Download - Journal of Threatened Taxa

Jo u r n a l o f Th r e a t e n e d Ta x aPublished byWildlife Information Liaison Development SocietyTypeset and printed atZoo Outreach Organisation96, Kumudham Nagar, Vilankurichi Road, Coimbatore 641035, Tamil Nadu, IndiaPh: +91422 2665298, 2665101, 2665450; Fax: +91422 2665472Email: threatenedtaxa@gmail.com, articlesubmission@threatenedtaxa.orgWebsite: www.theatenedtaxa.orgEDITORSFo u n d e r & Ch i e f Ed i t o rDr. Sanjay Molur, Coimbatore, IndiaMa n a g in g Ed i t o rMr. B. Ravichandran, Coimbatore, IndiaAs s o c ia t e Ed i t o r sDr. B.A. Daniel, Coimbatore, IndiaDr. Manju Siliwal, Dehra Dun, IndiaDr. Meena Venkataraman, Mumbai, IndiaEd i t o r ia l Ad v i s o r sMs. Sally Walker, Coimbatore, IndiaDr. Robert C. Lacy, Minnesota, USADr. Russel Mittermeier, Virginia, USADr. Thomas Husband, Rhode Island, USADr. Jacob V. Cheeran, Thrissur, IndiaProf. Dr. Mewa Singh, Mysuru, IndiaDr. Ulrich Streicher, Oudomsouk, LaosMr. Stephen D. Nash, Stony Brook, USADr. Fred Pluthero, Toronto, CanadaDr. Martin Fisher, Cambridge, UKDr. Ulf Gärdenfors, Uppsala, SwedenDr. John Fellowes, Hong KongDr. Philip S. Miller, Minnesota, USAProf. Dr. Mirco Solé, BrazilEd i t o r ia l Bo a r d / Su b j e c t Ed i t o r sDr. M. Zornitza Aguilar, EcuadorProf. Wasim Ahmad, Aligarh, IndiaDr. Sanit Aksornkoae, Bangkok, Thailand.Dr. Giovanni Amori, Rome, ItalyMr. Deepak Apte, Mumbai, IndiaDr. M. Arunachalam, Alwarkurichi, IndiaDr. Aziz Aslan, Antalya, TurkeyProf. R.K. Avasthi, Rohtak, IndiaDr. N.P. Balakrishnan, Coimbatore, IndiaDr. Hari Balasubramanian, Arlington, USADr. Maan Barua, Oxford OX , UKDr. Aaron M. Bauer, Villanova, USADr. Gopalakrishna K. Bhat, Udupi, IndiaDr. S. Bhupathy, Coimbatore, IndiaDr. Anwar L. Bilgrami, New Jersey, USADr. Renee M. Borges, Bengaluru, IndiaDr. Gill Braulik, Fife, UKDr. Prem B. Budha, Kathmandu, NepalMr. Ashok Captain, Pune, IndiaDr. Cleofas R. Cervancia, Laguna , PhilippinesDr. Apurba Chakraborty, Guwahati, IndiaDr. Kailash Chandra, Jabalpur, IndiaDr. Anwaruddin Choudhury, Guwahati, IndiaDr. Richard Thomas Corlett, SingaporeDr. Gabor Csorba, Budapest, HungaryDr. Paula E. Cushing, Denver, USADr. Neelesh Naresh Dahanukar, Pune, IndiaDr. R.J. Ranjit Daniels, Chennai, IndiaDr. A.K. Das, Kolkata, IndiaDr. Indraneil Das, Sarawak, MalaysiaDr. Rema Devi, Chennai, IndiaDr. Nishith Dharaiya, Patan, IndiaDr. Ansie Dippenaar-Schoeman, Queenswood, SouthAfricaDr. William Dundon, Legnaro, ItalyDr. J.L. Ellis, Bengaluru, IndiaDr. Susie Ellis, Florida, USADr. Zdenek Faltynek Fric, Czech RepublicDr. Carl Ferraris, NE Couch St., PortlandDr. R. Ganesan, Bengaluru, IndiaDr. Hemant Ghate, Pune, IndiaDr. Dipankar Ghose, New Delhi, IndiaDr. Gary A.P. Gibson, Ontario, USADr. M. Gobi, Madurai, IndiaDr. Stephan Gollasch, Hamburg, GermanyDr. Michael J.B. Green, Norwich, UKDr. K. Gunathilagaraj, Coimbatore, IndiaDr. K.V. Gururaja, Bengaluru, IndiaDr. Mark S. Harvey,Welshpool, AustraliaDr. Magdi S. A. El Hawagry, Giza, EgyptDr. Mohammad Hayat, Aligarh, IndiaProf. Harold F. Heatwole, Raleigh, USADr. V.B. Hosagoudar, Thiruvananthapuram, IndiaProf. Fritz Huchermeyer, Onderstepoort, South AfricaDr. V. Irudayaraj, Tirunelveli, IndiaDr. Rajah Jayapal, Bengaluru, IndiaDr. Weihong Ji, Auckland, New ZealandProf. R. Jindal, Chandigarh, IndiaDr. Pierre Jolivet, Bd Soult, FranceDr. Rajiv S. Kalsi, Haryana, IndiaDr. Rahul Kaul, Noida,IndiaDr. Werner Kaumanns, Eschenweg, GermanyDr. Paul Pearce-Kelly, Regent’s Park, UKDr. P.B. Khare, Lucknow, IndiaDr. Vinod Khanna, Dehra Dun, IndiaDr. Cecilia Kierulff, São Paulo, BrazilDr. Ignacy Kitowski, Lublin, PolandDr. Pankaj Kumar, Tai Po, Hong KongDr. Krushnamegh Kunte, Cambridge, USAProf. Dr. Adriano Brilhante Kury, Rio de Janeiro, BrazilDr. P. Lakshminarasimhan, Howrah, Indiacontinued on the back inside cover

JoTT Co m m u n ic a t i o n 4(3): 2409–2416A new species of barb Puntius nigripinnis (Teleostei:Cyprinidae) from southern Western Ghats, IndiaJ.D. Marcus Knight 1 , K. Rema Devi 2 , T.J. Indra 3 & M. Arunachalam 41Flat ‘L’, Sri Balaji Apartments, 7 th Main Road, Dhandeeswaram, Velachery, Chennai, Tamil Nadu 600042, India2,3Zoological Survey of India, Southern Regional Centre, 100, Santhome High Road, Chennai, Tamil Nadu 600028, India4Sri Paramakalyani Centre for Environmental Sciences, Manonmaniam Sundaranar University, Alwarkurichi, Tamil Nadu 627412, IndiaEmail: 1 jdmarcusknight@yahoo.co.in, 2 remadevi_zsi@yahoo.com (corresponding author), 3 jpandurangan@hotmail.com,4arunacm@gmail.comDate of publication (online): 26 March 2012Date of publication (print): 26 March 2012ISSN 0974-7907 (online) | 0974-7893 (print)Editor: Anonimity requestedManuscript details:Ms # o3014Received 21 November 2011Final received 06 March 2012Finally accepted 19 March 2012Citation: J.D. Marcus Knight, K. Rema Devi, T.J.Indra & M. Arunachalam (2012). A new speciesof barb Puntius nigripinnis (Teleostei: Cyprinidae)from southern Western Ghats, India. Journal ofThreatened Taxa 4(3): 2409–2416.Copyright: © J.D. Marcus Knight, K. Rema Devi,T.J. Indra & M. Arunachalam 2012. CreativeCommons Attribution 3.0 Unported License.JoTT allows unrestricted use of this article in anymedium for non-profit purposes, reproductionand distribution by providing adequate credit tothe authors and the source of publication.Author Details: See end of this article.Author Contribution: JDMK carried out thestudy of the entire P. ticto group. KRD and TJIcarried out the morphometric study of the newspecies. MA provided specimens for study andalso helped in the study of the new species.Acknowledgements We wish to thank theDirector, Zoological Survey of India, Kolkata forthe facilities provided. We also wish to thankAndrew Rao, for helping us obtain comparativematerial and Balaji Vijayakrishnan, for sharingliterature. We also thank Rahul G. Kumar for thelive photograph of Puntius nigripinnis.OPEN ACCESS | FREE DOWNLOADAbstract: Puntius ticto, a widely distributed barb, was long believed to have manyvariants. Recent research has shown that what was earlier known as P. ticto in differentregions of India comprised of many similar looking species such as P. manipurensis,P. muvattupuzhaensis, P. pookodensis, among others. As yet another addition to thiscomplex, we describe Puntius nigripinnis sp. nov. from the Nilgiris and Wyanad areaof the southern Western Ghats. Puntius nigripinnis, sp. nov., is distinguished from allother congeners by lacking barbels and having the last unbranched dorsal ray serrated;20–21 lateral line scales; lateral line incomplete, piercing 3–5 scales; dorsal, anal, pelvicand pectoral fins black in adult males; body pattern consisting of a humeral mark on the3 rd or 4 th lateral-line scale and a second larger, band-like spot on the 18 th and 19 th scale,forming a ring around the caudal peduncle, and only two scales between the secondspot and the root of the caudal fin.Keywords: Puntius, P. ticto, new species, Western Ghats.IntroductionHamilton (1822) first described Puntius ticto from the “southeasternparts of Bengal”, as a small fish with a spotted dorsal fin and two blackspots on the body, one on the lateral line above the pectoral fin and theother near the end of the tail. The other significant characteristics givenin the original description include the second unbranched dorsal ray beingserrated, the body greenish-silver, the fins pale greenish and in matureindividuals slightly stained with red, the absence of barbels and the lateralline being scarcely distinguishable. Subsequently, Day (1878) gave aclearer description of P. ticto and distinguished it from P. stoliczkanus andP. punctatus, which he had described, by the presence of an incompletelateral line (vs. a complete lateral line in the other two species). Hora(1937) and Hora et al. (1939) treated P. stoliczkanus and P. punctatus assynonyms of P. ticto while Silas (1952) considered P. stoliczkanus and P.punctatus to be subspecies of P. ticto. Jayaram (1991), in his revision ofPuntius, once again brought P. stoliczkanus and P. punctatus under thesynonymy of P. ticto. Talwar & Jhingran (1991) considered P. stoliczkanusand P. punctatus as synonyms of P. ticto. Though other authors recognizedP. stoliczkanus and P. punctatus as valid species (Menon et al. 2000; Beevi& Ramachandran 2005; Mercy & Jacob 2007), it was the redescription ofboth P. ticto and P. stoliczkanus by Linthoingambi & Vishwanath (2007)that clearly distinguished the two species. Recent studies of this group offish led to the descriptions of several new species such as P. manipurensis(Menon et al. 2000), P. muvattupuzhaensis (Beevi & Ramachandran2005), P. pookodensis (Mercy & Jacob 2007), P. ater (Linthoingambi &Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | March | 4(3): 2409–24162409

New Puntius nigripinnis from Western GhatsVishwanath 2007) and P. khugae (Linthoingambi &Vishwanath 2007).During an examination of the specimens depositedin the Southern Regional Centre, Zoological Survey ofIndia and Sri Paramakalyani Centre for EnvironmentalSciences, Manonmaniam Sundaranar University, thepresence of one more valid species similar to P. ticto,collected from the Nilgiris and Wyanad area of theWestern Ghats was discovered, which in this paper wedescribe as P. nigripinnis sp. nov.Materials and methodsThe material for the present study are based onrecent collections from Nilgiris by the scientists of theSouthern Regional Centre, Zoological Survey of Indiaand specimens from Kalindhi Stream of river Kabini,Wyanad, in the collections of Sri ParamakalyaniCentre for Environmental Sciences. The specimensused in this study are registered in the collections ofthe Southern Regional Centre, Zoological Survey ofIndia, Chennai (ZSI/SRC) and the private collectionsof J.D. Marcus Knight (PCJDMK). Measurementswere made with dial calipers to the nearest 0.1mm. Allquantification of characters is as per Meegaskumburaet al. (2008). Subunits of body are expressed aspercentage of Standard Length (SL). Subunits of thehead are expressed in proportions of both head length(HL) and standard length (SL).Puntius nigripinnis sp. nov.(Image 1)J.D.M. Knight et al.Material examinedHolotype: 21.ix.2002, 45.0mm SL, Kalindhi streamof river Kabini, Wyanad, Kerala, India, (~ 11 0 47’N &76 0 4’E), coll. M. Arunachalam (ZSI/SRC F. 6628).Paratypes: 21.ix.2002, 3 exs., 33.0–38.0 mm SL,Kalindhi stream of river Kabini, Wyanad, Kerala,India, (~ 11 0 47’N & 76 0 4’E ), coll. M. Arunachalam(ZSI/SRC F. 6629); 15.ii.1992, 2 exs., 34.0–39.0 mmSL, F. 6578, elevation 1000m, Kakkan halla, MoyarRiver, Tamil Nadu, India, (~11 0 34’N & 76 0 49’E), Coll.G. Thirumalai. (Image 2 A).DiagnosisPuntius nigripinnis sp. nov. can be distinguishedfrom its congeners by the absence of barbels andhaving the last unbranched dorsal ray serrated; 20–21scales in lateral series; lateral line incomplete, piercing3–5 scales; dorsal, anal, pelvic and pectoral fins blackin adult males; body pattern consisting of a blackhumeral spot on the 3 rd or 4 th lateral-line scale and asecond larger spot on the 18 th and 19 th scale, whichappears as more of a band, forming a ring around thecaudal peduncle; and only two scales between thesecond spot and the hypural notch.DescriptionMorphometric data are presented in Table 1. Generalbody shape and appearance as in Images 1, 2 A and 3.Body moderately deep, laterally compressed; dorsalcontour ascending anteriorly, with a low indentationImage 1. Puntius nigripinnissp. nov., holotype, 45.0 mmSL, ZSI / SRC F. 6628.2410Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | March 2012 | 4(3): 2409–2416

New Puntius nigripinnis from Western GhatsJ.D.M. Knight et al.Image 2. A - Puntius nigripinnis sp. nov. paratype (female), ZSI/SRC F. 6629; B - P. ticto, ZSI/SRC F6630; C - P.punctatus, ZSI/SRC F 8272; D- P. pookodensis, paratype, ZSI/SRC F 7636; E - P. manipurensis, ZSI/SRC F8550; F - P.muvattupuzhaensis, ZSI/SRC F8465; G - P. phutunio, PCJDMK 045; H - P. setnai, ZSI/SRC F6127at nape, slightly convex anterior to dorsal-fin origin,tapering gradually posterior to dorsal-fin insertion;ventral profile equally convex anterior to pelvic-finorigin, curving gently up to anal-fin origin, thencesloping upward towards caudal peduncle; caudalpeduncle deep, its depth a little less than its length,concave in both dorsal and ventral profiles. Headsmall, snout rounded. with a small hump at the end.Mouth sub-terminal, lateral fold on the snout present.Barbels absent, lips thick, U-shaped. Distance fromsnout tip to posterior edge of maxilla approximately8% SL. Eye large, its centre placed in the upper halfof the head, approximately 30% HL. Dorsal-fin withthree simple and eight branched rays, the last simpleray strongly serrated posteriorly. Dorsal-fin originslightly behind pelvic-fin origin, inserted midwaybetween tip of snout and base of caudal fin. Pelvic finwith one simple and 7(1) or 8(5) branched rays. Analfin with three simple and five branched rays. Pectoralfin with 1 simple and 12(5) or 13(1) branched rays.Pectoral and pelvic fins short, not reaching pelvic andanal-fin origins respectively. Caudal fin with 19 rays,deeply forked. Scales in lateral series 20(3) or 21(3);lateral line incomplete, piercing only the anteriormost3–5 scales. Transverse scales from dorsal-fin origin toventral fin origin ½4+1+2(4)–2½ (2). Predorsal scalesJournal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | March 2012 | 4(3): 2409–24162411

New Puntius nigripinnis from Western GhatsTable 1. Morphometric data for Puntius nigripinnis sp. nov.holotype (ZSI SRC F 6628) and paratypes (ZSI SRC F 6629,3 exs. and ZSI SRC F 6578, 2 exs.)Characters Holotype Range Mean (± SD)Standard length [mm] 45.0 33.0–45.0% SLHead length 31.6 27.9–31.6 29.8±1.4Head depth 25.0 21.7–25.1 23.7±1.3Body depth 40.1 37.2–41.7 40.0±1.5Body width 17.5 15.2–18.6 17.3±1.2Snout length 10.2 8.2–10.9 9.3±1.1Eye diameter 8.1 8.0–9.7 8.9±0.5Inter orbital width 10.0 9.7–10.5 10.0±0.2Pre–dorsal distance 52.8 51.0–54.4 52.2±1.2Dorsal to hypural distance 50.1 48.2–54.1 50.7±2.2Pre pelvic distance 49.7 46.1–52.4 49.4±2.4Pre anal distance 72.0 67.1–76.5 72.1±3.2Pre pectoral distance 32.4 27.4–33.2 30.1±2.2Dorsal fin height 26.2 20.2–26.6 24.8±2.4Pectoral fin length 25.3 23.9–28.8 25.5±1.7Anal fin depth 19.7 15.8–19.7 18.0±1.2Caudal peduncle length 14.0 14.0–17.3 15.9±1.4Caudal peduncle depth 15.3 14.2–15.9 15.1±0.5% HLHead depth 79.2 70.4–89.9 80.1±6.9Head width 56.3 51.1–60.5 56.0±3.9Snout length 32.3 28.4–35.4 31.2±2.6Eye diameter 25.6 25.6–33.3 30.1±2.9J.D.M. Knight et al.eight, prepelvic scales 9(4) or 10(2); 18 circumferentialscales and 10(1), 11(3) or 12(2) circumpeduncularscales. Pelvic axillary scale present, its length lessthan half length of pelvic fin. Gill rakers 2–3 + 5–6on first gill arch.ColorationFormalin-fixed and alcohol-preserved malespecimens are dark brown with a black humeral spoton the 4 th lateral-line scale, with a larger black spot onthe 18 th and 19 th scale, that has the appearance moreof a black band, forming a ring around the caudalpeduncle. Dorsal, pectoral, pelvic and anal fins blackin mature males. The outer edges of each scale heavilypigmented. Female specimens are not as dark as malesand all fins are hyaline.EtymologyNamed for the black fins in males; niger (Latin) =black and pinna (Latin) = fins. The name is a noun inapposition.DistributionPuntius nigripinnis sp. nov. is at present knownonly from Kakkan Halla, Moyar River drainage in theNilgiris, and the Kalindi Stream in the Wyanad area ofthe southern Western Ghats (Image 4).Inter orbital distance 31.6 31.5–36.7 33.9±2.1Image 3. Adult malePuntius nigripinnis sp.nov. (unregistered live),35.0mm SL, collected fromKalindi River, Kerala, India(~11 0 54’N & 75 0 59’E), coll.Rahul G. Kumar.2412Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | March 2012 | 4(3): 2409–2416

New Puntius nigripinnis from Western Ghatsnortheastern India are P. phutunio (Image 2F) andP. bizonatus. Puntius nigripinnis sp. nov. can bedistinguished from these by possessing two spots,a humeral spot and a caudal-peduncle spot, vs. fourspots on the body in P. phutunio, the humeral spotreplaced by a bar transversely on the 3 rd and 4 th scalein P. bizonatus (Vishwanath & Laisram 2004). It canfurther be distinguished from the other two speciesby having 2–2 ½ scales between the lateral line scalerow and ventral fin, and eight predorsal scales, vs.three scales between lateral line scale row and ventralfin and nine predorsal scales in P. phutunio. Puntiusnigripinnis sp. nov. also differs from P. bizonatus inhaving 2–3 + 5–6 gill rakers vs. 5 + 15–18 in the latter(Vishwanath & Laisram 2004).The other barbs from northeastern India that can becompared to P. nigripinnis sp. nov. are P. shalynius, P.ater and P. khugae. However all these three speciescan be readily distinguished from P. nigripinnis sp.nov. by the absence of the humeral spot vs. presence inP. nigripinnis sp. nov. It can further be distinguishedfrom P. shalynius by the presence of a single spot in thecaudal peduncle vs. two and eight predorsal scales vs.9–10 in P. shalynius. Puntius nigripinnis sp. nov. canalso be distinguished from P. ater and P. khugae by thelesser number of lateral-line scales (20–21 vs. 25–29and 28–30 in P. ater and P. khugae respectively); 2½scales between lateral line and ventral fin origin ofP. nigripinnis sp. nov. can further distinguish it fromP. ater and P. khugae which have 5½ scales betweenlateral line and ventral-fin origin (Linthoingambi& Vishwanath 2007). The characteristic darklongitudinal band present in both P. ater and P. khugae(Linthoingambi & Vishwanath, 2007) is absent in P.nigripinnis sp. nov.Similarly, P. nigripinnis can be distinguishedfrom the closely resembling Sri Lankan congeners, P.cumingii and P. reval by having ½ 4+1+2–2 ½ transversescales from dorsal fin origin to mid-ventral scale rowvs. ½ 3+1+3 ½ in the other two species. Moreover,P. nigripinnis sp. nov. differs from P. cumingii and P.reval by having the humeral spot covering only twoscales compared to the humeral spot being more of abar being 3 scale wide in P. cumingii and P. reval. Thedorsal fin of male P. nigripinnis sp. nov. is black whilethe dorsal fins of P. cumingii and P. reval are eitheryellow or red (Meegaskumbura et al. 2008).The other species with two spots on the body fromJ.D.M. Knight et al.Myanmar are P. macrogramma and P. tiantian, whichcan be distinguished from P. nigripinnis sp. nov. bycomplete lateral line scales vs. incomplete in the latter(Kullander & Fang 2005; Kullander 2008). Puntiusnigripinnis sp. nov. can further be distinguished fromP. macrogramma, P. tiantian and P. didi by having2–2½ scales between lateral line scale row and ventralfin vs. four scales in P. macrogramma, and 3½ scalesin P. tiantian and P. didi (Kullander & Fang 2005;Kullander 2008). In addition, P. nigripinnis sp. nov.differs from P. tiantian and P. didi by having a humeralspot compared to the humeral blotch being more ofa bar gradually becoming narrower at the level ofpectoral fin in P. tiantian and P. didi. The dorsalfin of male P. nigripinnis sp. nov. is black while thedorsal fins of P. tiantian and P. didi are either yellowor pinkish with one or two rows of spots (Kullander& Fang 2005). Puntius nigripinnis sp. nov. can alsobe differentiated by its thick and strongly serratedunbranched dorsal fin ray compared to the flexible andshort serrated unbranched dorsal fin ray of P. tiantian(Kullander & Fang 2005).Puntius ticto which was earlier known to be a singlespecies is quite evidently a complex of many closelyrelated species. The hill streams of Western Ghatshave been inadequately explored. Systematic surveysare likely to add more species to this interesting groupof fishes.Conservation importanceAs Puntius nigripinnis sp. nov. is known only froma small pocket of the southern Western Ghats, the areaneeds considerable protection. As Western Ghatsare already known to have high levels of endemism,especially amongst lower vertebrate animals,conservation of specialized ecosystems is of highpriority. Protection of fast-flowing streams, preventionof the use of pesticides and other agrochemicals in theupper catchments and regulation of tourism in criticalhabitats would play an important role in protecting theunexplored freshwater habitats of the Western Ghats.Comparative materialPuntius ticto: ZSI/SRC F8546, 3 exs. 16.0–18.0mm SL, Barjuri Dhan Shree River, coll. D.K. Gupta,23.xi.1994; ZSI/SRC F6630, 5 exs. 24.0–33.0 mmSL, Kulsi River, coll. Lal Mohan, 4.xi.1994; ZSI/SRC F6579, 3 exs. 47.0–60 mm SL, Megna River;2414Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | March 2012 | 4(3): 2409–2416

