species that can be seen in this study area. Following recommendations have been made
for protection of these threatened bird species of aquatic lake ecosystem :
 Protection of surrounding catchments to prevent siltation like Sajjangarh, Ubeshvar,

Kaler, Banki, Machhala magara, Neemach mata, Hawala, Badi etc. to maintain
normal hydrology.
 Enmass public awareness is must so that people can understand the value of
wetlands and their resident birds.
 Replacement of Eichhornea from lotus in small pockets to attract Jacana.
 Protection of island and other roosting sites of birds are present in the lake.
 Eco-restoration is needed to be taken up immediately in order to protect and

conserve the birds and wetlands.
Some measures have already being taken up by the Jheel Sarankshan Pariyojna by
the Government for protection and restoration of these water bodies. Some of the steps
taken up include – not allowing any kind of construction in the catchment of water body,
improvement of drainage system to stop the effluent from falling in lake, washing clothes in
lake water etc. This will grant protection to the resident avi-fauna as well as increase the
number of migratory birds visiting this lake ecosystem.
CHAPTER 8
ECOTOURISM AND ITS IMPACT ON AVIAN

DIVERSITY
As the new millennium unfolds, people are becoming increasingly aware of the finite,
interconnected and precious nature of our planet earth. Tourism is becoming an increasingly
popular expression of this awareness. In fact, tourism is now the world‟s largest industry with
nature tourism, in fast growing segment of tourism. Nature tourism or eco-tourism means
tourism involving wilderness or can be better expressed as nature-based tourism. The eco-
location may be in deep jungles, river or pool banks, mountains, sandy beaches, protected
areas having national parks and sanctuaries with wild fauna and flora and spots of scenic
beauties with panoramic sights. The term eco-tourism was coined by Hector Ceballos-
Lascurain in 1978, and was initially used to describe nature based travel to relatively
undistributed areas with an emphasis on education.
Ecotourism was originally defined as travelling to relativity to undisturbed or

uncontaminated areas with the specific object of studying, admiring and enjoying the
scenery, its wild plants and animals, as well as any existing cultural manifestation found in
these areas (Ceballos-Lascurain, 1998). Numerous definitions of the term “ecotourism” are
in use. Some of them have been quoted here. Accordingly, ecotourism is defined as “Visit to
national parks and other natural areas with the aim of viewing and enjoying the plants and
animal as well as any indigenous culture” (Boo, 1990).
Another definition says “an enlightening nature travel experience that contributes to
the conservation of the ecosystem while respecting the integrity of host communities” (Cater
and Lowmen, 1994). Lindberg and Hawkins (1993) have defined eco-tourism as
“Responsible travel to natural areas which conserves the environment and improves the
welfare of local people”. Eco-tourism is also defined as “Tourism that involves traveling to
relatively undisturbed or uncontaminated natural areas with the specific objects of studying,
admiring and enjoying the scenery and its wild plants and animals as well as any cultural
aspects (both past and present) found in these areas” (Ceballos-Lascurain, 1993). Valentine
(1991) defined eco-tourism as “Tourism which is based upon relatively undisturbed natural
environments, is non- degrading, in subject to an adequate management regime and is a
direct contributor to the continued protection and management of the protected area used”.
Individuals have also provided many definitions time to time, some of which are as follows:
 “Tourism that is environmentally sensitive” (Mouloin 1991).
 “Purposeful travel that creates an understanding of cultural and natural history, while
safeguarding the integrity of the ecosystem and producing economic benefits that
encourage conservation” (Ryel and Grasse 1991).
 “Low impact nature tourism which contributes to conservation and/or directly by

providing revenue to local community sufficient for people to value, and therefore
project, wildlife heritage area as a source of income” (Goodwin 1996).
 “Nature tourism that is based directly on the use of natural resources in a relatively
undeveloped state, including scenery, topography, water features, vegetation and
wildlife” (Helay, 1998).
 The International Ecotourism Society defines ecotourism as responsible travel to

natural area that conserves the environment and improves the welfare of local people”.
The Australian commission on National Eco-tourism strategy calls it “nature based
tourism that involves education and interpretation of the natural environment and is
managed to be ecologically sustainable”.
The successful eco-tourism is the one that:
1. Involves travel to natural destinations – These destinations are often remote

areas, whether inhabited or uninhabited, and are usually under some kind of
environment protection at the national, international, communal or private level.
2. Minimizes Impact –Tourism causes damage but ecotourism strives to minimize the
adverse affects of hotels, trails and other infrastructure by using either recycled
materials or plentifully available local building materials, renewable sources of
energy, recycling and safe environmentally and culturally sensitive architectural
design. Minimization of impact also requires that the number and mode of behaviour
of tourist be regulated to ensure limited damage to the eco-system.
3. Builds environmental awareness – Ecotourism means education, for both tourist

and residents of nearby communities. Essentials to good ecotourism are well trained,
multilingual naturalists, guides with skills in natural and cultural history, environmental
interpretation, ethical principles and effective communication. It should also help to
educate members of the surrounding community, school children and the broader
public of the host country. To do so they must offer greatly reduced entrance and
lodge fee for national and free educational trips for local students and those living
near tourist attraction.
4. Provides direct financial benefits for conservation – Ecotourism helps raise funds
for environmental protection research and education through a variety of
mechanisms, including park entrance fees, tour Company, hotel, airline and airport
taxes and voluntary contributions.
5. Provides financial benefits and empowerment for the local people – National
parks and other conservation areas will only survive if there are happy people around
the perimeters. The local community must be involved with and should receive
income and other tangible.
The sustainable ecotourism has some basic prerequisites for its success. If an activity is
to qualify as ecotourism, it must demonstrate the following nine characteristics (Ceballos-
Lascurain, 1996):
1. It should promote positive environmental ethics and foster “preferred” behaviour in its
participants.
2. It should not degrade the resource. In other words, it should not involve consumptive
erosion of the natural environment (hunting for sport and fishing, may be classified as
wild land (green) tourism, but they are most aptly classified as adventure tourism,
rather that ecotourism).
3. It must concentrate on intrinsic rather than extrinsic values. Facilities and services
may facilitate the encounter with the intrinsic resource, but never become attractions
in their own right, and do not detract form the resource.
4. It must be oriented around the environment in question and not around man. Eco-
tourists should accept the environment as it is, neither expecting it to change or to be
modified for their convenience.
5. It must benefit the wildlife and environment. The question of whether or not the
environment (not just people) has received “benefits” can be measured socially,
economically, scientifically, managerially and politically. At the very least, the
environment must attain a net benefit, contributing to its sustainability and ecological
integrity.
6. It should provide a first hand encounter with the natural environment (and with any
accompanying cultural elements found in undeveloped areas). Zoological parks do
not constitute an ecotourism experience (although they may contribute to the
development of a person‟s interest in ecotourism). Visitor centers and on-site
interpretive slide shows can be considered to form part of an ecotourism activity only
if they direct people to a first hand experience.
7. It actively involves the local communities in the tourism process so that they may
benefit from it, thereby contributing to a better valuation of the natural resources in
that locality.
8. Its level of gratification is measured in terms of education and/or appreciation rather

than in thrill seeking or physical achievement, the latter is more characteristic of
adventure tourism.
9. It involves considerable preparations and demands in-depth knowledge on the part of

both leaders and participants. The satisfaction derived from the experience is felt and
expressed strongly in emotional and inspirational ways.
The tourism in protected areas aims to create an awareness amongst tourists, public
and local villagers towards the importance for conservation of biodiversity. The challenge is
to determine how protected areas can be transformed from the bastions of conservation to
the bridgeheads from which to spread more sustainable land use (Child, 1994). Apart from
generating revenue, ecotourism can offer a means by which mass awareness for importance
of conservation and ecological literacy can be provided (Goodwin, 1996).
Tourism is the world‟s fastest growing industry and is a valuable tool for conservation
of nature. Wildlife tourism is one of the most attractive forms of tourism with varied activities.
Principally, wildlife tourism involves people visiting area in order to see and gain an
understanding of a wide variety of species and doing so in manner that is environmentally
responsible. Ideally, the benefits of this approach should include fewer disturbances to
wildlife and habitats and, through including some element of education, increased
appreciation of nature and conservation issues by the tourists. In addition, wildlife tourism
should also seek to maximize the benefits to local communities, while avoiding many of the
problems (disturbance to wildlife, pollution) that often accrue to these communities under
mass tourism. Tourism is the key factor in each country; it helps in realizing the country‟s
potential in a great way and nothing fascinates as much as wildlife does.
Thus, wildlife eco-tourism can be defined as “Tourism that includes, as a principal

aim, the consumptive and non-consumptive use of wild animals in natural areas. It may be
high volume mass tourism or low volume low impact tourism, generate high economic
returns, may be sustainable or unsustainable domestic or international and based on day
visit or longer stays” (Roe et al. 1997).
An eco-tourist would like to visit such a place, which has an

aesthetic environment for a peaceful mind and pollution free, stress free
environment for relaxation from a daily hectic schedule. Besides these, he
would also love to be in nature and see the wild animals as they are not in
captivity as seen in zoological gardens. For this purpose the protected
areas such as Biosphere Reserves, Heritage Sites, National Parks,
Wildlife Sanctuaries, Safari Parks, Zoos, Biological Parks, Botanical
Gardens, Arboreta etc. are a very favourable site because they provide a
clean and calm natural environment along with the natural flora and fauna
of that place. Wildlife tourism has been started in wildlife sanctuaries,
national parks and other protected areas all over the country.
Brockelman and Dearden (1990) indicate that ecotourism, along with cultural and
adventure tourism (which are often compatible and incorporated with ecotourism) can be
considered one of the fastest growing areas of tourism today. Further, ecotourism is able to
establish a more symbiotic (compatible and helpful) relationship with conservation than the
more traditional forms of tourism. Tourism in protected areas is gaining momentum and
becoming an important organ of Government policy in many developing countries. Since
they have realized that it is not only aim at conserving the natural and cultural heritage but
also provide direct and indirect employment to several people and thereby uplift their
economic condition and increase the state revenue.
There is a long history of recreational and cultural use of protected areas in India due
to its religious and cultural significance, which shows a close association of human with
forest and wildlife. The positive human interaction to its natural resources and environment
has been always considered as a part of conservation education.
Particularly, in the era of biodiversity conservation when natural resources are on the
threshold, ecotourism can play an important role in conservation with its potential to
generate alternative source of employment for the local people. It can also provide avenues
for generating social funds and extra revenue for management of protected areas.
India is an active member of the world tourism organization (WTO) and also a member
of the Executive council. According to the WTO, India ranks 11 th amongst the 15 important
tourist destinations in the Asia Pacific region. In India, we have the best of natural sight and
as the forest line is vast, there are some wonderful wildlife sanctuaries that are worth paying
a visit. The wildlife have attracted people from the times immemorial. Earlier the Kings and
Queens patronized to keep protected area for game hunting. These areas are now turned
into National Parks and Sanctuaries. The conservation and promotion of wildlife tourism
started from the 19th century. Indian wildlife tourism includes wildlife photography, wildlife
eco-tourism and wildlife conservation. Due to its diverse topography and varying climate
conditions, India is the second largest country to have such diversified wildlife tourism.
Wildlife tourism or nature tourism is a part of tourism of a country. Nature tourism is one of
the fastest growing sectors of the global tourism industry; in the 1990, nature tourism grew
by 20-30% per annum, compared with only 4% per annum for the industry. Whole for many
forms of nature tourism, such as bird watching, bird photography and general wild viewing,
wild birds forms a key part of the visitor experience. Bird life international believes that bird-
focused nature tourism can be harness as a positive for biodiversity, conservation that brings
benefits to visitors and hosts alike. In a positive light, the relation between biodiversity
conservation and tourism can and should be mutually reinforcing. On one hand, the
declaration and publicity promoted protection of natural features, ecosystem and biodiversity
acts as a strong attractor for the tourism trade and provides a vehicle for the development of
national and regional economies.
On the other, there are opportunities – and indeed a strong obligation – for the
tourism trade to promote and contribute to biodiversity conservation.
Nature tourism is widely promoted as one solution to the pressures that natural
ecosystems face as a result of the development process. With all constraints, certain states
have done well to provide nature lovers and eco-tourists, the required infrastructure within
their own available means. The State Tourism Development Corporations of states like
Kerala, Tamilnadu, Karnataka and Rajasthan are among the top in general tourism. The
employment generation in tourism industry is enormous. More than 50% of the tourists to
India attracted by nature visit these areas. The economy of Rajasthan state reels around
eco- and general tourism. It was also noted that in 1994-95, the direct employment in
tourism sector was 7.8 million people, which is almost 2.4% of the entire labor force of the
country.
In Rajasthan there is a vast scope of development of ecotourism because this is a

state of rich cultural heritage. It is endowed with a very rich spectrum of scenic beauty and
relatively undisturbed landscapes, forests, wildlife and cultural diversity. It is a place where
hill features mingle with plateaus, plains and deserts. The physiography of the state is
dominated by Aravallis. These Aravallis constitute the backbone of the region and a pivot on
which the whole tourist industry of the area revolves. Aravallis are inhabited by tribal
population and also furnish rich anthropo-geographical and recreational matters to the
persons of related ideologies and thoughts. Vindhyan Range also has its own beauty and
ecotourism value. Many gorges of this range like Menal, Kunda-Khos, Padajhar etc. attract
tourists towards this range. Springs and waterfalls of Vindhyan Hills especially during
monsoon season give a heavenly look.
Udaipur has a prominent place on the tourist map of India, where the foreign
component constitutes the major part of the total foreign traffic to India. The southern Aravalli
Region is one of the physically and culturally with lot of tourist attractions. The architectural,
historical, religious and natural sites are great significance.
Udaipur is situated amidst southern part of the Aravallis, one of the oldest mountain
systems of the world and lies in the centre of a bowl-shaped basin (about 600 above MSL),
girdled by lofty hills ranging from 700 to 1,000 m height. The city is located at 24°35‟ North
latitudes and 73°42‟ Eastern longitude and about 122 kms north of tropic of cancer and
occupies somewhat midway position on the National highway No.8, between Delhi and
Bombay. It is also popularly known as “Kashmir of Rajasthan” and “Venice of the east”.
Udaipur region not only offers scenic spots for recreation but also attracts people from
different fields of interest such as history, art, architecture and religions etc. The chain of
lakes, natural springs, gardens, fountains, encircling lush- green mountains especially during
monsoon, cultural edifices, royal mansions, historic forts girdled by natural fortifications,
museums and wildlife sanctuaries are main attraction points for tourist.
Within the limits of Udaipur Wildlife Division there are four Wildlife Sanctuaries and
one Nature park (Phulwari Wildlife Sanctuary, Kumbhalgarh Wildlife Sanctuary, Jaisamand
Wildlife Sanctuary, Sajjangarh Wildlife Sanctuary and Baghdarrah Nature Park). Amongst
these, Sajjangarh Wildlife Sanctuary is situated very close to Udaipur city on the prime
location at a distance of 5 kms on western outskirts of the city. The sanctuary is a recently
developed one notified as wildlife sanctuary only in the year 1987, under the Wildlife
(Protection) Act 1972. Prior to the independence, the forest area, which is presently within
the limits of sanctuary, was managed by the erstwhile rulers of Mewar. They used the
sanctuary as the hunting ground. Seven shooting boxes, which are commonly known as
„odhis‟, were constructed amidst the hills by them to facilitate hunting. Apart from hunting the
area was also used as the place for the outdoor recreation by them. To fulfill their
requirements a palace was built atop the Bansdara Hill at the altitude of 936 MSL by
Maharana Sajjan Singh of Mewar. The palace is commonly famous as Monsoon Palace or
Sajjangarh Palace. From this hillock one can have magnificent view of the surrounding
lakes, the city and the ranges of Aravallis.
Sajjangarh Wildlife Sanctuary and its surrounding zone have very high tourism
potential. The rich floral and faunal diversity of the sanctuary and its natural beauty and
strategic location attracts number of visitors. Plate 8.1 and 8.2 reflect some sites of tourist
interest within the sanctuary. Second half of the 20 th century saw considerable shift from
game hunting to the wildlife conservation and nature tourism. Sajjangarh Wildlife Sanctuary
has prominent features to promote ecotourism. The unique and continuous hilly landscape
with interspersed small streams and ruins with lush green vegetation after rains, the rich
biota and fauna along with the famous historical monument Sajjangarh/Monsoon Palace, all
attract the large number of tourists towards it. Table 1 reflects the tourist traffic to Sajjangarh
Wildlife Sanctuary. This is calculated as average taken from the years 2005 to 2008 round
the year. Tourists from within the country as well as from other countries come to visit
Sajjangarh.
Table 1: Monthly variation in tourist traffic at SWLS
S.NO. MONTHS DOMESTIC TOURIST FOREIGN TOURIST
1. January 5948.75 1799.5
2. February 4200.5 1470.25
3. March 3491.75 1312.75
4. April 2475.0 762.75
5. May 2901.0 285.25
6. Jun 4518.25 234.25
7. July 6065.0 670.25
8. August 7450.0 1212.75
9. September 4075.75 742.25
10. October 5407.25 1282.75
11. November 6539.0 1686.0
12. December 8575.75 1561.0
From the above data, it is evident that a percentage of tourists coming to the city also
visit the sanctuary. The trend of in-country tourists is observed to be maximum during the
months of November to February. The probable reason for this is that the weather conditions
are favourable in this period. The foreign tourists also prefer to come during the same period
(November to February) because this is the peak tourist season for the city. Also the foreign
tourists choose the winter season as they try to avoid the peak summers when the
temperature is too high.
Number of tourists that visited the sanctuary and the revenue generated by it at
Sajjangarh Wildlife Sanctuary is given in Table 2.
Table 2: Revenue generated by tourists at SWLS (last eight years)
Year In-country Foreign Total Revenue

tourists tourists tourists generated in
Rupees
2000-01 20,052 7,233 27,285 9,15,305
2001-02 19,114 4,218 23,332 8,46,575
2002-03 29,448 4,389 33,837 10,39,194
2003-04 38,619 7,139 45,758 15,22,492
2004-05 37,836 10,547 48,383 18,41,144
2005-06 48,308 13,226 61,534 23,27,956
2006-07 57,293 13,925 71,218 26,54,410
2007-08 67065 13130 80195 28,53,643
Source: Department of Forests, Government of Rajasthan
Thus, the above table reflects that the number of visitors to Sajjangarh sanctuary is
increasing year after year. Yet there is a lot of scope to enhance the numbers of tourists
visiting Sajjangarh Wildlife Sanctuary and a high potential for the further development of
ecotourism in the area. An attempt was made to study the season-wise preference of tourist
activity in various zones of the study area. Table 3 records the season wise preferences of
various zones of the sanctuary opted by the tourists.
2899, ISSN: 2349 –4808 (Print)
Table 3: Season-wise tourist activity in various zones of the sanctuary
S. Habitat zone Important Bird Species of Summer Monsoon Winter

