Avian Ecol. Behav. 23, 2013: 1–11

Effect of anthropogenic factors on the abundance of Galliformes in Sariska Tiger Reserve, Rajasthan, India

Zaara Kidwai

Abstract: Z. Kidwai (2013): Effect of anthropogenic factors on the abundance of Galliformes in Sariska Tiger Reserve, Rajasthan, India. Avian Ecol. Behav. 23: 3–11.

Effect of anthropogenic factors against encounter rates of the five species of Galliformes was analyzed in the Sariska Tiger Reserve, Rajasthan, NW India, from February to May 2009. Sixteen transects, ranging from 1.8 to 2 km in length, were laid throughout the 80 km² study area covering all the available habitat types. At each sighting of the target species, 10 m radius circular plots were laid to enumerate degree of various anthropogenic factors making a total of 706 plots throughout the study period. These factors were quantified at each plot in a scale of 0 to 4 (0-none and 4-very high). Multivariate regression was used to estimate the probable relation amongst various anthropogenic factors with the target species on all transects in Soft-ware R. The models for each species were selected based on lowest AIC value. It was found that the variables show significant relation with the target species and explain 79%, 67%, 66%, 62%, and 55% of variability in Peafowl, Grey Francolin, Painted Spurfowl, Rain Quail and Jungle Bush Quail, respectively.

Key words: Anthropogenic factors; encounter rate; Galliformes; Sariska; transects

Address: The Corbett Foundation, Village and P.O. Dhikuli, Ramnagar – 244715, India. E-mail: zaarakidwai@gmail.com

Received: Received: 4 August 2012 / Received in revised form 21 December 2012 / Accepted 5 January 2013.

1. Introduction

According to the previous literature, about 19 Galliformes species are reported to be present in the arid and semi-arid regions of India (Ali & Ripley 1987, Grimmett et al. 1998). Of these, Rain Quail Coturnix coromandelica is the only species known to occur in all states throughout the arid and semi-arid regions (Kalsi 2007, Kidwai et al., 2011). Grey Francolin Francolinus pondicerianus and Indian Peafowl Pavo cris-tatus are also known to occur in moist and dry deciduous forests throughout India,

AVIAN ECOLOGY AND BEHAVIOURPROCEEDINGS OF THE BIOLOGICAL STATION

“RYBACHY”

Volume 23 2013

2Avian Ecologyand BehaviourZ. Kidwai. Anthropogenic factors effecting Galliformes of Sariska

while Black Francolin Francolinus francolinus is found in a range of different habitat types throughout northern, western and central regions (Ali & Ripley 1987). Paint-ed Spurfowl Galloperdix lunulata is endemic to India as its distribution lies entirely in the central, western and southern parts of the arid and semi-arid zones (Kalsi 2007, Kidwai et al., 2011). Along with these, two other Galliform species found in Sariska are Red Spurfowl Galloperdix spadicea and Jungle Bush Quail Perdicula asi-atica (Sankar et al. 2003, Kidwai et al. 2011).

The effects of extraction on vegetation structure, mainly canopy cover, tree den-sity, and tree height, change bird community composition in Sariska (Kumar & Sha-habuddin 2006). Since Galliformes are commonly occurring and widely distributed, their conservation is being neglected (Ramesh et al. 2009).

Despite enforcement of the law, it appears that Galliformes are harvested in pockets throughout their respective ranges at will, for subsistence and also for trade. They are also extracted for cultural reasons (Hilaluddin et al. 2005b), wild meat be-ing referred to as ‘superior’ to the meat from domestic animals (Hilaluddin 2005a) and is recorded as “tastier” by the respondents (Hilaluddin 2005b, c). In open wild meat markets Galliformes are sold at 2 to 3 times the price of a poultry fowl. In re-mote villages, Galliformes and other wild animals constitute a free resource, which is also exploited for trade (Hilaluddin 2006).

Very little is known regarding the abundance of these different Galliformes and even fewer details are available regarding patterns of habitat use by these species (Kid-wai et al. 2011). The present study aims to (1) throw some light on the abundance of some indicator species like Galliformes against increasing human pressure in a protect-ed area (2) to highlight the conservation importance of target species in the study area.