New Puntius nigripinnis from Western GhatsZSI/SRC F8547, 5 exs. 27.0–36.0 mm SL, coll. D. K.Gupta, 14.xi.1994; ZSI/SRC F8548, 2 exs. 46.0–48.0mm SL Dibrugarh ox bow lake, coll. D.K. Gupta,24.xi.1994; ZSI/SRC F8549, 1 ex. 37.0mm SL, NimatiGhat, Majuli, Brahmaputra River, coll. D.K. Gupta,22.xi.1994.Puntius pookodensis: Paratypes, ZSI/SRC F 7636,21 exs. 26.0–42.0 mm SL, Pookode Lake, Kerala, coll.Eapen Jacob, Nov. 2004.Puntius manipurensis: ZSI/SRC F8550, 4 exs,54.0–62.0 mm SL, Loktak Lake, Manipur, coll. W.Vishwanath, April 1995.Puntius punctatus: ZSI/SRC F 8272, 3 exs.38.0–40.0 mm SL, Mangai Malai, Kulasekaram,Kanyakumari WLS, coll. Aengals, 21.xii.2008; ZSI/SRC F8545, 2 exs. 40.0–42.0 mm SL, PookodeLake, Kerala, coll. Anna Mercy; ZSI/SRC F4339, 13exs. 29.0–37.0 mm SL, Mathalamparai, TirunelveliDistrict, coll. Ravichandran, 17.iii.1995.Puntius muvattupuzhaensis: ZSI/SRC F8465, 5exs. 39.0–45.0 mm SL, Muvattupuzha River, Kerala,coll. Zeena, 8.ix.2010.Puntius setnai: ZSI/SRC F6127, 10 exs. 18.0-40.0 mm SL, Kukke Subramanya, Karnataka, coll.G. Thirumalai, 15.iv.1999; ZSI/SRC F8544, 3 exs.36.0–41.0 mm SL, Stream in Agumbe, coll. P. K.Pramod, Jan. 2008; ZSI/SRC F6113, 1 ex. 39.0mm SL,Sowparnika River, coll. G. Thirumalai, 13.iv.1999.Puntius phutunio: PCJDMK 045, 20 exs. 14.0–19.0 mm SL, Ponds in Udayrampur Village, P.S.Bishnupur, south 24 Parganas District, West Bengal,Coll. Andrew Rao, February 2011.Puntius shalynius: ZSI/SRC F 7150, 1 ex. 40mmSL, Ri-bhoi district, Meghalaya-Asssam border, coll.S.K.Das, 2002.ReferencesBeevi, K.S.J. & A. Ramachandran (2005). A new species ofPuntius (Cyprinidae, Cyprininae) from Kerala, India. Journalof the Bombay Natural History Society 102(1): 83–85.Day, F. (1865). On the fishes of Cochin, on the Malabar Coastof India. Proceedings of the General Meetings for ScientificBusiness of the Zoological Society of London 33(1): 286–318.Day, F. (1871). Monograph of Indian Cyprinidae. Parts 1-3.Journal and Proceedings of the Asiatic Society of Bengal 40:95–142, 277–367, 337–367.J.D.M. Knight et al.Day, F. (1878). The Fishes of India; Being a Natural History ofthe Fishes Known to Inhabit the Seas and Freshwaters ofIndia, Burma and Ceylon. William Dawson & Sons Ltds.,London, xx+778pp, 196pls.Hora, S.L. (1937). Notes on fishes in the Indian Museum. XXXI.On a small collection of fish from Sandoway, Lower Burma.Records of the Indian Museum 39(4): 323–331.Hora, S.L., K.S. Misra & G.M. Malik (1939). A study ofvariations on Barbus (Puntius) ticto (Ham.). Records of theIndian Museum 41(3): 263–279.Hamilton, F. (1822). An Account of the Fishes of River Gangesand its Branches. George Ramsay and Co., London,vii+405pp, 39pls.Jayaram, K.C. (1991). Revision of the genus Puntius (Hamilton)from the Indian Region (Pisces: Cypriniformes, Cyprinidae,Cyprininae). Records of the Zoological Survey of India,Occasional Paper 135: 1–178.Meegaskumbura, M., A. Silva, K. Maduwage & R.Pethiyagoda (2008). Puntius reval, a new barb from SriLanka (Teleostei: Cyprinidae). Ichthyological Explorationsof Freshwaters 19(2):141–152.Menon, A.G.K., W. Vishwanath & K.R. Devi (2000). A newspecies of Puntius (Cyprinidae: Cyprininae) from Manipur,India. Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society 97(2):263–268.Mercy, T.V.A. & E. Jacob (2007). A new species of Teleostei:Puntius pookodensis (Cyprinidae) from Wayanad, Kerala,India. Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society104(1):76–78.Talwar, P.K. & A.G. Jhingran (1991). Inland Fishes of Indiaand Adjacent Countries–Volume 1. Oxford & IBH PublishingCo. Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi, 541pp.Silas, E.G. (1952). Further studies regarding Hora’s Satpurahypothesis 2. Taxonomic assessment and levels ofevolutionary divergences of fishes with the so-called Malayanaffinities in peninsular India. Proceedings of the NationalInstitute of Sciences of India 18(5): 423–448.Kullander, S.O. (2008). Five new species of Puntiusfrom Myanmar (Teleostei: Cyprinidae). IchthyologicalExplorations of Freshwaters 19(1):59–84.Kullander, S.O. & F. Fang (2005). Two new species of Puntiusfrom northern Myanmar (Teleostei: Cyprinidae). Copeia(2):290–302.Linthoingambi, I. & W. Vishwanath (2007). Two new fishspecies of the genus Puntius Hamilton (Cyprinidae) fromManipur, India, with notes on P. ticto (Hamilton) and P.stoliczkanus (Day). Zootaxa 1450: 45–56.Vishwanath, W. & J. Laisram (2004). Two new species ofPuntius Hamilton-Buchanan (Cypriniformes: Cyprinidae)from Manipur, India, with an account of Puntius speciesfrom the state. Journal of the Bombay Natural HistorySociety 101(1):130–137.Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | March 2012 | 4(3): 2409–24162415

New Puntius nigripinnis from Western GhatsJ.D.M. Knight et al.Key to the fishes similar to Puntius ticto with two spots on the body (humeral and peduncular) from India.1. Lateral line complete……………………………………………………………….…………………………………...2Lateral line incomplete…………………………………………………........…………………………………………52. Humeral spot one scale below lateral line…………………………………....……………………………………...3Humeral spot on lateral line…………………………………………………………....………………………………43. Dorsal fin with rows of spots……………………………………………………………......……………. P. punctatusDorsal fin without spots……………………………………………………………....………..P. muvattupuzhaensis4. Predorsal scales 7 and 20 lateral line scales……………………………………………………………..... P. setnaiPredorsal scales 8-10 and 25 lateral line scales ……………………………………………………P. stoliczkanus5. Humeral spot large covering more than one scale transversely…………………………………...…………..….6Humeral spot small covering one scale or less transversely …………………………………………………...…76. 2 scales between lateral line scale row and ventral fin………………………………………….…..… P. bizonatus3 scales between lateral line scale row and ventral fin……………………………………..…………...P. phutunio7. Lateral line with 21 scales or less…………………………………………………...……… P. nigripinnis sp. nov.Lateral line with 22 or more scales……………………………………………………………………......……….….88. 5- 5 ½ scales between lateral line scale row and ventral fin……………………………………...….……… P. ticto3 ½ scales between lateral line scale row and ventral fin…………………………………………………..……….99. Humeral spot on lateral line and 22-23 lateral line scales ……....………………………………... P. pookodensisHumeral spot slightly above lateral line and 24-25 lateral line scales…………………..........….P. manipurensisAuthor Details: J.D. Ma r c u s Kn i g h tis a naturalist based in Chennai.Amongst others, his interest is inexploring the freshwater habitats andis currently documenting the diversityof freshwater fish in Tamil Nadu.K. Re m a De v i is a retired seniorscientist from the Southern RegionalCentre of the Zoological Surveyof India and an ichthyologist whohas published over hundred papersincluding descriptions of several newspecies.T.J. In d r a is a retired senior scientistfrom the Southern Regional Centreof the Zoological Survey of India andan ichthyologist and also a specialiston scorpions. She has publishedseveral papers including descriptionsof new species.M. Ar u n a c h a l a m is a Professorand Head at Sri ParamakalyaniCentre for Environmental Sciences,Manonmaniam SundaranarUniversity, Alwarkurichi, Tamil Nadu.He is a leading ichthyologist workingon taxonomy and ecology of hillstream fishes of Western Ghats andconservation and management ofwetlands.2416Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | March 2012 | 4(3): 2409–2416

JoTT Co m m u n ic a t i o n 4(3): 2417–2426Odonata of Sungai Bebar, Pahang, Malaysia, with fourspecies recorded for the first time from mainland AsiaRory A. Dow 1 , Yong Foo Ng 2 & Chee Yen Choong 31NCB Naturalis, P.O. Box 9517, 2300 RA Leiden, The Netherlands2,3Centre for Insect Systematics, Faculty of Sciences and Technology, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, 43600 Bangi, Selangor D.E.MalaysiaEmail: 1 rory.dow230@yahoo.co.uk (corresponding author), 2 ng_yf@ukm.my, 3 cychoong@ukm.myDate of publication (online): 26 March 2012Date of publication (print): 26 March 2012ISSN 0974-7907 (online) | 0974-7893 (print)Editor: Albert OrrManuscript details:Ms # o3041Received 19 December 2011Final received 06 January 2012Finally accepted 13 February 2012Citation: Dow, R.A., Y.F. Ng & C.Y. Choong(2012). Odonata of Sungai Bebar, Pahang,Malaysia, with four species recorded for the firsttime from mainland Asia. Journal of ThreatenedTaxa 4(3): 2417–2426.Copyright: © Rory A. Dow, Yong Foo Ng &Chee Yen Choong 2012. Creative CommonsAttribution 3.0Unported License. JoTT allowsunrestricted use of this article in any medium fornon-profit purposes, reproduction and distributionby providing adequate credit to the authorsand the source of publication.Author Details: See end of this article.Author Contribution: RAD identification of,and information on, the Odonata collected,collection of specimens. YFN informationon the area sampled, and on peat swampforest in Peninsular Malaysia; organizationof the sampling trip. CYC identification of,and information on, the Odonata collected,collection of specimens, photography.Acknowledgements: The authors wish tothank the Pahang Forestry Department forgranting permission for sampling of Odonatain the Sungai Bebar, Runchang, Pahang.This study was funded by research grantsUKM-GUP-ASPL-07-04-048 and UKM-ST-06-FRGS0184-2010. We also wish to thankProfessor Yong Hoi Sen for his company andstimulating conversation during our fieldworkat Sungai Bebar, and Doctor Albert Orr for hiscontinued support of our work. Thanks arealso due to Mr Marcel Silvius for allowing usto report his photographic record of Tyriobaptalaidlawi here.OPEN ACCESS | FREE DOWNLOADAbstract: Records are presented of Odonata collected in September 2009 from theSungai Bebar and the surrounding area, in Pekan Forest Reserve, southeastern Pahang,Peninsular Malaysia. A total of 50 species from nine families were collected. Twoof the species listed, Amphicnemis bebar and A. hoisen, were first discovered duringthis survey. Another four previously known species were recorded in mainland Asia forthe first time: Elattoneura coomansi, Elattoneura longispina, Brachygonia ophelia andTyriobapta laidlawi.Keywords: Damselflies, dragonflies, Malaysia, new records, Odonata, Pahang, peatswamp forest, Pekan Forest Reserve, Sungai Bebar.Bahasa Melayu Abstract: Rekod persampelan Odonata dari Sungai Bebar dankawasan berhampiran Hutan Simpan Pekan, selatan Pahang, Semenanjung Malaysiadalam September 2009 dilaporkan. Sejumlah 50 spesies pepatung daripada sembilanfamili telah disampel. Dua spesies baru telah diperihal daripada persampelan ini:Amphicnemis bebar dan A. hoisen. Empat spesies yang direkod adalah rekod barukepada tanah besar Asia: Elattoneura coomansi, Elattoneura longispina, Brachygoniaophelia dan Tyriobapta laidlawi.INTRODUCTIONIn September 2009 Professor Yong Hoi Sen and the authors made ashort Odonata sampling trip to Sungai Bebar in Pekan Forest Reserve.Sungai Bebar is situated in southeastern Pahang, Peninsular Malaysia(Fig. 1). Sungai Bebar flows southeastern through Pekan, Kedondongand Nenasi forest reserves before entering the South China Sea at Nenasi.Dow et al. (2010) incorrectly stated that the forest reserve where samplingtook place was Nenasi FR. Much of Sungai Bebar is surrounded bydisturbed peat swamp forest. Malaysia originally had an estimated 1.54million hectares of peat swamp forest, but less than 20% was in PeninsularMalaysia (UNDP 2006). We do not have figures for how much peat swampforest remains today, but it has been reduced to scattered, fragmentaryremnants, mostly in Selangor, Pahang and Johor states; the largest sucharea is located in southeastern Pahang and consists of Pekan, Kedondong,Nenasi and Resak forest reserves.Swamp forest in general, and peat swamp forest in particular, has beenlittle surveyed for Odonata in Peninsular Malaysia. Norma-Rashid etal. (2001) reported on odonate surveys at Tasek Bera, a lake in Pahangwith a large area of swamp forest around it, including peat swamp forest;however, most of the collecting reported in that publication appears tohave been made on the lake and surrounding river channels; little samplingappears to have taken place inside the swamp forest. Hämäläinen (2000)Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | March | 4(3): 2417–24262417

Odonata of Sungai BebarR.A. Dow et al.Figure 1. Sampling area in Peninsular Malaysia.includes a number of records made in swamp forests ofvarious types. In 2006, CYC collected odonates fromswamp forests in Panti Forest Reserve, Johor (Choong2009). Other records from swamp forest in PeninsularMalaysia are scattered amongst the odonatologicalliterature of the last century.In the present survey, six species not previouslyreported from Peninsular Malaysia were found. Twowere of the coenagrionoid genus Amphicnemis and newto science; these species (A. bebar and A. hoisen) weredescribed by Dow et al. (2010). The other four species,two members of the Protoneuridae (Elattoneuracoomansi Lieftinck and E. longispina Lieftinck) andtwo from the Libellulidae (Brachygonia ophelia Risand Tyriobapta laidlawi Ris), had not previously beenrecorded from mainland Asia but were known eitherfrom Borneo, or Borneo and the Indonesian Islandsof Belitung and Bangka. Here we list all the speciescollected in the Sungai Bebar area, with details ofspecimens collected and notes on species of particularinterest.MATERIALS AND METHODSStudy sitesSampling was carried out at the locations listedbelow (Fig. 1), from 20–24 September 2009:(1) On the Sungai Bebar (Image 1) betweenlocations 4 and 6.(2) Margin of the Sungai Bebar with emergentvegetation, chiefly Pandanus, at the water margin andin disturbed scrub inland, 3 0 16.845’N & 103 0 13.894’Eand 3 0 16.604’N & 103 0 14.446’E.(3) Tributary of the Sungai Bebar (Image 2)and surrounding highly disturbed swamp forest,3 0 17.134’N & 103 0 14.878’E.(4) Highly disturbed swamp forest at 3 0 15.650’N& 103 0 14.687’E.(5) Less disturbed swamp forest (Image 3) withstream, 3 0 18.696’N & 103 0 14.120’E.(6) Highly disturbed swamp forest (Image 4) at3 0 19.372’N & 103 0 15.136’E.(7) Black water drains and a stream in a mosaic ofhighly disturbed forest and open meadow and road,3 0 17.078’N & 103 0 13.559’E.(8) A pond at the edge of degraded forest at3 0 17.173’N & 103 0 13.368’E.(9) Water filled wheel ruts near location 2.2418Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | March 2012 | 4(3): 2417–2426

Odonata of Sungai BebarR.A. Dow et al.© C.Y. Choong© C.Y. ChoongImage 1. The Sungai Bebar.Image 4. Swamp forest in Pekan Forest Reserve (location 6).© C.Y. ChoongThe material collected is held in either the Centrefor Insect Systematics at Universiti KebangsaanMalaysia (UKM), the Netherlands Centre forBiodiversity Naturalis (RMNH), collection CYC orcollection RAD. Material was identified to speciesusing a stereomicroscope, with reference to relevantliterature, and direct comparison with material,including type material, held in The Natural HistoryMuseum, London (BMNH) and RMNH.Image 2. Tributary to the Sungai Bebar (location 3).© C.Y. ChoongImage 3. Swamp forest in Pekan Forest Reserve (location 4).Sampling and identificationAdult specimens were collected using handheldnets. Sampling on the Sungai Bebar was conductedfrom a boat. Specimens were preserved either bytreatment with acetone, drying or immersion in ethanol.The family level taxonomy used below follows that inOrr (2005).RESULTSA total of 218 individual Odonata specimens werecollected, comprising 50 species in nine families.Species, locations and number of specimens collectedat each location on a given date are listed below,together with notes on species of particular interest.For species of Amphicnemis, details of specimenscollected at Sungai Bebar are given in Dow et al.(2010) and are not repeated here. The species recordedat each location sampled are summarised in Table 1.ZygopteraChlorocyphidae(i) Libellago hyalina Selys, 1859 — 2, 3:4 males, 2females, RAD, 20.ix; 2 males, 1 female, CYC, 20.ix;4:1 male, 1 female, RAD, 21.ix.Megapodagrionidae(i) Podolestes buwaldai Lieftinck, 1940 — Thereare few published records of this species, originallydescribed from Sumatra (Lieftinck 1940). Hämäläinen(2000) made the first report for Peninsular Malaysia;Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | March 2012 | 4(3): 2417–24262419

Odonata of Sungai BebarR.A. Dow et al.Table 1. Species recorded at each sampling site.Sampling SiteSpecies 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9Agriocnemis feminayAgriocnemis minimayAgriocnemis nanayAmphicnemis bebar y yAmphicnemis gracilis y yAmphicnemis hoisenyArchibasis incisurayArchibasis melanocyanayBrachydiplax chalybea y yBrachygonia oculata y y y yBrachygonia opheliayCeriagrion cerinorubellumyCeriagrion speciesyChalybeothemis fluviatilis y y y yCopera ciliatayCopera vittatayElattoneura aurantiaca y y y yElattoneura coomansi y y yElattoneura longispinayEpophthalmia vittigerayGomphidia abbottiyIctinogomphus acutusyIctinogomphus decoratusyIschnura senegalensisyLibellago hyalina y y yMacrogomphus decemlineatus yMacromia cincta y yNannophya pygmaeayNesoxenia lineatayNeurothemis fluctuansyOligoaeschna speciesyOnychothemis testaceayOrchithemis pruinans y yOrchithemis pulcherrimayOrthetrum chrysis y yPantala flavescensyPodolestes buwaldai y yPornothemis serrata y yPotamarcha congeneryProdasineura humeralisyPseudagrion rubricepsyPseudagrion williamsoni y y yRhyothemis aterrimayRhyothemis obsolescens y yRhyothemis phyllisyRhyothemis pygmaeayRisiophlebia dohrniyTyriobapta laidlawiyUrothemis signata insignatayZyxomma petiolatumyTotal number of species 10 11 5 9 15 9 10 3 22420Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | March 2012 | 4(3): 2417–2426

Odonata of Sungai BebarKalkman (2004) and Choong et al. (2008) alsorecorded it from Malaysia. At Sungai Bebar it wasmoderately common in the least disturbed swampforest area sampled. 5:3 male, 2 female, RAD, 22.ix;3 male, 2 female, RAD, 23.ix; 2 males, 2 females,CYC, 23.ix; 6:1 male, 1 female, RAD, 24.ix; 1 female,CYC, 24.ix.Protoneuridae(i) Elattoneura aurantiaca (Selys, 1886) — 2:5male, 1 female, RAD, 20.ix; 1 male, 1 female (intandem), CYC, 20.ix; 4:1 male, RAD, 21.ix; 5:3 male,RAD, 22.ix; 2 males, 1 female, RAD, 23.ix; 6:2 males,RAD, 23.ix.(ii) Elattoneura coomansi Lieftinck, 1937 — Thisis the first record of this species from PeninsularMalaysia; it is otherwise known from Kalimantanand Bangka and Belitung islands (Lieftinck 1954).Most of the specimens collected were taken amongstPandanus at the edge of Sungai Bebar 2:4 male, RAD,20.ix; 5:1 male, RAD, 23.ix; 6:1 female, RAD, 24.ix.(iii) Elattoneura longispina Lieftinck, 1937 —This species has not been recorded from mainlandAsia before; it was described from west Kalimantanand is also known from Sarawak (Dow & Unggang2010) and Belitung (Lieftinck 1954). One male wascollected at Sungai Bebar. However, in 2006 CYCcollected two tandem pairs of this species from PondokTanjung Forest Reserve, northern Perak, a small peatswamp forest; these specimens were misidentified asElattoneura analis (Selys 1860) and the mistake wasonly discovered in early 2010. This species is expectedto have wider distribution in Peninsular Malaysia andmight also occur in southern Thailand. 5:1 male, CYC,22.ix.(iv) Prodasineura humeralis (Selys, 1860) — 5:1male, CYC, 23.ix.Coenagrionidae(i) Agriocnemis femina (Brauer, 1868) — 6:1female, RAD, 24.ix.(ii) Agriocnemis minima (Selys, 1877) — 9:1 male,2 females (1 pair in tandem), RAD, 21.ix; 1 male,CYC, 21.ix.(iii) Agriocnemis nana (Laidlaw, 1914) — 7:1male, 2 females, CYC, 20.ix.(iv) Amphicnemis bebar Dow et al., 2010 — SeeDow et al. (2010) for a discussion of this and the nextR.A. Dow et al.two species. Locations 5 and 6 (Image 5).(v) Amphicnemis gracilis Krüger, 1898 —Locations 3 and 6.(vi) Amphicnemis hoisen Dow et al., 2010 —Location 5 (Image 6).(vii) Archibasis incisura Lieftinck, 1949 — Thisis a rather local species, and its preferred habitat isprobably streams and rivers in low pH swamp forest,for instance see Dow & Unggang (2010). 2:2 male,RAD, 20.ix; 1 male, CYC, 23.ix.(viii) Archibasis melanocyana (Selys, 1877) — 5:1male, CYC, 23.ix; 1 male, CYC, 24.ix.(ix) Ceriagrion cerinorubellum (Brauer, 1865) —7:1 male, RAD, 20.ix; 1 male, CYC, 20.ix.(x) Ceriagrion species — A single female,identical in general appearance to C. cerinorubellum,collected in peat swamp forest. It differs from C.cerinorubellum, and all other species of Ceriagrion,in having the central part of the pronotal posteriorlobe deeply and squarely excised; this does not appearto be the result of damage to the specimen, but thepossibility that it is simply an abnormal individual ofC. cerinorubellum cannot be ruled out unless furtherexamples are collected. 5:1 female, RAD, 23.ix.(xi) Ischnura senegalensis (Rambur, 1842) — 7:1male, CYC, 20.ix.(xii) Pseudagrion rubriceps Selys, 1876 — 1:1male, RAD, 20.ix.(xiii) Pseudagrion williamsoni Fraser, 1922 — 1:1male, RAD, 20.ix; 2:2 males, CYC, 20.ix; 8:1 male,RAD, 21.ix.Platycnemididae(i) Copera ciliata (Selys, 1863) — 7:1 female,CYC, 20.ix.(ii) Copera vittata (Selys, 1863) — 6:1 male, RAD,24.ix.AnisopteraGomphidae(i) Gomphidia abbotti Williamson, 1907 — 1:1male, RAD, 22.ix.(ii) Ictinogomphus acutus (Laidlaw, 1914) — 1:1male, RAD, 21.ix; 1 male, RAD, 22.ix; 2 males, CYC,22.ix.(iii) Ictinogomphus decoratus melaenops (Selys,1858) — 1:1 male, RAD, 22.ix.(iv) Macrogomphus decemlineatus (Selys, 1878)Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | March 2012 | 4(3): 2417–24262421

Odonata of Sungai BebarR.A. Dow et al.© C.Y. ChoongImage 5. Amphicnemisbebar male.© C.Y. ChoongImage 6. Amphicnemishoisen male.© C.Y. ChoongImage 7. Brachygoniaophelia male.2422Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | March 2012 | 4(3): 2417–2426

Odonata of Sungai BebarR.A. Dow et al.© C.Y. ChoongImage 8. Chalybeothemisfluviatilis male.© C.Y. ChoongImage 9. Tyriobaptalaidlawi male.— 1:1 male, RAD, 21.ix; 1 male, CYC, 24.ix.Aeshnidae(i) Oligoaeschna species — It has not provedpossible to identify the single female collected reliablyto species. 4:1 female, RAD, 21.ix.Corduliidae(i) Epophthalmia vittigera (Rambur, 1842) — 1:1male, CYC, 21.ix.(ii) Macromia cincta Rambur, 1842 — 1:1 male,RAD, 22.ix; 1 male, CYC, 21.ix; 1 male, CYC, 22.ix;7:1 male, RAD, 20.ix.Libellulidae(i) Brachydiplax chalybea Brauer, 1868 — 7:1male, CYC, 20.ix; 1 male, CYC, 22.ix; 8:1 male,RAD, 21.ix.(ii) Brachygonia oculata (Brauer, 1878) — 4:1male, RAD, 21.ix; 5:1 female, CYC, 23.ix; 6:1 male,RAD, 24.ix; 7:1 male (in forest), RAD, 21.ix; 2 males(in forest), CYC, 21.ix.(iii) Brachygonia ophelia Ris, 1910 — This verylocal swamp forest species has not been recordedJournal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | March 2012 | 4(3): 2417–24262423