No. the zone
In-country Foreign In-country Foreign In-country Foreign
tourist tourist tourist tourist tourist tourist
1. Rocky habitat with Red-headed Vulture, 10% 25% Nil 40% 20% 15%
sparse vegetation Desert Wheatear, White-
naped Tit, Savanna Nightjar,
Eurasian Thicknee,
Eurasian Chifchaff
2. Thickets with rich Red Spurfowl, Eurasian Nil Nil 20% Nil Nil Nil
vegetation cover Eagle-owl, Jungle Babbler,
(Jhar Region and Eurasian golden Oriole,
Bari Region) Plum-headed Parakeet
3. Steep Hillside with Alpine Swift, Egyptian 35% 50 30% 30% 10% 35%
rich Vegetation Vulture, Laughing Dove,
Cover (Monsoon Dusky Crag Martin
Palace and
Surroundings)
4. Peripheral area White-rumped Vulture, 10% Nil 10% Nil 10% Nil
outside the wall of Spotted Owlet, European
sanctuary Roller, Baya Weaver Bird
5. Other Rock Pigeons, Rock Chat, Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil
infrastructures and Eurasian Ring Dove
EISSN: 2349 –2899, ISSN: 2349 –4808 (Print)
S. Habitat zone Important Bird Species of Summer Monsoon Winter

No. the zone
In-country Foreign In-country Foreign In-country Foreign
tourist tourist tourist tourist tourist tourist
cliffs and ruins

within the limits of
study area
6. Scrub at middle Red-rumped Swallow, 10% Nil Nil Nil 15% 10%
slopes with sparse Laughing Dove, Alpine
vegetation cover Swift, Rufous Treepie
(Gorella View Point
to Monsoon
221
Palace)
7. Open low land Scaly-breasted Munia, Nil 25% Nil 10% 10% 35%
scrub with sparse White-bellied Minivet, Jungle
vegetation at Bush Quail, White-browed
foothills Sanctuary Fantail Flycatcher
Main Entry Gate
(Safari Park) to old
Range office
8. Aquatic (Lake Bari) Grey and White Wagtails, 35% Nil 40% 20% 35% 5%
Pied Kingfisher, Woolly-
necked Stork, Little Ringed
Plover
2349 –4808 (Print)
It can be clearly inferred from this table that habitat zones 1 and 4 are
visited by in-country as well as the foreign tourists throughout the year. Zone 7 is
the exclusive zone which is never visited by any tourist during the entire year. The
remaining zones are being visited off and on by in-country as well as foreign
tourists.
Ecotourism has a double-edged activity. On one hand it has the potential

to contribute to the socio-economic development if managed in a positive manner,
but on the other hand, its fast and uncontrolled growth can be the major cause of
degradation of the environment and loss of local identity and traditional culture.
Plate 8.3 records some negative aspects of eco-tourism where the visitors do not
bother about nature and the natives residing.
For the further success of eco-tourism, it is necessary to first of all judge

the existing condition. For this, the tourists visiting Sajjangarh Wildlife Sanctuary
were asked a set of few questions regarding their experience of the visit. Their
opinion and suggestions were noted down and from it a general conclusion was
drawn what the tourist prefers and requires. The format of questionnaire is
provided in Chapter 3.
On the basis of responses obtained from the tourists it can be generalized

that the tourist wants:
 Pollution free environment.
 Green/ dense vegetation cover.
 Infrastructure for camps and night stay.
 Experienced nature guides.
 Pocket guides/ field guides/ books.
 Shades to sit and observe.
 A couple of telescopes at Monsoon Place, so as to observe the

scenic beauty of the surroundings.
Wildlife tourism has a direct impact on wildlife, the effect depending upon
the scale of tourist visiting, the nature of any resulting disturbance, the behaviour
and resilience of wildlife to the presence of humans and the subsequent
habituation of species to visitors (Mathieson and Wall, 1982). The level of
environmental impact is often determined by the types of visitors present and their
ISSN: 2349 –4808 (Print)
behaviour rather than the actual number of visitors. There appears to be no direct
correlation between the number of visitors to a site and negative impacts on soil,
vegetation and wildlife (Vijayan and Singh, 2002). The degree of impact depends
on many variables in addition to the amount of use. These include:
 The motivation and behaviour of visitors;
 Their mode of transport
 The effectiveness of guides
 Group size
 Environmental variables such as soil type, slope, vegetation type and

season.
It was observed that SWLS has become a point of tourist interest in recent
years. This development has its own pros and cons. In a way, it is developing as
a stress free zone for recreation of not only the tourists but also for the local
inhabitants of the city. The impact of ecotourism on the sanctuary is two-fold. On
one hand, people are enjoying the splendours of nature, knowing about the
animals, birds in the wild and also about the cultural heritage, that is, there is a
positive impact. On the other hand, due to entry of man in this area the animals
and birds have either become shy and restricted to one or two spots in the area or
have become habitual to human presence. Due to anthropogenic interference the
environment gets polluted because of vehicle exhaust, eatables thrown in the
open, and also due to littering especially of plastic bags. The noise of vehicles as
well as those of visitors and the lights meant to attract tourists at Monsoon Palace
are encroaching upon the privacy of wild animals and birds. Impact of eco-tourism
on avian fauna of Sajjangarh Wildlife Sanctuary was observed by studying the
occurrence of birds in high and low tourist activity zones and tabulated in Table 4
as follows:

www.arseam.com
International Journal of Education & Applied Sciences Research, Vol.3, special Issue June- 2016, Ph.D Thesis,
EISSN: 2349 –2899, ISSN: 2349 –4808 (Print)
Table 4: Occurrence of birds in high and low tourists activity zones
Family Latin Name with High tourist activity zone* Low tourist activity zone**
Common name SPEG SMEG- GVP PZ SP JR MPNT PS
PZ & HR
Accipitridae Sarcogyps calvus 
(Red-headed Vulture)
Gyps indicus 
(Long-billed Vulture)
Gyps benghalensis 
(White-backed Vulture)
Neophron benghalensis 
(Egyptian Vulture)
Elanus caeruleus 
(Black-shouldered Kite)
Milvus migrans govinda 
(Black-Kite)
Accipiter badius 
(Shikra)
Phasinidae Francolinus pictus 
(Painted Francolin)
EISSN: 2349 –2899, ISSN: 2349 –4808 (Print)
PZ & HR
Francolinus pondicerianus 
(Grey Francolin)
Perdicula asiatica 
(Jungle bush Quail)
Galloperdix spadicea 
(Red spur Fowl)
Pavo cristatus 
225
(Indian pea Fowl)

Charadriidae Vanellus indicus 
(Red-wattled Lapwing)
Burhinidae Burhinus oedicnemus 
( Eurasian thick-Knee)
Columbidae Columba livia   
(Blue-rock Pigeon)
Streptopelia decaocto  
(Eurasian-collared Dove)
Streptopelia tranquebarica 
(Red-collared Dove)
EISSN: 2349 –2899, ISSN: 2349 –4808 (Print)
PZ & HR
Streptopelia chinensis 
(Spotted Dove)
Streptopelia senegalensis 
(Laughing Dove)
Psittacidae Psittacula eupatria  
(Alexandrine Parakeet)
Psittacula krameria 
(Rose-ringed Parakeet)
Psittacula cyanocephala 
(Plum-headed Parakeet)
Cuculidae Eudynamys scolopacea  
(Asian Koel)
Centropus sinensis 
(Greater Coucal)
Strigidae Bubo bengalensis 
(Eurasian eagle Owl)
Athene brama 
(Spotted Owlet)
EISSN: 2349 –2899, ISSN: 2349 –4808 (Print)
PZ & HR
Caprimulgidae Caprimulgus asiaticus 
(Indian Nightjar)
Caprimulgus affinis 
(Savana Nightjar)
Apodidae Apus affinus 
(House Swift)
Tachymarptis melba 
227
(Alpine Swift)
Alcedinidae Halcyon smyrensis 
(White-throated Kingfisher)
Ceryle rudis 
(Pied Kingfisher)
Meropidae Meropus orientalis 
(Little green bee-eater)
Coraciidae Coracias garrulous 
(European Roller)
Coracias benghalensis 
(Indian Roller)
EISSN: 2349 –2899, ISSN: 2349 –4808 (Print)
PZ & HR
Upupidae Upupa epops 
(Common Hoopoe)
Bucerotidae Ocyceros bistoris 
(Indian grey Hornbill)
Megalaimidae Megalaima haemacephala 
(Coppersmith Barbet)
Picidae Dinopium benghalense 
(Black-rumped Flameback)
Alaudidae Mirafra erythroptera 
(Indian bush Lark)
Eremopterix grisea 
(Ashy-crowned Lark)
Hirundinidae Hirundo concolor 
(Dusky crag Martin)
Hirnndo smithii 
(Wire-tailed Swallow)
Hirundo daurica 
(Red-rumped Swallow)
EISSN: 2349 –2899, ISSN: 2349 –4808 (Print)
PZ & HR
Oriolidae Oriolus oriolus 
(Eurasian golden Oriole)
Dicruridae Dicrurus macrocercus 
(Black Drongo)
Dicrurus caerulescens 
(White-bellied Drongo)
Sturnidae Acridotheres tristris 
(Common Myna)
229
Acridotheres gingianus 
(Bank Myna)
Sturnus contra 
(Asian-pied Starling)
Sturnus roseus 
(Rosy Starling)
Sturnus pagodarum  
(Brahminy Starling)
Corvidae Dendrocitta vagabunda 
(Rufous treepie)
Corvus splendens  
(House Crow)
EISSN: 2349 –2899, ISSN: 2349 –4808 (Print)
PZ & HR
Corvus macrorhynchos 
(Large-billed Crow)
Campehagidae Tephrodornis 
pondicerianus
(Common wood Shrike)
Pericrocotus 
cinnamomeus (Small
Minivet)
Pericrocotus erythropygus 
(White-bellied Minivet)
Irenidae Aegithina tiphia 
(Common Iora)
Pycnonotidae Pycnonotus cafer  
(Red-vented Bulbul)
Muscicapidae Turdoides caudatus   
(Common Babbler)
Turdoides malcolmi  
(Large-grey Babbler)
Turdoides striatus 
(Jungle Babbler)
EISSN: 2349 –2899, ISSN: 2349 –4808 (Print)
PZ & HR
Rhipidura aureola 
(White-browed faintail
Flycatcher)
Rhipidura albicollis 
(White-throated fantail
Flycatcher)
Culicicapa ceylonensis 
(Grey-headed canary
231
Flycatcher)
Culicicapa ceylonensis 
(Grey-headed canary
Flycatcher)
Orthotomus sutorius  
(Common tailor Bird)
Phylloscopus collybita 
(Eurasian Chiff-Chaff)
Copsychus saularis
(Oriental magpie-robin)
Saxicoloides fulicata 
(Indian Robin)
Oenanthe picata  
EISSN: 2349 –2899, ISSN: 2349 –4808 (Print)
PZ & HR
(Variable Wheater)
Oenanthe desertii 
(Desert Wheater)
Cercomela fusca 
(Brown rock Chat)
Paridae Parus major
(Great Tit)
Parus xanthogenys
(Black-lored Tit)
Parus nuchalis
(White-napped Tit)
Motacillidae Anthus rufulus 
(Paddy field Pipit)
Anthus campestris 
(Tawny Pipit)
Motacilla alba 
(White-Wagtail)
Motacilla maderaspatensis 
(White-browed Wagtail)
Motacilla flava 
EISSN: 2349 –2899, ISSN: 2349 –4808 (Print)
PZ & HR
(Yellow Wagtail)
Zosteropidae Zosterops palpebrosa 
(Oriental white Eye)
Ploceidae Passer domesticus 
(Indian house Sparrow)
Ploceus philippinus 
(Baya weaver Bird)
Locnhura malabarica 
233
(Silver Bill)
Locnhura punctulata 
(Scaly-breasted Munia)
Nectarinidae Nectarinia asiatica 
(Purple Sunbird)
 - Denotes occurrence of birds in a particular zone
ACRONYMS:
*SPEG = Safari Park Entry Gate, SMEG-PZ = Sanctuary Main Entry Gate to Palace Zone, GVP = Gorella View Point, PZ =
Palace Zone
** SP = Safari Park, JR = Jhar Region, MPNT & HR = Maharana Pratap Nature Trail and Hawala Region, PS = Periphery of
Sanctuary
Thus, from Table 4 it can be concluded that:
1. In Sajjangarh Wildlife Sanctuary, 55 species of birds out of a total of 91 species inhabit

the less tourist activity zone. It shows that high percentage of birds prefer peaceful
environment. The birds may be disturbed even by the slightest activity of the tourists.
2. The red spur fowl is a very shy bird in nature, so in presence of tourists, the bird hides
away and is difficult to sight. So the red spur fowl can never be seen in the presence of
tourist. The tourist can only hear the calls of this bird.
3. Udaipur is famous as Lake City and many aquatic birds inhabit the chain of lakes
present here. The three major water bodies within the city are Fatehsagar, Pichhola and
Swaroopsagar. Lake Udaisagar is located some distance away around 10 Km. In past
few years, due to excessive tourism around the lakes like Fatehsagar, Pichhola and
Swaroopsagar, the number of birds visiting these lakes is on a decrease. Due to
excessive boating in lakes, birds do not have proper place for roosting, breeding and
feeding. The spilling of oil from boats also pollutes the environment of lake, which affects
the health of aquatic birds.
4. Sajjangarh Wildlife Sanctuary also has a beautiful lake on the periphery, which is named
Lake Bari. Lake Bari is supporting a relatively less number of waterfowl because the
people, who are living in the surrounding area use this lake for various domestic purpose
like washing clothes, bathing and others uses. Due to this anthropogenic interference,
many winter migratory birds are not visiting the lake.
5. Nesting is also affected by tourist traffic. In Sajjangarh Wildlife Sanctuary, it was

observed that the number of nests of Red-vented bulbul in Safari Park region is higher
than that on trees along the road that leads towards Monsoon Palace (higher activity
tourist zone).
The negative aspects of ecotourism as observed in the present study are mentioned in Table 5.
Table 5: Analysis of negative impacts of ecotourism in and around the Sanctuary
Factor Involved Impact on Natural Impact on Comment

Quality Birds
Disturbance due to Loss of “Wilderness Sighting of birds Irritation to birds,

Visitor‟s activity experience, changes decreases, reduction in
in animals behaviour, Roosting, Nesting quality of
stress on and Feeding environment,
environment behaviour is need for carrying

altered –capacity limits
and better
regulation
Development of tourist Excessive man- Destruction of Unknowingly

facilities made structures Roosting sites of causes urban
birds environment
Recreation
(i) Powerboats Disturbance of Disturbance in Vulnerability