2. Study Area

The Sariska Tiger Reserve, spread over an area of 881 km2, is located in the Ara-valli Hills (27°05´–27°33´N, 79°17´–76°34´E). It consists of two distinct zones (Sha-habuddin & Kumar 2006; Kidwai et al. 2011): the 274 km2 National Park and the 607 km2 Sanctuary (Fig. 1) (Kidwai et al. 2011). The climate is subtropical, characterised by distinct winter, summer, monsoon and post-monsoon seasons. Winter commences from November during which the temperature can be as low as 3 °C, and average annual rainfall is 650 mm. The Sariska terrain is undulating to hilly and there are nu-merous narrow valleys (Sankar 1994). The dominant vegetation is Northern tropical dry deciduous forests and Northern Tropical Thorn forest (Champion & Seth 1986). Anogeissus pendula is the dominant tree species that covers approximately 40% of the forest habitat. Boswellia serreta and Lannea coromandelica grow largely on rocky patches, Albizia lebbeck, Diospyros melanoxylon, Holoptepia integrifolia and Ficus sp. are dominant plant species in moist localities (Sankar 1994).

There are 10 villages in the Core Zone I of Sariska Tiger reserve which are still due for relocation since 1984 (Sankar et al. 2009). The total human population in these villages is approximately 3000 (Shahabuddin et al. 2007). One village Bhagani has already been successfully relocated in November 2008 (Sankar et al. 2009). People living in these villages mostly belong to the Gujjar community, traditionally depend-

3Z. Kidwai. Anthropogenic factors effecting Galliformes of Sariska232013

Figure 1. Location of Sariska Tiger Reserve. I – Core Zone I is National Park, other parts of Reserve, including zones II and III – are sanctuaries.

4Avian Ecologyand BehaviourZ. Kidwai. Anthropogenic factors effecting Galliformes of Sariska

ent on livestock for milk-production economy, along with the Meenas inhabiting some villages. The overall livestock population comprised of 2643 buffaloes, 896 cows, 6160 goats and 234 sheep in all the 10 villages of Core Zone I (Sankar et al. 2009). The pres-ent study aims to determine the degree of deleterious effects of anthropogenic factors on the population of various Galliform species found in Sariska Tiger Reserve along with providing feasible conservative measures to safeguard such indicator species.

3. Methods

Surveys were conducted from February to May 2009, within the 80 km² na-tional park (Fig. 1), which was divided into four sections (Fig. 2) for the purposes of the study. Within each section we laid on line transects, ranging in length from 1.8 to 2 km and covering all major vegetation and terrain types representative of the national park. Following methods were adopted to calculate different parameter:

I. For estimating the encounter rate of Galliformes, each transect was walked three times before noon (8:00–12:00) and late afternoon / evening (16:00–18:30 hrs). For each contact, observers recorded the number of individuals sighted/heard of each Galliform species. Based on the total sightings/calls obtained from all line tran-sects the number of individuals per kilometer was calculated for the five Galliformes recorded during the study.

II. To obtain the effect of various anthropogenic factors such as wood cut-ting, lopping, grazing, human trails, and livestock dung, at each sighting on the line transects, 10 m radius circular plots were laid. These factors were quantified at each plot in a scale of 0 to 4 (0–none, 1–low, 2–medium, 3–high and 4–very high).

1 = Low (Less than 25%)2 = Medium (25%–50%)3 = High (50%–75%)4 = Very high (Above 75%)Thus, a total of 706 sampling plots were laid in the intensive study area to es-

timate the above mentioned parameters for evaluating the degree of human distur-bance and its effect on the encounter rates of Galliformes.

Several models were generated through multiple regression (Zar 2009) in Soft-ware “R” (R Development Core Team 2006) to determine the relation between en-counter rates of various Galliformes and different disturbance variables. Based on the lowest AIC (Akaike Information Criterion) value various variables were selected against the target species for carrying out multiple regression analysis. Spearman’s rank’ correlation was also used to determine the relation between encounter rates of various Galliformes and different disturbance factors (Zar 2009).

4. Results

A total of 706 observations were noted (both sight and sound records) for the target species and the degree of respective anthropogenic factors was recorded. Vari-ous anthropogenic factors recorded from the plots laid on the transects of the study

5Z. Kidwai. Anthropogenic factors effecting Galliformes of Sariska232013

site were computed against all the target species to determine the effect of anthropo-genic factors on the respective encounter rates. Out of the five anthropogenic vari-ables considered, few were significantly correlated with each other for a species and hence, were eliminated during according to the models selected by lowest AIC value (Table 1).