Odonata of Sungai Bebarfrom Peninsular Malaysia until now; it is otherwiseonly known from scattered locations in Borneo (e.g.Lieftinck 1954, Orr 2001 & 2003). Image 7. 5:2males, RAD, 22.ix; 1 male, 1 female, RAD, 23.ix; 2males, CYC, 23.ix.(iv) Chalybeothemis fluviatilis Lieftinck, 1933 —This species is known from scattered locations acrossBorneo, Sumatra, Belitung, Singapore and PeninsularMalaysia and southern Thailand (Dow et al. 2007). Itoften appears to prefer low pH habitats, but occurs onMacRitchie Reservoir in Singapore (Tang et al. 2010).It was common on parts of Sungai Bebar during thesampling period. Image 8. 1:1 male, RAD, 21.ix; 1male, RAD, 22.ix; 2:1 male, RAD, 20.ix; 3:2 males (onthe tributary); RAD, 20.ix; 2 males (on the tributary),CYC, 20.ix; 8:1 male, RAD, 21.ix.(v) Nannophya pygmaea Rambur, 1842 — 7:1male, RAD, 20.ix; 1 male, CYC, 21.ix.(vi) Nesoxenia lineata (Selys, 1879) — 4:2 males,CYC, 21.ix.(vii) Neurothemis fluctuans (Fabricius, 1793) —7:1 male, RAD, 20.ix; 1 male, CYC, 20.ix.(viii) Onychothemis testacea Laidlaw, 1902 — 1:1male, CYC, 21.ix.(ix) Orchithemis pruinans (Selys, 1878) — 4:5males, RAD, 21.ix; 5:1 female, RAD, 22.ix; 1 male,RAD, 23.ix; 2 males, CYC, 21.ix.(x) Orchithemis pulcherrima Brauer, 1878 — 3:1male, CYC, 20.ix.(xi) Orthetrum chrysis (Selys, 1891) — 2:1 male,RAD, 20.ix; 7:1 male, CYC, 20.ix.(xii) Pantala flavescens (Fabricius, 1798) — 2:1female, RAD, 21.ix; 1 male, CYC, 20.ix; 1 male,CYC, 21.ix.(xiii) Pornothemis serrata Krüger, 1902 — 4:2males, RAD, 21.ix; 2 males, 1 female, CYC, 21.ix;5:1 male, RAD, 22.ix.(xiv) Potamarcha congener (Rambur, 1842) — 9:1male, RAD, 20.ix; 1 male, CYC, 20.ix.(xv) Rhyothemis aterrima Selys, 1891 — 2:1 male,RAD, 20.ix; 1 male, CYC, 21.ix.(xvi) Rhyothemis obsolescens Kirby, 1889 — 2:1male, RAD, 20.ix; 1 male, CYC, 20.ix; 4: 1 male,RAD, 21.ix.(xvii) Rhyothemis phyllis (Sulzer, 1776) — 2:1female, RAD, 20.ix; 1 female, CYC, 20.ix.(xviii) Rhyothemis pygmaea (Brauer, 1867) — 5:1male, RAD, 22.ix; 1 male, CYC, 23.ix; 1 male, CYC,R.A. Dow et al.24.ix.(xix) Risiophlebia dohrni (Krüger, 1902) — 3:1male, RAD, 20.ix.(xx) Tyriobapta laidlawi Ris, 1919 — This species,otherwise known from Borneo, has not been recordedfrom Peninsular Malaysia before. It appears to bemost common in low pH swamp forest. A convincingphotographic record was also made in Ayer HitamForest Reserve in Johor by M. Silvius of WetlandsInternational on 26.xi.2010. Image 9. 5:2 males, RAD,22.ix; 1 male, RAD, 23.ix; 1 male, CYC, 23.ix.(xxi) Urothemis signata insignata (Selys, 1872) —7:1 male, RAD, 20.ix.(xxii) Zyxomma petiolatum Rambur, 1842 — 4:1female, RAD, 21.ix.DISCUSSIONAlthough we had modest hopes of makinginteresting finds at Sungai Bebar, we were notexpecting to make six new records for PeninsularMalaysia and mainland Asia in just five days offieldwork. These discoveries demonstrate how poorlysurveyed Odonata have been in low pH swamp foresthabitats in mainland Southeast Asia; more discoveriescan be expected with further collecting effort.Many parts of the peat swamp habitat aroundSungai Bebar are only accessible by small boat. Theriverbanks and shallow parts of the river have anextensive growth of Pandanus, which at some pointscompletely clogs the waterway. The Jakun (indigenouspeople living around Sungai Bebar) normally burn theovergrown Pandanus during the dry season to cleara passage. The clear, low pH waters and vegetationstructure of the river appear to provide an ideal habitatfor a number of Odonata: Ictinogomphus acutus,I. decoratus, Macromia cincta, Chalybeothemisfluviatilis, Elattoneura aurantica and Pseudagrionwilliamsoni were abundant along the entire section ofthe river sampled.Despite the new records made at Sungai Bebar,there were also some surprising absences from oursample. In Borneo, species of the coenagrionoidgenera—Mortonagrion and Teinobasis—are almostinvariably found in such habitats. Members of thesegenera, especially the small Mortonagrion, are typicallyinconspicuous, but the authors have considerable2424Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | March 2012 | 4(3): 2417–2426

Odonata of Sungai Bebarexperience of collecting Odonata, and were looking outfor these genera. However, the three species currentlyplaced in Mortonagrion and known from PeninsularMalaysia—M. aborense (Laidlaw 1914), M. arthuriFraser, 1942 and M. falcatum Lieftinck, 1934—are notnecessarily swamp forest species (see Dow 2011 for adiscussion of M. arthuri). Four species of Teinobasisare known from Peninsular Malaysia (Dow 2010): T.cryptica Dow, 2010, T. kirbyi Laidlaw, 1902, T. rajahLaidlaw, 1912, T. ruficollis (Selys, 1877); of these allexcept T. kirbyi would be expected in the habitats atSungai Bebar, and are likely to be found there withfurther collecting.In other respects the odonate fauna of Sungai Bebaris similar to that of low pH swamp forest in Borneo:rich in coengrionoids, especially Amphicnemis, andlibellulids, poorer in numbers of species from otherfamilies, but including a number of specialist speciesfrom some of these families. The protoneurid genusElattoneura is well represented at Sungai Bebar, withthree species. All the Amphicnemis and Elattoneura(except E. analis) species of Peninsular Malaysia areinhabitants of alluvial swamp or peat swamp forest.All of the Amphicnemis (except A. ecornuta Selys,1889) and Elattoneura (again except E. analis) speciesthat have so far been recorded for Peninsular Malaysiawere found at Sungai Bebar. This suggests that theSungai Bebar area still has enough high quality habitatto sustain a high diversity of specialist peat swampforest species. Several gomphids were collectedon the Sungai Bebar, and more can be expectedthere, and on smaller streams in the swamp forest.Of the Gomphidae so far recorded at Sungai Bebar,Ictinogomphus acutus appears to be a specialist of lowpH habitats (see Dow & Unggang 2010). Additionalmembers of the Corduliidae, for instance Hemicorduliatenera Lieftinck, 1930, are to be expected. Swampforest in SE Asia is sometimes rich in members of theAeshnidae, in particular species of Gynacantha andHeliaeschna. However, the Aeshnidae are typicallydifficult to collect so that their diversity in an area isnormally only revealed over longer sampling periods;more than the single species recorded to-date mustoccur in the Sungai Bebar area.REFERENCESR.A. Dow et al.Choong, C.Y. (2009). A preliminary survey of Odonata fauna ofPanti Forest Reserve, pp. 223–228. In. Seiri KepelbagaianBiologi Hutan 11: Hutan Simpan Panti, Johor - PengurusanHutan, Persekitaran Fizikal dan Kepelbagaian Biologi.Jabatan Perhutanan Semenanjung Malaysia.Choong, C.Y., A.G. Orr & R.A. Dow (2008). Checklist ofdragonflies of UKM Campus. including Bangi ForestReserve, Bangi, Selangor, Malaysia. Echo 5: 4–5.Dow, R.A. (2010). A review of the Teinobasis of Sundaland,with the description of Teinobasis cryptica sp. nov. fromMalaysia (Odonata: Coenagrionidae). International Journalof Odonatology 13(2): 205–230, pl. II excl.Dow, R.A. (2011). Mortonagrion indraneil spec. nov. fromBorneo, and a redescription of M. arthuri Fraser (Odonata:Zygoptera: Coenagrionidae). Zootaxa 3093: 35–46.Dow, R.A., C.Y. Choong & Y.F. Ng (2010). A review ofthe genus Amphicnmemis in Peninsular Malaysia andSingapore, with descriptions of two new species (Odonata:Zygoptera: Coenagrionidae). Zootaxa 2605: 45–55.Dow, R.A., C.Y. Choong & A.G. Orr (2007). Two new speciesof Chalybeothemis from Malaysia, with a redefinition ofthe genus (Odonata: Libellulidae). International Journal ofOdonatology 10(2): 171–184.Dow, R.A. & J. Unggang (2010). The Odonata of BinyoPenyilam, a unique tropical wetland area in BintuluDivision, Sarawak, Malaysia. Journal of Threatened Taxa2(13): 1349–1358.Hämäläinen, M. (2000). Ten species added to the list ofPeninsular Malaysian Odonata. Notulae Odonatologicae5(5): 53–55.Kalkman, V.J. (2004). From cool hill resorts to humidrainforest: an odonatological trip to Peninsular Malaysia(July 2002). Echo 1, in Agrion 8(2): 26–28.Lieftinck, M.A. (1940). Descriptions and records of South-eastAsiatic Odonata (II). Treubia 17: 337–390.Lieftinck, M.A. (1954). Handlist of Malaysian Odonata.A catalogue of the dragonflies of the Malay Peninsula,Sumatra, Java and Borneo, including the adjacent smallislands. Treubia (Suppl.) 22: i-xiii+1–202.Norma-Rashid, Y., A. Mohd-Sofian & M. Zakaria-Ismail(2001). Diversity and distribution of Odonata (dragonfliesand damselflies) in the freshwater swamp lake Tasek Bera,Malaysia. Hydrobiologica 459: 135–146.Orr, A.G. (2001). An annotated checklist of the Odonata ofBrunei with ecological notes and descriptions of hithertounknown males and larvae. International Journal ofOdonatology 4: 167–220.Orr, A.G. (2003). Dragonflies of Borneo. Natural HistoryPublications (Borneo), Kota Kinabalu, x+195pp.Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | March 2012 | 4(3): 2417–24262425

Odonata of Sungai BebarOrr, A.G. (2005). Dragonflies of Peninsular Malaysia and Singapore. Natural HistoryPublications (Borneo), Kota Kinabalu, vi+127pp.Tang, H.B., L.K. Wang & M. Hämäläinen (2010). A photographic guide to theDragonflies of Singapore. Raffles Museum of Biodiversity Research, 5+223pp.UNDP (2006). Malaysia’s peat swamp forests. Conservation and sustainable use.United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), Malaysia, iv + 33 pp. Availablefrom http://202.187.94.201/Malaysias-peat-swamp-forests-conservation-andsustainable-use.Accessed 13 January 2010.R.A. Dow et al.Author Details: Ro r y A. Do w is a researchassociate at NCB Naturalis, Leiden, theNetherlands. His research interests are in thefaunistics and taxonomy of Asian Odonata. Hehas extensive experience of working in southeastAsia, especially in Malaysia.Yo n g Fo o Ng is an insect taxonomist in theSchool of Environmental and Natural ResourceSciences, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia(UKM) and a member of the Centre for InsectSystematics, UKM. His research is focusedon Asian Odonata and Thysanoptera. Hecollaborates with researchers from CSIRO,Entomology Department, Canberra, Australiaand NCB Naturalis, Leiden, NetherlandsCh e e Ye n Ch o o n g is a lecturer of School ofEnvironmental and Natural Resource Sciences,Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia (UKM). He isan associate member of the Centre for InsectSystematics, UKM, and has a profound interestin the dragonflies and damselflies of PeninsularMalaysia.Author Contribution: RAD identification of,and information on, the Odonata collected,collection of specimens. YFN informationon the area sampled, and on peat swampforest in Peninsular Malaysia; organization ofthe sampling trip. CYC identification of, andinformation on, the Odonata collected, collectionof specimens, photography.2426Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | March 2012 | 4(3): 2417–2426

JoTT Co m m u n ic a t i o n 4(3): 2427–2435Evaluation of some mangrove species on the nature oftheir reproduction along the coastal belt of the IndianSunderbansArunima Ghosh 1 & Prabir Chakraborti 21Research Fellow, 2 Associate Professor, Department of Seed Science & Technology, Faculty of Agriculture, Bidhan Chandra KrishiViswavidyalaya, Mohanpur, Nadia, West Bengal 741252, IndiaEmail: 1 ghosharunima@gmail.com, 2 prabcbckv@gmail.com (corresponding author)Date of publication (online): 26 March 2012Date of publication (print): 26 March 2012ISSN 0974-7907 (online) | 0974-7893 (print)Editor: Sanit AksornkoaeManuscript details:Ms # o2416Received 09 August 2010Final received 14 October 2011Finally accepted 15 March 2012Citation: Ghosh, A., & P. Chakraborti (2011).Evaluation of some mangrove species on thenature of their reproduction along the coastalbelt of the Indian Sunderbans. Journal ofThreatened Taxa 4(3): 2427–2435.Copyright: © Arunima Ghosh & PrabirChakrabor ti 2011. Creative CommonsAttribution 3.0 Unported License. JoTT allowsunrestricted use of this article in any mediumfor non-profit purposes, reproduction anddistribution by providing adequate credit to theauthors and the source of publication.Author Details: Ar u n i ma Gh o s h has completedher MSc (Botany) from Calcutta Universityin the year 2005. She is working in a MoEFsponsored project on Indian Mangroves from2006. She has registered for PhD under theguidance of Dr. Prabir Chakraborti. Shehas published several research papers onIndian Mangroves and contributed articleson sunderbans. Dr. Pr a b i r Ch a k r a b o r t i wasawarded MSc and PhD in 1989 and 1995respectively under the discipline of genetics& plant breeding. He allied with plant tissueculture as well plant breeding. He worked as awheat breeder in All India Co-ordinated wheatimprovement programme.For Author Contribution andAcknowledgement see end of this article.Bidhan ChandraKrishi ViswavidyalayaOPEN ACCESS | FREE DOWNLOADAbstract: Reproductive biology of three dominating mangrove species Rhizophoramucronata, Ceriops decandra and Avicennia marina from the Indian Sunderbans werestudied. A comparative account on all floral parts revealed that as the bud progresses tocompletely open, the length of androecium surpassed the length of gynoecium and theanther matured first thus showing protandrous nature and favouring cross-fertilization.A study of pollen grain viability revealed that all of them produces fairly good amounts ofviable pollen grains in their natural condition. The pollens showed their maximum viabilitylate in the morning till early noon. The stigma showed peak receptivity after three daysof flower opening in C. decandra and four days of flower opening in R. mucronata and A.marina. All the species showed out-breeding mechanism of pollination. The fruit settingpercentage obtained by xenogamy was the highest and autogamy failed to show anyresult in all the three genera. Although Ceriops decandra and Avicennia marina showedvery limited fruit set with geitonogamy, these two species can be called facultativeout-crossers, while Rhizophora was obligate outcrosser in nature. The study on floralstructure, pollen viability along with stigma receptivity of the investigated taxa guidedto maximum exploitation of reproductive behavior for rising artificial and natural plantpopulation in addition to build up a future research strategy in ecosystem conservation.Keywords: Reproductive biology, stigma receptivity, pollen viability, mangrove, IndianSunderbansIntroductionThe Indian Sunderbans maintain an exceptional ecosystem as well asbig forests dominated by mangrove plants with a wide range of speciesdiversity in the Indo-Gangetic plain, which exhibit various adaptationsto cope with the environment (Datta et al. 2007). The vegetationextends between 21 0 31’– 21 0 31’ N and 88 0 10’–89 0 51’ E within India,covering approximately 2195km 2 (Sanyal 1996) excluding the networkof creeks and backwaters.The successful vegetation largely depends on the reproductive nature,fruit and seed setting behaviour of the species. Information of floral biologyof mangroves is meager particularly in the Indian Sunderbans. However,it is important to study this in respect to its reproductive nature. In general,flowering in mangroves begins in spring and continues throughout thesummer in India, whereas in Malaysia most species flower and fruitcontinuously throughout the year. Mangroves have both self pollinatingand cross pollinating mechanisms that vary with species. For example,Aegiceras corniculatum and Lumnitzera racemosa are self pollinated.Avicennia officinalis is self fertile, but can also cross fertilize (Aluri1990). In Avicennia marina, protandry makes self pollination unlikely.Mangroves are pollinated by a diverse group of animals including bats,Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | March 2012 | 4(3): 2427–24352427

Evaluation of some mangrove speciesA. Ghosh & P. Chakrabortibirds and insects. Pollen is deposited on the animals asthey deeply probe the flowers looking for nectar; theysubsequently transfer the pollen grains to the stigma ofanother flower. The mangroves show a wide variety ofreproduction, i.e., viviparity, cryptoviviparity, normalgermination and vegetative reproduction (Bhoasale &Mulik 1991).In this paper, we report the reproductive nature ofsome of the important mangrove species includingtheir floral biology, pollen morphology and breedingbehaviour under the Indian Sunderban conditions,and factors that are favourable to sustain them in thisecosystem, as existing information on these aspects islimited (Tomlinson 1986).Materials and MethodsStudy areaThe Patharpratima and Naamkhana blocks (Fig. 1)were selected as the study area out of 19 communityblocks in the Indian Sunderbans. Both the islands weresurrounded by creeks, channels and rivers which favourluxuriant growth of mangrove flora. The study areawas included under the buffer zone of the SunderbansTiger Reserve Forest (Image 1). A rough taxonomicsurvey of both areas revealed that Avicennia marinacovers approximately 95% of the forest, followed byCeriops decandra and Rhizophora mucronata. Otherspecies occur in patches.Selection of speciesTwo dominant mangrove families, Rhizophoraceaeand Avicenniaceae were selected to find theirreproductive nature. Among the flora, Rhizophoraceaewas considered a typical mangrove species because itshowed viviparous reproduction in addition to specialadaptations in saline conditions (Status Report onMangroves 1987). These species occur in polyhalinezones with salinity ranging from 18–30 % and excludedmore than 90% of salt from sea water. Avicenniaceaewas known to be the second largest group dominatingin the mangrove swamps of the Indian Sunderbansand it showed cryptovivipary. For the above study,one species from the Avicenniaceae family, Avicenniamarina and two from the Rhizophoraceae family,Ceriops decandra, and Rhizophora mucronata, wereselected as the study material. Since A. marinaImage 1. Study area (shaded) in the Indian Sunderbans.happened to be the most dominant flora and had a hightolerance to salinity (Ghosh & Mandal 1989), it wasselected for the present study. Ceriops decandra fromthe Rhizophoraceae family was selected as it was thesecond dominant taxon in the Indian Sunderbans, itstolerance was lower than A. marina and R. mucronata,and this species showed localised abundance.Description of floral parts and experimentalstudiesThe study of Rhizophora mucronata, Ceriopsdecandra and Avicennia marina was conducted for aone-year period (2008–09). The observations on floralstructure (Dafni 1992) and the comparative length ofdifferent floral parts at different stages were recorded.Pollen morphological study, its germinability (%),peak hour of viable pollen on the day of anthesis wasstudied. The breeding system along with fruit settingpercentage was also recorded for the investigatedtaxa.A pollen morphological study was carried out withair dried pollen grains using acetolysis method (Faegri& Iversen 1975) so that pollen grains were madeclearer to give excellent topographic information. Forthis, the pollen grains were first heated in a mixture of2428Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | March 2012 | 4(3): 2427–2435

Evaluation of some mangrove speciessulphuric acid and anhydrous acetic acid in order toremove all non sporopollen substances. Six sucroseconcentrations (0.2, 0.6, 1.0, 1.2, 1.6 & 2.0 %) wereused in a hanging drop test to determine pollen tubeelongation (Youmbi et al. 2004). Pollens from 10different trees of each species were collected on theday of anthesis.For studying the peak period for viable pollenon the day of anthesis, fresh pollen were collectedin two hour intervals starting from 0500 to 1700 hr.The collected pollens were tested through the acetoorceintest (Muccifora et al. 2003). Anthers were thenstained with 3% aceto-orcein solution. Slides weremade permanent using Euparol and examined under amicroscope. The viable pollen grains appeared brightred in comparison to pale appearance of non visiblepollen.The breeding system was evaluated by handpollination technique, according to Dafni (1992) inthree ways viz. autogamy, geitonogamy and xenogamy.The stigma receptive time was also studied in the sameexperiment. The flower buds in each inflorescence ofthree genera were trimmed to retain only 5–6 uniformbuds and emasculated a day before flower openingexcepting autogamy. Twenty-five mature buds fromeach genera were used for each set every day fromflowers that were completely open (T 1or 1 st day) towithered petal (T 7or 7 th day). They were pollinatedmanually and bagging was done for recording thenumber of fruit set in each day of pollination.ResultsIn Rhizophora mucronata, each branch carried5–8 axillary cyme inflorescences of 5.0cm longapproximately, with 2–4 dichotomously branched,containing four flowers in each peduncle (Image 2a).Flowers were white, perfect, with four sepals andpetals in each. Sepals were typically pale yellow atmaturity with four lobes. Out of eight free stamens,four were alternating with sepals and four were withpetals (Image 2a). Anthers were bilobed, basifixedand introrse. Ovary showed globose and inferiorin position (Fig. 1 a-f). Open flowers were locatedwithin or below leaf axils at leaf nodes below theapical shoot. Pollen grains were tricolporate, isopolar,radially symmetric, amb circular, peritreme, prolate,A. Ghosh & P. ChakrabortiPA x ED 27.5 ± 0.13 x 23.7 ± 0.07 μm (Images 3c,d). The nature of progression of the flower changedthe length of the androecium and gynoecium, in theinitial stage (bud) the length was the same but laterthe androecium (1.1cm) surpassed the length of thegynoecium (0.9cm) thus favouring cross pollination(Table. 1).The flower took 8–10 days to complete its floweringlife and it opened in the morning. The pollen tube lengthwas maximum in 1% sucrose solution showing a tubelength of 280.9±4.2 µm (Table. 2). As the flower opens,the anthers get exposed and matured fast showing aprotandrous nature. Anthesis started in the eveningat 1800hr (approx.) and it was completed the nextday by 1200hr (approx.) where the calyx lobes wereseparated to expose the petals. The anthesis startedwith a slit at the apex and at the end, the epidermallayer of the anther wall droped on the stigma and alsoto prevent self pollination (Image 2b). The viability ofpollen was maximum between 1100 and 1300 hr of theday, showing a viability percentage of 71.13. By handpollination technique it was found that the Rhizophoramucronata was an obligate out-crosser and the stigmaattained its receptivity a day after the flower opens and itcontinued for another four or five days. The maximumreceptivity showed on the 4 th day (T4) of the flowerlife with a fruit setting of 93.3%. The stigma was wetand papillate with a distinct groove in the middle thatappeared after anthesis. The fruit setting percentagethrough autogamy and geitonogamy showed nilthus confirming its complete self incompatibility.Rhizophora was usually wind pollinated (Tomlinson1986) but insects like bees, beetles (Image 2c) hadbeen observed visiting flowers.For Ceriops decandra the flowers were borne incondensed cymes inflorescence from dichotomouspanicles, which occured in the leaf axils (Image 2e).Flowers were small, white, cup-shaped, bisexual(Image 2f) and took 6–10 days to complete floweringlife. Sepals and petals were five, small, with analternate arrangement. Petals form a short corolla tubecrowned by a series of clavate filamentous appendages(Fig. 1 g–i). Out of 10, five antesepalous and fiveantepetalous stamens were inserted on the rim of thecalyx cup. Anthers mature earlier than gynoeciumthus confirming its protandry; anthers were longerthan filaments. Disc within the stamen ring was welldeveloped and anther lobes enclosed the base of theJournal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | March 2012 | 4(3): 2427–24352429

Evaluation of some mangrove speciesA. Ghosh & P. Chakrabortia b cd e fg h ij k lImage 2. (a–d) Rhizophora mucronata: a - 2–4 dichotomously branched axilary cyme inflorescence; b - L.S of flower showingdehisced anther; c - Beetle pollinating the flower; d - Fruit set with calyx attached to it(e–h) Ceriops decandra: e - Bud arising from the leaf axil; f - Flower with mature anther showing protandry; g - After fruitset-parts of corolla still attached to the fruit; h - Honey Bee pollinating the flower.(i–l) Avicennia marina: i - Bud cluster; j - Complete open flower with mature anther showing protandry; k - Apis dorsatapollinating the flower; l - After fruit sets in2430Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | March 2012 | 4(3): 2427–2435