Wildlife, bank erosion birds activity during nesting
seasons
Disturbance of Disturbance in
(ii) Foot Safaris
Wildlife birds occurrence Overuse and
zone surface erosion
Disturbance of
(iii) Cafeteria
wildlife Disturbance in the Loss of natural
wild bird activities beauty
Pollution
(i) Noise ( radio etc) Disturbance of Disturbance in Irritation to

natural sounds calls of birds Wildlife and
visitors
(ii) Litter
Impairment of natural Pollution of
scene, habituation habitat Aesthetic and
health hazard
Vehicles
(i) Moving on road Wildlife mortality Road accidental Ecological

death of birds changes, dust
Destruction of Disturbance to
(ii) Off-road driving Soil and vegetation
habitat wild animals and
birds
On the basis of this three years long study and observations recorded, following
recommendations can be made in order to increase the tourist number visiting the sanctuary:
1. It was observed that a tourist coming to the Monsoon Palace has no idea about the
sanctuary. Therefore, an informative pamphlet or brochure should be provided to the
visitor on purchase of entry ticket.
2. The brochure should include the directions for the visitor to reach any point in the
sanctuary and especially those, which require their attention.
3. The zone where the tourists are not going at all (Zone – 7: Old ruins and odhis) should
be developed in such a manner so that the visitors are attracted to go there.
4. The odhis can be developed for bird watching by placing a couple of binoculars and
comfortable seats to sit and watch the birds and other animal diversity.
5. The Jhar and Bari region (Zone – 3) is a comparatively dense region and supports birds
like Aravalli Red Spurfowl, Eurasian Eagle-owl, Jungle Babbler, Eurasian golden Oriole
and Plum-headed Parakeet. Suitable bird watching stations can be set up there to
observe these birds in a calm and peaceful environment.
6. Seating arrangements can be made by constructing cemented benches at various

places where the visitors can rest for a while.
7. Drinking water and small refreshments can also be provides at place inside the
sanctuary by using eco-friendly materials.
8. Dustbins should be placed at places so that the tourists do not litter here and there.
9. A bird interpretation centre can be developed in the sanctuary to attract the visitors.
10. Natural trails can be prepared covering all the important points in the sanctuary for
visitors to walk freely.
11. Signboards containing the photographs and relevant information about the birds present
in a particular region will be helpful to provide information to the visitor.
12. A small library with useful books on birds be made available to the interested people.
13. Bird watching station can be set up at Bari Lake for viewing various waterfowls.
14. Information regarding birds and bird watching sites should be made available at tourists‟
information centre of the city.
CHAPTER 9
MANAGEMENT OF SAJJANGARH
WILDLIFE SANCTUARY AS AN
IMPORTANT BIRD AREA SITE
Udaipur city is more although popularly known as “Lake City” on the map of world yet
only some people know it as an Important Bird Area site. Udaipur city as well as surrounding
areas in a radius of roughly hundred kilometers hold eight IBA sites, namely, Jaisamand lake,
Kumbhalgarh Wildlife Sanctuary, Phulwari Wildlife Sanctuary, Sei dam, Sitamata Wildlife
Sanctuary, Udaipur lake complex, Baghdarrah closed area and Sajjangarh Wildlife Sanctuary.
IBA are sites of international biodiversity conservation importance that are chosen using agreed
objective, quantitative and scientifically defensible criteria. As such they form part of the set of
key biodiversity areas (Eken et al., 2004). IBA are selected because they hold:
a. Bird species that are threatened with extinction or have highly restricted distributions
b. Species assemblages characteristic of particular biomes
c. Exceptionally large numbers of congregatory bird species.
Occurrence of good number of IBA sites shows the importance of city from the point of view of
birds. IBA provides the ideal habitat and conditions for “trigger species” (bird species for which
the site has been recognized as an IBA under any of the global criteria). In close proximity of
Udaipur city, the smallest walled sanctuary of Rajasthan state known as Sajjangarh Wildlife
Sanctuary is located. The Sanctuary covers just 5.19 km 2 area but it harbours a rich floral and
faunal diversity of Aravalli hill ranges.
Sajjangarh Wildlife Sanctuary has a good scope of tourism by virtue of its location (just
at a distance of 5 km from heart of Udaipur city), good floral and faunal diversity along with
famous historical “Sajjangarh Palace”, situated within its boundaries. Besides these, sanctuary
is a natural home for number of wild animals and more than 114 species of terrestrial, arboreal
and water birds. The sanctuary was declared IBA site due to the presence of trigger species of
birds like, Red-headed Vulture, White-rumped Vulture, Long-billed Vulture, Aravalli Red
Spurfowl, White-bellied Minivet, White-naped tit, Jungle Bush Quail and Wooly-necked Stork.
The presence of lake (Lake Bari) on the periphery also supports a good number of aquatic bird
species.
The area in the past was depleted for the short-term gains and had been subjected to
excessive human interference and biotic pressure. This has resulted in the degradation of
productivity of natural resources. To regain its past glory, the Department of Forests,
Government of Rajasthan has taken up various measures including notification of area as
Wildlife Sanctuary, research and monitoring of wildlife, which supports and strengthens the
management programme of protected areas. For management of an area it is a pre-requisite to
gather a base line data of that area. This information will be helpful in achieving the predefined
goals. Thus, one of the aims of the present study was to collect this basic information for the
management of the sanctuary.
In present chapter, the main problems as identified during the study period are
discussed. On the basis of these findings the management strategies can be made to protect
the sanctuary and solve the problems. The observations shall also aid in formulating
recommendations for the improvement of this Important Bird Area site and the Wildlife
sanctuary as a whole. In view of above facts and during the course of study, various features of
the sanctuary identified are as under:
CONSERVATION IMPORTANCE OF SAJJANGARH WILDLIFE SANCTUARY
Salient features of Sajjangarh Wildlife Sanctuary from the conservation point of view are as
follows:
1. It is an Important Bird Area (IBA) site
2. Although it is small in terms of geographical area (only 5.19 km2) but exhibits a rich
biodiversity and being in close proximity to the city, it is also important bird watching site
of Aravalli Ecosystem.
3. Commiphora wrightii, a red data species of Rajasthan is present in good numbers inside
the sanctuary.
4. Peripheral lake system with surrounding hills supports a great avian diversity.
5. The area has a historical as well as cultural importance.
6. White-naped tit (Parus nuchalis), which is endemic in context to the country, is common
to this sanctuary and commonly seen here owing to suitable habitat.
7. White-bellied Minivet, which is common bird of Rajasthan is rarely seen in the sanctuary
due to unsuitability of habitat.
8. The sanctuary provides a suitable habitat for Gyps species. The presence of two
critically endangered species of Gyps (Gyps bengalensis and Gyps indicus) along with
Sarcogyps calvus (also critically endangered) shows the appropriateness of habitat.
9. Eastern face of the hills between Palace and main gate were utilized by Long-billed
Vulture till few years back. This was one of the oldest vultury of Udaipur district (Satish
Sharma, pers. com.). At present, though vultures have disappeared probably due to
dichlophenac sodium menace (Veterinary drug) but it is possible to re-establish this
species, as the suitable habitat is present.
Article VI. Problems Identified during the study period
1. Lack of the knowledge and awareness in general public about the importance of an IBA
site.
2. Inadequate efforts and lack of planning for conservation of this sanctuary as an IBA site.
3. Lack of monitoring and research work.
4. Inadequate technical data about birds.
5. Lack of bird-watching guide.
8. Lack of site support group for conserving this IBA site.
9. Inadequate information to staff persons about the birds and their habitat.
10. Insufficient staff for protection of historical building and other ruins within the limits of
sanctuary as these are the nesting sites for many birds.
11. Lack of awareness about Eco-tourism concept and insufficient interpretation center
opportunity.
12. Insufficient resources to advertise the site as the Bird-watching one amongst the tourists
and visitors.
13. Soil erosion is very fast leading to the habitat destruction.
14. Inadequate moisture contents in the area that speed up the rate of habitat degradation.
15. Lack of amenities for staff personnel involved in management of Sajjangarh Wildlife
Sanctuary to stay in the area.
16. Invasive weeds like Prosopis juliflora, Lantana camara and L. wightiana are taking a heavy
toll from native species especially from palatable grasses.
17. Habitat degradation and alteration may also be due to forest fires.
Article VII. 1. Recommendations to manage this sanctuary as an IBA site
A. IBA site Monitoring – IBA monitoring is a primary step to manage an IBA site. IBA should
be managed to conserve important bird populations. IBA monitoring must be soundly designed,
systematic, regular and sustained according to the trigger species of bird inhabiting it. As far as
possible, IBA monitoring should also involve the local community for collecting data.
B. Landscaping approach to conservation of birds in an IBA Site - Birds due to their

mobility use a variety of environmental resources, especially habitats. However, currently these
habitats are only in patches over most of the tropical world. The landscape approach starts with
the realization that patches of habitats are open and interact with one another. Hence the
landscape approach considers patches of habitats as interacting elements in the large matrix of
the landscape. Landscaping is a better approach to preserve maximum species diversity and
valuable species. Birds contribute most significantly to the diversity of terrestrial vertebrates.
Birds also have a special role in conservation as they not only help identify areas most worth
saving, but also have the capacity to make conservation an “affair of the heart”. Landscape has
been defined as “kilometers-wide area where a cluster of interacting ecosystems is repeated in
similar form (Daniels, 1994). Landscape ecology is also termed as „patch work ecology‟. It deals
with patches of different sizes, shapes and origin (Forman and Godron, 1986; Noss, 1983). The
landscapes mosaic a more important unit for study and management than individual isolated
habitat patches (Noss, 1983).
C. Improvement of habitat according to the various habits of birds
The landscaping process should begin with a consideration of the survival requirements of
birds. The requirements can generally be divided into four groups: Food, water, cover and
nesting site. To maintain our IBA site and its improvement to attract the greatest variety of birds
we should supply the following needs in sufficiently good amount:
a. Food – Plants can provide food in the form of buds, fruit, seeds, nectar and insects. Different
food types become important to birds at different times of the year. During the breeding season
most songbirds need insects to raise their young ones. Flower buds become more important to
birds in late winter, when many fruit and seed supplies are diminished. Birds and their feeding
and habitat preferences are discussed in earlier chapter (Chapter – 5). Therefore, planting of a
variety of trees is required to attract diversity of birds.
b. Water – Water is important for birds for drinking and bathing. To prepare birdbath, one thing
should be kept in mind that small birds prefer shallow water bath (i.e., anything under two
inches). To rectify this, gravel can be added to the bath, perhaps sloping it form one side to
another, so that there is a shallow end. Alternatively, place a branch in water so that birds can
move along the branch to the water depth they prefer. Drinking water and birdbath should be
cleaned frequently during period of high use and scrubbed periodically to keep down algal
growth. A solution of one part bleach to nine parts water can be used to clean and disinfect the
bath. This sanctuary has large water holes built on this pattern (Plate 9.1).
c. Cover – In addition to food and water, birds require cover and shelter year-round. Cover
provides protection from severe weather and is a safe heaven where birds can preen feathers
and rest. Plants provide cover in different ways to the bird. Dense vegetation is especially
valuable to birds during the winter, when they provide protection from strong winds and cold
night-time temperatures. Low shrubs and ground cover provides refuge and safety for ground –
feeding species such as sparrows and thrushes. The availability of cover year round should be
considered in landscaping for birds. An additional way to provide cover for birds is to construct
brush piles. Brush piles are refuges made by tree and shrub clippings and can be placed at the
edge of woods, next to existing shrubs or near bird feeder.
c. Nesting sites – Nesting is another important bird activity in bird‟s life. Every bird species has
its own nesting sites. Some birds make their nest on ground. Some birds use the old buildings
as nesting sites. Some birds prefer the tall and dense tree for nesting. Some birds like to make
their nest on thorny plants. So keeping in mind the variation of nesting sites of birds, proper tree
plantation should be made in sanctuary to attract variety of bird species. Artificial fencing can be
done to attract birds.
2. Recommendations to manage this sanctuary for habitat improvement and as a

bird-watching site
a. The existing gene pool should be conserved by making efforts to increase the
breeding potential.
b. Environment and ecosystem based management should be applied to protect entire

ecosystem.
c. To improve the soil fertility, integrated watershed management should be applied.
d. To improve the capacity of the staff and strengthening the infrastructure, training
programmes such as seminars etc. should be held from time to time.
e. There should be a check on the soil erosion in order to minimize the nutrient depletion
by planting more trees and shrubs suitable for birds.
f. By massive reforestation practices, the natural forest resources, environment stability

and the ecological balance of the local hills should be regained.
g. Reduce depletive impact of people residing in the zone of influence of the sanctuary and
reduce the wildlife human conflicts through eco-development programmes.
h. It is suggested to increase substantial canopy cover within the sanctuary areas as well
as the forest blocks and community land areas situated at the periphery of the
sanctuary. This can be achieved by massive aforestation, social forestry and farm
forestry practices. This in turns help in to minimize the dependency of the local
inhabitants on natural reserves of the sanctuary.
i. Special training should be imparted to staff for specializing in bird keeping and
management and to understand the needs of birds.
3. Recommendations to manage Eco-tourism and enhancing Bird

watching in Sanctuary:
 Firstly, the area should be highlighted as an IBA site in the brochure of the sanctuary
and Internet also.
 The presence of critically endangered, rare and endemic bird of this sanctuary should
also be highlighted.
 Display boards and signboards with information of birds inhabiting the sanctuary.
 Provide binocular and literature with information about birds of sanctuary to the tourist to
enjoy bird watching.
 Creation of bird watching tower in certain places of the sanctuary like Gorella water hole
and Lake Bari.
 Maintain the old odhis giving a natural look so that it can be used as a bird-watching
tower.
 Eco-tourism should be more frequent feature rather than an annual one.
 A share of park fees may go to the local communities for their services provided.
 A bird guide should be provided to tourists, so that they can easily sight the important
bird of this sanctuary.
 Research activities, school camping and involvement of NGOs is a must for highlighting
and proper management of the sanctuary.
 It is also recommended that plant species like Ber, Mahua, Peepal, Burgad, Rayan,
Karaya and Hingot etc should be planted. Burgad should be planted in patches all over
the sanctuary as it is used as roosting site by many birds.
 Develop and promote eco-tourism on the sustainable basis.
 Develop the vulture-sighting areas to promote and develop interest of visitors towards
conservation of these important scavengers.
4. Recommendations to manage Lake Bari as bird watching site
 Bari is a potential site from eco-tourism point of view. By artificial planting of

subterranean part of Typha angustata, Pharagmites karka, etc. reeds and cattails
patches can be developed on less disturbed bank of the lake.
 Similarly, few islands of different sizes can be developed on less disturbed zone of the
lake. These islands should be quite far from the tar road.
 Dry stumps should be planted on island for providing perching site to the bird.
 Besides this, seed sowing of Acacia nilotica, is recommended on islands. For quick
results pit planting of Acacia nilotica can be practiced.
 Few groves of tall trees should be developed here and there around peripheral zone of
the lake.
 Planting of rhizomes of lotus can attract leaf walker Jacanas in coming years.
CHAPTER 10
SUMMARY
The concept of forest and wildlife conservation is very old to India. Indian culture and
literature teach nonviolence and respect for even lovely animal forms. Wildlife is a general term
for life in ecosystem, deserts, rain-forests, plains and other areas including the most built up
urban sites – all have distinct form of wildlife.
“Megadiversity areas”. India is ranked as sixth mega diversity country in the world. Its immense
biological diversity represents about 7% of the world‟s flora and six and half of the world‟s fauna.
There are about 1225 species of birds in India. Out of these, 78 species of birds are considered
as threatened. India has five Heritage sites and six Ramsar sites. Amongst the five heritage
sites one is present in Rajasthan – The Keoladeo Ghana National Park. The Keoladeo National
Park and Sambhar Lake both are Ramsar sites of Rajasthan.
Rajasthan with an area of 34.2 million ha, which constitutes 10.41% of the land area of
the country, is one of the largest states of India in terms of area. Almost 60% of the
geographical area of Rajasthan is desert but in spite of this about 510 species of birds can be
seen in the state (Grimmett and Inskipp, 2003). There are 02 National Parks and 25 Wildlife
Sanctuaries in Rajasthan. Keoladeo National Park is famous for its avifauna and is the only
place in the country where the Siberian Crane used to visit during its winter migration.
Udaipur Wildlife Division includes four sanctuaries viz. Kumbhalgarh Wildlife Sanctuary,
Kumbhalgarh, Jaisamand Wildlife Sanctuary, Jaisamand, Fulwari ki Nal Wildlife Sanctuary,
Kotda and Sajjangarh Wildlife Sanctuary, Udaipur. Amongst these, the Sajjangarh Wildlife
Sanctuary is the smallest wildlife sanctuary of the largest state of the country. It covers only 5.19
km2 area.
Udaipur has eight Important Bird Area sites (Islam and Rahmani, 2004). Important Bird
area (IBA) are sites particularly important for bird conservation because they regularly hold
significant population of one or more globally or regionally threatened endemic or congregator
bird species or highly representative bird assemblages.
Birds form important bio-indicators of the general health of any ecosystem. Habitat
degradation is today a major threat for the extermination of avian species. The conservation and
management of threatened and endangered species is a tremendous challenge. The present
investigation was therefore taken up with a view to analyze the status regarding diversity of
avian species in the available habitat type. An attempt has also been made to study the habitat
preference of these species in order to formulate steps to be undertaken for improvement of
habitat to facilitate better conservation.
To carry out this study, following objectives were laid down:
VII. To study the avian diversity of the Sanctuary.
VIII. To study the habitat and habitat preference of different birds found in the Sanctuary.
IX. To study rare and endangered birds of the Sanctuary.
X. To study management aspects of various birds of Sanctuary and formulate appropriate

strategies for better conservation and protection of the fauna.
XI. Microscopic analysis of bird feather to identify important species of the Sajjangarh
Wildlife Sanctuary.
XII. Ecotourism and its impact on birds of the Sanctuary.
The study has been recorded on paper in the form of a thesis that comprises of eleven
chapters.
 The first chapter of the thesis is General Introduction. It introduces the subject of
research and the objectives (as mentioned above) laid down to carry out the study.
 The second chapter - Review of Literature - incorporates the review of related work
already done in the past. An exhaustive survey of literature was conducted and recorded
using the internet, scientific journals, relevant books, articles and also by interview and
discussion with forests officials.
 The third chapter is entitled Material and Methods. It includes the description of study
area and the methods used to conduct the study. Time Species Count Method was used
to study the avian diversity and analyze their conservation status.
 Fourth chapter describes the Avian diversity of Sajjangarh Wildlife Sanctuary. A total
number of 129 bird species were encountered and identified during the present study. A
checklist of the terrestrial birds is given below in Table 1 (Chapter 4). The table can be
summarized as:
Families reported: 33,
Genera reported: 62,
Species reported: 91
Frequency-wise number of bird species sighted in different time zones: More

Common = 23, Common = 22, Less Common = 25,
Uncommon = 12, Rare = 2, Very Rare = 7
Local Status: Winter Migrants = 8, Passage Migrants = 2,

Residents = 81
Sajjangarh Wildlife Sanctuary does not enclose any fresh water body within its limits. But
the sanctuary is supported by a peripheral lake ecosystem named Lake Bari which lies in close
proximity on the western boundary. The diversity of aquatic birds observed in the lake is
tabulated in Table 2 in the chapter. It shows that the water body supports 14 Families, 32
Genera and 38 Species. Out of these, 14 birds were found to be winter migrants and 24 were
resident.
The inference drawn by the present study can be summarized as under:
A. Total number of Terrestrial bird species = 91

B. According to frequency of sighting (TSC)
More common Common Less common Uncommon Rare Very Rare
23 22 25 12 2 7
C. According to their Local Status
Winter Migrants Passage Migrants Resident
8 2 81
D. Total number of aquatic bird species = 38
According to their local status: WM=14, R =24
Thus from the above data it can be concluded that:
5. The sanctuary supports a moderately good avian diversity.