To test for the significance of this relationship, the adjusted R²-values for all computations were calculated. The coefficient values calculated for Peafowl against selected variables came out to be 0.79 followed by the adjusted R² values of 0.67 for Grey Francolin, 0.66 for Painted Spurfowl, 0.62 for Rain Quail and 0.55 for Jungle Bush Quail. This means that e.g. for the Peafowl the variables chosen by the lowest AIC values determine 79% of variability in encounter rates, and the remaining 21% of variability is caused by some other factors not included in the present work. The respective adjusted R² values along with p-value can be seen in Table 1.

Figure 2. Location of study area and line transects (dashed lines).

6Avian Ecologyand BehaviourZ. Kidwai. Anthropogenic factors effecting Galliformes of Sariska

Table 1. Values of multiple linear regression coefficients (adjusted R2) for checking the rela-tion between various anthropogenic pressure (selected according to lowest AIC values) and encounter rates of target species recorded on transects during February to May 2009 in Sa-riska Tiger Reserve, Rajasthan.

S.No. Species Selected variables R2 p values AIC Value

1. PeafowlHuman trails, cattle dung, tree cutting and lopping

0.79 0.12 134.21

2. Grey FrancolinHuman trails, grazing, tree cutting, lopping, cattle dung

0.67 0.33 133.72

3.Jungle Bush Quail

Human trails, cattle dung, tree cutting

0.55 0.08 142.01

4. Rain QuailHuman trails, grazing, lopping, cattle dung

0.62 0.52 122.29

5. Painted spurfowlGrazing, tree cutting, cattle dung

0.66 0.24 140.53

Table 2. Spearman’s Rank correlation coefficient values for various anthropogenic pressure and encounter rates of target species recorded on the transect during February to May 2009 in Sariska Tiger Reserve, Rajasthan

SpeciesDisturbance factors (rs values)

Human trails Grazing Wood cutting Lopping Cattle dung

Peafowl 0.39 0.30 0.33 –0.50 0.52

Grey Francolin 0.40 0.48 0.28 –0.49 0.50

Jungle Bush Quail –0.48 –0.35 0.30 0.28 0.44

Rain Quail –0.48 0.53 0.27 0.40 0.47

Painted spurfowl 0.33 0.45 –0.40 –0.36 0.07

7Z. Kidwai. Anthropogenic factors effecting Galliformes of Sariska232013

Tab

le 3

. Ind

ivid

ual c

orre

lati

on c

oeff

icie

nt v

alue

s fo

r va

riou

s an

thro

poge

nic

fact

ors

and

enco

unte

r ra

tes

of t

arge

t sp

ecie

s al

ong

wit

h th

eir

re-

spec

tive

sta

ndar

d er

rors

(SE

) an

d co

nfid

ence

inte

rval

s (C

I) (

p<0.

05)

reco

rded

on

the

tran

sect

dur

ing

Feb

ruar

y to

May

200

9 in

Sar

iska

Tig

er

Res

erve

, Raj

asth

an.

Spec

ies

Ant

hrop

ogen

ic fa

ctor

s

Hum

an T

rails

Woo

d C

utti

ngG

razi

ngL

oppi

ngC

attl

e D

ung

Est

imat

eSE

CI

Est

imat

eSE

CI

Est

imat

eSE

CI

Est

imat

eSE

CI

Est

imat

eSE

CI

Pea

fow

l0.

390.

020.

440.

300.

040.

380.

330.

140.

63–

0.50

0.19

–0.

080.

520.

180.

91

Gre

y F

ranc

olin

0.40

0.08

0.57

0.48

0.17

0.85

0.28

0.07

0.43

–0.

490.

20–

0.04

0.50

0.20

0.94

Jung

le B

ush

Qua

il–

0.48

0.12

–0.

21–

0.35

0.10

–0.

130.

300.

050.

410.

280.

080.

460.

440.

090.

63

Rai

n Q

uail

–0.

480.

09–

0.28

0.53

0.22

1.01

0.27

0.18

0.66

0.40

0.11

0.64

0.47

0.13

0.75

Pai

nted

Spu

rfow

l0.

330.

110.

570.

450.

100.

67–

0.40

0.12

–0.

13–

0.36

0.06

–0.

220.

070.

010.

09

8Avian Ecologyand BehaviourZ. Kidwai. Anthropogenic factors effecting Galliformes of Sariska

Following graphs were obtained with respect to the data gathered while study-ing the relation of target species with different anthropogenic factors (Figs. 3 a–e.).

Some factors were more positively affecting the encounter rates of Galliformes than others (Table 3). For instance, the occurrence of the Peafowl was positively correlated with the presence of cattle dung (0.52±0.18) and negatively influenced by lopping of trees (0.50±0.19). Similar influence of the anthropogenic factors with other target species can be referred from Table 2.