Evaluation of some mangrove speciesA. Ghosh & P. ChakrabortiTable 1. Comparative account of the floral parts in different maturity stageLength ofdifferentFloral partsRhizophora mucronata Ceriops decandra Avicennia marinaBud(cm)Flowerabout toopen (cm)Completelyopen flower(cm)Bud(cm)Flowerabout toopen (cm)Completelyopen flower(cm)Bud(cm)Flowerabout toopen (cm)Completelyopen flower(cm)Flower 1.4 1.8 1.7 0.7 0.95 0.9 0.3 0.5 0.45Sepal 1.2 1.5 1.6 0.35 0.5 0.6 0.15 0.25 0.3Petal 0.9 1.2 1.4 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.45Androecium 0.7 0.9 1.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.45Gynoecium 0.7 0.8 0.9 0.04 0.05 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.15Style 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.16 0.25 0.35 0.2 0.25 0.3Stigma 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.35 0.4 0.15 0.2 0.3Ovary 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.09 0.1Table 2. Growth of pollen tube under different concentrations of sucroseName of the genusPollen-tube length (µm) under different concentration of sucrose (%)0.2 0.6 1.0 1.2 1.6 2.0Rhizophora mucronata - - 280.9± 4.2 16± 2.3 38.6±2.6 -Ceriops decandra - - 96.2± 2.6 185.5± 4.1 196±1.4 -Avicennia marina 36±1.83 100±2.8 130.1± 5.2 39.3± 1.06 78±6.3 226±2.15thick filaments. Ovary was semi-inferior with a totalof six ovules. Style is slender and minute separatestigmatic lobes were present. The pollen grainswere tricolporate, isopolar, radially symmetric, ambcircular, peritreme, subprolate, PA x ED 16.2 ±0.13 x14.0 ±0.17 μm (Images 3 c,d). As the bud progressesthe androecium length (0.4cm) increased to more thanthe length of the gynoecium (0.05cm) (Table. 1).The pollen tube length was noted maximumin 1.6% sucrose solution showing a tube length of196±1.4 µm (Table. 2). The anther dehiscence natureand other activities were the same as in Rhizophora.The maximum pollen viability was during 0900–1100hr showing a percentage of 68.3 (Table. 3). Withhand pollination technique, Ceriops decandra didnot produce fruit/seed through autogamy. The stigmaattained its receptivity two days after the flower opensand continued for another four or five days, showingpeak receptivity on the 3 rd day (T3) of the flowerlife with a fruit setting percentage of 83.3 throughxenogamy (Table. 4). The fruit setting percentagethrough autogamy showed nil and geitonogamy onthe day of peak receptivity (T3) showed a very limitedfruit set of 13.3% (Table. 4). Bees (Image 2j), wasps,moths, flies etc. are capable of causing successfulpollination in Ceriops decandra.The second dominating family of the mangroves,Avicennia marina, was a common species in theIndian Sunderbans. The tree showed flowering inthe months of April–August. The hypocotyls did notcome out from the fruit due to its cryptoviviparousnature. Tomlinson (1986) described the inflorescenceof Avicennia as a panicle that ended in a basic unitcalled flower cluster. Sometimes it was referred toas ’cymose inflorescence’ but it was better to call it aflower cluster because the terminal flower did not openfirst. A. marina contained usually three terminal oraxillary flower clusters, although it was vary from 1–6(Image 2i). Each cluster consisted of 1–10 decussatelyarranged flower buds in a capitate unit (Image 2j). Ittook 10–30 days for a cluster to complete its flowering,whereas an individual flower retained an open corollafor 2–6 days. In Avicennia marina the flowers weresmall, short filament, minute hairs present on the style.Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | March 2012 | 4(3): 2427–24352431

Evaluation of some mangrove speciesA. Ghosh & P. ChakrabortiTable 3. Peak period of viable pollen percentage (0500–1700 hr)Name of the genusPercentage of viable pollen in hour of the day (%)5–7 hrs 7–9 hrs 9–11 hrs 11–13 hrs 13–15 hrs 15–17 hrsRhizophora mucronata 19.1 20.5 50.9 71.13 9.46 -Ceriops decandra 3.5 39.6 68.3 29.4 8.04 0.02Avicennia marina 0.96 25.2 70.1 80.03 17.55 0.67Table 4. Stigma receptivity by different modes of hand pollination in a flower life (bud - petal dehiscence)Day offlower life(pollinated)AutogamySeed set percentage (%) through different modes of pollinationRhizophora mucronata Ceriops decandra Avicennia marinaGeitonogamyXenogamyAutogamyGeitonogamyXenogamyAutogamyGeitonogamyXenoGamyT1 (flower justopen)- - - - - - - - -T2 - - 50T3 - - 66.6T4 - - 93.3T5 - - 33.3T6 - - 26.6------ -13.3 83.3- 50- 23.3- 16.6----- -- 73.320 90- 50- 16.6T7 (petalwithered away)- - - - - - - - -Flowers were four-lobed, actinomorphic, condensedin terminal or axillary cyme, sessile, 0.5–0.9 cm longand complete; sepal five, polysepalous; petals four,gamopetalous; stamens four, epipetalous; filament0.2cm long (Image 2j); ovary superior, 0.3cm long (Fig.1 m–r). The calyx lobes were separated at anthesis anddiverged to expose the petals. In a complete flower thelength of androecium (0.45cm) surpassed the length ofgynoecium (0.15cm), showing a protandrous nature.In acetolysis technique, it was found that pollen grainswere tricolporate, isopolar, radially symmetric, ambcircular,peritreme, prolate with PA × ED- 23.7±0.13 ×18.7±0.08 µm (Table. 2) (Images 3 c,d).The viability of pollen was maximum from 1100–1300 hr showing a percentage of 80.03 (Table 3). Thehand pollination technique showed that the stigmaattained its receptivity two days after the flower opensand continued for another four or five days, showingpeak receptivity on the 4 th day (T4) of the flower lifewith a 90% fruit setting through xenogamy (Table4). The fruit setting percentage through autogamyand geitonogamy showed nil and 20% respectivelyon the day of peak receptivity (Table 4). Numerouspollinators like the honey bee (Apis dorsata) (Image2k) were actually attracted to the nectar-like secretionfounded at the base of the corolla tube helpful forxenogamy.DiscussionIn the Indian Sunderbans, Rhizophora mucronataand Ceriops decandra are two prominent species.The peak flowering season for Rhizophora mucronatais June–July during the monsoons, again in Nov–Dec (early winter). Table 1 represents the floralcharacteristics of some dominating taxa, where theflowers are actinomorphic. R. mucronata and C.decandra of the Rhizophoraceae family are uniformlyprotected within a comparatively thick and fleshycalyx lobe, its persistent nature seems to be a protectiveelement for successful fruit setting. A number offiliform appendages present at the apex of the petalsand the stamens are usually twice as many as thenumber of petals, but in Kandelia candel (a member ofthe family Rhizophoraceae) the stamens are numerous(Das 1994). According to Tomlinson (1979), themechanical and biological natures of inflorescence2432Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | March 2012 | 4(3): 2427–2435

Evaluation of some mangrove speciescaeImage 3. (a–f) Photomicrographs of the investigated pollengrains.(a–b) - Avicennia marina: a - equatorial view (x 750);b - polar view (x 750); (c–d) - Ceriops decandra:c - equatorial view (x 1000); d - polar view (x1175);(e–f) - Rhizophora mucronata: e - Equatorial view (x 870);f - polar view (x 1230).dfaA. Ghosh & P. Chakrabortiof different anthesis time in a single plant. The fruitsetting percentage obtained through xenogamy showedpositive which contradicted the results obtained bySun et al. (1998), where geitonogamous selfing wasseen to be high. Setoguchi et al. (1996) worked onCrossostylis sp., a species of Rhizophoraceae andfound marked differences in floral morphology fromthat of other mangrove species of the same family.Morphological examinations of pollen grains revealedthat all the taxa investigated had tricolporate, prolateor subprolate pollens with surface ornamentation thatare reticulate or scabrate. A. marina and R. mucronatapollens were larger than that of C. decandra. Pollengrains viability test at peak hour shows that all theinvestigated taxa produced more than 50% viablepollens that ultimately lead to successful participationin pollination mechanisms and seed production. Farkas& Orosz (2004) obtained above 50% viable pollens intheir experiment on pear (Pyrus betulifolia) and it issufficient for successful pollination as well as enoughto attract bees. Any results in mangrove pollen viabilityhas not been reported so far. Bernal et al. (2005) saidthat in vitro pollen germination is a suitable method forstudying male fertility, and probably a reliable processof estimation for seed production.The rate of pollen germination and pollen tubeelongation varies with sucrose concentrations as wellas species specific. So, a selection pressure mustbe involved to determine the accurate germinationprocedure and it may be extended to the atmosphericinteraction.Conclusionprovide continuous protection to the youngest units bya successive series of bracts, bracteoles and sepal asobserved in our three species. In Avicennia marinathe flowers are small, short filament, minute hairs onthe style, same as earlier workers (Ghosh et al. 2008).Tomlinson et al. (1979) observed that a wide range ofpollination mechanisms exist in the Rhizophoraceaefamily. The present work is in conformity with that.The floral characters revealed that cross pollinationmechanisms prevail but geitonogamous pollinationis reported minimally in the case of A. marina & C.decandra. Based on the bagging techniques, the fruitsetting percentage through autogamy is nil as a resultFrom the above study, it is clear that these plantsadapted to stresses like salinity by an out-crossingmethod of pollination, strongly supported by aprotandrous nature, to combat stressful substrata. Theout-breeding mechanism modifies the gene pool withwider adaptability especially in stress. Generally,for establishment of a wider genetic background, aselection pressure must be involved in the process.The plant adapted continuum of life without havingany dormancy by exhibiting its reproductive nature.Therefore, we can conclude that the reproductivenature is considered an adaptive strategy for seedlingdevelopment to overcome the harsh conditions and aJournal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | March 2012 | 4(3): 2427–24352433

Evaluation of some mangrove speciesA. Ghosh & P. Chakrabortia b c d e fg h i j k lm n o p q rFigure 1. Floral parts and floral diagram of (a–f) R. mucronata, (g–l) C. decandra and (m-r) A. marinameaningful conservation strategy can be adopted forpreservation of these endangered species.ReferencesAluri, R.J. (1990). Observations on the floral biology of certainmangroves. Proceedings of the Indian National ScienceAcademy, Part B, Biological Sciences 56(4): 367–374.Banerjee, A. (1998). Environment, Population and HumanSettlements of Sunderban Delta—1 st Edition. ConceptPublishing Company, New Delhi, 60–77pp.Bernal, C., G. Palomares & I. Susin (2005). Establishmentof a germination medium for artichoke pollen and itsrelationship with seed production. Acta-Horticulture 681:291–99.Bhattacharya, A.K. (1989). Coastal geomorphology, processesand hazards: a note on management measures. Proceedingsof the Coast Zone Management of West Bengal, SeaExplorers’ Institute, Calcutta, 49–61pp.Bhosale, L.J. & N.G. Mulik (1991). Strategies of seedgermination in mangroves, pp. 201–205. In: Sen, D.N. &S. Mohammed (eds.) Proceedings of International SeedSymposium, Fodhpur.Bhosale, L.J. (1994). Propagation techniques for regenerationof mangrove forests - a new asset. Journal of Non-timberForest Products 1(3–4): 119–122.Dafni, A. (1992). Pollination Ecology: A Practical Approach.Oxford University Press, New York, 110–125pp.Das, S. (1994). Certain aspects of morphology, anatomy andpalynology of some mangroves and their associates fromSunderbans, West Bengal. PhD Thesis, University ofCalcutta. India.Datta, P.N., S. Das, M. Ghose & R. Spooner-Hart (2007).Effects of salinity on photosynthesis, leaf anatomy, ionaccumulation and photosynthetic nitrogen use efficiency infive Indian mangroves. Wetland Ecology Management 15:347–357.Farkas, A. & Z. Orosz-Kovacs (2004). Primary and secondaryattractants of flowers in pear (Pyrus betulifolia). Acta–Horticulture 636: 317–324.Faegri, K. & J. Iversen (1975). Journal of Text Book of PollenAnalysis—3 rd Edition. Copenhagen, Munksgaard, 295pp.Ghosh, A., S. Gupta, S. Maity & S. Das ( 2008). Study offloral morphology of some Indian mangroves in relation topollination. Research Journal of Botany 3(1): 9–16.Ghosh, R.K. & A.K. Mandal (1989). Sunderban - A Socio Bio-Ecological Study—1 st Edition. Bookland Pvt. Ltd. Calcutta,34–67pp.Muccifora, S., L.M. Bellani & P. Gori (2003). Ultrastructure,viability in virto germination of the tricellular Sumbuscusnigra L. pollen. International Journal of Plant Sciences164(6): 855–860.2434Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | March 2012 | 4(3): 2427–2435

Evaluation of some mangrove speciesSalvam, V. & V.M. Karunagaran (2004). Coastal Wetlands: Ecology and Biology ofMangroves. M.S. Swaminathan Research Foundation, Chennai, 81–94pp.Sanyal, P. (1996). Sundarbans: the largest mangrove diversity on globe, pp. 11–16. In:Willium Roxburgh Memorial Seminar on Sundarban Mangals. Calcutta, India.Setoguchi, H., O. Hideaki & T. Hiroshi (1996). Floral morphology and phylogeneticanalysis in Crossostylis (Rhizophoraceae). Journal of Plant Research 109: 7–19.Sun, M., K.C. Wong & S.Y. Lee (1998). Reproductive biology and populationgenetic structure of Kandelia candel (Rhizophoraceae), a viviparous mangrovespecies. American Journal of Botany 85: 1631–1637.Status Report on Mangroves (1987). Ministry of Environment and Forests,Government of India, New Delhi, 13–19pp.Tomlinson, P.B. (1986). The Botany of Mangroves. Cambridge University Press, NewYork, 65–78pp.Youmbi, E., M.T. Cerceau-Larrival, A.M. Verhille & M.C. Carbonnier-Jarreau(1998). Morphology and in vitro pollen germination of Dacryodes edulis(Burseraceae). Parameters for optimal germination. Grana 37: 87–92.A. Ghosh & P. ChakrabortiAuthor Contribution: AG carried out the fieldwork, examined the materials, collected andhas tabulated and prepared the manuscript.PC guided the field study, analysis, raisedfunds for the work and helped in the writing ofthe manuscript.Acknowledgement: The financial supportreceived through a research project titled “SeedBiology of Indian Mangroves in relation to itssustained conservation and Management” fromthe Ministry of Environment and Forests, Govt.of India, New Delhi, is gratefully acknowledged.Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | March 2012 | 4(3): 2427–24352435

JoTT Co m m u n ic a t i o n 4(3): 2436–2443DNA barcoding of the Bryde’s Whale Balaenoptera edeniAnderson (Cetacea: Balaenopteridae) washed ashorealong Kerala coast, IndiaA. Bijukumar 1 , S.S. Jijith 2 , U. Suresh Kumar 3 & S. George 41Department of Aquatic Biology and Fisheries, University of Kerala, Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala 695581, India2,3Regional Facility for DNA Fingerprinting, Rajiv Gandhi Centre for Biotechnology, Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala 695014, India4Chemical Biology Group, Rajiv Gandhi Centre for Biotechnology,Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala 695014, IndiaEmail: 1 abiju@rediffmail.com (corresponding author), 2 jijithss@gmail.com, 3 sureshkumar@rgcb.res.in, 4 sgeorge@rgcb.res.inDate of publication (online): 26 March 2012Date of publication (print): 26 March 2012ISSN 0974-7907 (online) | 0974-7893 (print)Editor: E. VivekanandanManuscript details:Ms # o2859Received 01 July 2011Final received 16 November 2011Finally accepted 02 March 2012Citation: Bijukumar, A., S.S. Jijith, U.S. Kumar &S. George (2012). DNA barcoding of the Bryde’sWhale Balaenoptera edeni Anderson (Cetacea:Balaenopteridae) washed ashore along Keralacoast, India. Journal of Threatened Taxa 4(3):2436–2443.Copyright: © A. Bijukumar, S.S. Jijith, U. SureshKumar & S. George 2012. Creative CommonsAttribution 3.0 Unported License. JoTT allowsunrestricted use of this article in any medium fornon-profit purposes, reproduction and distributionby providing adequate credit to the authors andthe source of publication.For Author Details, Author Contribution seeend of this article.Acknowledgements: AB thank Kerala StateCouncil for Science, Technology and Environmentfor financial support of the work and friends in theprint media who frequently inform us strandingof whales. We thank Dr. Radhakrishna Pillai,Director, Rajiv Gandhi Centre for Biotechnology,Thiruvananthapuram for the support. Weappreciate the field support extended by thestudents Sirajudheen, Ravinesh, Rajesh, SmirthiRaj, Varun Raj and Soosan.OPEN ACCESS | FREE DOWNLOADAbstract: Three whales washed ashore along Kerala coast of southwest India wereidentified as Bryde’s Whale Balaenoptera edeni Anderson based on sequencing ofmitochondrial cytochrome c oxidase subunit 1 and cytochrome b genes. The resultsof mtDNA sequencing in the present study confirm the presence of B. edeni species of‘Bryde’s Whale complex’ in the coastal waters of India.Keywords: Balaenoptera, Bryde’s Whale complex, cytochrome b, cytochrome c oxidasesubunit 1, morphometry, mitochondrial DNA.Malayalam Abstract: §LcÏáæ¿ æÄAá É¿ßEÞùX ÍÞ·æJ çμø{ÄàøJ¿ßEá μÏùßÏÎâKí ÄßÎߢ·ÜBZ èdÌÁØí ÄßÎߢ·Ü ÕßÍÞ·JßWæMG ÌÜàçÈÞÉíxàù ®çÁÈß ¦XçÁÝíØX¼ÞÄßÏÞæÃKí èÎçxÞçμÞXdÁßÏÏßæÜ èØçxÞçdμÞ¢ Øß ³μíØßçÁØí ØÌí ÏâÃßxí 1,èØçxÞçdμÞ¢ Ìß ®Kà ¼àÈáμ{áæ¿ Öã¢ÜÞÉÀÈ¢ ÕÝß æÕ{ßÕÞÏß. ¨ ÉÀÈ¢, §LcX μ¿ÜßæÜèdÌÁØí ÄßÎߢ·ÜB{áæ¿ ØÞKßÇcæJ ¥¿ßÕøÏßGáùMßAáKá.IntroductionThough an integral component of marine ecosystems, marine mammals,particularly whales, are given little attention by conservation biologistsand taxonomists in India. Baleen whales are included in the suborderMysticeti (Ceteacea: Balaenopteriidae) and are characterised by thepresence of a filtering structure in the mouth called Baleen or Whalebone,flippers representing the forelimbs, a tail with horizontal flukes and nasalopenings (blowholes) on top of the head (Jefferson et al. 1993). In Indiancoastal waters this suborder includes the Blue Whale Balaenopteramusculus, Fin Whale B. physalus, Sei Whale B. borealis, Bryde’s WhaleB. edeni, Mink Whale B. acutorostrata and the Humpback WhaleMegaptera novaeangliae (Kumaran 2002; Sathasivam 2004; Jayasankar& Anoop 2010).Stranding of marine mammals occurs frequently in India, yet preciseidentification is not done in many cases due to lack of local taxonomicexpertise and poor condition of specimens (George et al. 2011). Sinceall cetaceans are important from the conservation point of view, precisedocumenting of their presence would provide valuable informationregarding the distribution and migratory nature of different species in theseas around India. Of late, DNA barcoding or sequencing of mitochondrialgenes, particularly cytochrome c oxidase subunit 1 (cox1) (Amaral et al.2007; George et al. 2011) and cytochrome b (cyt b) (Ross et al. 2003;Dalebout et al. 2004; Herath 2007; Sholl et al. 2008; Jayasankar et al.2436Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | March | 4(3): 2436–2443

DNA barcoding of Bryde’s Whale in IndiaImage 1. Balaenoptera edeni Anderson washed ashoreThanni Beach at Kollam, KeralaImage 2. Balaenoptera edeni Anderson washed ashoreMuthalapozhi Beach at Anchuthengu, KeralaA. Bijukumar et al.2011; Image 1), Anchuthengu (Muthalapozhi Beach;08 0 40’23”N & 76 0 45’23”E; 04 June 2011; Image 2)and Poonthura (Cheriyathura Beach; 08 0 26’36.21”N& 76 0 56’32.70”E; 10 June 2011; Image 3) alongsouthern Kerala. The precise identity of the specimensat Anchuthengu and Poonthura could not be madesince the specimens were putrefied. The whalestranded at Kollam measured 960cm (total length)and was identified as Bryde’s Whale Balaenopteraedeni, Anderson, based on morphological featuresand morphometry (Table 1). The Bryde’s Whale canbe distinguished from other baleen whales by thepresence of three conspicuous ridges on the snout,40–70 throat pleats extending to the navel and a talland falcate dorsal fin that generally rises abruptly outof the back (Jefferson et al. 1993).Tissue samples were collected from all the whalesto confirm identification by the sequencing of twomitochondrial genes, cox1 and cyt b. The samples inabsolute ethanol were processed for the extraction ofDNA using QIAGEN DNeasy Blood and Tissue Kit (catNo.69506) and cox1 and cyt-b genes were amplified usinguniversal primers [cox 1: Forward primer- 5’-GGTCAACAAATCATAAAGATATTGG-3’, Reverse primer-5’-TAAACTTCAGGGTGACCAAAAAATCA-3’,Tm value : 45–51 0 C (Folmer et al. 1994); cytb: Forward primer- 5’-TACCATGAGGACAAATATCATTCTG-3’, Reverse primer-5’-CCTCCTAGTTTGTTAGGGATTGATCG-3’, Tmvalue: 46 0 C (Verma & Singh 2003)] in a 25µl reactionTable 1. Morphometry of Bryde’s Whale Balaenoptera edeniAnderson washed ashore at Thanni Beach, KeralaImage 3. Balaenoptera edeni Anderson washed ashoreCheriyathura Beach at Poonthura, Kerala2007, 2008; Viricel & Rosel 2011), has been used tosuccessfully identify cetaceans.Three whales were stranded at Kollam (ThanniBeach; 08 0 49’44.4”N & 76 0 33.3’14.3”E; 24 May1MeasurementLength, total (tip of the upper jaw to the deepestpart of notch between flukes)cm9602 Length, tip of the upper jaw to centre of eye 2703Length of gape (tip of the upper jaw to angle ofgape)3784 Length, tip of upper jaw to blowhole along midline 3305Length, tip of upper jaw to anterior insertion offlipper4246 Length, tip of upper jaw to tip of dorsal fin 6707 Length of flipper (anterior insertion of tip) 1228 Width, flipper (maximum) 329 Height of dorsal fin (fin tip to base) 9610 Fluke span 28211Width of flukes (distance from nearest point onanterior border of fluke notch)88Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | March 2012 | 4(3): 2436–24432437

DNA barcoding of Bryde’s Whale in Indiavolume with QIAGEN Taq PCR master mix kit inGenAmp PCR System 9700 (Applied Biosystems).The following thermal cycling conditions were usedfor amplifications: 95 0 C for 5 min, followed by 10cycles of 95 0 C for 30s, 45 0 C for 40s, 72 0 C for 90s,followed by 30 cycles of 95 0 C for 30s, 51 0 C for 40s,72 0 C for 90s, and a final extension step at 72 0 C for 5min (for cox 1) and 95 0 C for 5 min, followed by 40cycles of 95 0 C for 30s, 46 0 C for 30 s, 72 0 C for 30s, anda final extension step at 72 0 C for 7 min (for cytb).All the PCR products were visualized on 1%agarose gels and the most intense products wereselected for sequencing. Sequencing was performeddirectly using the corresponding PCR primers andproducts were labelled using the BigDye TerminatorA. Bijukumar et al.V.3.1 Cycle sequencing Kit (Applied Biosystems, Inc.)and sequenced using an ABI 3730 capillary sequencerfollowing manufacturer’s instructions. Sequencesimilarity search was done to identify the speciesof the tissue, with all entries in the DNA sequencedatabase GenBank using Basic Local AlignmentSearch Tool (BLAST, Altschul et al. 1990). Twentysixcytb sequences and 28 cox1 sequences were usedfor the phylogenetic analysis and after final alignmentthe lengths were 400bp for cytb and 513bp forcox1. Phylogenetic position of the query sequenceswas determined using the maximum likelihood andmaximum parsimony methods using MEGA Ver. 5(Tamura et al. 2007; Kumar et al. 2008) and the branchsupport was evaluated using 1000 bootstrap replicatesFigure 1. Maximum Parsimony phylogram using cytb partial sequences of the samples compared with other referencesequences of Balaenoptera spp. in GenBank. The numbers on the tree branches indicate bootstrap values2438Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | March 2012 | 4(3): 2436–2443

DNA barcoding of Bryde’s Whale in IndiaA. Bijukumar et al.Figure 2. Maximum Parsimony phylogram using cox1 partial sequences of the samples compared with other referencesequences of Balaenoptera spp. in GenBank. The numbers on the tree branches indicate bootstrap values(Felsenstein 1985) (Figs. 1–4). The best fit nuclearsubstitution model was selected as HKV+I for cytband HKY+G for cox1 using model test, implementedin MEGA Ver. 5.The BLAST search of cox1 and cytb showed 99.8%sequence identity with Bryde’s Whale Balaenopteraedeni. The phylogenetic trees obtained with maximumlikelihood and maximum parsimony were very similarby clustering all the three stranded whales with otherB. edeni sequences except Acc. No.X75583 (cytb) ofthe GenBank, which was confirmed as B. brydei afterBLAST search. The GenBank accession numbers ofthe cox1 and cytb sequence data generated in the studyis given in Table 2.Table 2. GenBank accession numbers of the cox1 and cytbsequences of Bryde’s whale Balaenoptera edeni Andersonsamples collected from KeralaWhale code number withlocalityGenBank accession numbercox1cytbWhale-159-Poonthura JN190945 JN190949Whale-99-Kollam JN190946 JN190947Whale-158-Anchuthengu JN190944 JN190948Bryde’s Whales are the least known of the largebaleen whales and are reported from warm temperate,subtropical, and tropical oceans between 40 0 N and40 0 S (Kato 2002). In India presence of this specieshas been reported only through occasional strandingJournal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | March 2012 | 4(3): 2436–24432439