6. Presence of some rare and threatened birds proves it to be an IBA site in true terms.
7. The mosaic type of habitat of the sanctuary and the interlinked channels of lakes make it
very congenial to support a wide variety of bird species.
8. Being in close proximity of the city, the area can be developed as a good site for bird
watchers and eco-tourists.
The fifth chapter of the thesis is Habitat preference of birds in and around Sajjangarh
Wildlife Sanctuary. The study of habitat preference in context of birds is difficult because in
relation to birds, the habitat may change in accordance to their activity. The preferred habitat is
the place, which is most utilized by an animal for its various life activities. The habitat types of
Sajjangarh Wildlife Sanctuary have been divided in eight categories as shown in Table 1
(Chapter 5).
The observations on the habitat preferences of the birds have been made by encountering a bird
in a particular on each time of visit. Table 3 of the chapter records the habitat preferences of birds as
observed in and around the sanctuary. From this above study it is clear that in the eight types of
habitats identified in the study, 129 species of birds belonging to 33 families were identified.The
habitat found in Sajjangarh Wildlife Sanctuary is a mosaic one comprising of dry deciduous,
open scrub, rocky with sparse vegetation, thickets with rich vegetation cover, steep hill sides
with rich vegetation cover and cliffs and ruins. Besides this the peripheral area has agricultural
fields, human habitation and aquatic (LakeBari) habitats. The area also supports many rare and
endangered birds and has therefore rightly been designated as the Important Bird Area.
The sixth chapter of the thesis is Study of Microscopic structures of bird feather. It
deals with the study of microscopic characters of downy barbs of contour feathers of some
birds. In the present study an attempt has been made to study the macroscopic as well as the
microscopic characters of eight known bird species. These feathers were collected from the bird
cages of local zoological garden. Table – 1 in the chapter records the macroscopic characters of
contour feathers of these bird species.
Further in this chapter, Table – 2 records the microscopic measurements of various

characteristics. These include characters like subpennaceous length, Basal cell length,
Pennulum length, Barb and barbule length, Internode length, Node shape, Node specificity,
Pigment shape and Nodes per barbule.
Thus, we can conclude that the microscopic characters of feather differ among the various
families of birds and also within the members of the same family. A key for identification of
species of bird can be developed by studying various microscopic characteristics of contour
feathers. This key shall come handy in forensic study for identifying a bird even if a single
feather is available.
Chapter 7 describes some of the Threatened birds of SWLS according to IUCN (2008).
These birds are found in and around the sanctuary as the habitat here is congenial to them. The
Conservation status of Terrestrial and Aquatic Birds in and around the sanctuary is summarized as:
 Critically endangered = 03: Red-headed Vulture, Long-billed Vulture, White-rumped

Vulture
 Endangered = 01: Egyptian Vulture
 Vulnerable = 02: White-naped Tit, Sarus crane
 Near threatened = 03: Painted Stork, Black-headed Ibis, Lesser Flamingo
 Least concerned = 87
An in depth study has been carried out in view of presence of nine threatened species that can
be seen in this study area. Following recommendations have been made for protection of these
threatened bird species of aquatic lake ecosystem:
 Protection of surrounding catchments to prevent siltation like Sajjangarh, Ubeshvar, Kaler,

Banki, Machhala magara, Neemach mata, Hawala, Badi etc. to maintain normal
hydrology.
 Enmass public awareness is must so that people can understand the value of wetlands
and their resident birds.
 Replacement of Eichhornea from lotus in small pockets to attract Jacana.
 Protection of island and other roosting sites of birds are present in the lake.
 Eco-restoration is needed to be taken up immediately in order to protect and conserve the

birds and wetlands.
Chapter 8 incorporates Ecotourism and its impact on Avian diversity of Sajjangarh

Wildlife Sanctuary. Udaipur is situated amidst southern part of the Aravallis, one of the oldest
mountain systems of the world. Sajjangarh Wildlife Sanctuary has prominent features to
promote ecotourism. The unique and continuous hilly landscape with interspersed small
streams and ruins with lush green vegetation after rains, the rich biota and fauna along with the
famous historical monument Sajjangarh/Monsoon Palace, all attract the large number of tourists
towards it. Table 1 of the chapter reflects the tourist traffic to Sajjangarh Wildlife Sanctuary
round the year. Tourists from within the country as well as from other countries come to visit
Sajjangarh.
Occurrence of birds in the zones of high as well as low tourist activities was observed and
tabulated in Table 4 (Chapter 8):
On the basis of this three years long study and observations recorded, following
recommendations can be made in order to increase the tourist number visiting the sanctuary:
15. It was observed that a tourist coming to the Monsoon Palace has no idea about the
sanctuary. Therefore, an informative pamphlet or brochure should be provided to the
visitor on purchase of entry ticket.
16. The brochure should include the directions for the visitor to reach any point in the
sanctuary and especially those, which require their attention.
17. The zone where the tourists are not going at all (Zone – 7: Old ruins and odhis) should
be developed in such a manner so that the visitors are attracted to go there.
18. The odhis can be developed for bird watching by placing a couple of binoculars and
comfortable seats to sit and watch the birds and other animal diversity.
19. The Jhar and Bari region (Zone – 3) is a comparatively dense region and supports birds
like Aravalli Red Spurfowl, Eurasian Eagle-owl, Jungle Babbler, Eurasian golden Oriole
and Plum-headed Parakeet. Suitable bird watching stations can be set up there to
observe these birds in a calm and peaceful environment.
20. Seating arrangements can be made by constructing cemented benches at various

places where the visitors can rest for a while.
21. Drinking water and small refreshments can also be provides at place inside the
sanctuary by using eco-friendly materials.
22. Dustbins should be placed at places so that the tourists do not litter here and there.
23. A bird interpretation centre can be developed in the sanctuary to attract the visitors.
24. Natural trails can be prepared covering all the important points in the sanctuary for
visitors to walk freely.
25. Signboards containing the photographs and relevant information about the birds present
in a particular region will be helpful to provide information to the visitor.
26. A small library with useful books on birds be made available to the interested people.
27. Bird watching station can be set up at Bari Lake for viewing various waterfowls.
28. Information regarding birds and bird watching sites should be made available at tourists‟
information centre of the city.
Chapter nine is entitled Management of Sajjangarh Wildlife Sanctuary as an Important Bird

Area site. It incorporates the managerial aspects of the study. On the basis of three year long
study the main problems as identified during the study period are discussed. On the basis of
these findings the management strategies can be made to protect the sanctuary and solve the
problems. The observations shall also aid in formulating recommendations for the improvement
of this Important Bird Area site and the Wildlife sanctuary as a whole.
Article VIII. Problems Identified during the study period
1. Lack of the knowledge and awareness in general public about

the importance of an IBA site.
2. Inadequate efforts and lack of planning for conservation of this sanctuary as an IBA site.
3. Lack of monitoring and research work.
4. Inadequate technical data about birds.
5. Lack of bird-watching guide.
8. Lack of site support group for conserving this IBA site.
9. Inadequate information to staff persons about the birds and their habitat.
10. Insufficient staff for protection of historical building and other ruins within the limits of
sanctuary as these are the nesting sites for many birds.
11. Lack of awareness about Eco-tourism concept and insufficient interpretation center
opportunity.
12. Insufficient resources to advertise the site as the Bird-watching one amongst the tourists
and visitors.
13. Soil erosion is very fast leading to the habitat destruction.
14. Inadequate moisture contents in the area that speed up the rate of habitat degradation.
15. Lack of amenities for staff personnel involved in management of Sajjangarh Wildlife
Sanctuary to stay in the area.
16. Invasive weeds like Prosopis juliflora, Lantana camara and L. wightiana are taking a heavy
toll from native species especially from palatable grasses.
17. Habitat degradation and alteration may also be due to forest fires.
On the basis of this various recommendations have been made that are covered under following
heads:
Article IX. 1. Recommendations to manage this sanctuary as an IBA site
A. IBA site Monitoring
B. Landscaping approach to conservation of birds in an IBA Site
C. Improvement of habitat according to the various habits of birds
2. Recommendations to manage this sanctuary for habitat improvement and as a bird-watching site
3. Recommendations to manage Eco-tourism and enhancing Bird watching in

Sanctuary.
4. Recommendations to manage Lake Bari as bird watching site
Limitations of the present study:
However careful one may be, yet some shortcomings are left. In the present study, some of
these are:
1. Working period of the present investigation was from sunrise to sunset only.
2. Night surveys could not be carried out to study the nocturnal birds because there was no
permission to stay in sanctuary during night time.
3. Visit of highly protected pockets like few water holes in denser areas were not permitted.
4. Number of individuals of each species was not counted. Population study can be taken
up as a future project.
Literature Cited
1. Adam, R.M. (1873): Notes on the birds of the Sambhar Lake and its vicinity. Stray
Feathers, Vol. 1:361 – 404.
2. Agoramoorthy, G. and Mohnot, S. M. (1986): Migratory water birds around Jodhpur.

Tiger paper, Vol. 13(1): 4 – 7.
3. Alfred, J. R. B. (1998): Faunal Diversity in India: An Overview: In Faunal diversity in

India, i-viii, (Ed. Alfred, J. R. B., Das, A. K. and Sanyal, A. K.), 1 – 495.
4. Ali, S. and Loke, W. T. (1947): The Common Birds of India, Thacker and Co, LTD.,
Bombay.
5. Ali, S. and Pandey, J. D. (1978): Checklist of birds of Delhi, Agra and Bharatpur, with
notes on their status in the neighbourhood. BNHS, Bombay
6. Ali, S. and Vijayan, V. S. (1983): Hydrobiological research at Keoladeo National Park,

First interim report, BNHS, Bombay.
7. Ali, S. (1935 - 37): The ornithology of Travancore and Cochin (with notes by Hugh
Whistler), 8 parts: 37 – 39.
8. Ali, S. (1941): The book of Indian Birds, Oxford University Press, Bombay.
9. Ali, S. (1945): The birds of Kutch, Oxford University Press, Bombay
10. Ali, S. (1954): The birds of Gujarat. J. Bombay Nat. His. Soc, Vol. l, 52: 374 – 458.
11. Ali, S. (1979): Bird study in India, its history and its importance, ICCR, New Delhi.
12. Ali, S. and Futehally, L. (1989): Common Birds, National Book Trust, India, 1-126.
13. Ali, S. and Grubh, R. B. (1984): Ecological study of bird hazard at Indian aerodromes.
Vol. I and II. First Annual Report (1982–1983). Bombay Natural History Society,
Bombay.
14. Ali, S. and Ripley, S. D. (1968-74): Hand book of the birds of India and Pakistan, 10 Vol,
Oxford University Press, London.
15. Ali, S. and Ripley, S. D. (1983): Handbook of the birds of India and Pakistan.
Oxford University Press, London.
16. Ali, S. and Ripley, S. D. (1987): Handbook of the Birds of India and Pakistan. Vol. 9.
Oxford University Press, New Delhi.
17. Ali, S. (1953): The Keoladeo Ghana of Bharatpur (Rajasthan). J. Bombay Nat. Hist.
Soc., Vol. 51(3): 531 – 536.
18. Ali, S. and Ripley, S. D. (1987): Compact handbook of the birds of India and Pakistan.
Bombay Natural History Society, Bombay.
19. Ali, S. and Ripley, S. D. (1983): Compact Handbook of Birds of India and Pakistan.
Oxford University Press, Bombay.
20. Alstrom, P. and Mild, K. (2003): Pipits and Wagtails. Princeton University Press,
Princeton.
21. Ambuel, B. and Temple, S. A. (1983): Area-dependent changes in the bird communities
and vegetation of southern Wisconsin forests. Ecology, Vol. 64: 1057 – 1068.
22. Anderson, S.H. (1970): The avian composition of Oregon White Oak Stands. The
Condor, Vol. 72: 417 – 423.
23. Archer, G. F. and Godman, E. M. (1937): The birds of British Somali land and the Gulf of
Aden, Vol. 2, Gurney and Jackson, London.
24. Asokan, S. (1995): Ecology of the small green bee-eater, Merops orientalis Lantham,
1801 with special reference to its population, feeding and breeding in Mayiladuthurai,
Tamil Nadu, South India, Ph. D. Thesis, Bharathidasan University, Thiruchirappalli
(unpublished).*
25. August, P. V. (1983): The role of habitat complexity and heterogeneity in structuring
tropical mammal communities. Ecology, Vol. 64: 1495 – 1507.
26. Badyaev, A. and Hendricks, P. (2001): Wagtails and Pipits. In: The Sibley Guide to Bird
Life and Behavior. (Ed. Elphick, J. and Dunning, D.), New York, 479 – 484.
27. Bain, M. (1996): Bird topography part three. Birders, Vol. 5: 41 – 43.
28. Baker, E. C. S. (1921): The Game Birds of India, Burma and Ceylon, Vol. 2, John Bale,
London.
29. Baker, E. C. S. (1922-30): Fauna of British India. Vol. 6, Taylor and Francis, London.
30. Balasundaram, C. and Rathi, S. (2003): Avifaunal diversity of Tiruverumbur Taluk, Tamil
Nadu. Zoos’ Print Journal, Vol. 19(3): 1417 – 1421.
31. Balmford, A. and Long, A. (1995): Across-country analyses of biodiversity congruence

and current conservation effort in the tropics. Conservation Biology, Vol. 9:1539 – 1547.
32. Balmford, A., Moore, J. L., Brooks, T., Burgess, N., Hansen, L. A., Williams, P. and
Rahbek, C. (2001): Conservation conflicts across Africa. Science, Vol. 291: 2616 – 2619.
33. Balsubramanian, P. (1990): Plant-animal inter-relations at Point Calimere Sanctuary,

Ph.D. Thesis, Bombay University*.
34. Barnes, H. E. (1891): Nesting in western India. J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., Vol. 6: 1 – 25.
35. Barnes, H.E. (1985): Birds nesting in Rajputana. J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., Vol.
1: 38 – 62.
36. Barroa, D. (1994): Checklist of birds of Pandihing, Assam. J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc,
Vol. 34: 83 – 86.
37. Barua, M. and Sharma, P. (1999): Birds of Kaziranga National Park, India. Forktail, Vol.
15: 47 – 60.
38. Basavarajappa, C. and Kanamadi, R. D. (2002): Composition and dynamics of the bird
community of Tavaragundi village Bellary District, Karnataka. Zoos’ Print Journal, Vol.
17(7): 820 – 828.
39. Beedy, E. C. (1981): Bird communities and forest structure in the Sierra Nevada of
California. The Condor, Vol. 83: 97 – 105.
40. Beehler, B. C., Krishnaraju, K. S. R. and Shahid, A. (1987): Avian use of man-disturbed
forest habitats in the Eastern Ghats, India. Ibis, Vol. 129: 197 – 211.
41. Belsare, D. K. (1994): Inventory and status of vanishing wetland. Wildlife of south-east
Asia and an operational management plan for their conservation. In: Global wetland: Old
world and New Amsterdam (Mitsch, W. J. Ed.), Elsevier Science, pp.
841 – 856.
42. Benedict, R. J. and Hepp, G. R. (1996): Wintering water bird use of two aquatic plant
habitats in a southern reservoir. J. Wild Manage, Vol 4(1): 269 – 278.
43. Bennike, O. and Dyck, J. (1986): A subfossil Lapland bunting Calcarius lapponicus
feather from Volvedal, North Greenland. Ornis Scand., Vol. 17: 75 – 77.
44. Bhatnagar, C., Jani, K. and Sharma, V. (2007): Vanishing habitats of aquativ birds in the
city of lakes, Udaipur: A case study. The Indian Forrester, Vol. 133(10): 1395 – 1402.
45. Bhatnagar, C., Jani, K., Sharma, V., Mahur, M., Salvi, R. and Prasad, A. (2008): Aquatic
bird diversity of Lake Bari (A component of Udaipur Important Bird Area) with a special
note on its habitat management. Proceedings of Taal 2007: the 12th World Lake
Conference, Sengupta, M. and Dalwani, R., Ed.), 554 – 557.
46. Bhatnagar, R. and Gupta, K. S. (2003): Management plan of Sajjangarh Wildlife

Sanctuary from 2003 - 04 to 2012 - 13, Department of Forests, Rajasthan.
47. Bhatt, D. and Kumar, A. (2001): Foraging ecology of Red-vented Bulbul (Pycnonotus
cafer) in Haridwar, India. Forktail, Vol. 17: 109 – 110.
48. Bhatt, D. and Sharma, R. (2000): Diversity, status and feeding ecology of avian in
Motichur area Rajaji National Park, India. Ann. For., Vol. 8(2): 171 – 191.
49. Bhupathy, S. (1991): Population and resource utilization of waterfowl in Keoladeo

National Park, Bharatpur, Ph. D. Thesis, University of Rajasthan, Jaipur, India.*
50. Bhupathy, S., Vijayan, V. S. and Mathur, R. (1997): Population ecology of migratory
waterfowl in Keoladeo Ghana National Park. J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., Vol. 95: 287 –
294.
51. Bhushan, B. (1994): Ornithology of the Eastern Ghats, Ph. D. Thesis, Bombay
University.*
52. Bibby, C., Jones, M. and Marsden, S. (1998): Expedition Field Techniques BIRD
SURVEYS, Published by the Expedition advisory centre (Royal geographical Society), 1
– 134.
53. Birdlife International (2000): Threatened birds of world. Barcelona and Cambridge, U. K.
Lynx Edition of Birdlife International.
54. Birdlife International (2001): Threatened Birds of Asia: the Birdlife International
Red Data Book (Eds. Collar, N. J., Andreev, A. V., Chan, S., Crosby, M. J.,
Subramanyam, S. and Tobias, J. A.) Cambridge: Birdlife International.
55. Biswas, B. (1960): The birds of Nepal. J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., Vol. 57(3): 516 – 546.
56. Blake, J. G. and Karr, J. R. (1987): Breeding birds of isolated woodlots: area and habitat
relationships. Ecology, Vol. 68: 1724 – 1734.
57. Blangy, S. and Mehta, H. (2006): Ecotourism and ecological restoration. Journal
for Nature conservation, Vol. 14(3-4): 233 – 236.
58. Block, W. M. and Brennan, L. A. (1993): The habitat concept in ornithology:

Theory and applications. Current Ornithology, Vol. 11: 35 – 91.
59. Block, W. M., Finch, D. M. and Brennan, L. A. (1995): Single-species versus multiple-
species approaches for management. In: Ecology and management of Neotropical
migratory birds. (Martin, T. E., and D. M. Finch, Eds.) Oxford University Press, New
York. 489 pp.
60. Bolton, M. (1997): Conservation and the use of wildlife resources. Chapman and
Hall, London, 62 – 63.
61. Bond, R. R. (1957): Ecological distribution of breeding birds in the upland forests of
southern Wisconsin. Ecol. Monogr., Vol. 27: 351 – 384.
62. Boo, E. (1990): Ecotourism: The potentials and pitfalls. Vol. I and II, Washington, DC.
WWF, U. S.
63. Brockelman, W. Y. and Dearden, P. (1990): The Role of Nature Trekking in

Conservation: A Case Study in Thailand. Environmental Conservation, Vol.17 (2): 141 –
148.
64. Brom, T. G. (1991): The diagnostic and phylogenetic significance of feather structures.
Institute voor Taxonomische Zoologische, Amesterdam.
65. Brown, R., Ferguson, J., Lawrence, M. and Lees, D. (1987): Tracks and Signs of the Birds
of Britain and Europe. Helm, London: 232.
66. Butler, E. A. (1877b): Additional notes on the birds of Sindh. Stray Feathers, Vol. 5:
283 – 304.
67. Butler, E. A. (1877a): Notes on the avifauna of Mount Abu and northern Gujarat. Stray
Feathers, Vol. 5: 207 – 236. Butler, E. A. (1878): My last notes on the avifauna of Sindh.
Stray Feathers, Vol. 7: 173 – 191.
68. Butler, E. A. (1875): Notes on the avifauna of Mount Abu and northern Guzerat. Stray
Feathers, Vol 3: 437 – 500.
69. Butler, E. A. (1876): Notes on the avifauna of Mount Abu and northern Guzerat. Stray
Feathers, Vol 4: 1 – 41.
70. Cain, M. L., Milligan, B. G. and Stranod, A. E. (2000): Long distance dispersal in plant
populations. American J. Bot., Vol. 87: 1217 – 1227.
71. Campbell, B. and Lack, E. (1985): A Dictionary of Birds. Vermillion: Buteo Books.
72. Carroll, C., Noss, R. F., Paquet, P. C., and Schumaker, N. H. (2004): Extinction debt of
protected areas in developing landscapes. Conservation Biology, Vol. 18: 1110 – 1120.
73. Carter, E. and Lowman, G. (1994): Ecotourism: A sustainable option? John Wiley and
Sons Ltd., Chichester, England.
74. Caughley, G. (1994): Directions in conservation biology. Journal of Animal

Ecology, Vol. 63: 215 – 244.
75. Ceballos, L. (1993): Ecotourism as a Worldwide Phenomenon. In Ecotourism: A guide

for planners and Managers. (Lindsberg, K., Hawkins, D. E. Ed.), The ecotourism Society,
pp 12 – 14.
76. Ceballos, L. (1996): Tourism, ecotourism and protected areas. IUCN Report.
77. Ceballos, L. H. (1998): The Future of ecotourism. Mexico Journal, Vol. 17: 13-14
78. Ceballos-Lascurain, H. (1978): Tourism, Ecotourism and Protected Areas. Gland,

Switzerland.
79. Chakravarthy, A. K. (1988): Bird predators of pole borers of field beam (Lablab Niger
Medick). Tropical Pest Management, Vol. 34: 395 – 398.
80. Champion, H. G. and Seth, S. K. (1968): A revised survey of forest types of India.
Government of India: 1 – 404.
81. Chandler, A. C. (1914): Modifications and adaptations to function in the feathers of

Circus hudsonius. Univ. Calif. Publ. Zool., Vol. 11: 329 – 376.
82. Chandler, A. C. (1916): A study of feathers, with reference to their taxonornic

significance. Univ. Calif. Publ. Zool., Vol. 13: 243 – 446.
83. Chantler, P. (1999): Family Apodidae (Swifts). In: Handbook of the Birds of the World
(del Hoyo, J., Elliott, A. and Sargatal, J. eds.), Vol. 5. Barn-owls to Hummingbirds.
Barcelona: Lynx Editions.
84. Chantler, P. and Driessens, G. (2000): Swifts: A Guide to the Swifts and Treeswifts of
the World, Second Edition. Sussex: Pica Press.
85. Chhangani, A.K. (2002): Avifauna in around Jodhpur city, Rajasthan. Newsletter for Bird
Watchers, Vol. 42(2): 24 – 26.
86. Chhangani, A. K. (2002): Avifauna of Kumbhalgarh Wildlife Sanctuary, in the Aravalli

hills of Rajasthan. Zoos’ Print Journal, Vol. 17(4): 764 – 768.
87. Chhetry, D. T. (2006): Diversity of wetland birds around the Koshi Barrage area. Our
Nature, Vol. 4: 91 – 95.
88. Child, G. (1994): Strengthening protected area management. A focus for the1990s, a
platform for the future. Biodiversity Conservation, Vol. 3: 459 – 63.
89. Christian, A. F. P. (1942): Some additional notes on distribution of the avifauna of

northern Baluchistan. J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., Vol. 43: 478 – 87.
90. Clements, F. E. and Shelford, V. E. (1939): Bio-Ecology. John Wiley and Sons. New
York: 425.
91. Cody, M. L. (1981): Habitat selection in birds: The roles of vegetation structure,
competitors and productivity. BioScience, Vol. 31: 107 – 113.
92. Cody, M. L. (1985): Habitat Selection in Birds. Academic Press, New York.
93. Collins, C. (2001): Swifts In: The Sibley Guide to Bird Life and Behavior (Elphick, C.,
Dunning, J. and Sibley, D., Eds.). New York: Alfred A. Knopf: 353 – 356.
94. Colwell, R. K. and Coddington, J. A. (1994): Estimating terrestrial biodiversity through

extrapolation; Philos. Trans. R. Soc., London B 345: 101 – 118.
95. Conner, R. N. and Adkisson, C. S. (1975): Effects of clear cutting on the diversity of
breeding birds. J. For. , Vol. 73: 781 – 785.
96. Conner, R. N., Via, J. W. and Prather, I. D. (1979): Effects of pine-oak clear cutting
on winter and breeding birds in southwestern Virginia. Wilson Bull, Vol. 91: 301 –
316.
97. Corlett, R. T. (1998): Frugivory and seed dispersal by birds in Hong Kong shrubland.
Forktail, Vol. 13: 23 – 27.
98. Crawford, H. S., Hooper, R. G. and Titterington, R. W. (1981): Songbird response to

silvicultural practices in central Appalachian hardwoods. J. Wildl. Manage., Vol. 45: 680
– 692.
99. Danchin, E., Boulinier T. and Massot, M. (1998): Conspecific reproductive success and
breeding habitat selection: Implications for the study of coloniality. Ecology, Vol. 79:
2415 – 2428.
100. Daniels, R. (1994): A landscape approach to conservation of birds. J. Biosci., Vol. 19( 4):
503 – 509.
101. Daniels, R. J. R., Hegde, M., Joshi, Ν. V. and Gadgil, Μ. (1991): On assigning
conservation value; a case study from India. Conserv. Biol, Vol. 5: 1 – 12.
102. Daniels, R. J. R. (1989): A conservation strategy for the birds of the Uttara Kannada
District. Ph. D. Thesis, Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore.*
103. Dar, G. H. (2000): Floristic diversity in India: An overview. In: Environment, Biodiversity
and Conservation (Khan, M. A. and Farooq, S., Eds.), APH Publishing Corporation, New
Delhi, 173 – 196.
104. Dash, M. C. (2002): Fundamental of Ecology 2 nd edition. Tata McGraw-Hill Publishing

Company Limited.
105. Davidar, P. (1979): Synecological studies on the specialised nectar-feeding birds and
bird-flowers in the Nilgiris, Ph. D. Thesis, Bombay University.*
106. Davidar, P. (1995): Ecology of sympatric woodpecker species of Western Ghats, India.
Ph. D. Thesis, Pondicherry University.*
107. Davies, A. (1970): Micromorphology of feathers using the scanning electron microscope.
Forensic Sci. Soc. J., Vol. 10: 165 – 174.
108. Day, M. F. (1966): Identification of hair and feather fragments in guts and faeces of
stoats and Weasels. J. Zool. (Lond.), Vol. 148: 201 – 217.
109. Deedrick, D.W. and Mullery, J.D. (1981): Feathers are not lightweight evidence. FBI Law
Enforce. Bull., 22 – 23.
110. Delacour, J. (1954): The waterfowl of the world. Vol. 4, Country Life Ltd., London.
111. Desiree (1949): Some notes on the birds of Nepal valley. J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., Vol.
48(4): 695 – 719.
112. Devarshi, D. and Trigunayat, M. M. (1989): Checklist of birds of Mount Abu (Rajasthan).
Pavo, Vol. 27(1&2): 59 – 63.
113. Dewar, D. and Yeats, G. A. L. (1979): Common Birds of India. N. B. D. Publishers, New
Delhi: 3 – 248.
114. Dhindsa, M. S. and Saini, H. K. (1994): Agricultural ornithology: an Indian perspective. J.

Biosci., Vol. 19: 391 – 402.
115. Dick, G. O., Smith, J. K. and Smart, R. M. (2004): Migratory waterfowl habitat selection
in relation to aquatic vegetation. APCRP Technical Notes Collection (ERDC/TN APCRP-
EA- US Army Engineer Research and Development Centre, Vicksburg, MS.
116. Donald, P. F., Buckingham, D. L., Moorcroft, D., Muirhead, L. B., Evans, A. D. and Kirby,
W. B. (2001): Habitat use and diet of skylarks Alauda arvensis wintering on lowland
farmland in southern Britain. Journal of Applied Ecology, Vol. 38: 536 –547.
117. Dookia, S. and Paudey, V. K. (2004): Additions to the birds of Jodhpur city, Rajasthan.
Zoos’ Print Journal, Vol. 19(5): 1474.
118. Dove, C. J. (1994): Quantification of plumulaceous feather characters used in

microscopic identification of North American plovers (Aves: Charadriidae). M.S. thesis,
George Mason University, Fairfax, Virginia.
119. Dove, C. J. (1997): Quantification of microscopic feather characters used in the

identification of North American plovers. Condor, Vol. 99: 47 – 57.
120. Dove, C. J. (1998b): Microscopic variation in downy feather characters of

Charadriiformes (Aves): a Descriptive and phylogenetic analysis. Ph. D. Dissertation,
George Mason University, Fairfax, Virginia.*
121. Dove, C.J. (2000): A descriptive and phylogenetic analysis of plumulaceous feather
characters in Charadriiformes. American Ornithologists‟ Union. Ornithological
Monographs No 51.
122. Eken, G., Bennun, L., Brooks, T. M., Darwall, W., Fishpool, L. D. C., Foster, M., Knox,
D., Langhammer, P., Matiku, P., Radford, E., Salaman, P., Sechrest, W., Smith, M. L.,
Spector, S. and Tordoff, A. (2004): Key biodiversity areas as conservation targets.
Bioscience, Vol. 54(12): 1110 – 1118.
123. Ewans, M. (1992): Bharatpur Bird Paradise. Lustre Press Pvt. Ltd.
124. Faaborg, J., Brittingham, M., Donovan, T. and Blake, J. (1993): Habitat fragmentation in
the temperate zone: A perspective for managers. pp 331 – 339. In: Status and
management of Neotropical migratory birds. (Finch, D. M., and P. W. Stangel, Eds.)
Gen. Tech. Rept. RM - 229, USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mtn. For. Exp. Stat. 422 pp.
125. Finch, D. M. and Ruggiero, L. F. (1993): Wildlife habitats and biological diversity
in the Rocky Mountains and northern Great Plains. Natural Areas, Vol. 13: 191 –
203.
126. Finch, D. M., Block, W. M., Fletcher, R. A. and Fager, L. F. (1993): Integrating
Neotropical migratory birds into Forest Service plans for ecosystem
management. Trans. 58th N. A. Wildl. and Natur. Resourc. Conf.: 417 – 421.
127. Foley, J. A., DeFries, R., Asner, G. P., Barford, C., Bonan, G., Carpenter, S. R.,
Chapin, F. S., Coe, M. T., Daily, G. C., Gibbs, H. K., Helkowski, J. H., Holloway,
T., Howard, E. A., Kucharik ,C. J., Monfreda, C., Patz, J. A., Prentice, C.,
Ramankutty, N. and Snyder P. K. (2005): Global consequences of land use.
Science, Vol. 309: 570 – 574.
128. Forman, R. T. T. and Godron, M. (1986): Landscape ecology (New York: John Wiley).
129. Forsman, J. T., Monkkonen, M., Helle, P. and Inkeroinen, J. (1998): Heterospecific
attraction and food resources in migrants' breeding patch selection in northern boreal
forest. Oecologia, Vol. 115: 278 – 286.
130. Franzreb, K. E. and Ohmart, R. D. (1978): The effects of timber harvesting on breeding
birds in a mixed-coniferous forest. Condor, Vol. 80: 431 – 441.
131. Frome, N. F. (1947): The birds of Delhi district. J. Bombay. Nat. Hist. Soc. Vol. 47(2):
277 – 300.
132. Fry, C., Pearson, D. and Taylor, P. (1992): Motacillidae, wagtails, pipits and longclaws.
In: The Birds of Africa, (Keith, S., Urban, E. and Fry, C. Eds.) Vol. IV. London: Academic
Press: 197 – 262.
133. Gadgil, M. and Ali, S. (1975): Communal roosting habits of Indian birds. Ibis, Vol. 72(3):
716 – 727.
134. Gadgil, M. (1972): The function of communal roost: relevance of mixed roost. Ibis, Vol.
114: 531 – 533.
135. Gadhiv, I. R. and Dodia, P. P. (2006): Indian White-backed Vulture Gyps

bengalensis nesting in Mahuva, Bhavnagar district, Gujarat, India. Indian Birds,
Vol. 2(2): 36.
136. Galli, A. E., Leck, C. F. and Forman, R. T. (1976): Avian distribution in forest
islands of different sizes in central New Jersey. Auk, Vol. 93: 356 – 364.
137. Garson, J., Aggarwal, A. and Sarkar, S. (2002): Birds as surrogates for biodiversity: an
analysis of a data set from Southern Quebec. Journal of Bioscience, Vol. 27: 347 – 360.
138. Gaston, A. J. (1978): The seasonal occurrence of birds on the New Delhi ridge. J.
Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., Vol. 75(1): 115 – 118.
139. Gaston, K. J. (1996): Biodiversity: Biology of Numbers and Differences. Oxford:

Blackwell.
140. Gauntlett, F. M. (1972): Durgapur Barrage as water bird habitat. Ibis, Vol. 68(3): 619 –
632.
141. Gauntlett, F. M. (1985): The birds of Durgapur and Damodar Valley, W. Bengal. J.
142. George, P. V. (1964): Notes on migrant birds of North Bihar. J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc.,
Vol. 61: 370 – 384.
143. Gilbert, E. E. and Nancekiveil, E. G. (1982): Food habits of mink (Mustela vison) and
otter (Lutra canadensis) in northeastern Alberta. Can. J. Zool., Vol. 60: 1282 – 1288.
144. Gilroy, B. A. (1987): Microscopic variation in plumulaceous barbules of the Rock Dove,
Columba livia (Aves: Columbidae). M. S. thesis, George Mason University, Fairfax,
Virginia.*
145. Gooder, J. (1982): Collins British Birds. William Collins and Sons Co. Ltd., London.
146. Goodwin, H. J. (1996): In Pursuit of Ecotourism Biodiversity and Conservation. Vol. 5:

277 – 291.
147. Goriup, P. D. and Vardhan, H. (Eds.) (1980): Bustards in decline. Tourism and Wildlife
Society of India, Jaipur.
148. Goswami, S. (1999): Birds in Shivpuri Forest, Madhya Pradesh. Zoos’ Print Journal, Vol.
14(7): 75 – 76.
149. Green, K. and Williams, R. (1997): Biology of the Heard Island Shag
Phalacrocorax sp. Emu, Vol. 97: 76 – 83.
150. Green, R. E., Tyler, G. A. and Bowden, G. R. (1999): Royal society for the protection of
birds. The Lodge Sandy, Bedfordshire SG19 2DL, U.K.
151. Grewal, B. (1993): Birds of India, Bangladesh, Nepal, Pakistan and Shri Lanka. The
Guidebook Company Limited.
152. Griffin, C. R. (1982): The ecology of Bald Eagles wintering near a waterfowl
concentration. U.S. Fish Wildl. Serv. Spec. Rep. 247: 1 – 12.
153. Grimmett, R. and Inskipp, T. (2003): Birds of Northern India. Oxford University Press,
New Delhi.
154. Grimmett, R., Inskipp, C. and Inskipp, T. (1998): Birds of Indian Subcontinent. Oxford
University Press, Delhi.
155. Grimmett, R., Inskipp, C. and Inskipp, T. (1999): Birds of Indian Subcontinent. Oxford
University Press, Delhi.
156. Grinnell, J. (1917): Field tests of theories concerning distributional control. American
Naturalist, Vol. 51: 115 – 128.
157. Grubb, R. C. (1976): Adaptiveness of foraging in the cattle egret. Wilson Bull., Vol. 88(1):
145 – 148.
158. Grubh, R. B. (1988): Ecological study of bird hazard at Indian Aerodromes, Phase 2.
Final Report (1982–1988) Part one. Summary of findings and recommendations.
Bombay: Bombay Natural History Society.
159. Grubh, R. (1974): The birds of Gir Forest: The ecology and behaviour of vultures in Gir
Forest, Ph. D. Thesis, Bombay University.*
160. Guillemain, M., Blanc, R., Lucas, C. and Lepley, M. (2007): Ecotourism
disturbance to wildfowl in protected areas: historical, empirical and experimental
approaches in the Camargue, Southern France, Biodiversity and conservation.
Springer, Vol. 16: 3633 – 3651.
161. Gupta, H.S. (2004): Water bird diversity of Ranchi district. Zoos’ Print Journal, Vol. 19(9):
1630.
162. Hall, L. S., Krausman, P. R, and Morrison, M. L. (1997): The habitat concept and a plea
for standard terminology wildlife society Bulletin 25: 173 – 182.
163. Hamann, A. and Eberhard, C. (1999): Interactions among fruigivores and fleshy fruit
trees in a Philippine sub montane rain forest. Cons. Biol., Vol. 13: 766 – 773.
164. Hancock, J. and Kushlan, J. (1984): The herons Handbook. Croom Helm, London.
165. Haramis, G. M. (1991): “Canvasback”. Habitat requirements for Chesapeake bay living
resources. 2nd ed. (Funderburk, S. L., Mihursky, J. A., Jordan, and Riley, D. Ed.), Livng
Resour. Subcomm., Chesapeake bay programme, Annopolis, M D, 17.1 – 17.10.
166. Hargave, L. L. (1965): Identification of feather fragments by microstudies. Am. Antiquity