5. Discussion

The present study showed that the encounter rates of the five species of Gal-liformes found in Sariska during the study period were significantly related to all an-thropogenic factors prevailing in the forest (p < 0.05). Sightings (at short distances) and call counts were used for testing for this relationship. Some variables, like human trails and grazing, explain more variability in the species abundance than others. The present study revealed that most target species, except of the Painted Spurfowl, were positively influenced by the presence of grazing in the study area. The reason for this could be that grazing pressures exposed the habitats of target species and since most of the species reside and nest in shrubs and grasses (Sathyakumar & Kalsi, 2007), they were easier to spot in those areas. However, since painted spurfowl is found usually in riverine areas (Sankar 1993; Kidwai et al. 2011), the species were being pushed out to even smaller pockets around those riverine patches so we could record the species outside our transect areas but not inside them, as previously reported by Sankar (1993).

Since quails are smaller than other Galliformes (Ali & Rilpey 1969), their habi-tats would be restricted to small patches of grassland. The presence of human trails within these patches was proven to cause a negative impact on the detection of quails (–0.48±0.12 for Jungle Bush Quail and –0.48±0.09 for Rain Quail).

The results covered most of the variables explaining the variability in the abun-dance of Galliformes in the study area, however, it can be inferred that these vari-ables are not enough to predict the effect on Galliformes completely. There are still some more external factors, not covered in this study which could have attributed to the variance of target species. Those factors may be presence of water, tree canopy, shrub cover etc.

Black Francolin Francolinus francolinus, which was once found in Karnakawas scrubland in Sariska (Sankar 1993) was never recorded during transect counts dur-ing the study period (Kidwai et al. 2011). This also implicates that the habitats of Galliformes in Sariska are shrinking to smaller pockets due to increasing human pressure around the National Park. It is now obligatory to take some important mea-sures before the current Galliform population in Sariska is completely wiped out.

Though extensive habitat destruction and hunting by humans is a cause of de-cline of Galliformes in many parts of Northern India (Hilaluddin et al. 2005b), their long-lasting relationship with humans can be utilized as a focus for conservation measures, such as habitat protection, sustainable harvesting or, if circumstances al-low, re-introduction as mentioned by World Pheasant Association (2009).

9Z. Kidwai. Anthropogenic factors effecting Galliformes of Sariska232013

Figure 3. The multiple regression graphs plotted for each species (a–e) with respect to its vari-ous anthropogenic variables se lec ted through lowest AIC values in R. Left column represents positive correlation, right column – negative correlation.

10Avian Ecologyand BehaviourZ. Kidwai. Anthropogenic factors effecting Galliformes of Sariska

Acknowledgement

I thank Rajasthan State Forest Department for granting permission to work in Sariska. I thank Dr. K Sankar, Scientist-G and Research coordinator, and Mr. Qa-mar Qureshi, Scientist-F, Wildlife Institute of India for their supervision, Subhadeep Bhattacharjee and Krishnendu Mondal, Research fellows of Wildlife Institute of India, Dehradun, for providing logistic support in the field and Ramesh, Jai Ram, Mamraj and Chhote Lal, our local assistants for their help during the field work. I thank the anonymous reviewers who reviewed the manuscript and provided me with their valuable inputs.

References

Ali S. & Ripley, S.D. 1969. Handbook of birds of India & Pakistan, Vol. 2, Oxford University press, Bombay.

Bender, D.J., Flather, C.H., Wilson, K.R. & Reese, G.C. 2005. Regional data to support biodi-versity assessments: terrestrial vertebrate and butterfly data from the Southwest. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-152. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station: 42.

Champion, H.G. & Seth, S.K. 1968. A revised survey of the forest types of India. Manager of publications, Govt., of India Press, New Delhi.

Cramp, S. & Simmons, K.E.L. (eds.). 1980. The Birds of Western Palaearctic, Vol. 2, Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Dekker, R.W.R. J., Fuller, R.A. & Baker, G.C. (eds.). 2000. Megapodes: Status Survy and Conservation Action Plan 2000–2004. World Pheasant Association, Reading, UK and IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK.

Fuller, R.A., Carroll, J.P. & Mcgowan, P.J. K. (eds.). 2000. Partridges, Quails, Francolins, Snowcocks, Guineafowl, and Turkeys. Status Survey and Conservation Action Plan 2000–2004. WPA/BirdLife/SSC Partridge, Quail, and Francolin Specialist Group. IUCN, Gland, witzerland and Cambridge, UK, and the World Pheasant Association, Reading, UK: vii + 63.