DNA barcoding of Bryde’s Whale in IndiaA. Bijukumar et al.Figure 3. Maximum Likelihood phylogram using cytb partial sequences of the samples compared with other referencesequences of Balaenoptera spp. in GenBank. The numbers on the tree branches indicate bootstrap valuesdata (Table 3) and behaviour, seasonal occurrenceand abundance in our coastal waters remains to bedocumented.Balaenoptera edeni was first described byAnderson (1879) from a stranded specimen in Burmaand was named Eden’s Whale, after Sir Ashley Eden,the British High Commissioner to Burma at the time.In 1912, Olsen described a new species of mysticetewhale from South Africa, and named this new speciesBalaenoptera brydei after Johan Bryde, the Norwegianconsul to South Africa, who set up the first whalingstation in Durban (Olsen 1913). Balaenoptera edeniand B. brydei were subsequently synonymised basedon skeletal comparisons (Junge 1950) and B. edeniTable 3. Stranding records of Bryde’s Whale Balaenoptera edeni Anderson along the Indian coastDatePlaceTotallength (m)Reference1 02.vii.1979 Beypore, Calicut, Kerala 13 Lal Mohan (1992)2 20.ii.1983 Dhanushkodi Island in Gulf of Mannar, Tamil Nadu 13.52 Lal Mohan (1992)Remarks3 14.xi.2000 Point Calimere, Tamil Nadu 12 Sathasivam (2002)4 08.viii.2006 Kundugal near Mandapam, Tamil Nadu 12 Jayasankar et al. (2007) DNA barcoding using Cytb5 27.vi.2009 Edayar, Thiruvananthapuram District, Kerala 3.9 George et al. (2011)DNA barcoding using CO1and 16S mtDNA2440Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | March 2012 | 4(3): 2436–2443

DNA barcoding of Bryde’s Whale in IndiaA. Bijukumar et al.Figure 4. Maximum Likelihood phylogram using cox 1 partial sequences of the samples compared with other referencesequences of Balaenoptera spp. in GenBank. The numbers on the tree branches indicate bootstrap valueswas used as the scientific name and Bryde’s Whaleas the common name. This synonymisation was notaccepted by many taxonomists and molecular analysisof mtDNA from all nominal species of ‘Bryde’s whalecomplex’ has separated brydei from edeni and resultedin a third species called B. omurai described fromspecimens collected mostly in tropical waters of thewestern Pacific and eastern Indian oceans (Wada et al.2003). The studies by Wada et al. (2003) demonstratedthat B. edeni forms a sister taxon to B. brydei (Sasakiet al. 2006).Although the recent findings outlined abovesupport that B .edeni and B. brydei may be separatespecies, and that genetic differentiation is high amongdifferent oceanic regions, further molecular studiesare required to identify which populations of Bryde’sWhales belong to each species, and consensus on atype specimen for brydei is required. Eden’s Whaleand Bryde’s Whale may be used as the common nameof B. edeni and B. brydei respectively as suggestedby Wada et al. (2003) and George et al. (2011). Theresults of mt DNA sequencing in the present studyconfirms the presence of B. edeni species of ‘Bryde’sWhale complex’ in the coastal waters of India.According to the recent International Union forConservation of Nature (IUCN) assessment, Bryde’swhale taxonomy is unresolved and they are classifiedas ‘Data Deficient’ (Reilly et al. 2008). They areJournal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | March 2012 | 4(3): 2436–24432441

DNA barcoding of Bryde’s Whale in Indiacurrently listed in Appendix I of the Convention onInternational Trade in Endangered Species of WildFauna and Flora (CITES) and in Appendix II of theConvention on the Conservation of Migratory Speciesof Wild Animals (CMS), under the United Nations.Marine mammal strandings may be attributed tonatural or anthropogenic factors and the stranding datacan provide insight on spatial distribution, seasonalmovements, and mortality factors pertaining to marinemammal populations (Woodhouse 1991). A deep injurywas noticed on the back of the whale washed ashoreThanni beach which could be due to a ship collision.Vessel collisions are considered an important sourceof mortality for Bryde’s Whale in New Zealand waters(Stockin et al. 2008). In many cases the causes ofdeath in stranded marine mammals are not properlyinvestigated, and detailed necropsy studies and postmortemexamination would help in evaluating theimpact of anthropogenic interactions.ReferencesAltschul, S.F., W. Gish, W. Miller, E.W. Myers & D.J.Lipman (1990). Basic local alignment search tool. Journalof Molecular Biology 215(3): 403–410Amaral, A.R., M. Sequeira & M.M. Coelho (2007). Afirst approach to the usefulness of cytochrome c oxidasebarcodes in the identification of closely related delphinidcetacean species. Marine and Freshwater Research 58:505–510.Anderson, J. (1879). Anatomical and zoological researchescomprising an account of the zoological results of the twoexpeditions to Western Yunnan in 1868 and 1875; anda monograph of the two cetacean genera, Platanista andOrcaella. London, B. Quaritch 551–564.Dalebout, M.L., C.S. Baker, J.G. Mead, V.G. Cockcroft& T.K. Yamada (2004). A comprehensive and validatedmolecular taxonomy of beaked whales, family Ziphiidae.Journal of Heredity 95: 459–473.Felsenstein, J. (1985). Confidence limits on phylogenies, anapproach using bootstrap. Evolution 39: 783–791.Folmer, O., M. Black, W. Hoeh, R. Lutz & R. Vrijenhoek(1994). DNA primers for amplification of mitochondrialcytochrome c oxidase subunit I from diverse metazoaninvertebrates. Molecular Marine Biology and Biotechnology3: 294–299.George, S., K. Meenakshi & A. Bijukumar (2011). Moleculartaxonomy of marine mammals stranded along Kerala coast,India. Current Science 100: 117–120.Herath, D.R. (2007). Identification of a stranded whale bymitochondrial DNA analysis - www.DNA-surveillanceA. Bijukumar et al.program in action. Asian Fisheries Science 20: 319–324.Jayasankar, P. & B. Anoop (2010). Identification of MarineMammals of India. Narendra Publishing House, Delhi,124pp+10pl.Jayasankar, P., B. Anoop, R. Peter, V.V. Afsal & M.Rajagopalan (2007). Species of a whale and an unknownfish sample identified using molecular taxonomy. IndianJournal of Fisheries 54: 339–343.Jayasankar, P., B. Anoop, E. Vivekanandan, M. Rajagopalan,K.M.M. Yousuf, P. Reynold, P.K. Krishnakumar, P.L.Kumaran, V.V. Afsal & A.K. Anoop (2008). Molecularidentification of delphinids and finless porpoise (Cetacea)from the Arabian Sea and Bay of Bengal. Zootaxa 1853:57–67.Jefferson, T.A., S. Leatherwood & M.A. Webber (1993).FAO Species Identification Guide. Marine Mammals of theWorld. FAO, Rome, 320pp.Junge, G.C.A. (1950). On a specimen of the rare fin whale,Balaenoptera edeni Anderson, stranded on Pulu Sugi nearSingapore. Zoologische Verhandelingen 9: 1–26.Kumaran, P.L. (2002). Marine mammal research in India - areview and critique of the methods. Current Science 83:1210–1220.Kumar, S., J. Dudley, M. Nei & K. Tamura (2008). MEGA: Abiologist-centric software for evolutionary analysis of DNAand protein sequences. Brief Bioinformatics 9: 299–306.Mohan, R.S.L. (1992). Observations on the whales Balaenopteraedeni, B. musculus and Megaptera novaeangliae washedashore along the Indian coast with a note on their osteology.Journal of the Marine Biological Association of India 34:253–255.Olsen, O. (1913). On the external characteristics and biology ofBryde’s Whale (Balaenoptera brydei) a new rorqual fromthe coast of South Africa. Proceedings of the ZoologicalSociety of London, 1073–1090pp.Reilly, S.B., J.L. Bannister, P.B. Best, M. Brown, R.L.Brownell Jr., D.S. Butterworth, P.J. Clapham, J.Cooke, G.P. Donovan, J. Urbán & A.N. Zerbini(2008). Balaenoptera edeni. In: IUCN 2010. IUCN Red Listof Threatened Species. Version 2010.4. . Downloaded on 31 May 2011.Ross, H.A., G.M. Lento, M.L. Dalebout, M. Goode, G.Ewing, P. Mclaren, A.G. Rodrigo, S. Lavery & C.S.Baker (2003). DNA Surveillance: Web-based molecularidentification of whales, dolphins and porpoises. Journal ofHeredity 94: 111–114.Sasaki, T., M. Nikaido, S. Wada, T.K. Yamada, Y. Cao, M.Hasegawa & N. Okada (2006). Balaenoptera omuraiis a newly discovered baleen whale that represents anancient evolutionary lineage. Molecular Phylogenetics andEvolution 41: 40–52.Sathasivam, K. (2002). Two whale records from Tamil Nadu,Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society 99: 289–290.Sathasivam, K. (2004). Marine Mammals of India. WWF-India and Universities Press (India) Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad,2442Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | March 2012 | 4(3): 2436–2443

DNA barcoding of Bryde’s Whale in India180pp.Sholl, T.G.C., F.F. Nascimento, O. Leoncini, C.R. Bonvicino & S. Siciliano(2008). Taxonomic identification of dolphin love charms commercialized in theAmazonian region through the analysis of cytochrome b DNA. Journal of theMarine Biological Association of the United Kingdom 88: 1207–1210.Stockin, K.A., N. Wiseman, A. Hartman, N. Moffat & W.D. Roe (2008). Use ofradiography to determine age class and assist with the post-mortem diagnosticsof a Bryde’s Whale (Balaenoptera brydei). New Zealand Journal of Marine andFreshwater Research 42: 307–313.Verma, S. K. & L. Singh (2003). Novel universal primers establish identity ofenormous number of animal species for forensic application. Molecular EcologyNotes 3: 28–31.Viricel A. & P.E. Rosel (2012). Evaluating the utility of cox1 for cetacean speciesidentification. Marine Mammal Science 28(1): 37–62.Wada, S., M. Oishi & T.K. Yamada (2003). A newly discovered species of livingbaleen whale. Nature 426: 278–181.Woodhouse, C.D. (1991). Marine mammal beachings as indicators of populationevents, pp. 111–116. In: Reynolds, J. E. & D. K. Odell (eds.). Marine mammalstrandings in the United States: Proceedings of The Second Marine MammalStranding Workshop; 3–5 Dec. 1987, Miami. FL,U.S. Department of Commerce,NOAA Technical Report NMFS 98, 157pp.A. Bijukumar et al.Author Details and Contribution:Dr. A. Bi j u k u ma r is currently working asAssociate Professor and Head of theDepartment of Aquatic Biology and Fisheries,University of Kerala. His fields of researchinclude taxonomy and biodiversity informatics.Earlier he worked as Scientific Officer ofState Committee on Science, Technology andEnvironment and Member Secretary-in-Chargeand Principal Scientific Officer of Kerala StateBiodiversity Board. Initiated major works onmarine biodiversity informatics for Keralaand DNA barcoding of marine mammals andmolluscs. In this paper, sampling, photography,morphological taxonomy and the paperpreparation was done by him.U. Su r e s h Ku m a r, holds MPhil degree inbioinformatics and is currently working asthe DNA examiner of the Regional Facility forDNA Fingerprinting at Rajiv Gandhi Centrefor Biotechnology (RGCB), Trivandrum. Hismajor research interests are DNA barcodingand DNA fingerprinting. Currently conductingtraining programmes on molecular markers,human DNA fingerprinting and DNA barcoding.Sequence analysis of the work was done by himin the work.S.S. Jijith possesses Masters in Biotechnologyand is currently working as a project fellow inRegional facility for DNA fingerprinting at RGCB.His current project addresses the developmentof a reference DNA barcoding database ofselected mammals of Kerala Forest. For thiswork DNA isolation and amplification was doneby him.Dr. S. Ge o r g e is currently working as a Scientistin the chemical biology laboratory of RajivGandhi Centre for Biotechnology, Trivandrum.His main area of research is centered aroundamphibians of Western Ghats with particularinterest in DNA barcoding and bioprospecting.At present he is the Principal Investigatorof DNA barcoding projects on amphibians,mammals and molluscs of India. In this paper hehas contributed towards the writing of moleculartaxonomy and interpretation of data.Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | March 2012 | 4(3): 2436–24432443

JoTT Co m m u n ic a t i o n 4(3): 2444–2453An avifaunal case study of a plateau from Goa, India: aneye opener for conservation of plateau ecosystemsMinal Desai 1 & A.B. Shanbhag 21,2Department of Zoology, Goa University, Taleigao Plateau, Goa 403206, IndiaEmail: 1 abshanbhag@ yahoo.com, 2 desaim2003@yahoo.co.in (corresponding author)Date of publication (online): 26 March 2012Date of publication (print): 26 March 2012ISSN 0974-7907 (online) | 0974-7893 (print)Editor: R. JayapalManuscript details:Ms # o2480Received 10 June 2010Final received 29 December 2011Finally accepted 29 February 2012Citation: Desai, M. & A.B. Shanbhag (2012).An avifaunal case study of a plateau from Goa,India: an eye opener for conservation of plateauecosystems. Journal of Threatened Taxa 4(3):2444–2453.Copyright: © Minal Desai & A.B. Shanbhag2012. Creative Commons Attribution 3.0Unported License. JoTT allows unrestricteduse of this article in any medium for non-profitpurposes, reproduction and distribution byproviding adequate credit to the authors andthe source of publication.Author Details: Dr. Mi n a l De s a i, as a CSIRsenior research fellow worked on avian ecologyin varied forest ecosystems in the WesternGhat locales adjoining Goa region. Her PhDthesis centered around bird diversity in selectedunmanaged monoculture plantations vis-à-visprimary forest in the Western Ghat stretch innorthern Goa. Pr o f. A.B. Sh a n b h a g, a professorof zoology at Goa University is involved inteaching and research over three decades. Asa practicing field biologist he has been activelyengaged in bird ecology and research onwetlands, forests and agroforests.Author Contribution: The work embodied inthe current paper was planned and designedunder guidance of ABS and the actual field workand logistics were carried out by MD.Acknowledgment: We thank the authorities ofGoa University for facilitating the work.OPEN ACCESS | FREE DOWNLOAD2444Goa UniversityAbstract: The lateritic plateaux typical of the midlands between the Western Ghatsand the coastal plains of the Arabian Sea are known to be a unique ecosystem with asizeable endemic flora. However, there is a total lack of studies on the faunal diversityof these plateaux, which are currently experiencing enormous anthropogenic pressures.We conducted a year-long study on the avifauna of the Taleigao Plateau, Goa. TheTaleigao Plateau harbours 114 species of birds, accounting for 37% of the avifaunaldiversity of the state. The resident bird population did not vary significantly throughthe seasons. Among the migrant birds, Rosy Starling Sturnus roseus was particularlypartial to the plateau. Besides, five species of larks, grassland specialists were alsorecorded on the plateau. However, the absence of forest birds like the Malabar PiedHornbill and the Indian Grey Hornbill (recorded earlier) and the predominance of habitatgeneralists like the House Crow and the Jungle Myna seemed to be the offshoot of heavyanthropogenic pressures on the plateau. It is recommended that at least some plateauxin the belt deserve to be protected from the impact of unsustainable developmentalprocesses.Keywords: Avifuana, feeding guilds, Goa, plateau, Sturnus roseus, Western Ghats.IntroductionPlateaux are the relatively flat open country sections of highlands. InGoa, they occupy a major portion of the land area (Joshi & Janarthanam2004) in the form of extensions of the Western Ghats, a biodiversityhotspot, before they roll down to the coastal plains. The lateritic plateauxof the region have very shallow soil cover varying from a few mm to30cm, hence they support limited vegetation in the form of herbs, shrubsand a few trees. Due to their dry barren appearance, more so during thedrier months, they are some of the more highly neglected habitats, andare often considered as wastelands. Thus, they are the natural choice inthe region for developmental projects in the form of industrial estates andconglomerates of government organizations. Taleigao Plateau, the seat ofGoa University at a distance of 8km from the capital city of the state is notan exception. It comprises a series of central and state institutions, hotels,residential areas and recently a part of it was declared an informationtechnology habitat. Time and again the university enters into afforestationdrives on the plateau with the purpose of greening the campus.Earlier floristic surveys revealed that the plateaux in Goa harbour thelargest number of endemic plant species of the Western Ghats, especiallyherbs (Joshi & Janarthanam 2004). However, no work has been done onthe fauna of this region (Watve 2003). All the same, most of the plateauxin the region are already ecologically dabbled, without any prior seriousenvironmental impact assessment.Birds are good biological indicators, hence holistic studies on theJournal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | March 2012 | 4(3): 2444–2453

Avifaunal of a plateau in Goaornithological potential of the varied habitats areof paramount significance in drawing guidelines inplanning and management of these nature reservesand in turn their conservation (Williamson 1970).Habitat based analysis of bird life in Goa with respectto wetlands (Walia & Shanbhag 1999; Walia 2000;Shanbhag et al. 2001; Borges 2002) and monocultureforest plantations (Desai 2005) have been in progressfor quite some time. An attempt was also madesome time ago to analyze the birdlife on TaleigaoPlateau (Shanbhag & Gramopadhye 1993). Thestudy could not be taken to its logical conclusionthough the occurrence of 64 species of birds in thearea was reported. Subsequent work by Shyama andGowthaman (1995) recorded only 43 species of birdsin the same area that included 13 species not registeredearlier. Both the reports were apparently based on afew opportunistic surveys, probably during differentseasons of the year.Although tropical/subtropical environments aresometimes assumed to be uniform throughout theyear, seasonal changes in precipitation are common(Karr 1976) and environmental changes are of majorimportance in determining bird diversity and alsobreeding cycles (Snow & Snow 1964). Therefore, thepresent work was planned to assess the bird populationin the central zone of the Taleigao Plateau through allthe seasons of a year in the background of prevailingweather conditions and available food resources,M. Desai & A.B. Shanbhagbefore it is too late. The study was also intended togenerate baseline reference data to evolve a suitablemanagement plan for the plateaux of the region ingeneral.MethodsStudy areaTaleigao Plateau (15 0 27’15”N & 17 0 50’00”E) islocated at a distance of 8km from Panjim, the capitalcity of Goa (Image 1). It is an east west trendinglateritic table land spread over approximately 296haoverlooking the sloping valleys and alluvial plains ofthe two major rivers, Mandovi and Zuari on its northand south respectively. Most of it is occupied by manysemi Government / Government establishments andresidential tenements. Its central zone houses the GoaUniversity campus spanning an area of 173ha with itsever-increasing infrastructural facilities.Climate: The climate is warm and humid, withatmospheric temperatures ranging from 21 to 36 0 C.The humidity ranges from 71 to 94 %. The monsoonextends from June to September experiencing anaverage of 2600mm rainfall. During the postmonsoons(October and November) stray showersare expected. The region experiences the lowesttemperatures in winter extending from December toImage 1. Central zone of Taleigao Plateau, the seat of Goa University CampusJournal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | March 2012 | 4(3): 2444–24532445

Avifaunal of a plateau in GoaFebruary. Summer (March–May) is the hottest seasonof the region.Vegetation: Vegetation on the campus is moistdeciduous type mixed with evergreen species.Extensive patches of grasslands on the lateriticrocky outcrops are interspersed by trees and alsolarge thickets of shrubs. Bombax ceiba, Ficusbenghalensis, Alstonia scholaris, Ziziphus mauritiana,Peltophorum pterocarpum, Lannea coromandelicaare the common tree varieties while Calycopterisfloribunda, Holarrhena pubescens, Memecylonumbellatum, Ziziphus rugosa, Microcos paniculata,Lantana camara dominate the scrubs. Plantationsare formed of cashew, Anacardium occidentale andthe introduced xerophyte, Acacia auriculiformis. Thehedge plant, Pithecellobium dulce and shore tree,Casuarina littorea are recent introductions to the zone.Along with other species, Themeda triandra is the mostcommon grass on the campus. The grass is often burntduring the fag end of winter or early summer. Withthe onset of the monsoon, rocky outcrops as well asintervening soft soil patches get transformed into lushgreen cover of herbaceous annuals such as Smithia,Eriocaulon, Murdannia, Drosera, and Neanotis.The present study is based on intensive observationscarried out over a complete year from October 2000 toSeptember 2001. Five equidistant transects of 0.6kmeach, covering 3km on the whole were laid across thestudy area. Census was conducted on foot at monthlyintervals from 0700–1000 hr using encounter ratemethod (Bibby et al. 2000). Common (English) namesand scientific nomenclature of birds has been adoptedfrom Manakadan & Pittie (2001).The detailed records as to the nesting/breedingactivities of birds, common associations of birds withplant species and phenology of major plant speciesin terms of flowering and fruiting were meticulouslymaintained.The statistical significance of changes in populationsof residents, migrants, passerines, non-passerines andthose of various feeding guilds through the seasonswere ascertained using Kruskal-Wallis and one wayANOVA tests. Statistical tests were carried out usingSPSS version 6.0 for Windows. Species evennessindex of Pielou (1975) and Sorensen’s similarity index(Southwood 1978) were calculated.Observations AND ResultsM. Desai & A.B. ShanbhagAcross the year, 114 species of birds belonging to30 families and 12 orders were sighted on the campus(Table 1). Of the 19 migratory species encountered,six were distant migrants. Clamator jacobinus was theonly monsoonal migrant on the site. All other migrantswere winter visitors, some of which started arrivingduring the post-monsoons and stayed until summer.Sturnus roseus was the prominent migrant foundassociated with the deciduous tree Bombax ceiba. Onthe whole, Corvus splendens, Acridotheres fuscus andSturnus roseus occupied the top ranks of dominancein that order. In terms of diversity, insectivores andphytophages were significantly higher than carnivoresand omnivores (F = 33.73, df = 3, p ≤ 0.001) and onthe basis of population, carnivores were significantlyless in number compared to other feeding guilds (F =17.84, df = 3, p ≤ 0.001).The bird population, in terms of abundance, speciescomposition, and the strengths of feeding guilds,prevailing weather conditions, and phenological statesof the vegetation in the area, through seasons were asshown below.Post-monsoon (October–November): Therainfall during the period due to the receding monsoonwas 66mm. Atmospheric temperatures ranged from22.7 to 33.2 0 C. Mean wind speed was 7km/ph andaverage relative humidity was 85%.The herbaceous vegetation principally consistingof grasses such as T. triandra and Apluda mutica wasin fruition and had begun to dry and die. The shrubssuch as Z. rugosa and Z. mauritiana, were flowering.Of the trees, A. auriculiformis and A. occidentale werein bloom and F. benghalensis was fruiting.The bird population was constituted by 55 speciesthat included six migrants. Phytophages with 39% ofthe population dominated the avian community. Amongthem only granivores such as larks, doves, and pigeonsaccounted for 26%. Jungle Myna, House Crow, BlackDrongo, White-browed Bulbul and Common Iorawere found associated with A. auriculiformis. Birdslike orioles, White-cheeked Barbet, Plum-headedParakeet, House Crow, Indian Treepie and Asian Koelwere observed feeding on the fruits of F. benghalensis.White-browed Bulbul was sighted ferrying food to athicket of vines on a B. ceiba tree that was followedby calls of the nestlings. Two young ones of Red-2446Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | March 2012 | 4(3): 2444–2453

Avifaunal of a plateau in GoaM. Desai & A.B. ShanbhagTable 1. Checklist of birds of Taleigao Plateau with their residential status, feeding-habits and rank of dominance.Order/Family/species Common name StatusCiconiformes: ArdeidaeFeedinghabitRank ofDominance (1-38)1 Ardeola grayii Indian Pond Heron R C 252 Bubulcus ibis Cattle Egret R I 24Falconiformes: Accipitridae3 Elanus caeruleus* Black-shouldered Kite R C 374 Milvus migrans Black Kite R C 255 Haliastur indus Brahminy Kite R C 176 Haliaeetus leucogaster White-bellied Sea Eagle R C 387 Circus aeruginosus* Western Marsh Harrier DM C 308 Accipiter badius * Shikra R C 359 Accipiter nisus * Eurasian Sparrowhawk LM C 36Galliformes: Megapodiidae10 Perdicula asiatica Jungle Bush-Quail R P 3011 Galloperdix spadicea Red Spurfowl R O 3512 Pavo cristatus Indian Peafowl R O 26Charadriiformes: Charadriidae13 Vanellus malarbaricus Yellow-wattled Lapwing R I 2514 Vanellus indicus Red-wattled Lapwing R I 1015 Xenus cinereus* Terek Sandpiper DM I 3816 Actitis hypoleucos* Common Sandpiper R I 38Columbiformes: Columbidae17 Columba livia Blue Rock Pigeon R P 818 Streptopelia orientalis* Oriental Turtle Dove R P 3719 Streptopelia senegalensis* Little Brown Dove R P 3720 Streptopelia chinensis Spotted Dove R P 3521 Streptopelia decaocto Eurasian Collared Dove R P 3822 Treron pompadora Pompadour Green Pigeon R PPsittaciformes: Psittacidae23 Psittacula krameri Rose-ringed Parakeet R P 2724 Psittacula cyanocephala Blossom-headed Parakeet R P 25Cuculiformes: Cuculidae25 Clamator jacobinus Pied Crested Cuckoo DM I 3626 Hierococcyx varius Brainfever Bird R I 3827 Eudynamys scolopacea Asian Koel R P 1628 Phaenicophaeus viridirostris Small Green-billed Malkoha R C 3229 Centropus sinensis Greater Coucal R O 29Strigiformes: Strigidae30 Athene brama Spotted Owlet R C 37Apodiformes/ Apodidae31 Collocalia unicolor* Indian Edible-nest Swiftlet R I 1632 Cypsiurus balasiensis Asian Palm Swift R I 1433 Apus affinis House Swift R I 9Coraciformes: lcedinidae34 Pelargopsis capensis* Stork-billed Kingfisher R C 3835 Halcyon smyrnensis White-breasted Kingfisher R C 2336 Ceryle rudis* Lesser Pied Kingfisher R C 38Meropidae37 Merops orientalis Small Bee-eater LM I 1938 Merops philippinus Blue-tailed Bee-eater LM I 24Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | March 2012 | 4(3): 2444–24532447

