Biodiversity and Conservation

, Volume 23, Issue 3, pp 727–740 | Cite as

Shorebird assemblages respond to anthropogenic stress by altering habitat use in a wetland in India

  • K. M. Aarif
  • S. B. Muzaffar
  • S. Babu
  • P. K. Prasadan
Original Paper

Abstract

Shorebirds are globally experiencing declines due to habitat loss and anthropogenic disturbance. The Central Asian Flyway hosts significant shorebirds that winter in the Indian subcontinent. The current study examined the shorebird assemblages of Kadalundi-Vallikkunnu Community Reserve, an internationally important estuarine wetland in southwestern India, to determine changes in their assemblages in relation to habitat alterations. We conducted point counts from 2005 to 2012 in mudflats, mangroves, sandy beaches and shallow water areas in Kadalundi-Vallikkunnu Community Reserve. This study measured physicochemical variables as a proxy for anthropogenic change experienced as a result of rapidly increasing human populations combined with development. We examined rainfall data during the study period to determine associations with shorebird abundance. Stepwise linear regression showed that total nitrogen and rainfall were significantly related to shorebird abundance (bird count = 306 + 213 NO3—1.13 rainfall, F = 31.20, p < 0.001). High rainfall in a given year (one-way ANOVA F = 19.91, p < 0.001) and the previous year resulted in lower shorebird counts (one-way ANOVA F = 16.01, p < 0.001). Shorebirds declined during the study period and habitat use shifted significantly from mangroves and mudflats to sandy beaches (one-way ANOVA, F = 2.18, p = 0.034). Shorebirds also exhibited a gradual decline in diversity. We conclude that altered nutrient content in this wetland resulted in changes in the prey base in the four habitat types. Shorebirds responded to these changes by increasing the use of less preferred habitat (sandy beaches). The anthropogenic influences on the wetland are large (waste disposal, sand mining, disturbance due to development) and continued pressure may result in further decline of shorebird assemblages. The results from this study indicate that certain anthropogenic disturbances, such as waste disposal and sand mining, should be reduced to maintain and improve the integrity of this wetland.

Keywords

Shorebird decline Community reserve Habitat loss India Anthropogenic pressure Estuary 

Notes

Acknowledgments

Authors are thankful to Kerala State Forest Department for Granting research permission for our study. Financial support for the study was obtained from Moulana Azad National fellowship from University Grant Commission, New Delhi, India. SB acknowledges director Salim Ali Centre for Ornithology and Natural History for the logistic support. We are also thankful to local authorities of Kadalundi for their support in the field.