Grimmett, R., Inskipp, C. & Inskipp, T. 1998. Birds of the Indian subcontinent. Oxford Uni-versity Press, Delhi.

Hilaluddin. 2005b. Manipur: wild meat boom and wildlife bust. Central Chronicle, 17 January.Hilaluddin. 2005c. Wildmeat boom and wildlife bust. Kashmir Times, 22 January.Hilaluddin, 2006. Ecological consequences of bushmeat hunting on wildlife of the western

Indian Himalaya. U.K. Oriental Bird Club and U.S. Wildlife Conservation Society. Un-published report.

Hilaluddin, Kaul, R. & Ghose, D. 2005a. Conservation implications of wild animal biomass extractions in Northeast India. Animal and Biodiversity Conservation 28: 169–179.

Hilaluddin, Kaul, R. & Ghose, D. 2005b. Galliformes extraction and use by indigenous peo-ple of Northeast India. In: Proceedings of 3rd International Galliformes Symposium. WPA-International, U.K.: 72–76.

Kalsi, R.S. 2007. Status, distribution and management of Galliformes in Arid and Semi arid Zones of India, Galliformes of India. Envis 10(1): 101–104.

Kidwai, Z., Sankar, K., Qureshi, Q. & Khan J.A. 2011. Abundance and habitat utilisation by Galliformes in the Sariska Tiger Reserve, Rajasthan, India. International Journal of Gal-liformes Conservation 2: 54–60.

11Z. Kidwai. Anthropogenic factors effecting Galliformes of Sariska232013

Kumar, R. & Shahabuddin, G. 2006. Consequences of Rural Biomass Extraction for bird com-munities in an Indian Tropical Dry Forest and the Role of Vegetation Structure. Conser-vation and Society, 4(4): 562–591.

Madge, S. & Mcgowan, P. 2002. Pheasants, Partridges & Grouse. Helm Identification Guide, London.

R Development Core Team. R. 2006. A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. URL http://www.R-project.org. ISBN 3-900051-07-0.

Ramesh, K. & Mcgowan, P. 2009. On the current status of Indian Peafowl Pavo cristatus (Aves: Galliformes: Phasianidae): keeping the common species common, JoTT Communication 1(2): 106–108.

Sankar, K., Mohan, D. & Pandey, S. 1993. Birds of Sariska Tiger Reserve, Rajasthan, India. Forktail 8: 133–141.

Sankar, K. 1994. Painted Spurfowl (Galloperdix lunulata Valeciennes) Sariska Tiger Reserve, Rajasthan. Journal of Bombay Natural History Society 90(2): 289.

Sankar, K., Mondal, K., Worah, D., Srivastava, T., Gupta, S. & Basu, S. 2009. Ecological stud-ies in Sariska Tiger Reserve, Rajasthan. Final report. Wildlife Institue of India, Dehra-dun: 145.

Sathyakumar, S. & Kalsi, R.S. 2007. Partridges, quails, francolins, & snowcocks. In: Sathya-kumar, S. & K. Sivakumar (eds.). Galliformes of India. Envis Bulletin: Wildlife and Pro-tected Areas, 10: 3–32.

Shahabuddin, G. & Kumar, R. 2006. Influence of anthropogenic disturbance on bird com-munities in a tropical dry forest: role of vegetation structure, Animal Conservation 9: 404–413.

Shahabuddin, G., Kumar, R. & Shrivastava, M. 2007. Creation of ‘Inviolate Space’ Lives, Live-lihoods and Conflict in Sariska Tiger Reserve. Economic and Political Weekly: 1855–1862.

Silveira, L.F., Olmos, F., Bianchi, C., Simpson, J., Azeredo, R., Mcgowan, P.J.K. & Collar, N.J. 2005. Action Plan for the Conservation of the Red-billed Curassow Crax blumenbachii – a Flagship Species for the Brazilian Atlantic Forest. World Pheasant Association, Ford-ingbridge, UK and BirdLife Brasil, São Paulo, Brazil.

Van Den Berg, V. 1988. The Black Francolin in Turkey. Sandgrouse 10: 51–57.World Pheasant Association and Iucn/Ssc Re-Introduction Specialist GROUP (eds.) 2009.

Guidelines for the Re-introduction of Galliformes for Conservation Purposes. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN and Newcastle-upon-Tyne, UK: World Pheasant Association: 86.

Zar, J. H. 2009. Biostatical analysis Fourth edition. Pearson Education.