Avifaunal of a plateau in GoaM. Desai & A.B. ShanbhagOrder/Family/species Common name StatusCoraciidaeFeedinghabitRank ofDominance (1-38)39 Coracias benghalensis* Indian Roller LM C 38Upupidae40 Upupa epops* Hoopoe LM I 30Piciformes: Capitonidae41 Megalaima viridis White-cheeked Barbet R P 3642 Megalaima rubricapilla* Crimson-throated Barbet R P 37Picidae43 Celeus brachyurus Rufous Woodpecker R I 3744 Dinopium javanense* Common Golden-backed Woodpecker R I 3845 Dinopium benghalense Lesser Golden-backed Woodpecker R I 38Passeriformes: Alaudidae46 Mirafra cantillans * Singing Bush-Lark R P 3747 Mirafra erythroptera* Red-winged Bush-Lark R P 2248 Eremopterix grisea* Ashy-crowned Sparrow-Lark R P 2649 Galerida malabarica* Malabar Crested Lark R P 2150 Alauda gulgula* Eastern Skylark R P 29Hirundinidae51 Hirundo rustica Common Swallow LM I 2852 Hirundo smithii Wire-tailed Swallow R I 2353 Hirundo daurica Red-rumped Swallow R I 20Motacillidae54 Motacila alba* White Wagtail LM I 3755 Motacila maderaspatensis* Large Pied Wagtail R I 2956 Anthus rufulus* Paddyfield Pipit R I 1457 Anthus hodgsoni Oriental Tree Pipit R I 37Campehagidae58 Coracina macei Large Cuckoo-Shrike R I 3559 Pericrocotus flammeus* Scarlet Minivet R I 3860 Pericrocotus ethologus* Long-tailed Minivet LM I 3561 Pericrocotus cinnamomeus* Small Minivet R I 37Pycnonotidae62 Pycnonotus jocosus Red-whiskered Bulbul R O 563 Pycnonotus cafer Red-vented Bulbul R O 1664 Pycnonotus xantholaemus* Yellow-throated Bulbul I 3365 Pycnonotus luteolus White-browed Bulbul R P 766 Lole indica * Yellow-browed Bulbul R P 37Irenidae67 Aegithina tiphia* Common Iora R I 3568 Chloropsis aurifrons* Gold-fronted Chloropsis R I 3969 Chloropsis cochinchinensis* Jerdon’s Chloropsis R I 28Laniidae70 Lanius vittatus Bay-backed Shrike LM C 3871 Lanius schach Rufous-backed Shrike LM C 12Muscicapidae72 Zoothera citrina Orange-headed Thrush R I 2073 Copsychus saularis Oriental Magpie-Robin R I 1874 Saxicoloides fulicata Indian Robin R I 475 Saxicola torquata* Common Stonechat R I 3676 Saxicola caprata* Pied Bushchat R I 252448Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | March 2012 | 4(3): 2444–2453

Avifaunal of a plateau in GoaM. Desai & A.B. ShanbhagOrder/Family/species Common name StatusFeedinghabitRank ofDominance (1-38)77 Prinia hodgsonii Franklin’s Prinia R I 1778 Prinia socialis* Ashy Prinia R I 3179 Prinia inornata Plain Prinia R I 3180 Acrocephalus dumetorum* Blyth’s Reed-Warbler LM I 3181 Hippolais caligata* Booted Warbler DM I 3182 Orthothomus sutorius Common Tailorbird R I 3283 Phylloscopus trochiloides* Greenish Leaf-Warbler DM I 3784 Sylvia curruca* Common Lesser White throat DM I 3785 Sylvia hortensis Orphean Warbler DM I 3286 Chrysomma sinense* Yellow-eyed Babbler R I 3387 Turdoides caudatus Common Babbler R P 2588 Turdoides subrufus* Indian Rufous Babbler R P 3589 Turdoides striatus Jungle Babbler R P 1190 Dumetia hyperythra Rufous-bellied Babbler R I 3791 Ficedula superciliaris* Ultramarine Flycatcher R I 3592 Terpsiphone paradisi Asian Paradise-Flycatcher R I 37Dicaeidae93 Dicaeum erythrorhynchos Tickell’s Flowerpecker R P 3794 Dicaeum concolor* Plain Flowerpecker R P 36Nectariniidae95 Nectarinia zeylonica Purple-rumped Sunbird R P 2596 Nectarinia minima* Small Sunbird R P 3497 Nectarinia asiatica Purple Sunbird R P 698 Nectarinia lotenia* Loten’s Sunbird R P 37Estrildidae99 Lonchura striata White-rumped Munia R P 30Passeridae100 Passer domesticus House Sparrow R O 21101 Petronia xanthocollis Yellow-throated Sparrow R O 37102 Ploceus philippinus Baya Weaver R P 29Sturnidae103 Sturnus pagodarum* Brahminy Starling R O 38104 Sturnus roseus* Rosy Starling DM I 3105 Acridotheres fuscus Jungle Myna R O 2Oriolidae106 Oriolus oriolus Eurasian Golden Oriole LM P 26107 Oriolus xanthornus Black-headed Oriole R P 26Dicruridae108 Dicrurus macrocercus Black Drongo R C 15109 Dicrurus leucophaeus* Ashy Drongo LM C 33110 Dicrurus caerulescens White-bellied Drongo LM I 32111 Dicrurus paradiseus Greater Racket-tailed Drongo R I 38Corvidae112 Dendrocitta vagabunda Indian Treepie R O 35113 Corvus splendens House Crow R O 1114 Corvus macrorhynchos Jungle Crow R O 25Status: R - resident; LM - local migrant; DM - distant migrant.Feeding habit: I - insectivore; C - carnivore; O - omnivore; P - phytophages* - Additional sightings These birds were newly sighted during the current study and were not reported on the plateau by earlier reports/ papers cited inthe communication.Rank of dominance (1-38): The ranks are given based on the cumulative total of individuals of the respective species sighted during entire study period.The species with highest cumulative total is given rank 1 and so on.Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | March 2012 | 4(3): 2444–24532449

Avifaunal of a plateau in Goawattled Lapwing were sighted in November. A nestof House Swifts was noticed at the corner of a ceiling.Two birds were seen ferrying food to the nest, and apure white, oval-shaped egg 2cm in length was alsofound fallen on the ground at the site.Winter (December–February): The atmospherictemperature ranged between 19.8 and 32.3 0 C. Thehumidity was about 80%.The ground level herbaceous greenery wasnonexistent. All the shrub species that flowered inthe post-monsoons were in fruition during the season.The tree species in bloom were P. pterocarpum, Buteamonosperma, B. ceiba, P. dulce and A. occidentale.Bird abundance was highest during winter,compared to that of other seasons, of the 59 avianspecies 11 were migrants. The migrant species formed25% of the population during the season. Besides theresidents, two prominent winter visitors to the regionwere the Eurasian migrant, Rosy Starling and a localmigrant, Common Swallow. The Rosy Starlingsarrived in January in large flocks. They were foundgenerally on the Red Silk Cotton Tree, B. ceiba, noisilyand restlessly feeding on the insects associated withthe red flowers of the deciduous tree in bloom. Theother birds found in association with Rosy Starlingson B. ceiba were Black Drongo, House Crow, JungleMyna and Asian Koel. The Asian Koels were foundfeeding on the dehiscent fruits of P. dulce. Other birdsthat shared the fruits of the tree were White-browedBulbul, Black-headed Oriole, Jungle Myna and HouseCrow. The sunbirds were found feeding on the bloomsof A. occidentale and also on the flowers of Calotropisgigantea. Insectivorous guild was predominant duringwinter accounting for 47% of the total population.Breeding activities of the House Crow were observedduring the season with sightings of eight nests on B.ceiba and C. litorea. An active nest (18x6 cm) with anentrance of 5cm diameter of the White-rumped Muniawas sighted anchored on Bougainvillea sp. besides anabandoned old nest. The parent ferrying the feed wasseen and soliciting calls of the nestlings were heard.Summer (March–May): The atmospherictemperature during summer ranged from 22.3 to 33.20C. Relative humidity on an average was 80%.Mimusops elengi and Ixora coccinia were flowering.The plant species in bloom during the precedingseason were laden with fruits. Bird diversity washigher but abundance was lower compared to winter.M. Desai & A.B. ShanbhagBird fauna was constituted by 69 species. Almost 1/6 thof the population was formed by 10 migratory species,prominent ones being distant migrant Rosy Starlingtill the early part of summer and the large flocks ofthe local migrant, Common Swallow till mid summer.But by May all the migrants had left the area, and alsothe few residents such as Wire-tailed Swallow, HouseSwift, Indian Treepie and Plum-headed Parakeet werenot to be sighted. During summer, compared to winter,the insectivores though reduced in strength maintainedtheir supremacy marginally, with 42% share. Z.rugosa, a fairly common shrub in the area with largepanicles of fleshy berries hosted all the local species ofbulbuls, Asian Koel, Plum-headed Parakeet and RosyStarlings. L. camara and M. paniculata were the othertwo shrubs with fruits in the season that catered to theneeds of the bulbuls.During the season, two nests of Indian Robinwere sighted; one of them was on the ground and theother in the hollow of an angular pipe 1.5m above theground. Two eggs each were found in them. Twocup-shaped nests of Red-whiskered Bulbul and oneof Red-vented Bulbul were found in the thickets at aheight of 5m from the ground. A nest each of Redwattledand Yellow-wattled Lapwing with three eggsin each were found on open barren land encircled bypebbles. A purse shaped deserted nest of a sunbirdwas also found.Monsoon (June–September): Rainfall during theseason was 1948mm. Showers were heavy in July(832mm). Wind speed varied from 9 to 33 km/hr.Atmospheric temperature ranged from 22.3 to 33.2 0 C.Average humidity was 91%.Grasses T. triandra and A. mutica; and trees P.ferrugineum and A. auriculiformis were in bloom. I.coccinea was laden with fruits. L. camara bore flowersand fruits throughout the year.Table 2. Seasonal variation in the number of species andpopulation of resident and migrant birds using Kruskal-Wallis test.Birds Df c 2 pMigratory species 3 8.00 0.05*Migratory population 3 6.19 0.10Resident species 3 2.35 0.50Resident population 3 4.36 0.22* statistically significant2450Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | March 2012 | 4(3): 2444–2453

Avifaunal of a plateau in GoaTable 3. Seasonal variations in the population of birdsbelonging to different feeding-guilds using Kruskal-Wallistest.Feeding guilds df c 2 pM. Desai & A.B. Shanbhagof the monsoon and post monsoon periods. However,there was no significant seasonal difference in birddiversity belonging to different feeding guilds.Insectivores 3 9.15 0.03*Carnivores 3 2.06 0.56Omnivores 3 0.32 1.0Phytophagous 3 5.47 0.14* statistically significantThe bird population was the least, but wasconstituted by 72 species, that included six migratoryones. The species composition was highest comparedwith those of other seasons. The only monsoonmigrant to the campus was Pied Crested Cuckoo.The other five species were early arrivals of wintermigrants sighted in September, such as the Small Beeeater,Rufous-backed Shrike, White-bellied Drongo,Blyth’s Reed Warbler and Orphean Warbler. Duringthe season common resident birds such as JungleMyna, Red-wattled Lapwing, Indian Robin and HouseCrows were found in large numbers. A good numberof Common Peafowl were sighted. The three majorfeeding guilds, insectivores, phytophages and alsoomnivores were nearly equal in proportion, rangingfrom 29 to 36 percent. The Rufous-backed Shrike, alocal migrant which spent the maximum time in thearea was prominent by its absence during the season.Pond Heron, Cattle Egret, Common Sandpiper andTerek Sandpiper were the only wetland birds on thecampus.Seasonality: The resident birds on the wholedid not show any statistically significant variationsthrough the seasons in terms of species or population(Table 2). The migrant species were significantly lessduring the monsoon (c 2 =8, df=3, p=0.05). The speciessimilarity/dissimilarity indices led to a close clusteringof winter and summer with a relatively high similaritycoefficient of 0.78. Monsoon and post-monsoonseasons grouped with the cluster at the level of 0.75and 0.69 respectively. None of the clustering wasstatistically significant.The populations of omnivores, carnivores andphytophages did not vary significantly through theseasons (Table 3). The population of insectivores,however, increased significantly during winter andsummer (c 2 =9.15, df=3, p=0.03) as compared to thoseDiscussionComposition and Diversity of AvifaunaOne-hundred-and-fourteen species of birds sightedin the area forming 37% of the bird species on recordfor the state (Lainer 2005), is an appreciable diversityemphasizing the richness of the plateau on the outskirtsof a bustling capital city, already under substantialanthropogenic pressure. Only four wetland birdspecies were sighted in the study area. Two of them,the Pond Heron and Cattle Egret are ‘not completelydependent’ wetland species (Vijayan 1986). The othertwo, the Common Sandpiper and Terek Sandpipermight be vagrants from the floodplains of riversin the vicinity. Nearly half of the species currentlyrecorded for the plateau, numbering 53, are newadditions to the checklist of the area over the earlierreports (Shanbhag & Gramopadhye 1993; Shyama &Gowthaman 1995). Forty-five of them were relativelyscarce with dominance ranks below 30, with only lessthan 15 sightings across the year. Some other specieslike those of larks and pipits with good camouflagewere likely to be missed in less intensive surveys.The Rosy Starling, the only prominent distant migrantvisiting the area in good numbers must have escapedthe previous surveys, as one of them (Shanbhag &Gramopadhye 1993) was a preliminary report and theother (Shyama & Gowthaman 1995) was presumably ashort duration opportunistic survey. Therefore, to havea complete picture of avifauna of any site, an intensivestudy needs to be carried out for at least a year. Atthe same time, despite the intensive survey conductedduring the present study, the failure to site specieslike Malabar Pied Hornbill and Indian Grey Hornbillreported earlier (Shanbhag & Gramopadhye 1993)could be due to increased anthropogenic indulgenceand habitat deterioration, as the species in question arenatural denizens of undisturbed woods.Dominance and seasonalityThe House crow and Jungle Myna, the omnivoresdominated the plateau in terms of their population. Inview of the continuous anthropogenic pressure on theJournal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | March 2012 | 4(3): 2444–24532451

Avifaunal of a plateau in Goaplateau, the phenomenon is in full consonance withthe principle that the habitat generalists thrive well indisturbed areas (Kwok & Corlett 1999).Rosy Starling, a Eurasian migrant was one of thedominant bird species on the plateau. The specieswas neither sighted in the natural forest nor the forestplantations during one of our extensive studies in theregion (Desai 2005). Therefore, it is obvious that thismigrant prefers scrublands/plateaux rather than forests.Their arrival coincided with the flowering of B. ceiba,one of the dominant tree species of the plateau withwhich they were always found associated.Five species of larks, the grassland specialistswere recorded on the plateau. The peak fruitingseason of grasses attracted the maximum number ofgranivores to the region. As the grasslands cater tothe needs of habitat specialist birds, decrease in itsextent on the plateaux either due to increased masonryor afforestation may turn out to be a threat to thesespecies.Neither the number of species nor the cumulativepopulation of residents in the area varied through theseasons. Structurally complex vegetation types areknown to buffer the effects of seasonality (Janzen1967). This amelioration of physical environmentis supposed to result in greater stability in resourceavailability (Janzen 1967; Smythe 1974) therebyallowing more species to occur (MacArthur 1972) asresidents throughout the year. On the plateau understudy the vegetation was of a wide spectrum consistingof ephemeral herbs, and a variety of shrubs and trees.They were in bloom during various seasons bearingfleshy and dehiscent edible fruits. Thus, the habitatcan be considered to be bestowed with complexvegetation, hence capable of nurturing a stable birdpopulation.During the monsoon, migratory bird populationdropped significantly as the Pied Crested Cuckoo wasthe only principal migrant of the season to the plateau.Other migrants were winter migrants that startedarriving in the post-monsoons and stayed back till thebeginning or mid summer.The prominence of insectivores during winterand summer could primarily be due to the inflow ofmigrants like Rosy Starlings, bee-eaters and CommonSwallow, besides the insectivorous resident species.During the seasons the plants like F. benghalensis, A.occidentale, Z. mauritiana, Z. rugosa, and SecurinegaM. Desai & A.B. Shanbhagvirosa were in extensive bloom and bore fleshy fruits.On the other hand, trees like B. ceiba, Peltophorumpterocarpum and A. auriculiformis, though with drynon-edible fruits, were with flowers of bright coloursand good quantity of nectar. These factors on thewhole might be responsible for augmenting insectprey resource during these seasons and the resultantrise in the insectivorous bird population.The campus supported breeding activities of atleast 10 bird species belonging to diverse feedingguilds. Among these the House Crow was the mostsuccessful breeding species. The presence of an oldnest of White-rumped Munia, besides the active neston the same tree indicates that the bird used the sitefor nesting year after year. Earlier reports (Sadh1999) from our laboratory corroborating with thepresent findings indicate that the plateau with opensun-baked areas must be a traditional breeding groundof Red-wattled Lapwings as well as Yellow-wattledLapwings.ConclusionsThe current trend in the region to encroach onplateau after plateau for mega projects doesn’t augurwell for the conservation of biodiversity. Before it istoo late, there is a need for identifying a reasonablenumber of plateaux in the region as protected sites andsystematic studies on their flora and fauna carried out,such that the original lateritic mosaic with grasslandpatches and indigenous trees are left intact.Open areas with herbaceous vegetation and grasses,many of them being endemic are characteristic featuresof the lateritic plateaux. These open areas are of utmostimportance for the bird population as they providebetter visibility for vigilance from their predators andfree movement towards food procurement. Therefore,the extensive afforestation programmes in these opengrassland areas are to be discouraged as they might doaway with native and endemic herbaceous vegetationbecause of their canopy cover. Even if afforestationwith tree species is felt necessary it should be donein isolated patches/islands without interfering with theopen areas on a large scale.The use of exotic tree species such as Australianacacia in such afforestation programmes is anathema,as they may not serve as good hosts to indigenous2452Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | March 2012 | 4(3): 2444–2453

Avifaunal of a plateau in Goainsect species and in turn not meet the requirementsof insectivorous and frugivorous birds changingthe microclimates of specialized flora and fauna asreported earlier (Watve 2003).ReferencesBibby, C.J., N.D. Burgess & A. Hill (1992). Bird CensusTechniques. Academic Press, UK, 302pp.Borges, S.D. (2002). Studies on the ecology of wader birdsin the Mandovi Estuary of Goa, India. PhD Thesis, GoaUniversity, Goa, India.Desai, M. (2005). Studies on the ecology of birds in monocultureplantations in Goa, India. PhD Thesis, Goa University, Goa,India.Janzen, D.H. (1967). Synchronization of sexual reproductionof trees within the dry season in Central America. Evolution21: 620–637.Joshi, V. & M. Janarthanam (2004). The diversity of lifeformtype, habitat preference & phenology of endemicsin Goa region of the Western Ghats, India. Journal ofBiogeography 31: 1227–1237.Karr, J.R. (1976). Seasonality, resource availability andcommunity diversity in tropical bird communities.American Naturalist 110: 973–994.Kwok, H.K. & R.T. Corlett (1999). Seasonality of a forestbird community in Hong Kong, South China. BritishOrnithologists 141: 70–79.Lainer, H. (2005). Birds of Goa. The Goa Foundation, Pune,244pp.MacArthur, R.H. (1972). Geographical Ecology. Harper &Row, New York, 288pp.Manakadan, R. & A. Pittie (2001). Standarised common andscientific names of the birds of the Indian subcontinent.Buceros, Envis newsletter: Avian Ecology & InlandWetlands 6(1): 1–37.M. Desai & A.B. ShanbhagPielou, E.C. (1975). Ecological Diversity. Wiley IntersciencePublication, London, 165pp.Sadh, R. (1999). Studies on the bird population and thebehaviour of Lapwings in the Goa University Campus.MSc Dissertation, Goa University, Goa, India.Shanbhag, A.B. & A. Gramopadhye (1993). Changingecology of Taleigao Plateau and the bird life in its centralzone, the Goa university campus. Journal of KarnatakUniversity - Science 37: 212–222.Shanbhag, A.B., R. Walia & S.D. Borges (2001). Impact ofKonkan Railway project on the avifauna of Carambolimlake in Goa. Zoos’ Print Journal 16(6): 503–508.Shyama, S.K. & V. Gowthaman (1995). Birds of GoaUniversity campus. Newsletter for Bird Watchers 35(1):1–2.Smythe, N. (1974). Environmental monitoring and baseline data- insects, pp. 70–115. In: Rubinoff, R.W. (ed.). SmitsonianInstitute’s Environmental Sciences Program.Snow, D.W. & B.K. Snow (1964). Breeding seasons and annualcycles of Trinidad land-birds. Zoologica 49: 1–39.Southwood, T.R.E. (1978). Ecological Methods with ParticularReference to The Study of Insect Population. Chapman andHall London, 524pp.Vijayan, V.S. (1986). On conserving the fauna of Indianwetlands. Proceedings of Indian Academy of Sciences(Animal Sciences/Plant Sciences) Supple 91–101.Walia, R. (2000). Limnological studies on some freshwaterbodies of southern Tiswadi (Goa) with special referenceto life of wetland birds. PhD Thesis, Goa University, Goa,India.Walia, R. & A.B. Shanbhag (1999). Status of the avifauna ofCarambolim lake in Goa (India) prior to the implementationof the Konkan railway project. Pavo 37(142): 27–32.Watve, A. (2003) Vegetation on rock outcrops in NorthernWestern Ghats & konkan region, Maharastra, Geobios 30:41–46.Williamson, K. (1970). Birds and modern forestry. Bird study17: 167–176.Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | March 2012 | 4(3): 2444–24532453

JoTT Co m m u n ic a t i o n 4(3): 2454–2463Avian diversity in the Naliya Grassland, Abdasa Taluka,Kachchh, IndiaSandeep B. Munjpara 1 & Indra R. Gadhvi 21,2Department of Marine Sciences, Bhavnagar University, Bhavnagar, Gujarat 364001 IndiaEmail: 1 sandeepmunjpara@gmail.com (corresponding author), 2 indragadhvi@gmail.comDate of publication (online): 26 March 2012Date of publication (print): 26 March 2012ISSN 0974-7907 (online) | 0974-7893 (print)Editor: Nishith A. DharaiyaManuscript details:Ms # o2679Received 24 January 2011Final received 12 January 2012Finally accepted 18 March 2012Citation: Munjpara, S.B. & I.R. Gadhvi (2012).Avian diversity in the Naliya Grassland, AbdasaTaluka, Kachchh, India. Journal of ThreatenedTaxa 3(4): 2454–2463.Copyright: © Sandeep B. Munjpara & IndraR. Gadhvi 2012. Creative Commons Attribution3.0Unported License. JoTT allows unrestricteduse of this article in any medium for non-profitpurposes, reproduction and distribution byproviding adequate credit to the authors andthe source of publication.Author Details: Sa n d e e p B. Mu n j p a r a is aresearch scholar with Bhavnagar Universityand senior research fellow at Gujarat EcologicalEducation and Research (GEER) Foundation,Gandhinagar. In d r a R. Ga d h v i is an AssociateProfessor at department of Marine Sciences,Bhavnagar University, Bhavnagar.Author Contribution: SBM has carried out thefield data collection, data analysis and draft themanuscript. IRG has guided the overall researchand analysis. He has also critically assessedthe manuscript and finalized the draft.Acknowledgements: The authors are gratefulto the Additional Principal Chief Conservator ofForests and Ex Director GEER Foundation, ShriC.N. Pandey IFS, and Ex Dy. Director GEERFoundation, Shri. B.R. Rawal, GFS, for theirkind help and constant encouragement andsupport. We are very thankful to Dr. BharatJethva, Coordinator, Wetlands International forhis valuable support during fieldwork.OPEN ACCESS | FREE DOWNLOAD2454Abstract: Naliya Grassland is one of the significant grasslands of Gujarat. In this studythe importance of the Naliya Grassland has been explored with special reference toavian diversity. Field work for the study was carried out throughout the year of 2007 ona monthly basis covering three distinct seasons to explore avian diversity. A total of 177species belonging to 54 families were recorded wherein most species belonged to thefamily Accipitridae (20 species) followed by Alaudidae (11 species). Of the total families,five were represented by more than seven species, 18 families by 3–7 species and 31families by one or two species respectively. Among the species observed, 16 speciesware globally threatened (three Critically Endangered, four Endangered and nine NearThreatened). Most of the species were chiefly terrestrial (68.2%), about 23.9% specieswere freshwater dependant and 7.9% utilized mixed habitats. Maximum speciesrichness was recorded in the monsoons and minimum in summer. Constant turnoverand fluctuation in species richness occurred because of seasonal immigration andemigration. Maximum emigration took place during February and March and maximumimmigration occurred during June and July. Many water dependant birds attracted tothe flooded grassland during the monsoons explained the high species richness duringthis season. In winter, the area was inhabited by resident species as well as manymigratory species.Keywords: Habitat, Naliya grassland, species richness, threatened species.IntroductionSome of the most threatened species of wildlife of India likeBlackbuck, Indian Gazelle, Wolf, Indian Bustard and Lesser Floricanoccur in grasslands and deserts (Geevan et al. 2003; Anonymous 2006).Grasslands are very fragile ecosystems; nowadays this ecosystem isfacing major threats of decline due to industrialization, urbanization andagricultural development. Most of the grasslands are being convertedinto agricultural lands (Rahmani 2001, 2006; Anonymous 2006). Thegrassland that exists in Abdasa Taluka of Kachchh District in the stateof Gujarat is one of the most important grasslands of the state becauseof its high biodiversity value (Geevan et al. 2003). Being a significantarea for avifauna, BirdLife International (2009) has identified this area asan Important Bird Area (IBA). The area is well represented by residentand migratory species of terrestrial and wetland birds. Many of them arecategorized as critically endangered as well as being globally threatened.It is also one of the rare breeding areas for the three globally endangeredspecies of bustards i.e. Great Indian Bustard, Lesser Florican and theMacQueen (Geevan et al. 2003). The last surviving population of IndianBustard of Gujarat is found in this grassland (Rahmani 2006; Pandey etal. 2009). Moreover, threatened wild animals like the Chinkara (IndianGazelle) and Wolf extensively use this grassland (Geevan et al. 2003).In spite of its global significance, detailed studies have not beenJournal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | March 2012 | 4(3): 2454–2463