References

  1. Aarif KM (2009) Some aspects of feeding ecology of the Lesser Sand Plover Charadriusmongolusin three different zones in the Kadalundi Estuary, Kerala, South India. Podoces 4(2):100–107Google Scholar
  2. Aarif KM, Prasadan PK, Babu S (2011) Conservation significance of the Kadalundi-Vallikkunnu Community Reserve. Curr Sci 101(6):717–718Google Scholar
  3. Acosta M, Mugica L, Blanco D, Lopez-Lanus B, Antunes Dias R, Doodnath LW, Hurtado J (2010) Birds of rice fields in the Americas. Waterbirds 33(suppl):105–122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. APHA (2005) Standard methods for the examination of water and waste water, 21st edn. American Public Health Association, Washington, p 125Google Scholar
  5. Balachandran S (2006) The decline in wader populations along the east coast of India with special reference to Point Calimere, south-east India. In: Boere GC, Galbraith CA, Stroud DA (eds) Waterbirds around the world. The Stationery Office, Edinburgh, pp 296–301Google Scholar
  6. Burger J (1984) Behavior of marine animals: shorebirds: breeding behavior and populations. In: Burger J, Olla BL (eds) Shorebirds as marine animals, vol 5. Plenum Press, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Burger J, Niles L, Clark KE (1997) Importance of beach mudflat and marsh habitats to migrant shorebirds on Delaware Bay. Biol Cons 79:283–292CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Butchart SHM, Walpole M, Collen B, Van Strien A, Jörn PW et al (2010) Global biodiversity indicators of recent declines. Science 328:1164–1168PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Connors PG, Myers JP, Connors CSW, Pitelka FA (1981) Interhabitat movements by Sanderlings in relation to foraging profitability and the tidal cycle. Auk 98:49–64Google Scholar
  10. Convention on Migratory Species (2005) Central Asian flyway action plan for the conservation of migratory waterbirds and their habitats. United Nations Environmental Program, New DelhiGoogle Scholar
  11. Dawson TP, Jackson ST, House JI, Prentice IC, Mace GM (2011) Beyond predictions biodiversity conservation in a changing climate. Science 332:53–59PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Drake KR, Thompson JE, Drake KL, Zonick C (2001) Movements, habitat use and survival of nonbreeding piping plovers. Condor 103:259–267CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Flynn DFB, Gogol-Prokurat M, Nogeire T, Molinari N, Richers BT, Lin BB, Simpson N, Mayfield MM, DeClerck F (2009) Loss of functional diversity under land use intensification across multiple taxa. Ecol Let 12:22–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gopal B, Chauhan M (2001) South Asian wetlands and their biodiversity: the role of monsoons. In: Gopal B, Junk WJ, Davis JA (eds) Biodiversity in wetlands: assessment, function and conservation, vol 2. Backhuys Publishers, Leiden, pp 257–276Google Scholar
  15. Grimmett R, Inskipp C, Inskipp T (1999) Birds of Indian subcontinent. Oxford University Press, New Delhi, p 384Google Scholar
  16. Hammer Ø, Harper DAT, Ryan PD (2001) PAST: paleontological statistics software package for education and data analysis. Palaeontol Electron 4(1):9Google Scholar
  17. Heip C (1995) Eutrophication and zoobenthos dynamics. Ophelia 41:113–136Google Scholar
  18. Hoves, Bakewell JG (1989) Shorebird studies manual. AWB Publication, Kuala Lumpur, p 362Google Scholar
  19. Huettmann F, Czech B (2006) The steady state economy for global shorebird and habitat conservation. End Spec Res 2:89–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. International Wader Study Group (2003) Waders are declining worldwide, Conclusions from the 2003 International Wader Study Group Conference, Cádiz, SpainGoogle Scholar
  21. Kannan V, Pandiyan J (2012) Shorebirds (Charadriidae) of Pulicat Lake, India with special reference to conservation. World J Zool 7(3):178–191Google Scholar
  22. Krebs CJ (1989) Ecological methodology. Harper and Row Publishers, New York, p 654Google Scholar
  23. Kumar A, Sati JP, Tak PC, Alfred JRB (2005) Handbook of Indian wetland birds and their conservation. Zoological Survey of India, Kolkata, p 468Google Scholar
  24. Kurup DN (1991a) Ecology of the birds of Malabar Coast and Lakshadweep. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Calicut, Calicut, p 262Google Scholar
  25. Kurup DN (1991b) Migrant shorebirds in estuarine habitats with reference to Kadalundi-Bharathapuzhaestuaries. In: Proceedings of the third Kerala science congress, Kozhikode, pp 31–32Google Scholar