31: 202 – 205.
167. Harris, L. D. (1984): The fragmented forest. Univ. Chicago Press, Chicago, Vol. Ill: 211.
168. Hayden, T. J., Faaborg, J. and Clawson, R. L. (1985): Estimates of minimum area
requirements for Missouri forest birds. Trans. Mo. Acad. Sci., Vol. 19: 11 – 22.
169. Heatwole, H. (1965): Some aspects of association of cattle egrets with cattle. Animal
behaviour, Vol.13: 79 – 83.
170. Heep, G. R. and Hair, J. D. (1984): Dominance in wintering waterfowl (Anatinidae):

effects on distribution of sexes. Condor, Vol. 86: 251 – 257.
171. Hegde, S. G., Ganeshaiah, K. N. and Uma Shankar, R. (1991): Fruit preference criteria
by avian frugivores: Their implications for the evolution of clutch size in Solanum
pubescens. Oikos, Vol. 60: 20 – 26.
172. Heitmeyer, J. P. and Vohs, P. A. (1984): Distribution and habitat use of waterfowl
wintering in Oklahoma. J. Wildl. Manage., Vol. 48(1): 51 – 62.
173. Hingston, R. W. G. (1928): The flight of bird at high altitudes. J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc.,
Vol. 33: 449.
174. Hobaugh, W. C. and Teer, J. G. (1981): Waterfowl use characteristics of flood-

prevention lakes in north-central Texas. J. Wildl. Manage., Vol. 45(1): 16 – 26.
175. Holbrook, K. M. and Smith, T. B. (2000): Seed dispersal and movement patterns in two
species of Ceratogymna hornbills in a West African tropical lowland forest. Oecologia,
Vol. 125: 249 – 257.
176. Holder, M and Kingsley, A. (1996): Bird topography part five. Birders, Vol. 5: 201 – 204.
177. Holmes, P. R. and Parr, A. J. (1988): Checklist of birds of Haigam Rakh, Kashmir. J.
Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., Vol. 85: 465 – 477.
178. Hulbert, S. H. (1971): The non-concept of species diversity: A critique and alternative
parameters. Ecology, Vol. 52: 577 – 586.
179. Hull, D. L. (1977): The ontological status of species as evolutionary units. In:
foundational problems in the special science (Butts, R. and Hintikka, J. Ed.), D. Reidel
publishing company, Dordrecht, Holland, 91 – 102.
180. Humphery, P. S., Pefaur, J. E. and Rasmussen, P. C. (1993): Avifauna of three

Holocene cave deposits in southern Chile. Occas. Pap. Mus. Nat. Hist. Univ.
Kans, Vol. 154: 1 – 37.
181. Hunter, M. L. Jr. (1990): Wildlife, forests and forestry: Principles of managing
forests for biological diversity. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
182. Hurlbert, S. H. (1971): The non-concept of species diversity: A critique and alternative
parameters. Ecology, Vol. 52: 577 – 586.
183. Hussain, S. A., Akhtar, S. A. and Tiwari, J. K.( 1992): Status and distribution of white-
winged black tit (Parus nuchalis) in Kutch, Gujarat, India. Bird Conservation
International, U.K., Vol. 2: 115 – 122.
184. Hutto, R. L. (1985): Habitat selection by non-breeding, migratory land birds.

Pages 455 – 476. In: Habitat Selection in Birds (Cody, M. L., Ed.), Academic
Press, New York.
185. Hutto, R. L. (1981): Seasonal variation in the foraging behavior of some migratory
western wood warblers. Auk, Vol. 98: 765 – 777.
186. Hutto, R. L. (1985a): Seasonal changes in the habitat distribution of transient

insectivorous birds in south-eastern Arizona: competition mediated? Auk, Vol. 102: 120
– 132.
187. Hutto, R. L. (1985b): Habitat selection by non-breeding, migratory land birds. In: Habitat
Selection in Birds, (Cody M.L., Ed.), Academic Press, London. 455 – 476.
188. Inskipp, T., Lindsay, N. and Duckworth, W. (1996): An annotated checklist of birds of the
Oriental region, Oriental Bird Club, U.K.
189. Ishtiaq, F. (1998): Comparative ecology and behaviour of storks in Keoladeo National
Park, Rajasthan, India, Ph. D. Thesis, Aligarh Muslim University.*
190. Islam, Z. A. and Rahmani, A. R. (2004): Important Bird Areas in India. Priority sites for
conservation. Indian Bird Conservation Network: J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc. and Birdlife
International (U.K.) Pp. XVIII + 1133.
191. Jamdar, N. (1998): Southern Black-headed Munia (Lonchura malacca malacca) in

Keoladeo National Park, Bharatpur, Rajasthan. J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., Vol. 95(3):
509 – 510.
192. Javed, S. (1996): Study on bird community structure of terai forest in Dudhwa National
Park, Ph.D. Thesis, Aligarh Muslim University.*
193. Jensen, D. B., Torn, M. and Harte, J. (1980): In Our hands: A strategy for conserving
biological diversity in California. IUCN, Glands, Switzerland.
194. Jerdon, T.C. (1863): The birds of India. Vol.2, part I, Calcutta.
195. Ji, Q., Currie, P. J., Norell, M. A. and Shuan, J. S. (1998): Two feathered dinosaurs from
northeastern China. Nature, Vol. 393: 753 – 761.
196. Johnsgard, P. (1983): The Grouse of the World. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska
Press.
197. Johnsgard, P. (1999): The Pheasants of the World Biology and Natural History.
Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press.
198. Johnsingh, A. J. T. and Joshua, J. (1994): Avian fauna in three vegetation types on
Mundanthurai Plateau, South India. Journal of Tropical Ecology, Vol. 10: 323 – 335.
199. Johnsingh, A. J. T., Martin, N. H., Balasingh, J. and Chelladurai V. (1987): Vegetation
and avifauna in a thorn scrub habitat in South India. Tropical Ecology, Vol. 28: 22 – 34.
200. Johnson, D. H. (1980): The comparison of usage and availability measurements for
evaluating resource preference. Ecology, Vol. 61: 65 – 71.
201. Johnson, F. A. and Montalbano, F. (1989): Southern reservoirs and lakes. In: Habitat
management for migrating and wintering waterfowl in North America. (Smith, L. M.,
Pederson, R. L. and Kaminski, R. M. Ed.), Texas Technical University, Lubbock, TX, 93

– 116.
202. Johnson, M. D. and Sherry, T. W. (2001): Effects of food availability on the distribution of
migratory warblers among habitats in Jamaica. Journal of Animal Ecology, Vol. 70: 546 –
560.
203. Johnston, S. (1992): Protected areas in global biodiversity status of the earth‟s
living resources (Compiled by wildlife conservation monitoring centre). Chapman
and Hall, London: 447 – 478.
204. Jones and Stokes Associates (1987): Sliding toward extinction. In: The State of
California‟s Natural Heritage.
205. Jones, K. B., Kepner, L. P. and Martin, T. E. (1985): Species of reptiles

occupying habitat islands in western Arizona: A deterministic assemblage.
Oecologia, Vol. 66: 595 – 601.
206. Jorde, D. G., Haramis, G. M., Bunck, C. M. and Pendleton, G. M. (1995): Effects
of diet on rate of body mass gain by wintering canvasback. J. Wild Manage., Vol.
59(1): 31 – 39.
207. Joy, S. M., Reynold, R. T. Sr., Knight, L. and Hoffman, R. W. (1994): Feeding ecology of
Sharp-Shinned Hawks nesting in deciduous and coniferous forests in Colorado. Condor,
Vol. 96: 455 – 467.
208. Kahl, M. P. (1971b): Food and feeding behavior of open-bill stork. J. Ornith. Vol. 112: 21
– 35.
209. Kalsi, R. S. (1998): Birds of Kalesar Wildlife Sanctuary, Haryana, India. Forktail, Vol. 13:
29 – 32.
210. Karr, J. R. and Freemark, K. E. (1983): Habitat selection and environmental gradients:
Dynamics in the "stable" tropics. Ecology, Vol. 64: 1481 – 1494.
211. Karr, J. R. (1976): Within and between habitat avian diversity in African and neotropical
lowland habitats. Ecological Monographs, Vol. 46: 457 – 481.
212. Karr, J. R., Robinson, S. K., Blake, J. G. and Berregard, R. O. (1990): In: The bird
communities of four neotropical forest (Gentry, A. Ed.). Yale University Press, New
Haven, CT, 237 – 269.
213. Kasinathan, S., Parthiban, M. and Paulraj, S. (1995): Birds of the Grizzled Giant Squirrel
Wildlife Sanctuary, Srivilliputtur, Tamil Nadu. Zoos’ Print Journal, Vol. 10(5): 8 – 14.
214. Katti, M. V. (1989): Bird communities of Lower Dachigam Valley, Kashmir. M.Sc.
(Wildlife Science) Dissertation. Saurashtra University, Rajkot.*
215. Keast, A. (1984): The introduced submersed macrophyte, Myriophyllum spicatum, as

habitat for fish and their invertebrate prey. Can. J. Of Zool., Vol. 62: 1289 – 1303.
216. Khan, M. (2005): Species diversity, relative abundance and habitat use of the birds in
the Sundarbans East Wildlife Sanctuary, Bangladesh. Forktail, Vol. 21: 79 – 86.
217. Khatri, A. K. (1998): Studies of Physico- chemical and biological parameters of Gajner
Wildlife Sanctuary water reservoir (Chunda-Sagar) during the stay of migratory birds. A
M. Phil dissertation submitted to M. D. S. University, Ajmer.*
218. Kothari, A., Pande, P., Singh, S. and Variava, D. (1989): Management of National
Parks and Sanctuaries in India. A status report environmental studies division,
Indian Institute of Public Administration, New Delhi.
219. Krebs, C. J. (1999): Ecological methodology: Addison Wisely Longman, Menlo Park, CA.
220. Lack, D. (1971): Ecological Isolation in Birds. Harvard University Press, Cambridge,
Massachusetts.
221. Laybourne, R. C. (1974): Collision between a vulture and an aircraft at an altitude of

37,000 ft. Wilson Bull. , Vol. 86: 461 – 462.
222. Laybourne, R. C., Deedrick, D. and Hueber, F. (1994): Feather in amber is earliest new
world fossil of Picidae. Wilson Bull. , Vol. 106: 18 – 25.
223. Laybourne, R. C. and Dove, C. (1994): Preparation of bird strike remains for
identification. 22nd meeting Bird Strike Committee Europe. Vienna. Working Paper, Vol.
93: 529 – 534.
224. Lecointre, G. and Guyader, H. Le. (2001): Classification phylogenetique du vivant. Paris,
France: Berlin.
225. Lever, C. (1987): Naturalized birds of the world. England: Longman.
226. Lindberg, K. and Hawkins, D. E. (1993): Ecotourism: A guide for planners and
managers. The Ecotourism Society, North Bennington, Vermont: 134 – 151.
227. Lindsey, A., Alexander, R., Mills, M. G. L., Romanach, S. and Woodroffe, R.
(2007): Wildlife viewing preferences of visitors to protected areas in South Africa:
Implications for the role of ecotourism in conservation, J. Ecotourism, Vol. 6(1):
19 – 33.
228. Lipske, M. (1982): To down detective Roxie Laybourne, a feather‟s the clue.
Smithsonian: 98-105.
229. Lodhiya, C. (1999): Sighting of Green Munia (Estrilda formosa) at Mt. Abu. Newsletter
for Birdwatchers, Vol. 39(4): 61.
230. Lowman, M. D. (2004): Ecotourism and its impact on forest conservation. (http:// www.
Actionbioscience.org/environment/Lowman html)
231. Lowther, E. H. N. (1994): Notes on some Indian Birds. J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., Vol.
40: 409 – 424.
232. Lynch, J. F., and Whigham, D. F. (1984): Effects of forest fragmentation on breeding
bird communities in Maryland, USA. Biol. Conserv., Vol. 28: 287 – 324.
233. MacArthur, R. H. and Wilson, E. O. (1963): An equilibrium theory of insular

biogeography. Evolution, Vol.17: 373 – 387.
234. MacArthur, R. H. and Wilson, E. O. (1967): The theory of island biogeography.

Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton, NJ.
235. MacArthur, R. H. (1955): Fluctuations of animal population, and a measure of community

stability. Ecology, Vol. 36: 533 – 536.
236. MacIntosh, R. P. (1967): An index of diversity and the relation of certain concepts to
diversity. Ecology, Vol. 48: 392 – 402.
237. Madge, S. and McGowan, P. (2002): Pheasants, Partridges and Grouse: A guide to the
pheasants, partridges, quails, grouse, guineafowl, buttonquails and sandgrouse of the
world. London: Christopher Helm.
238. Magurran, A. E. (1988): Ecological diversity and its measurement (Princeton, New
Jersey: Princeton University Press).
239. Magurran, A. E. (2004): Measuring biological diversity (Oxford: Blackwell).
240. Mahabal, A. (2000): Birds of Talra Wildlife Sanctuary in lower western Himalaya, H.P.,
with notes on their status and altitudinal movements, Zoos’ Print Journal, Vol. 15(10):
334 – 338.
241. Makuloluwa, S., Alagoda, T. and Santiapillai, C. (1997): Avian faunal diversity in the
highlands of Sri Lanka. Tiger Paper, Vol. 24(3): 17 – 21.
242. Manville, R. H. (1963): Altitude record for mallard. Wilson Bull., Vol. 75: 92.
243. Martin, B.P. (1987): World Birds published by Guinness Superlative Ltd., London: 4.
244. Martin, T. E. (1992): Landscape considerations for viable populations and biological
diversity. Trans. 57th N. Am. Wildl. Natur. Resour. Conf. 57: 283 – 291.
245. Martin, T. E. (1993): Nest predation and nest sites: New perspectives on old patterns.
BioScience, Vol. 43: 523 – 532.
246. Martin, T. E. (1998): Are microhabitat preferences of coexisting species under

selection and adaptive? Ecology, Vol. 79: 656 – 670.
247. Mathieson, A. and Wall, G. (1982): Tourism: Economic, physical and social impacts.
London & New York, Longman Group Ltd.
248. Mayer, A. L. and Cameron, G. N. (2003): Landscape characteristics, spatial extent, and
breeding bird diversity in Ohio, USA. Diversity and Distributions, Vol. 9: 297 – 311.
249. Mayer, E. (1997): This is biology (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press).
250. McCollin, D. (1998): Forest edges and habitat selection in birds: A functional approach.
Ecography, Vol., 21: 247 – 260.
251. Meents, J. K., Anderson, B. W. and Ohmart, R. D. (1982): Vegetation relationships and
food of Sage Sparrow wintering in honey mesquite habitat. Wilson Bulletin, Vol. 94: 129
–138.
252. Meinerthagan, R. (1930): Nicoll‟s birds of Egypt, Vol. 2, Hugh Press, London.
253. Meinerthagan, R. (1954): Birds of Arabia. Oliver and Boyd Ltd., London.
254. Messinger, N. G. (1965): Methods used for identification of feather remains from
Wetherhill Mesa. Am. Antiquity, Vol. 31: 206 – 215.
255. Michael, J. B., Davis, W. F., Mark, B. R. and Brian, K. S. (2000): A field checklist of the
birds of Guyana. Publication 41 of the biological diversity of the Guianas program,
Smithsonian Institute, Washington DC, USA.
256. Milner, C. E. (1946): Birds notes on Dall Lake, Kashmir. Vol. 46: 550 – 551.
257. MoEF (1994): Report of the committee on prevention of illegal trade in wildlife and
wildlife products. New Delhi: Ministry of Environment and Forests, Government of India.
68.
258. MOEF (1999): National Policy and Macrolevel Action strategy on Biodiversity, New
Delhi: Ministry of Environment and Forests. Government of India, 74.
259. Mohan, B. A. (2000): Birds in and around Sri Venkateshwar Wildlife Sanctuary, Andhra
Pradesh. Zoos’ Print Journal, Vol. 15(10): 339 – 343.
260. Moorcroft, D., Whittingham, M. J., Bradbury, R. B. and Wilson, J. D. (2002): The
selection of stubble fields by wintering granivorous birds reflects vegetation cover and
food abundance. Journal of Applied Ecology, Vol. 39: 535 – 547.
261. Morrison, M. L., Marcot, B. G. and Mannan, R. W. (1992): Wildlife-habitat Relationships:

Concepts and Applications. University of Wisconsin Press, Madison.
262. Mukherjee, A., Borad, C. K. and Parasharya, B. H. (2002): A study of the ecological
requirements of waterfowl at man-made reservoir in Kheda District, Gujarat, India, with
view towards conservation, management and planning. Zoos’ Print Journal, Vol. 17(5):
775 – 785.
263. Mukherjee, A. K. (1976): Food habits of water birds of Sunderban, 24 Paraganas