Avian diversity of Naliya GrasslandS.B. Munjpara & I.R. GadhviImage 1. Google Earth image of the study areaundertaken. A detailed checklist is not availablefor this area. We documented avian diversity andseasonal variation in bird species richness of theNaliya Grassland.Study areaThe study has been conducted in the Naliyagrassland of Abdasa Taluka and it is situated in thesouth western province of Kachchh District (between22 0 50’–23 0 15’N and 68 0 32’–69 0 91’E) in Gujarat(Image 1). This grassland is spread over more than100km 2 . The climate is very harsh; in summerthe temperature reaches 40–45 0 C and in winter itsometimes goes below 5 0 C. The area falls under theecological zone 5A/DS 4-dry grassland with a fewscattered patches of 5A/DS 2-dry savannah (Champion& Seth 1968). The major habitat types in the areaare grassland, scrubland, open land, permanent andtemporary water bodies. However, some patches ofdense Prosopis and planted shrub-cover also exist.Cymbopogon, Aristida and Dichanthium are some ofthe major grass genera and Acacia, Zizyphus, Prosopisetc. are major shrub/trees (Anonymous 1999). Manywater bodies also exist in the study area. These waterbodies include flooded areas, waterlogged areas andsmall village ponds of Berachiya, Kunathia, Naliya,Lala, Bhanada, Tera and Bara. This area supportsa variety of vertebrate and invertebrate species.Important bird species include the Indian BustardArdeotis nigriceps, Lesser Florican Sypheotidesindica, MacQueen’s Bustard, Chlamydotis macqueeni,Stoliczka’s Bushchat Saxicola macrorhynchus, IndianCourser Cursorius coromandelicus, Black FrancolinFrancolinus francolinus. The mammalian speciesoccurring in the area include Chinkara Gazellagazella, Wolf Canis lupus, Caracal Caracal caracal,Honey Badger Mellivora capensis, Hyena Hyaenahyaena, Jackal Canis aureus, Jungle Cat Felis chausand Indian Fox Vulpus bengalensis. Apart from theabove mentioned birds and mammals, the area is alsohome to a variety of reptiles.MethodsObservations were made by conducting fieldvisits at regular intervals. Fieldwork was conductedfrom January 2007 to December 2007. Field visitswere made every month during the study period, tomonitor three distinct seasons (i.e. winter, summerand monsoon). Observations were taken mainly from0600hr (or sunrise) to 1200hr and 0300hr to 0630hrJournal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | March 2012 | 4(3): 2454–24632455

Avian diversity of Naliya Grassland(sunset). In addition, many time observations werealso taken between the 1200hr and 0300hr time block.The area was explored travelling on vehicles as wellas on foot. The observations were carried out witha pair of binoculars (Nikon 10x50) and the specieswere identified using recognized field guides likethose of Ali & Ripley (1983), Grimmett et al. (1998),Rasmussen & Anderton (2005), etc. Data analysis forspecies richness, diversity and models were carriedout in Microsoft Excel 2007.ResultsA total of 177 species were recorded in the NaliyaGrasslands belonging to 17 Orders, 54 families, and117 genera (Appendix 1).Family-wise species richnessMaximum species were recorded of familyAccipitridae (20 spp.); which is composed of birdsof prey (kites, eagles, vultures, buzzards, falcons),followed by Alaudidae [larks, (11 spp.)], Anatidae[ducks, teal, shoveler (10 spp.)], Muscicapidae[wheatear, chats, (9 spp.)] and Scolopacidae[sandpipers, godwit, shank (9 spp.)]. Of the remaining49 families, 18 were represented by 3–7 species (Fig.1) and 31 families were represented by one or twospecies (Table 1 & 2).S.B. Munjpara & I.R. GadhviThreatened Species (as per IUCN 2010)Of the total recorded species, 16 species of birds(about 9%) were globally threatened as per Red DataTable 1. Each of other 14 families was represented by twospeciesSNo Family SNo Family1 Caprimulgidae 8 Passeridae2 Ciconiidae 9 Pelecanidae3 Coraciidae 10 Phalacrocoracidae4 Emberizidae 11 Podicipedidae5 Glareolidae 12 Pycnonotidae6 Gruidae 13 Recurvirostridae7 Meropidae 14 TytonidaeTable 2. Each of 17 other families were represented by onespeciesSNo Family SNo Family1 Aegithinidae 10 Phoenicopteridae2 Anhingidae 11 Ploceidae3 Apodidae 12 Psittacidae4 Burhinidae 13 Pteroclididae5 Corvidae 14 Strigidae6 Dicruridae 15 Timaliidae7 Estrildidae 16 Turnicidae8 Jacanidae 17 Upupidae9 Nectariniidae2520No. of species151050AccipitridaeAlaudidaeAnatidaeMuscicapidaeScolopacidaeMotacilidaeArdeidaeCisticolidaePhasianidaeFigure 1. Family wise species richnessSylviidaeColumbidaeHirundinidaeStenidaeSturnidaeFamiliesThreskiornithidaeAlcedinidaeCampephagidaeCharadriidaeCuculidaeFalconidaeLaniidaeOtididaeRallidae2456Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | March 2012 | 4(3): 2454–2463

Avian diversity of Naliya GrasslandS.B. Munjpara & I.R. GadhviTable 3. List of threatened species recorded in the NaliyagrasslandsSNo Common Name Scientific NameStatus(IUCN2010)1 Black-tailed Godwit Limosa limosa NT2 Black-headed Ibis Threskiornis melanocephalus NT3 Painted Stork Mycteria leucocephala NT4 Black-necked Stork Ephippiorhynchus asiaticus NT5 Cinereous Vulture Aegypius monachus NT6 Laggar Falcon Falco jugger NT7 Darter Anhinga melanogaster NT8 Pallid Harrier Circus macrourus NT9 Lesser Flamingo Phoenicopterus minor NT10 Egyptian Vulture Neophron percnopterus En11 MacQueen Bustard Chlamydotis macqueeni En12 Indian Bustard Ardeotis nigriceps En13 Lesser Florican Sypheotides indica En14 Long-billed Vulture Gyps indicus Cr15 Red-headed Vulture Sarcogyps calvus Cr16 White-rumped Vulture Gyps bengalensis CrNT - Near threatened; En - Endangered; Cr - Critically EndangeredBook (Bird Life International 2010; IUCN 2010). Ofthese 16 species of birds, three species were CriticallyEndangered, four species were Endangered and ninespecies were Near Threatened (Table 3). The detailsof the status of those species are given in Table 3.Proportion of terrestrial and water-bird species:Of the total, the maximum species were terrestrial(68.2%) and about 23.9% species were observed to befreshwater dependent. The rest of the 7.9% specieswere found to be utilizing both types of habitats (Fig.2).Seasonal variation in species richness: Speciesrichness was observed to fluctuate seasonally (Fig.3). The maximum richness of birds was recordedin the mid-monsoon period, followed by winter.The minimum numbers of species were recorded insummer.Immigration and emigration (local as well asseasonal) of species was observed to be a continuousphenomenon in the area. The Naliya Grasslands bearmany local migratory as well seasonal migratory birdspecies. Although the total number of species did notvary monthly, there was a turnover in bird speciesrichness (Fig. 4). The maximum emigration of thespecies was observed from February to March andFigure 2. Proportion of bird species with their habitatpreferenceNumbers140120100806040200J F M A M J J A S O N DMonthsFigure 3. Seasonal variation in bird species diversity ofNaliyamaximum immigration was seen from June to July.Immigration and emigration were seen in other monthsof the year also (Fig. 4).DiscussionThe Naliya Grasslands is very rich in avifaunaand holds almost 33% bird species of Gujarat (526sp.) (Parasharya et al. 2004). Varieties of habitat(viz. scrubland, plantations, sparse grassland, densegrassland, open lands, flooded grasslands, temporarywater bodies and permanent water bodies) attract manybirds to the area. Moreover, some reptilian specieslike Spiny-tailed Lizard Uromastryx hardwickii areabundant in the area (Pandey et al. 2009) which attractJournal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | March 2012 | 4(3): 2454–24632457

Avian diversity of Naliya GrasslandS.B. Munjpara & I.R. Gadhvi40EmigrationImmigration403535Number of emigrated species30252015103025201510Number of immigrated species50J–F F–M M–A A–M M–J J–J J–A A–S S–O O–N N–DMonths50Figure 4. Local and seasonal annualimmigration and emigrationof birds.a number of raptor species. The maximum species hasbeen recorded in the mid-monsoon period, probablybecause of the flooded grasslands which attracts waterdependant birds as well. In winter, the area has beenobserved to be inhabited by resident species as wellas migratory species; hence, species richness wasreported higher in winter. In summer most parts ofarea become dry, thus, fewer numbers of specieswere encountered. The species which were foundthroughout the year in the Naliya Grasslands are few,most are either passage migrants or migratory. Themigration is inducted based on their breeding cycle,food abundance, temperature and day-length. It isevident that the maximum emigration of species isduring February–March, which accounts for the endof winter and the start of summer with long and drydays. Immigration peak was observed during theperiod June–July, probably due to the abundance offood during this period as well as the arrival of someearly monsoon showers for breeding birds (eg. LesserFlorican). Most of the birds immigrate to the area forfeeding and breeding in the late monsoon period. Thenumber of immigrating birds falls by August and isre-established in late September–October, the onsetof winter. Thus, the migratory pattern of the birdsin this particular habitat is mainly dependent on thebreeding ecology and food abundance as well as dueto the dynamic nature of habitats in the area. Anotherinteresting fact that can be determined is most localmigratory birds arriving at the grasslands during thedry season of the year are diurnal, thus the longer daysduring this season provide them with long duration forfeeding and dry land for roosting. Of the total, 16 speciesare threatened (Table 3), making Naliya Grasslands avery important area for bird conservation.ConclusionThe grasslands of Naliya support many resident andmigratory bird species, of which, some are threatened.Moreover, it is important especially for the birds ofprey and larks. In addition, diversity of habitats suchas temporary and permanent wetlands (viz., villageponds, flooded area and waterlogged), grassland,scrubland and human habitat supports divers groupsof birds. Being an important area for a variety ofavifauna it should receive immediate attention forconservation.ReferencesAnonymous (1999). Report of an ecological study of Kachchhand its associated fauna with reference to its managementand conservation. Gujarat Institute of Desert Ecology, Bhuj,India.Anonymous (2006). Task Force on Grasslands and Deserts forthe Environment and Forests Sector for the Eleventh Five-Year Plan (2007–2012), 34pp.BirdLife International (2009). Important Bird Area factsheet:2458Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | March 2012 | 4(3): 2454–2463

Avian diversity of Naliya GrasslandS.B. Munjpara & I.R. Gadhvi© Sandeep Munjpara © Sandeep MunjparaImage 2. Northern Shoveler Anas ClypeataImage 3. Yellow-wattled Lapwing Vanellus malabaricus© Sandeep Munjpara© Irshad ThebaImage 4. Indian Silverbill Lonchura malabaricaImage 5. Cream-colored Courser Cursorius cursor© Irshad Theba© Sandeep MunjparaImage 7. Common Stonechat Saxicola torquataImage 6. Indian Courser Cursorius coromandelicusJournal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | March 2012 | 4(3): 2454–24632459

Avian diversity of Naliya GrasslandS.B. Munjpara & I.R. Gadhvi© Sandeep Munjpara© Sandeep MunjparaImage 8. Black Francolin Francolinus francolinusImage 9. Chestnut-bellied Sandgrouse Pterocles exustusNaliya Grassland (Lala Bustard Wildlife Sanctuary), India.Downloaded from the Data Zone at http://www.birdlife.orgon 18/10/2010.BirdLife International (2010). Threatened Birds of Asia.CD-ROM, The BirdLife International Red Data Book.Cambridge, UK.Champion, H.G. & S.K. Seth (1968). A Revised Survey ofForest Types of India. Government of India Publication,New Delhi, 404pp.Geevan, C.P., A.M. Dixit & C.S. Silori (2003). Ecological-Economic Analysis of Grassland Systems: ResourceDynamics and Management Challenges, Kachchh District(Gujarat). Gujarat Institute of Desert Ecology Bhuj(Kachchh) 8pp.Grimmett, R., C. Inskipp & T. Inskipp (1998). Birds of IndianSubcontinent. Oxford University press, New Delhi, 384pp.IUCN (2010). IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version2010.4. www.iucnredlist.org. Downloaded on 01 January2011.Pandey, C.N., B. Jethva & S. Munjpara (2009). Report ofStatus, Distribution and Habitat survey of Great IndianBustard (Ardeotis nigriceps) in Gujarat. Gujarat EcologicalEducation and Research Foundation, Gandhinagar.Parasharya, B.M., C.K. Borad & D.N. Rank (2004). AChecklist of the Birds of Gujarat. Bird ConservationSociety, Gujarat, 26pp.Rahmani, A.R. (2001). The Godawan Saga: Great IndianBustards in decline. Sanctuary (Asia) 21(1): 24–28.Rahmani, A.R. (2006). Need to Start Project Bustards. BombayNatural History, Mumbai, 20pp.Rasmussen, P.C. & J.C. Anderton (2005). Birds of South Asia.The Ripley Guide. Vols. 1 and 2. Smithsonian Institution andLynx Editions, Washington, D.C. and Barcelona, 683pp.2460Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | March 2012 | 4(3): 2454–2463

Avian diversity of Naliya GrasslandS.B. Munjpara & I.R. GadhviAnnexure 1. Checklist of birds recorded in Naliya grassland, KachchhSNo Common Name Scientific NameAccipitridae (Raptors)1 Black-shouldered Kite Elanus caeruleus2 Brahminy Kite Haliastur indus3 Egyptian Vulture Neophron percnopterus4 Cinereous Vulture Aegypius monachus5 White-rumped Vulture Gyps bengalensis6 Indian Vulture Long Gyps indicus7 Red-headed Vulture Sarcogyps calvus8 Eurasian Griffon Vulture Gyps fulvus9 Long-legged Buzzard Buteo rufinus10 Oriental Honey-buzzard Pernis ptilorhyncus11 White-eyed Buzzard Butastur teesa12 Shikra Accipiter badius13 Bonelli’s Eagle Hieraaetus fasciatus14 Booted Eagle Hieraaetus pennatus15 Short-toed Snake Eagle Circaetus gallicus16 Steppe Eagle Aquila nipalensis17 Tawny Eagle Aquila rapax18 Eurasian Marsh Harrier Circus aeruginosus19 Montagu’s Harrier Circus pygargus20 Pallid Harrier Circus macrourusAlaudidae (Larks) Alcedinidae21 Black-crown sparrow Lark Eremopterix nigriceps22Ashy-crowned SparrowLarkEremopterix grisea23 Bimaculated Lark Melanocorypha bimaculata24 Crested Lark Galerida cristata25 Greater Short-toed Lark Calandrella brachydactyla26 Indian Bushlark Mirafra erythroptera27 Rufous-tailed Lark Ammomanes phoenicurus28 Sand Lark Calandrella raytal29 Singing Bushlark Mirafra cantillans30 Sykes's Lark Galerida deva31 Oriental Skylark Alauda gulgulaAlcedinidae (Kingfishers)32 Common Kingfisher Alcedo atthis33 White-throated Kingfisher Halcyon smyrnensis34 Pied Kingfisher Ceryle rudisAnatidae (Ducks, Teal, Wigeon)35 Spot-billed Duck Anas poecilorhyncha36 Comb Duck Sarkidiornis melanotos37 Common Pochard Aythya ferina38 Common Teal Anas crecca39 Northern Shoveler (Image 2) Anas clypeata40 Lesser Whistling-duck Dendrocygna javanicaSNo Common Name Scientific Name41 Ruddy Shelduck Tadorna ferruginea42 Gadwall Anas strepera43 Garganey Anas querquedula44 Eurasian Wigeon Anas penelopeApodidae (Swifts)45 House Swift Apus affinisArdeidae (Egrets & Herons)46 Cattle Egret Bubulcus ibis47 Great Egret Casmerodius albus48 Intermediate Egret Mesophoyx intermedia49 Little Egret Egretta garzetta50 Indian Pond Heron Ardeola grayii51 Grey Heron Ardea cinereaBurhinidae (Thick-knee)52 Eurasian Thick-knee Burhinus oedicnemusCampephagidae (Minivets)53 Small Minivet Pericrocotus cinnamomeus54 White-bellied Minivet Pericrocotus erythropygiusCaprimulgidae (Nightjar)55 Indian Nightjar Caprimulgus asiaticus56 Savanna Nightjar Caprimulgus affinisScolopacidae (Sandpiper)57 Marsh Sandpiper Tringa stagnatilis58 Common Sandpiper Actitis hypoleucos59 Green Sandpiper Tringa ochropus60 Wood Sandpiper Tringa glareolaCharadriidae (Lapwing)61 Red-wattled Lapwing Vanellus indicus62Yellow-wattled Lapwing(Image 3)Vanellus malabaricus63 Little Ringed Plover Charadrius dubiusCiconiidae (Storks)64 Painted Stork Mycteria leucocephala65 Black-necked Stork Ephippiorhynchus asiaticusCisticolidae (Prinias)66 Grey-breasted Prinia Prinia hodgsonii67 Jungle Prinia Prinia sylvatica68 Plain Prinia Prinia inornata69 Rufous Fronted Prinia Prinia buchanani70 Tailorbird Orthotomus sutorius71 Zitting Cisticola Cisticola juncidisColumbidae (Doves)72 Laughing Dove Streptopelia senegalensis73 Red Collared Dove Streptopelia tranquebarica74 Eurasian Collared Dove Streptopelia decaoctoJournal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | March 2012 | 4(3): 2454–24632461

Avian diversity of Naliya GrasslandS.B. Munjpara & I.R. GadhviSNo Common Name Scientific Name75 Rock pigeon Columba liviaCoraciidae (Rollers)76 European Roller Coracias garrulus77 Indian Roller Coracias benghalensisCorvidae (Crow)78 House Crow Corvus splendensCuculidae (Koels)79 Asian Koel Eudynamys scolopacea80 Common Cuckoo Cuculus canorus81 Greater Coucal Centropus sinensisDicruridae (Drongos)82 Black Drongo Dicrurus macrocercusEmberizidae (Buntings)83 Grey-necked Bunting Emberiza buchanani84 House Bunting Emberiza striolataEstrildidae (Silverbills)85 Indian Silverbill (Image 4) Lonchura malabaricaFalconidae (Falcons)86 Laggar Falcon Falco jugger87 Red-necked Falcon Falco chicquera88 Common Kestrel Falco tinnunculusGlareolidae (Coursers)89Cream-coloured Courser(Image 5)Cursorius cursor90 Indian Courser (Image 6) Cursorius coromandelicusGruidae (Crane)91 Common Crane Grus grus92 Demoiselle Crane Grus virgoHirundinidae (Swallow, Martin)93 Barn Swallow Hirundo rustica94 Red-rumped Swallow Hirundo daurica95 Wire-tailed Swallow Hirundo smithii96 Dusky Crag Martin Hirundo concolorAegithinidae (Iora)97 Marshall's Iora Aegithina nigroluteaJacanidae (Jacanas)98 Pheasant-tailed Jacana Hydrophasianus chirurgusLaniidae (Shrike)99 Bay-backed Shrike Lanius vittatus100 Rufous-tailed Shrike Lanius isabellinus101 Southern Grey Shrike Lanius meridionalisSternidae (Tern)102 Caspian Tern Sterna caspia103 Gull-billed Tern Gelochelidon nilotica104 River Tern Sterna aurantiaSNo Common Name Scientific NameMeropidae (Bee-eater)106 Green Bee-eater Merops orientalis107 Blue Chicked Bee-eater Merops persicusMotacillidae (Pipits, Wagtails)108 Citrine Wagtail Motacilla citreola109 Grey Wagtail Motacilla cinerea110 Yellow Wagtail Motacilla flava111 Tree Pipit Anthus trivialis112 Tawny Pipit Anthus campetris113 Long-billed Pipit Anthus similis114 Paddyfield Pipit Anthus rufulusMuscicapidae (Chats, Wheatears)115 Black Redstart Phoenicurus ochruros116Common Stonechat(Image 7)Saxicola torquata117 Isabelline Wheatear Oenanthe isabellina118 Variable Wheatear Oenanthe picata119 Desert Wheatear Oenanthe deserti120 Indian Robin Saxicoloides fulicata121 Pied Bushchat Saxicola caprata122 Stoliczka’s Bushchat Saxicola macrorhyncha123 Spotted Flycatcher Muscicapa striataNectariniidae (Sunbirds)124 Purple Sunbird Nectarinia asiaticaOtididae (Bustards)125 MacQueen Bustard Chlamydotis macqueeni126 Indian Bustard Ardeotis nigriceps127 Lesser Florican Sypheotides indicaPasseridae (Sparrow)128 House Sparrow Passer domesticus129 Yellow-throated Sparrow Petronia xanthocollisPelecanidae (Pelicans)130 Dalmatian Pelican Pelecanus crispus131 Great White Pelican Pelecanus onocrotalusAnhingidae (Darters)132 Darter Anhinga melanogasterPhalacrocoracidae (Cormorants)133 Great Cormorant Phalacrocorax carbo134 Little Cormorant Phalacrocorax nigerPhasianidae (Francolins)135 Black Francolin (Image 8) Francolinus francolinus136 Grey Francolin Francolinus pondicerianus137 Common Quail Coturnix coturnix138 Rain Quail Coturnix coromandelica139 Indian Peafowl Pavo cristatus105 Whiskered Tern Chidonias hybridus2462Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | March 2012 | 4(3): 2454–2463

Avian diversity of Naliya GrasslandS.B. Munjpara & I.R. GadhviSNo Common Name Scientific NamePhoenicopteridae (Flamingos)140 Greater Flamingo Phoenicopterus ruberSylviidae (Chiffchaff)141 Common Chiffchaff Phylloscopus collybita142 Lesser Whitethroat Sylvia curruca143 Common Whitethroat Sylvia communis144 Desert Warbler Sylvia nana145 Orphean Warbler Sylvia hortensisPloceidae (Weaver)146 Baya Weaver Ploceus philippinusPodicipedidae (Grebes)147 Little Grebe Tachybaptus ruficollis148 Great Crested Grebe Podiceps cristatusCampephagidae (Woodshrike)149 Common Woodshrike Tephrodornis pondicerianusPsittacidae (Parakeet)150 Rose-ringed Parakeet Psittacula krameriPteroclididae (Sandgrouse)151Chestnut-belliedSandgrouse (Image 9)Pycnonotidae (Bulbul)Pterocles exustus152 Red-vented Bulbul Pycnonotus cafer153 White-eared Bulbul Pycnonotus leucotisRallidae (Coots)154 Common Coot Fulica atra155 Purple Swamphen Porphyrio porphyrio156 Common Moorhen Galliinula chloropusRecurvirostridae (Stilts)157 Black-winged Stilt Himantopus himantopusSNo Common Name Scientific Name158 Pied Avocet Recurvirostra avosettaScolopacidae (Godwit, Shanks)159 Black-tailed Godwit Limosa limosa160 Common Greenshank Tringa nebularia161 Common Redshank Tringa totanus162 Eurasian Curlew Numenius arquata163 Ruff Philomachus pugnaxStrigidae (Owlets)164 Spotted Owlet Athene bramaSturnidae (Starling)165 Bank Myna Acridotheres ginginianus166 Common Myna Acridotheres tristis167 Brahminy Starling Sturnus pagodarum168 Rosy Starling Sturnus roseusThreskiornithidae (Ibis, Spoonbills)169 Black Ibis Pseudibis papillosa170 Glossy Ibis Plegadis falcinellus171 Black-headed IbisThreskiornismelanocephalus172 Eurasian Spoonbill Platalea leucorodiaTimaliidae (Babblers)173 Common Babbler Turdoides caudatusTurnicidae (Buttonquail)174 Small Buttonquail Turnix sylvaticaTytonidae (Owls)175 Eurasian Eagle Owl Bubo bubo176 Short-eared Owl Asio flammeusUpupidae (Hoopoe)177 Hoopoe Upupa epopsJournal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | March 2012 | 4(3): 2454–24632463