  26. Lafferty KD (2001) Birds at a Southern California beach: seasonality, habitat use and disturbance by human activity. Biod Cons 10:1949–1962CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Li WD, Mundkur T (2007) Numbers and distribution of waterbirds and wetlands in the Asia-Pacific region: results of the Asian waterbird census 2002–2004. Wetlands International, Kuala LumpurGoogle Scholar
  28. Long LL, Ralph CJ (2001) Dynamics of habitat use by shorebirds in estuarine and agricultural habitats in northwestern California. Wilson Bull 113:41–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Manikannan R, Asokan S, Samsoor Ali AM (2012) Abundance and factors affecting population characteristics of waders (Charadriiformes) in great vedaranyam swamp of point calimere wildlife sanctuary, south-east coast of India. Int J Ecosyst 2(1):6–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Message S, Taylor D (2005) Waders of Europe, Asia and North America. A&C Black Publishers, London, p 224Google Scholar
  31. Morrison IG, Harrington BA (1979) Critical shorebird resources in James Bay and eastern North America. Trans N Am Wildl Conf 44:498–507Google Scholar
  32. Muzaffar SB, Ahmed FA (2007) The effects of the flood cycle on the diversity and composition of the phytoplankton community of a seasonally flooded Ramsar wetland in Bangladesh. Wetl Ecol Manag 15:81–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Nagarajan R, Thiyagesan K (1996) Waterbirds and substrate quality of Pichavaram wetlands, Southern India. Ibis 138:710–721Google Scholar
  34. Newton I (2008) The migration ecology of birds. Academic Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
  35. Pardal MA, Marques JC, Metelo I, Lillebo AI, Flindt MR (2000) Impact of eutrophication on the life cycle, population dynamics and production of Ampithoevalida (Amphipoda) along an estuarine spatial gradient (Mondego estuary, Portugal). Mar Ecol Prog Ser 196:207–219CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Peirsma T, Lindstrom A (2004) Migrating shorebirds as integrative sentinels of global environmental change. Ibis 146((suppl)):61–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Prasad SN, Ramachandra TV, Ahalya N, Sengupta T, Kumar A, Tiwari AK, Vijayan VS, Vijayan L (2002) Conservation of wetlands of India: a review. Trop Ecol 43:173–186Google Scholar
  38. Radhakrishnan C, Gopi KC, Palot MJ (2006) Occasional paper No 246 Records of Zoological Survey of India. Mangroves and their faunal associates in Kerala. Zoological Survey of India, Calicut, Kerala, pp 81Google Scholar
  39. Recher H (1966) Some aspects of the ecology of migrant shorebirds. Ecology 47:393–407CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Ribeiro PD, Iribarne OO, Navarro D, Juareguy L (2004) Environmental heterogeneity, spatial segregation of prey, and the utilization of southwest Atlantic mudflats by migratory shorebirds. Ibis 146:672–682CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Sandilyan S, Thiyagesan K, Nagarajan R (2010) Major decline in species-richness of waterbirds in the Pichavaram mangrove wetlands, southern India. Wader Study Group Bull 117(2):91–98Google Scholar
  42. Sokal RR, Rohlf FJ (2012) Biometry. W. H. Freeman, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  43. Stroud DA, Baker A, Blanco DE, Davidson NC (2006) The conservation and population status of the world’s waders at the turn of the millennium. In: Boere GC, Galbraith CA, Stroud DA et al (eds) Waterbirds around the world. The Stationery Office, Edinburgh, pp 643–648Google Scholar
  44. Sundar KSG, Subramanya SS (2010) Bird use of rice fields in the Indian subcontinent. Waterbirds 33(Suppl):44–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Uthaman PK, Namasivayan L (1991) The birdlife of Kadalundi sanctuary and its conservation. Proceeding of Kerala science congress, Kozhikode, pp 37–39Google Scholar
  46. Warnock SE, Takekawa JY (1995) Habitat preferences of wintering shorebirds in a temporally changing environment: western sandpipers in the SFB estuary. Auk 112:920–930CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • K. M. Aarif
    • 1
  • S. B. Muzaffar
    • 2
  • S. Babu
    • 3
  • P. K. Prasadan
    • 1
  1. 1.Research Department of ZoologyMary Matha Arts and Science CollegeWayanad DistrictIndia
  2. 2.Department of BiologyUnited Arab Emirates UniversityAl AinUnited Arab Emirates
  3. 3.Ornithology DivisionSálim Ali Centre for Ornithology and Natural HistoryCoimbatoreIndia

Personalised recommendations