District, West Bengal, India. J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., Vol. 66, 68, 71, 72 and 73.
264. Muloin, S. (1991): Wilderness Access for person with a disability; A discussion. In:
Ecotourism Incorporating The Global Classroom. (Weiler, B. Ed.). International
Conference Papers.
265. Murton, H. K. (1971): Why do some birds species feed in flock? Ibis: 263 – 273.
266. Myers, N. (1988): Threatened biotas „Hotspots‟ in tropical forests. Enviromantalist, Vol.
8: 187 – 208.
267. Myers, N., Mittemeier, R. A., Mittemeier, C. G., Dafouseca, G. A. B., and Kents, J.
(2000): Biodiversity hotspots for conservation priorities. Nature, Vol. 403: 853 – 858.
268. Natarajan, V. (1990): The ecology of the Southern Crow-Pheasant Centropus sinensis
parroti Stresemann (Aves: Cuculidae) at Point Calimere, Tamil Nadu, Ph. D. Thesis,
Bombay University.
269. Nayar, M. P. (1996): “Hot Spots” of endemic plants of India, Nepal and Bhutan. SB
Press, Trivandrum.
270. Nazneen, K., Gururaja, K. V., Manjunathareddy, A.H. and Krishnamurthy, S.V.
(2001): Birds of Kuvempu University campus, Shimoga district, Karnataka. Zoos’
Print Journal, Vol. 16(8): 557 – 560.
271. Neelkantan, K. K. (1981): An addition to the list of birds occurring in Kerala. J. Bombay
Nat. Hist. Soc., Vol. 79: 667 – 668.
272. Newton, F. S. and Newton, V. A. (1997): The effect of rainfall and habitat on
abundance and diversity of birds in a fenced protected area in the central Saudi
Arabian desert. Journal of Arid Environments, Vol. 35(4): 715 – 735.
273. Nielsen, B. P. (1975): Affinities of Eudromias morinellus (L.) to the genus Charadrius L.
Ornis Scand., Vol. 6: 65 – 82.
274. Nitzsch, C. L. (1867): Pterylography translated from the German. Edited by P. L. Sclater.
Published for the Ray Society by Robert Hardwicke, Piccadilly, London, Vol. 10: 1 – 181.
275. Norse, E. A. and McManus, R. E. (1980): Ecology and living resources of

Biological Diversity. In: Environmental Quality: The Eleventh Annual report of the
Council on Environmental Quality. Washington. 31 – 80.
276. Norton, E. F. (1932): Notes on the Birds of Baluchistan. J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., Vol.
35: 893 – 894.
277. Noss, R. F. (1983): Α regional landscape approach to maintain diversity. BioScience,

Vol. 33: 700 – 706.
278. Noss, R. F., LaRoe, E. T. and Scott, J. M. (1995): Endangered ecosystems of the United
States: A preliminary assessment of loss and degradation. Biological Report 28. U. S.
Dept. of Interior, National Biological Service, Washington, DC.
279. Noss, R. F. (1990): Indicators for Monitoring Biodiversity: A Hierarchical Approach,

Conservation Biology, Vol. 4(4): 355 – 364.
280. Olsen, A. (1981): Distinguishing food-contaminating bat hairs from certain feather
barbules. J. Assoc. Off. Anal. Chem, Vol. 64: 786 – 791.
281. Olson, S. L. and Steadman, D. W. (1981): The relationships of the Pedionomidae (Aves:
Charadriiformes). Smithson. Contrib. Zool., Vol 337: 1 – 25.
282. Orians, G. H. and Wittenberger, J. E. (1991): Spatial and temporal scales in

habitat selection. American Naturalist, Vol. 137(Supplement): 29 – 49.
283. Orth, R. J. and Moore, K. A. (1981): Submerged aquatic vegetation of the Chesapeake
Bay; past, present and future. Trans. North. Am. Wild Nat. Resour. Conf., Vol. 46: 271 –
283.
284. Oswin, D. (1999): Avifaunal diversity of Muthupet forest. Zoos’ Print Journal, Vol. 14(6):
47 – 53.
285. Padate, G. S. and Sapana, S. (1996): Checklist of birds in and around Harni pond, an
urban wetland near Baroda. Pavo, Vol. 34: 95 – 104.
286. Palot, J. M. and Pramod, P. (2000): A checklist of birds of Calicut University campus,
Kerala. Zoos’ Print Journal, Vol. 14(6): 47 – 53.
287. Paludan, K. (1959): On the birds of Afghanistan. Vidensk Donsk, naturh. Vol. 122: 1 –
332.
288. Panicker, K. N. (1980): Ecology of hole-nesting bird. J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., Vol. 75:
1227 – 1237.
289. Panwar, H. S. (1991): Status of management of protected areas in India: problems

and prospects. Tiger Paper, Vol. 18(3): 17 – 25.
290. Parasharya, B. M., Dodia, J. F., Yadav, D. N. and Patel, R. C. (1988): Effect of bird
predation and egg parasitism on caster semilooper Achaca janata Linn (Lepidopteran:
Noctuidae) in Gujarat. J. Biological Conservation, Vol. 2: 80 – 82.
291. Parasharya, B. M., Dodia, J. F., Mathew, K. L., Yadav, D. N. (1994): Natural regulation
of white grub (Holotrichia sp. Scaralidae) by birds in agroecosystem. J. Biosciences, Vol.
19(4): 381 – 390.
292. Patel, H.M., Yadav, D. N., Parasharya, B. M. and Patel, R. C. (1987): A note on
predation of Catopsilla sp. (Lepidoptera: Pieridae) by birds and wasp. J. Bombay Nat.
Hist. Soc., Vol. 84: 452 – 454.
293. Paulus, S. L. (1982): Feeding ecology of gadwalls in Louisiana in winter. J. Wild.

Manage., Vol. 46(1): 71 – 79.
294. Pearson, D. L. (1975): The relation of foliage complexity to ecological diversity of three
Amazonian bird communities. The Condor, Vol. 77: 453 – 466.
295. Pearson, S. M. (1993): The spatial extent and relative influence of landscape-level
factors on wintering bird populations. Landscape Ecology, Vol. 8: 3 – 18.
296. Peet, R. K. (1974): The measurement of species diversity. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Sys., Vol. 5:
285 – 307.
297. Petit, L. J. and Petit, D. R. (1996): Factors governing habitat selection by

Prothonotary Warblers: Field tests of the Fretwell-Lucas models. Ecological
Monographs, Vol. 66: 367 – 387.
298. Pielou, E. C. (1975): Ecological diversity. New York: Wiley Interscience.
299. Pinos, A. (1997): A review of the updated ICAO. Bird strike Information system (IBIS).
300. Pomeroy, D. and Tengecho, B. (1986): Studies of birds in a semi-arid area of Kenya. III-
the use of „timed species-counts‟ for studying regional avifauna. J. Trop. Ecol., Vol. 2:
231 – 247.
301. Poysa, H., Elmberg, J., Sjoberg, K. and Nummi, P. (1998): Habitat selection rules in
breeding Mallards (Anas platyrhynchos): A test of two competing hypotheses. Oecologia
, Vol. 114: 283 – 287.
302. Prakash, I. and Singh, P. (1995): Some observations on the birds of Abu Hill, Aravalli
Ranges. Pavo, Vol. 33(1&2): 99 – 110.
303. Prakash, V. (1989): Population and distibution of raptors in Keoladeo National

R.D.Chancellor(Eds). WWGBP: 129 – 137.
304. Prakash, V. (1999): Status of vultures in Keoladeo National Park, Bharatpur, Rajasthan
with special reference to population crash in Gyps species. J. Bombay. Nat. Hist. Soc.,
Vol. 96(3): 365 – 378.
305. Prakash, V., Pain, D. J., Cunningham, A. A., Donald P. F., Prakash, N., Verma, A.,
Gargi, R., Sivakumar, S. and Rahmani, A. R. (2003): Catastrophic collapse of Indian
White-backed Gyps bengalensis and Long-billed Gyps indicus vulture populations.

Biological Conservation, Vol. 109: 381 – 390.
306. Prakash, V. and Rahmani, A. R. (2000): Notes about the decline of Indian vultures, with
particular reference to Keoladeo National Park. Vulture News, Vol. 41: 6 – 13.
307. Prast, W. and Shamoun, J. (1997): BRIS Bird Remains Identification System. CD-ROM,
published by ETI, Amsterdam.
308. Praters, J. L. (1931): Checklist of the birds of world, Vol. 1-7, 9, 15 published to 1965,
Harvard University Press, and Cambridge Mass.
309. Rahmani, A. R. (1998): A possible decline of vultures in India. Oriental Bird Club
Bulletin, Vol. 28: 40 – 41.
310. Rai, N. D. (1991): A study of heterospecific flocking and non-breeding bird community
structure of Rajaji National Park. M.Sc. (Wildlife Science) dissertation. Saurashtra
University, Rajkot.
311. Rajasekar, R. (1982): Studies on the avian nests and eggs of Mannampandal area.
M.Sc. Dissertation. A. V. C. College, University of Madras (unpublished).
312. Ramachandran, N. K. (1993): The comparative ecology of the Pheasant-tailed and

Bronzewinged Jacanas in Keoladeo National Park, Bharatpur, Rajasthan, Ph. D. Thesis,
Bombay University.
313. Raman, S. (2001): Community ecology and conservation of tropical rainforest birds in
the southern Western Ghats, India. Ph. D. Thesis, Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore.
314. Ramitha, M. and Vijayalaxmi, K. (2001): A checklist of birds in and around Mangalore
University campus, Karnataka, Zoos’ Print Journal, Vol. 16(5): 489 – 492.
315. Rathinasabapathy, B. and Kalairasan, V. (1992): Birds of National Zoological Park. Zoos’
Print, Vol. 7(8): 33.
316. Rathore, V. and Sharma, R. K. (2000): Avifauna of a lake in district Etawah, Uttar
Pradesh, India. Zoos’ Print Journal, Vol. 15(6): 275 – 278.
317. Reaney, B. A., Richer, S. M. and Cunningham, W. P. (1978): A preliminary scanning

electron microscope study of the minute morphological features of feathers and their
taxonomic significance. Scanning Electron Microsc., Vol. 1: 471 – 478.
318. Recher, H. F. (1969): Bird species diversity and habitat diversity in Australia and North
America. American Naturalist, Vol. 103: 75 – 80.
319. Reddy, G.V. (1996): Extension of Range of Purple-rumped Sunbird. Newsletter for Bird
Watchers, Vol. 36(5): 96.
320. Reginald, J. L., Mahendran, C., Suresh Kumar, S. and Pramod, P. (2007): Birds of
Singanallur Lake, Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu. Zoos’ Print Journal, Vol. 22(12): 2944 –
2948.
321. Rey, P., Gutierrez, J., Alclantara, J. E., and Valera, F. (1997): Fruit size in wild olivers:
Implications for avian seed dispersal. Funct. Ecol., Vol. 11: 611 – 618.
322. Ricketts, T. and Imhoff, M. (2003): Biodiversity, urban areas, and agriculture: locating
priority eco-regions for conservation. Conservation Ecology, Vol. 8(2): 1 (online)
http://www.consecol.org/vol8/iss2/art1.
323. Ripley, S. D. (1949): Birds from Nepal. J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., , Vol. 49(3): 355 –
417.
324. Ripley, S. D. (1954): Comment of the biogeography of Arabia with particular reference to
birds. J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., Vol. l(52):241-48
325. Ripley, S. D. (1959): Zoogeographic considerations on the Indian avifauna. J. Bombay

Nat. Hist. Soc., Vol. 56: 72 – 81.
326. Robbins, C. S., Dawson, D. K. and Dowell, B. A. (1989): Habitat area requirements of
breeding forest birds of the Middle Atlantic States. Wildl. Monogr., Vol. 103: 1 – 34.
327. Roberts, M. R. and Gilliam, F. S. (1995): Patterns and mechanisms of plant diversity in
forested ecosystems: implications for forest management. Ecological Applications, Vol.
5: 969 – 977.
328. Robertson, J., Harkin, C. and Govan, J. (1984): The identification of bird feathers.
Scheme for feather Examination. Forensic Sci. Soc. J., Vol. 24: 85 – 98.
329. Robertson, R. J. (1972): Optimal niche space of the Red-winged Blackbird (Agelaius
phoenicus). I. Nesting success in marsh and upland habitat. Canadian Journal of
Zoology, Vol. 50: 247 – 263.
330. Robinson, R. A. and Sutherland, W. J. (1999): The winter distribution of seed-eating

birds: habitat structure, seed density and seasonal depletion. Ecography, Vol 22: 447 –
454.
331. Rodgers, W. A. and Panwar, H. S. (1988): Planning a Wildlife Protected Area Network in
India. Vol. II. Field Document No.7. Wildlife Institute of India, Dehra Dun.
332. Roe, D., Williams, N. and Clayton, B. (1997): Take only photographs: leave only
footprints, 2Ed Wildlife and Development series No.10.
333. Rosalind, L. and Grubh, R. B. (1986): Microscopic identification of feathers aiding bird
hazard prevention Programme in India. J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., Vol. 84: 429 – 431.
334. Roseveare, W. L. (1949): Notes on birds of the irrigated area of Shwebo district, Burma.
J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., Vol. 48(4): 729 – 749.
335. Roseveare, W. L. (1950): Notes on birds of the irrigated area of Minbu district, Burma. J.
336. Ryel, R. and Grass, T. (1991): Marketing ecotourism: Attracting the elusive ecotourist.
In: Nature Tourism: Managing for the Environment (T. Whelan Ed.). Island Press,
Washington DC.
337. Sangha, H. S. (1984): Black Partridge in Ganganagar District, Rajasthan. Newsletter for
Bird Watchers, Vol. 24(5-6): 11 – 12.
338. Sangha, H.S. (2003): Sighting of the Indian Wild Ass Equus onager in Rajasthan. A
northward range extension. J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., Vol. 100(2&3): 617 – 621.
339. Sangha, H. S. (1994): Marbled Teal in Rajasthan. Newsletter for Bird Watchers, Vol.
34(2): 34.
340. Sankar, K., Mohan, D. and Pandey, S. (1993): Birds of Sariska Tiger Reserve,
Rajasthan, India. Forktail, Vol. 8: 133 – 141.
341. Sankaran, R. (1998): An annotated list of the endemic avifauna of the Nicobar Islands.
Forktail, Vol. 13: 17 – 22.
342. Santharam, V. (1995): Ecology of sympatric woodpecker species of Western Ghats,

India. Ph.D. Thesis, Pondichery University.
343. Sara, M. and Vittorio, M. (2003): Factor influencing the distribution, abundance and nest-
site selection of an endangered Egyptian Vulture (Neophron percnopterus) population in
Sicily. Anim. Conserv., Vol. 6: 317 – 328.
344. Satheesan, S. M. (1990): A bird aircraft collision at an attitude of 2424 m over the sea. J.
Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., Vol. 87 (1): 145.
345. Satheesan, S. M., Grubh, R. B. and Piments, R. J. (1992): An updated list of birds and
bat species involved in collision with aircraft in India. J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., Vol.
89(1): 129 – 132.
346. Satheesan, S.M. (2000b): The role poison in the Indian vulture population crash. Vulture
News, Vol. 42: 3 – 4.
347. Satheesan, S. M. (1990): Ecology and behaviour of the Pariaha kite (Milvus migrans) as
a problem bird at some Indian Aerodromes. Ph. D. Thesis, Bombay University.
348. Satheesan, S. M. (2000a): Vultures in Asia. Raptors at risk. (Chancellor, R. D.

and Meybug, B.-U., Eds). WWGBP: 165 – 174.
349. Schluter, D. and Ricklefs, R. E. (1993): Species diversity: An introduction to the problem.
In: Species diversity in ecological communities: historical and geographical perspective.
The University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
350. Scott, P. (1957): A colour key of the wild fowl of the world. The wild fowl trust.
Slimbridge.
351. Shahabuddin, G., Kumar, R. and Verma, A. (2006): Annotated checklist of the birds of
Sariska Tiger Reserve, Rajasthan. Indian Birds, Vol. 2(3): 71 – 76.
352. Shamoun, J. (1994): The structure of downy barbules of bird feathers: their diagnostic
and taxonomic significance M.S. Thesis, Tel-Aviv University, Tel-Aviv, Israel.
353. Sharma, S. K. (1998): Avian Fauna of Sajjangarh Wildlife Sanctuary. Newsletter for Bird
Watchers, Vol. 38(2): 25 – 27.
354. Sharma, S. K. (1987): Munias as facultative nest parasites. J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc.,
Vol. 82(2): 444.
355. Sharma, S. K. (1995): Ornithobotany of Indian weaver birds. Himanshu Publications,

Udaipur and Delhi.
356. Sharma, S. K. (1997): Causes of destruction of nests of weaver birds in Rajasthan. J.

Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., Vol. 94 (3): 515 – 520.
357. Sharma, S. K. (2004): New sight records of Pied tit, Parus Nuchalis in Rajasthan.
J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., Vol. 101(1): 162 – 163.
358. Sharma, S. K. (1991): Plant life and weaver birds. Ph. D. Thesis, University of
Rajasthan.
359. Sharma, S. K. (1999): Presence of Southern Golden-backed Woodpecker (Dinopium

benghalensis puncticolle) in Gujari-ki-Nal Forest of Udaipur district, Rajasthan. Zoos’
Print Journal, Vol. 15(3): 231.
360. Sharma, S. K. (2000): Presence of Black-capped Blackbird (Turdus merula nigropileus

Lafresnaye) in forest of Deola Forest Range, Dist. Udaipur, Rajasthan. Zoos’ Print
Journal, Vol. 15 (12): 11.
361. Sharma, S. K. (2001): Range extension of southern Black-headed Munia

(Lonchura malacca malacca). J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., Vol. 98(2): 283.
362. Sharma, S.K. (2005). Birding in Banswara. Foundation for Ecological Security, Anand,
Gujarat: 1 – 91.
363. Sharma, S. K. (2007): Study of Biodiversity and Ethnobiology of Phulwari Wildlife

Sanctuary, Udaipur (Rajasthan). Ph. D. Thesis, Mohanlal Sukhadia University, Udaipur.
364. Sharma, S. K. and Tehsin, R. (1994): Birds of Southern Rajasthan. Newsletter for Bird
Watchers, Vol. 34(5): 109 – 113.
365. Shochat, E. and Tsurim, I. (2004): Winter bird communities in the Northern Negv:
Species dispersal patterns, habitat use and implications for habitat conservation.
Biodiversity and conservation, Vol. 13(8): 1571 – 1590.
366. Simms, E. (1992): British Larks, Pipits and Wagtails. London: Harper Collins Publishers.
367. Simpson, G. G. (1964): Species density of North American recent mammals. Syst. Zool.,
Vol. 13: 57 – 73.
368. Singhji, M. K. (1968a): Some interesting migrants in Kutch. J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc.,
Vol. 65: 255.
369. Sites, J. W. Jr., and Crandall, K. A. (1997): Testing species boundaries in biodiversity
studies. Cons. Biol., Vol. 11: 1289 – 1297.
370. Sivakumaran, N. and Thiyagesan, K. (2003): Population, Diurnal activity patterns and
feeding ecology of the Indian Roller (Coracias benghalensis), Vol. 18(5): 1091 – 1095.
371. Sivaperuman, C. and Jayson, E. A. (2000): Birds of kole wetlands, Thrissur, Kerala.
Zoos’ Print Journal, Vol. 15(10): 344 – 349.
372. Sivaperuman, C., Kumar, S. and Rathore, N. S (2004): Avifauna of desert regional
station Zoological Survey of India campus, Jodhpur, Rajasthan, Zoos’ Print Journal, Vol.
19(12): 1718 – 1719.
373. Smith, J. K. (2001): Selection and use of aquatic vegetation by migratory waterfowl in
north central Texas. Masters thesis, University of North Texas.
374. Snyder, H. (2001): Hawks and Allies. In: The Sibley Guide to Bird Life and Behavior
(Elphick, C., Dunning, J. and Sibley, D., Eds.). New York: Alfred A. Knopf, Inc. pp 212 –
224.
375. Sonerud, G. A. (1985): Nest hole shift in Tengmalm's Owl Aegolius funereus as defence
against nest predation involving long-term memory in the predator. Journal of Animal
Ecology, Vol. 54: 179 – 192.
376. Soni, R. G. (1994): Checklist of birds of Indira Gandhi Nahar Project, Stage II
(Rajasthan), Vol. 29: 929 – 935.
377. Sridharan, U. (1989): Comparative ecology of resident ducks in Keoladeo National Park,
Bharatpur, Rajasthan, Ph. D. Thesis, Bombay University, Bombay.
378. Srinivasulu, B., Srinivasulu, C., Rao, V. V., Koteshwarulu, C. and Nagulu, V. (1997):
Avian use of paddy agro-ecosystem. Pavo, Vol. 35(1 and 2): 75 – 84.
379. Steadman, D. W. (1988): Vertebrates from the late quaternary Hiscock site, Genese
County, New York. Late Pleistocene and Early Holocene Paleoecology and Archeology
of the eastern Great Lake Region. (Laub, R. S., Miller, N. G. and Steadman, D. W. Eds.).
Bulletin of the Buffalo Society of Natural Science 33. Buffalo Society of Natural
Science, Buffalo, New York: 95 – 113.
380. Stickland, M. J. and Jenner, J. C. (1977): A report on the birds of Maldives. J. Bombay
Nat. Hist. Soc., Vol. 74(3): 487 – 500.
381. Stockely, C. H. (1922-23): Notes on ducks in the Rawalpindi district. J. Bombay Nat.
Hist. Soc., Vol. 28: 548.
382. Strong-Cvetich, J. N. (2007): Ecotourism in post-conflict: A new tool for reconciliation.

Monterey Institute of International Studies. (http://www. iipt.org/Africa2007).
383. Sudgen, L. G. (1973): Feeding ecology of pintail, gadwall, American wigeon and lesser
scaup ducklings in southern Alberta, Can. Wild. Sev. Report series, Number 24.
384. Sundaramoorthy, T. (1991): Ecology of terrestrial birds in Keoladeo National Park,

Bharatpur, Ph. D. Thesis, Bombay University, Bombay.
385. Takacs, D. (1996): The idea of Biodiversity: Philosophies of Paradise. The John Hopkins
University Press. Baltimore, MD.
386. Tehsin, R. (1989): Faunal history of Fatehsagar lake, Udaipur. In “Wetland

Conservation” (Vyas, L. N. and Garg, R. K., Eds.) Environment Community Center,
Udaipur Publications: 110 – 117.
387. Tehsin, R. H. (1993): An unusual nesting of a Grey Partridge (Francolinus

pondicerianus). J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., Vol. 90: 91 – 92.
388. Tehsin, R. H. (1982a): Collective defensive strategy in Blue Rock Pigeon (Columba
livia). J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., Vol. 79(2): 414.
389. Tehsin, R. H. (1982b): Unusual nesting of Redwattled Lapwing (Vanellus indicus). J.

Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., Vol. 79: 414.
390. Tehsin, R. H. (1987): Migrating Demoiselle Cranes (Anthropoides virgo). Tiger Paper: 26
391. Tehsin, R. H. (1989): Faunal history of Fatehsagar Lake, Udaipur. In: “WETLAND
CONSERVATION”. (Vyas, L. N. and Garg, R. K., Eds.): 109 – 117.
392. Tehsin, R. H. (2002): Jungle Crow (Corvus macrorhynchos) and its ingenuity with dry
roti. J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., Vol. 99(1): 117 – 118.
393. Tehsin, R. H. and Lokhandwala, J. (1983): Unusual nesting of Redwattled Lapwing

(Vanellus indicus). J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., Vol. 79(2): 414.
394. The Nature Conservancy (1983): Natural heritage program operations manual, Virginia,
USA.
395. Thiollay, J. M. (1994): Family Accipitridae (hawks and eagles) In: Handbook of the Birds
of the World. Vol. 2. New World Vultures to Guineafowl. (del Hoyo, J., Elliott, A. and
Sargatal, J., Eds.) Barcelona: Lynx Editions: 52 – 105.
396. Thiollay, J. M. (2000): Vultures in India. Vulture News, Vol. 42: 36 – 38.
397. Thirumurthi, S. and Balaji, S. (1997): Avifauna of the forest college and research institute
campus, Mettupalayam, Tamil Nadu. Zoos’ Print Journal, Vol. 12: 24 – 26.
398. Thiyagesan, K. (1991): Ecology of cavity nesting birds in and around Mayiladuthurai,
Tamil Nadu, South India. Ph. D. Thesis, Bharathidarsan University, Thiruchirappalli
(unpublished).
399. Thompson, F. R. and Fritzell, E. K. (1990): Bird densities and diversity in clear-
cut and mature oak-hickory forest. USDA Forest Service, Res. Pap. NC-293, St.
Paul, Minn: 7.
400. Thornhill, C. M. (1916): Some notes on game birds of Mesopotamia. J. Bombay Nat.
401. Threatened Birds in Asia: Birdlife International Red Data Book. Part A. (2001):
Cambridge, U. K. Birdlife International: 1516.
402. Threatened Birds of World (2000): Birdlife International and Lynx Editions, Cambridge,
U. K. and Barecelona,Spain. Pp 852.
403. Ticehurst, C. B. (1926): On the down plumage of some Indian Birds. J. Bombay Nat.
404. Ticehurst, C. B. (1922-24): The birds of Sind. Ibis (8 parts).
405. Tiwari, J. K. and Rahmani, A. R. (1996): Current status and nesting behaviour of the
White-winged black Tit (Parus nuchalis) in Kutch, Gujarat, India. Forktail, Vol. (12): 95 –
102.
406. Tiwari, J. K. (2001): Status and distribution of White-naped tit Parus nuchalis in Gujarat
and Rajasthan. J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., Vol. 98(1): 26 – 30.
407. Tryjanowski, P. (1995): The composition and dynamics of wintering bird community in an
agricultural area of western Poland. Acta Ornithologica, Vol. 30: 153 – 160.
408. UNEP (1992): Convention on Biological Diversity. United Nation‟s Environment

Programme, Nairobi.
409. Usher, Μ. Β. (1986): Wildlife conservation evaluation: attributes, criteria and values. In:
Wildlife conservation evaluation (Michael Β Usher, Ed.), London: Chapman and Hall: 3 –
44.
410. Valentine, P. S. (1991): Ecotourism and Nature Conservation: A definition with some
recent developments in Micronesia. In: Ecotourism incorporating the Global Classroom.
(Weiler, B., Ed.) International Conference Papers: 4 - 9 Bureau of Tourism Research.
Canberra, Australia.
411. Van der Pijl, L. (1972): Principles of Dispersal in Higher Plants. Springer- Verlag, New
York.
412. Verbeek, N. and Hendricks, P. (1994): American Pipit (Anthus rubescens). In: The Birds
of North America, (Poole, A. and Gill, F. Eds.), Vol. 95. The Academy of Natural
Sciences, Philadelphia, and The American Ornithologist's Union, Washington, D. C.
413. Verner, J., Morrison, M. L. and Ralph, C. J. (1986): Wildlife 2000. University Wisconsin
Press, Madison: 470.
414. Vijayan and Singh, A. (2002): Studies on impact of tourism on Gir protected area
Junagadh, Gujarat. Gujarat Forestry Project: 41.
415. Vijayan, V. S. (1993): The comparative ecology of the Pheasant-tailed and Bronze-
winged Jacana in Keoladeo National Park, Bharatpur, Rajasthan. Ph. D. Thesis of
Bombay University, Bombay.*
416. Vitousek, P. M., Mooney, H. A., Lubchenco, J., and Melillo, J. M. (1997): Human
domination of Earth‟s Ecosystems. Science, Vol. 277: 494 – 499.
417. Voous, K. H. (1950): Atlas of European birds. Amesterdam: 188.
418. Vyas, R. (1992): Checklist of the Birds of Kota district in South-east Rajasthan.
Newsletter for Bird Watchers, Vol. 32(11 and 12): 8 – 10.
419. Vyas, R. (2002): Status of Sarus Crane (Grus antigone) in Rajasthan and its ecological
requirements. Zoo’s Print Journal, Vol. 17(2): 691 – 695.
420. Wadatkar, J. S. (2001): Checklist of birds from Amaravati University Campus,

Maharashtra. Zoos’ Print Journal, Vol. 16(5): 497 – 499.
421. Ward, F. P. and Laybourne, R. C. (1985): A difference in prey selection by adult and
immature Peregrine falcons during autumn migration. ICBP. Tech. Publ., Vol. 5: 303 –
309.
422. Watson, R. (2000): Vultures in crisis. Peregrine Fund, Newsletter, Vol. 31: 20 – 21.
423. Webb, W. L., Behrend, D. F. and Saisorn, B. (1977): Effect of logging on songbird
populations in a northern hardwood forest. Wildlife Monographs, Vol. 55: 35.
424. Wenny, D. G. (1999): Two stages dispersal of Gnarrea glabra and G. kunthiana
(Meliaceae) in Monteverde, Costa Rica. J. Trop. Ecol., Vol. 15: 481 – 496.
425. Wenny, D. G. (2000): Seed dispersal, seed predation, and seedling recruitment of a
neotropical montane tree. Ecol. Mono., Vol. 70: 331 – 351.
426. Wenny, D. G. and Levey, D. J. (1998): Directed seed dispersal by bellbirds in a tropical
cloud forest. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, USA, Vol. 95: 6204 –
6207.
427. Whistler, H. (1938): Ornithological survey of Jodhpur state. J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc.,
Vol. 40: 213 – 235.
428. Whitcomb, K., Klimkiewicz, and D. Bystrak. (1981). Effects of forest fragmentation on
avifauna of the eastern deciduous forest. Pp. 125 – 205. In: Forest island dynamics in
man-dominated landscapes (Burgess, R. L. and Sharpe, D. M. Eds.). Springer-Verlag,
New York, NY.
429. White, W. M. and Malaher, G. W. (1964): Reservoir Waterfowl tomorrow. (Linduska, J.

P. ed.), U.S. Dept. Inter., Washington, DC: 381 – 389.
430. Whitney, K. D., Fogiel, M. F., Lamperti, A. M., Holbrook, K. M., Stauffer, D. J., Hardesty,
B. D., Parker, V. T. and Smith, T. B. ( 1998): Seed dispersal by Ceratogymna hornbill in
the Dja Reserve, Cameroon. J. Trop. Ecol., Vol. 14: 351 – 371.
431. Whittaker, R. H. (1972): Evolution and measurement of species diversity, Taxon, Vol. 21:
213 – 251.
432. Wiens, J. A. (1989): The Ecology of Bird Communities. Vol. I: Foundations and Patterns.
Cambridge University Press.
433. Wilson, E. O. and Peter, F. M. (1988): Biodiversity. National Academy Press.

Washington, D.C.
434. Witherby, H. F., Jourdain, F. C. R., Ticehurst, N. F. and Tucker, B. W. (1938-41): The
handbook of British bird. Vol.5, H. F, G. Witherby, London.
435. Woodcock, M. W. (1980): Collins Hand Guide to the Birds of the Indian Subcontinent.
William Collins Sons and Co. Ltd. , London.
436. WRI/IUCN/UNEP (1992): Global biodiversity strategy: Guidelines for save, study and
use Earth‟s biotic wealth for action to save sustainably and equitably. World Resources
Institute, Washington; World Conservation Union, Gland, Switzerland and the United
Nation‟s Environmental Programme, Nairobi.
437. Yasmin, S. (1995): Ecology and biology of the Indian Peafowl (Pavo cristatus) in Aligarh
region. Ph. D. Thesis of Aligarh Muslim University.*
438. Zacharias, V. J. (1978): Ecology and Biology of certain species of Indian Babblers
(Turdoides spp.) in Malabar, Ph. D. Thesis, Calicut University.
439. Zahavi, A. (1977): The function of pre-roosting and communal roost. Ibis, Vol. 113: 106 –
109.
440. Zewart, L. (1976): Density related processes in feeding dispersion and feeding activity of
Teal (Anas crecca). Ardea, Vol. 64: 192 – 209.
* Only summary of the thesis seen
Websites visited:
1. www.wikipedia.org
2 www.birdlife.org
3. www.amazon.com
4. www.jaxzoo.org
5. www.ecoindia.com
6. http://animal-world.com
7. http://animaldiversity.ummz
8. http://zipcodezoo.com
9. www.seaworldadventurepark.info
10. www.absoluteastronomy.com
11. www.wvu.edu
12. www.zipcode.zoo

DR - KARNIKA JANI Full Thesis 301 Pages Jun-16 PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

DR - KARNIKA JANI Full Thesis 301 Pages Jun-16 PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

International Journal of Education & Applied Sciences Research, Vol.

“STUDY OF AVIAN DIVERSITY OF SAJJANGARH WILDLIFE SANCTUARY”

NAME- DR.KARNIKA JANI

PRESENT POST- LECTURER ZOOLOGY

COLLEGE- S.P.U.P.G.COLLEGE, FALNA, PALI (RAJASTHAN)

THESIS/DESERTATION- THESIS OF PH.D

SUBJECT/AREA- WILDLIFE AND BIODIVERSITY (SCIENCE)

UNDER GUIDENCE- DR.CHHAYA BHATNAGAR

UNIVERSITY NAME - MOHANLAL SUKHADIA UNIVERSITY, UDAIPUR

COLLEGE NAME - COLLEGE OF SCIENCE, UDAIPUR

PH.D AWARDED YEAR- 2009

CHAPTER TITLE PAGE

1. General Introduction 1-17

2. Review of Literature 18-35

3. Material and Methods 36-45

4. Avian Diversity 46-87

5. Habitat Preference of Birds in and around 88-155

6. Study of Microscopic Structure of Bird feather 156-174

7. Threatened Birds of Sajjangarh IBA 175-210

8. Ecotourism and its impact on Avian Diversity 211-239

9. Management of Sajjangarh Wildlife 240-249

10. Summary 250-257

11. Literature cited 258-291

Table No. Title Page No.

1. Approximate number of known species in various taxa 12

3. Comparative numbers of animal species found in India and 16

4 Checklist of terrestrial birds in and around Sajjangarh Wildlife 58

5. Aquatic bird diversity of Lake Bari, Udaipur 65

6. Comparative details of present study and that of Sharma 68

7. Comparative analysis of avian-diversity of Sajjangarh Wildlife 82

8. Records of vultures seen in and around the sanctuary 89

9. Identification of nightjars by their vocalization 91

10. Colour patterns of three subspecies of variable wheatear 93

11. Identification of various habitat types of Sajjangarh Wildlife 101

12. The altitude wise distribution of birds in SWLS 106

13. Habitat preference of birds in and around SWLS 118

14. Habitat preference of the birds according to their guild 132

Table No. Title Page No.

15. Feeding habit of aquatic birds of Lake Bari 143

16. Habitat preference of aquatic birds in the lake ecosystem 150

17. Macroscopic characters of feathers 172

18. Microscopic feather characteristics of some birds 174

19. Conservation status of Terrestrial Birds 181

20. Conservation status of aquatic birds 191

21. Monthly variation in tourist traffic at SWLS 219

22. Revenue generated by tourists at SWLS (last eight years) 220

23. Season-wise tourist activity in various zones of the sanctuary 221

25. Analysis of negative impacts of ecotourism in and around the 236

PLATE TITLE TITLE

Plate 1.1 SAJJANGARH WILDLIFE SANCTUARY

Plate 3.1 STUDY AREA

Plate 3.2 MAP OF SAJJANGARH WILDLIFE SANCTUARY SHOWING ZONATION

Plate 4.1 TERRESTRIAL AND ARBOREAL BIRDS IN AND AROUND OF

Plate 4.2 AQUATIC BIRDS IN AND AROUND OF SAJJANGARH WILDLIFE

Plate 5.1 HABITAT VARIATIONS OF SWLS

Plate 5.2 HABITAT VARIATIONS OF SWLS

Plate 6.1 MACROSCOPIC AND MICROSCOPIC ANALYSIS OF AQUATIC BIRD

Plate 6.2 MACROSCOPIC AND MICROSCOPIC ANALYSIS OF TERRESTRIAL

Plate 7.1 WATER HOLES IN SAJJANGARH

Plate 7.2 MANAGERIAL ASPECTS OF SANCTUARY

Plate 8.1 SITES OF INTEREST OF ECO-TOURIST IN SWLS

Plate 8.2 SITES OF INTEREST OF ECO-TOURIST IN SWLS