JoTT Sh o r t Co m m u n ic a t i o n 4(3): 2464–2469Conservation status of Bengal Florican Houbaropsisbengalensis bengalensis (Gmelin, 1789) (Gruiformes:Otididae) in Koshi Tappu Wildlife Reserve and adjoiningareas, eastern NepalHem Sagar Baral 1 , Ashok Kumar Ram 2 , Badri Chaudhary 3 , Suchit Basnet 4 , Hathan Chaudhary 5 ,Tika Ram Giri 6 & Dheeraj Chaudhary 71Charles Sturt University, School of Environmental Sciences, New South Wales, Australia2Koshi Tappu Wildlife Reserve, Department of National Parks and Wildlife Conservation, PO Box 860, Babarmahal, Kathmandu,Nepal3Himalayan Nature, PO Box 10918, Lazimpat, Kathmandu, Nepal4,5,6Nepalese Ornithological Union, PO Box 21016, Thamel, Kathmandu, Nepal7Koshi Camp Pvt Ltd, PO Box 21016, Kathmandu, NepalEmail: 1 hem.baral@gmail.com (corresponding author), 2 rashok05@gmail.com, 4 suchitbas@googlemail.com,5nepalbird@gmail.com, 6 giri_tika@yahoo.com 7 birdlife@mos.com.npDate of publication (online): 26 March 2012Date of publication (print): 26 March 2012ISSN 0974-7907 (online) | 0974-7893 (print)Editor: Rajiv S. KalsiManuscript details:Ms # o2948Received 19 September 2011Final received 28 December 2011Finally accepted 16 February 2012Citation: Baral, H.S., A.K. Ram, B. Chaudhary, S. Basnet, H. Chaudhary,T.R. Giri & D. Chaudhary (2012). Conservation Status of Bengal FloricanHoubaropsis bengalensis bengalensis (Gmelin, 1789) (Gruiformes:Otididae) in Koshi Tappu Wildlife Reserve and adjoining areas, easternNepal. Journal of Threatened Taxa 4(3): 2464–2469.Copyright: © Hem Sagar Baral, Ashok Kumar Ram, Badri Chaudhary,Suchit Basnet, Hathan Chaudhary, Tika Ram Giri and Dheeraj Chaudhary2012. Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License. JoTT allowsunrestricted use of this article in any medium for non-profit purposes,reproduction and distribution by providing adequate credit to the authorsand the source of publication.Acknowledgements: We acknowledge the firm support and guidance ofKrishna Prasad Acharya, Director General of the Department of NationalParks and Wildlife Conservation towards the conservation of birds andfor the entire Koshi Tappu Wildlife Reserve. We would like to thankfullyacknowledge the support to our conservation activities inside and outsidethe reserve from the staff of Koshi Tappu Wildlife Reserve. We would alsolike to thank the support given by the Van Tienhoven Foundation, CharlesSturt University - Australia, The Peregrine Fund USA, Manfred-Hermsen-Stiftung for Nature Conservation and Environmental Protection (MHS),Parahawking: Share the Sky and The Wetland Trust UK who have providedsupport for Himalayan Nature’s conservation activities based at Kosi BirdObservatory. This paper is the result of the generous support providedby these organisations. We thank Kosi Bird Observatory, Koshi Camp PvtLtd, Nature Safari Tours Pvt Ltd and Naturetrek Ltd for help on logistics.Mr Biswa Nath Uprety, former Director General, Krishna Bidari and AnishTimsina of Koshi Camp, Sanjib Acharya and Suman Acharya of HimalayanNature kindly shared information on Bengal Florican sightings. Thanks toCarol Inskipp and David Buckingham who kindly commented on the paper.Last but not least we would like to thank Carol Inskipp for her guidance onthis paper, continued interest and support to Nepal bird studies.OPEN ACCESS | FREE DOWNLOADAbstract: Bengal Florican Houbaropsis bengalensis is one ofthe most critically threatened birds of the world. The species hasrestricted distribution within the Indian subcontinent extendingsoutheast to parts of Cambodia and Vietnam. The populationof the species is being monitored in Nepal since 1982. Themost recent study on the species shows a precipitous declinein its population, even for a species mainly confined to protectedareas. Koshi Tappu Wildlife Reserve and adjoining areas hadbeen omitted in previous surveys mainly because the area wasconsidered not to hold any significant number of the species.Opportunistic surveys in April and May 2011 indicated that thereis a comeback of this species in Koshi Tappu Wildlife Reserveand the adjoining riverine grasslands. As many as 12 pairs wereestimated. Further systematic surveys are recommended to findout the total population of the species.Keywords: Bengal Florican, Koshi Tappu, Nepal, , riverinegrasslands, population estimates, systematic survey.Bengal Florican Houbaropsis bengalensis isconsidered to be one of the rarest florican species ofthe world (del Hoyo et al. 1996) and was at one timedescribed as the most threatened bird species in theIndian subcontinent (Inskipp & Collar 1984). It is aglobally threatened species (IUCN status CriticallyEndangered; BirdLife International 2011), inhabitingalluvial grasslands in India, (from the Kumaon terai ofUttar Pradesh (now Uttarakhand) through Bihar andWest Bengal to the foothills and plains of ArunachalPradesh, Assam and Meghalaya), Nepal (in the Terai),Cambodia and southern Vietnam (Ripley 1982; Ali &Ripley 1987; del Hoyo et al. 1996). Two subspeciesof Bengal Florican have been recognised: H. b.bengalensis from the Indian subcontinent and H. b.blandini from Cambodia and Vietnam (del Hoyo et al.1996). Populations have declined chiefly as a result of2464Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | March | 4(3): 2464–2469

Bengal Florican in Koshi Tappuhabitat loss and hunting and in the Indian subcontinent,the species no longer occurs outside protected areas(BirdLife International 2000, 2001). However, it is notknown where the species goes during the non-breedingseason. The most up-to-date estimate from Cambodiais 666–1004 mature birds (David Buckingham pers.comm. 2011). Nepal populations for subspeciesbengalensis is estimated between 28–36, but there areno recent estimates from India (BirdLife International2011).A pioneering study on this species including theprotected areas in the southern belt of Nepal andthe northern part of India was conducted in 1982with estimates of 56–82 as the total Bengal Floricanpopulation in Nepal (Inskipp & Inskipp 1983;Inskipp & Inskipp 1991). The study concluded thatall important populations of the species lie withinprotected areas of lowland Nepal. Since 1982 there hasbeen no systematic study carried out on this species atKoshi Tappu Wildlife Reserve.In Nepal, a number of studies have been carriedout since then, notably in Suklaphanta and Bardia(Weaver 1991), Bardia (Pokharel & Dhakal 1998), andSuklaphanta, Bardia and Chitwan (Baral et al. 2000,2001, 2002a, 2003). Baral (1995a) and Rai (1996)have highlighted the urgency of surveys and someof the threats to the Bengal Florican. Repeat surveysof the Bengal Florican have found a decline in thepopulation from three protected areas of central andwestern Nepal (Baral et al. 2003; Poudyal et al. 2008a,b,c). A revisit to Nepal’s lowland protected areas bythe researchers who first surveyed floricans in 1982further confirmed the degraded quality of grasslands(Inskipp & Inskipp 2001). Baral (2001) and Baral etal. (2002b) have concluded that the biggest threat tothe Bengal Florican in the protected area is inadequatemanagement of grasslands. Baral et al. (2002b)have further suggested that there may not be a viablepopulation in Nepal. Poudyal et al. (2008 a,b,c) gavethe most up-to-date survey data on this species fromChitwan, Bardia and Suklaphanta, the major Nepalstrongholds of the species.As one of the major recommendations by Poudyalet al. (2008a) and BirdLife International (2011), wegathered information on this species whilst workingon Himalayan Nature’s biodiversity related projectactivities and the Reserve’s regular monitoringactivities in the Koshi Tappu Wildlife Reserve andH.S. Baral et al.adjoining areas of the Koshi River, eastern Nepal.It is normally assumed that if a species is foundwithin a protected area then it is safe and doing well(Krebs 2009). However, the above mentioned studiessuggest that grassland management supportive tocritically threatened species like the Bengal Floricanis also needed inside protected areas.The largest number of Bengal Floricans recordedfor Koshi was 10 in April 1982 (cited in Inskipp &Inskipp 1983). This may be an underestimationbecause during that time, only partial coverage of thearea was possible during the survey; for example thereserve could only be covered on elephant-back at thattime (Carol Inskipp in litt. to H.S. Baral 25 June 2011).More recently, following the loss of grassland south ofthe barrage, this species has become a very rare birdat Koshi (Baral 1995b). Single birds have been seenin the western part of Koshi Tappu, within the reserve(Baral 1995a) and north of Koshi Tappu outside thereserve since 2004 (Badri Chaudhary pers. obs. 2011;Som G.C. pers. comm. 2010; Inskipp et al. 2011). Amultitude of problems has been discussed as threats tothis species in Koshi Tappu (Baral 1995a).Systematic surveys have mostly focused in otherprotected areas and Koshi has been left out duringorganized surveys mainly because the area wasconsidered unsuitable for Bengal Floricans. KoshiTappu is a small reserve compared to others but isdifficult to survey due to logistic problems. KoshiTappu and its adjoining areas were surveyed in Apriland May 2011 for the Bengal Florican. Current studyin Koshi area reveals an unknown population ofBengal Florican in the country and draws the attentionof wider conservation community for more effectiveplanning for its protection.Study areaKoshi Tappu Wildlife Reserve (= Koshi Tappuhenceforth, 26 0 35’N & 87 0 05’E) occupies 175km 2 of theSapta Koshi River floodplain at the most northeasterlyextension of the Gangetic Plain (Image 1). It rangesin altitude from 75–81 m (Sah 1997). The reserveis located between two flood control embankmentsand is subject to annual flooding. An estimated 70%of the reserve’s land area is covered in grasslands“phantas” followed by water and riverine forests.Typha and Saccharum are the main components of thegrassland communities found here, although patchesJournal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | March 2012 | 4(3): 2464–24692465

Bengal Florican in Koshi TappuH.S. Baral et al.Village/TownRiverReserve boundaryInternational boundaryForestGrasslandImage 1. Study areaof Imperata and Phragmites are often seen (Peet etal. 1999). Medium size phantas (patches of shortgrasslands) interspersed with young Dalbergia sissoo/ Acacia catechu trees are found on sandy islands.Riverine vegetation with Acacia catechu / Dalbergiasissoo forest dominates on the islands and edges of thereserve. Mostly young trees grow inside and on theedges of the reserve within embankments, most oldmature trees being swept away by annual monsoonalfloods. The wetlands in the reserve have been identifiedas Nepal’s first Ramsar Site (Sah 1997).North of Koshi Tappu (26 0 47’N & 87 0 07’E), forabout 20km, lies grassy islands, small settlements andfarm areas with an estimated area of 70km 2 . Part ofthis area is subject to annual inundation from the Koshifloodwaters whereas the rest of the area remains abovethe floods. Areas subjected to annual inundationhave grasslands and large shingle banks. Towards thenorthern end, on a private property, lies the recentlyestablished Kosi Bird Observatory (KBO) from wheresome of these observations have been possible (Image1).South of Koshi Tappu lies the Koshi Barrage area(26 0 36’N & 87 0 03’E). This area is 7km from northto south and nearly 5km from east to west, totalingnearly 35km 2 . More than 50% of the wetland area atthe barrage is covered by water, and the remainingarea is subject to intensive agriculture at certain timesof the year. During dry periods, several islands arevegetated with Saccharum spp., Imperata cylindricaand Typha elephantine dominated grasses. There ishuman disturbance in the form of grass collection for2466Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | March 2012 | 4(3): 2464–2469

Bengal Florican in Koshi Tappufodder and livestock grazing. Koshi Barrage and KoshiTappu have been identified as one of the 27 ImportantBird Areas of Nepal by BirdLife International (Baral& Inskipp 2005).MethodsKoshi Tappu and its adjoining areas to north andsouth were visited in April and May 2011 during aprogramme of vulture counts, regular bird watching,and during routine monitoring of the Reserve for about45 days. Field visits were undertaken using inflatablerubber boats, trained elephants, all-terrain vehicles oron foot, depending upon the purpose of the activity.All Bengal Florican sightings were logged, alongwith information on habitat use, numbers and activity.Bengal Florican numbers were estimated based onthese records and discussion with the Reserve staff.ResultsBengal Floricans were recorded from ninedifferent sites along a 39-km north-south stretch of theKoshi River. Eliminating double counts of the sameindividuals from the same area, in total, 17 birds wererecorded from these sites, of which seven were malesand 10 were females. Only five individuals wererecorded outside the reserve, two pairs from Jabdi(north of Koshi Tappu, near KBO) and one femaleseen twice near the Koshi Barrage area.From the sightings this year, we estimated at leasteight to 12-pairs of Bengal Florican for Koshi Tappufor the Spring/Summer of 2011. Five to nine pairswere located inside the reserve. As this informationresulted from opportunistic sightings and surveys,a systematic and well planned survey may produceclearer results and better estimate of the status offloricans from Koshi Tappu and adjoining areas.The size of the grasslands where floricans werefound varied from 0.05km 2 to nearly 1km 2 . The largerpatches were within the reserve and some of thesewere islands with a mosaic of various grass species.All sightings with dates, number and localities arepresented in Table 1.DiscussionWe have seen more floricans at Koshi this yearcompared to previous years during the same period oftime. Probably habitat within the reserve improvedH.S. Baral et al.as compared to the past years. Ashok Kumar Ram,Warden of Koshi Tappu, claimed that the number ofprivately owned cattle inside the reserve had beendrastically reduced because the Reserve Authority wasactively controlling cattle grazing. Several hundredsof privately owned cattle have been driven out ofthe reserve (Ashok Kumar Ram pers. comm. 2011).Removal of grazing probably resulted in regenerationof grass communities preferred by the floricans.Using a 4-wheel drive vehicle, the western sideof the reserve was visited for the first time in manyyears. This has increased the frequency of visitsby the Reserve staff to the interior of the Reserveand probably increased sightings of the floricans.Increased monitoring and patrolling activities byReserve staff may have also reduced illegal entriesof locals into the Reserve, making the area safer forthe floricans. However, this alone cannot be the maincause of increased numbers of floricans as the easternpart of Koshi Tappu is now frequently visited by birdwatchers.As for the sighting of two pairs north of KoshiTappu, nearly 15km outside the boundary, it maynot have had much to do with the Reserve’s betterprotected status. The pre-monsoonal rains had beenmore frequent this year compared to the previousyears. Early rains this year might have helped to makethe grasslands more habitable for the floricans byspeeding up the growth of grasses. Additionally, areasnorth of Koshi Tappu may have been covered morefrequently this year compared to last year resulting inmore sightings of the species. The recently establishedKosi Bird Observatory is acting as a major researchstation for birds in this region.RecommendationsThe present paper is based on compilation ofvarious observers’ records. It is likely that there aremore sites which hold Bengal Florican populations.Therefore, a scientifically planned survey of BengalFlorican should be carried out in Koshi Tappu, northand south of the Reserve in the Spring of 2012. Thesouthern side should include parts up to the Nepal/India border south of the Koshi Barrage. The northernside should include all the islands, and grasslands upto the Kosi Bird Observatory (Jabdi).The survey should be well coordinated. It willbe best to position experienced observers in severalJournal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | March 2012 | 4(3): 2464–24692467

Bengal Florican in Koshi TappuH.S. Baral et al.Table 1. Records of Bengal Florican during April and May 2011 from Koshi Tappu and adjoining areasDate Site Time M F Activity Habitat Habitat Size28.iv.11Jabdi, north ofKoshi *07:00 1 Standing in grasslandCut over Saccharum/Imperatagrasslands less than half m highIsland nearly0.3km 2 in size28.iv.11Jabdi, north ofKoshi *07:10 1 DisplayingCut over Saccharum/Imperatagrasslands less than half m highIsland nearly0.3km 2 in size28.iv.11Jabdi, north ofKoshi *07:20 1Walking in grasslandapproximately one km awayfrom the first maleCut over Saccharum/Imperatagrasslands less than half m highIsland nearly0.3km 2 in size28.iv.11Jabdi, north ofKoshi *08:15 1Standing in grassland whilstthe first female still beingwatched by the groupCut over Saccharum/Imperatagrasslands less than half m highIsland nearly0.3km 2 in size17.iv.11Prakashpur, Koshieast *06:36 1 2One female flying, maleand female standing ingrasslandsDominated by Saccharumspontaneum0.15km 204.v.11Prakashpur, Koshieast *06:30 1 Standing in a new grasslandNew, uncut grassland less thanquarter of a metre, adjacent toolder grassland nearly 2 m highIsland nearly0.2km 2 in size16.iv.11Madhuban, Koshieast *17:10 1 1Male flying and femalewalking along the edge ofgrasslandDominated by Saccharumspontaneum and with

Bengal Florican in Koshi Tappulekking areas and areas that are likely to be used by thefloricans. The survey should be done in April-May forabout two months. Reserve staff should be involvedwherever possible to build their research capacity.Habitat information and other details should berecorded systematically so that the results of such astudy can contribute to better grassland managementaiming to increase the florican’s population.REFERENCESAli, S. & S.D. Ripley (1987). Compact Handbook of the Birdsof India and Pakistan. Oxford University Press, New Delhi,xlii+737pp+104 colour plates.Baral, H.S. (1995a). Some notes on Bengal Florican. BirdConservation Nepal Newsletter 4(2): 5.Baral, H.S. (1995b). Birds of Koshi—Second Edition.Department of National Parks and Wildlife Conservation,Participatory Conservation Programme and BirdConservation Nepal, Kathmandu, 24pp.Baral, H.S. (2001). Community Structure and HabitatAssociations of Lowland Grassland Birds in Nepal.PhD Thesis. University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, TheNetherlands, x+235pp.Baral, H.S. & C. Inskipp (2005). Important Bird Areas inNepal: Key Sites for Conservation. Bird ConservationNepal, Kathmandu and BirdLife International, Cambridge,242pp.Baral, N., B. Tamang & N. Timilsina (2000). The floricans inRoyal Bardia National Park. Danphe 9(3): 4.Baral, N., B. Tamang & N. Timilsina (2002a). Status ofBengal Florican Houbaropsis bengalensis in Royal BardiaNational Park, Nepal. Journal of the Bombay NaturalHistory Society 99(3): 413–417.Baral, N., N. Timilsina & B. Tamang (2001). Bengal FloricanHoubaropsis bengalensis in Royal Suklaphanta WildlifeReserve, Nepal. Oriental Bird Club Bulletin 34: 30–33.Baral, N., N. Timilsina & B. Tamang (2002b). Conservationistspeep into floricans. Danphe: 11(1): 18–19.Baral, N., N. Timilsina & B. Tamang (2003). Status of BengalFlorican Houbaropsis bengalensis in Nepal. Forktail 19:51–55.BirdLife International (2000). Threatened Birds of The World.BirdLife International. Cambridge, xii+852pp.BirdLife International (2001). Threatened birds of Asia - PartA. BirdLife International, Cambridge, xxx+1516pp.BirdLife International (2011). Species factsheet:Houbaropsis bengalensis. Downloaded from http://www.birdlife.org on 05/06/2011.H.S. Baral et al.del Hoyo, J., A. Elliott & J. Sargatal (1996). Birds of theWorld—Vol. 3. Lynx Edicions, Barcelona, 821pp.Inskipp, C. & N.J. Collar (1984). The Bengal Florican: itsconservation in Nepal. Oryx 18(1): 30–35.Inskipp, C. & T.P. Inskipp (1983). Report on a survey ofBengal Floricans Houbaropsis bengalensis in Nepal andIndia, 1982. Study Report No. 2. International Council forBird Preservation, Cambridge, U.K, 54pp.Inskipp, C. & T. Inskipp (1991). A Guide to the Birds of Nepal.Second edition. Christopher Helm, London, 400pp.Inskipp, C. & T. Inskipp (2001). A re-visit to Nepal’s lowlandprotected areas. Danphe 10(1/2): 4–7.Inskipp, C., H.S. Baral & T. Inskipp (2011). The State ofNepal’s Birds 2010. Department of National Parks andWildlife Conservation and Bird Conservation Nepal,Kathmandu, x+96pp.Krebs, C.J. (2009). Ecology - The experimental Analysisof Distribution and Abundance—Sixth Edition. PearsonEducation Inc., San Francisco, USA, xvi+655pp.Peet, N., A.J. Watkinson, D.J. Bell & B.J. Kattel (1999). Plantdiversity in the threatened subtropical grasslands of Nepal.Biological Conservation 88: 193–206.Pokharel, C.P. & N.P. Dhakal (1998). Status of BengalFlorican Eupodotis bengalensis in Royal Bardia NationalPark, Western Lowland, Nepal. Unpublished report to theOriental Bird Club, UK, iii+12pp.Poudyal, L.P., P.B. Singh & S. Maharajan (2008a). Status anddistribution of Bengal Florican Houbaropsis bengalensis inNepal. Final report to Oriental Bird Club and The Club 300Foundation for Bird Protection Sweden, 40pp.Poudyal, L.P., P.B. Singh & S. Maharajan (2008b). Thedecline of Bengal Florican Hourbaropsis bengalensis inNepal. Danphe 17(1): 4–6.Poudyal, L. P., P. B. Singh & S. Maharajan (2008c). BengalFlorican Houbaropsis bengalensis in Nepal: an update.BirdingAsia 10: 43–47.Rai, H. (1996). A serious threat to Bengal Florican Houbaropsisbengalensis in Bardia. Bird Conservation Nepal Newsletter5(3): 1.Ripley, S.D. (1982). A Synopsis of The Birds of India andPakistan—Second Edition. Bombay Natural History Society,Bombay, xxvi+652pp.Sah, J.P. (1997). Koshi Tappu Wetlands: Nepal’s Ramsar Site.IUCN Bangkok, Thailand. xviii+254pp.Weaver, D. (1991). A survey of Bengal Floricans Houbaropsisbengalensis at Royal Suklaphanta Wildlife Reserve andRoyal Bardia National Park, western Nepal. Report toOriental Bird Club. Unpublished, 14pp+viii.Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | March 2012 | 4(3): 2464–24692469

JoTT Sh o r t Co m m u n ic a t i o n 4(3): 2470–2475Notes on the nesting behaviour of Yellow-footed GreenPigeon Treron phoenicoptera (Columbidae) at JeyporeReserve Forest, Assam, IndiaO.S. Devi 1 & P.K. Saikia 21Research Scholar, 2 Associate Professor, Animal Ecology and Wildlife Biology Lab., Department of Zoology, Gauhati University,Guwahati 781014, Assam, IndiaEmail: 1 sunan_o@rediffmail.com, 2 saikiapk@rediffmail.com (corresponding author)Abstract: We surveyed five nesting colonies of Yellow-footedGreen Pigeon at Jeypore Reserve forest to study their nestingbehaviour during two breeding seasons in 2008 and 2009. Weobserved the birds in five closely-watched nests and studied theirbehaviour starting from pair formation till hatching of squabs.Pair formation generally starts from the month of April followed bynest building and incubation, with ultimately, hatching of squabsduring May, which continues up to the month of June. Bothsexes share the duty of nest building and incubation. Breedingpairs took four shifting intervals during incubation period at a timeinterval of about 2–5 hrs in each shift. Incubation period rangesbetween 20–23 days.Keywords: Behaviour, Columbidae, incubation, Jeypore ReserveForest, squabs, Yellow-footed Green Pigeon.The Yellow-footed Green Pegion Treronphoenicoptera (Columbidae) has been given the statusof Least Concern (Birdlife International 2010). Theybelong to the important frugivorous group of tropicalforests and perform the valuable service of seeddispersal and forest regeneration (Stiles 1985; Corlett1998; McConkey et al. 2004) and in some cases arethe sole vector for seed dispersal of certain tree species(Meehan et al. 2005). Data on their ecological andbiological aspects is deficient as very few studies havebeen conducted on the Columbidae group as a whole(Wiley & Wiley 1979; Burger et al. 1989; Steadman1997; Bancroft et al. 2000; Strong & Johnson 2001;Walker 2007). The Yellow-footed Green Pigeon iswidely distributed throughout the Indian subcontinentand is a commonly sighted frugivorous bird in thetropical forests of eastern Himalaya (Ali & Ripley1987). Very few studies are conducted on columbids inIndia (Ali & Ripley 1987) and some studies are mostlybased on morphological adaptations (Bhattacharya1994). Birdlife International (2010) placed thisspecies under Least Concern category owing to itswide distribution and abundance but there is littleinformation on its eco-biological aspects. Therefore,the present study was conducted to present preliminarydata on biology of Yellow-footed Green Pigeon withspecial reference to its nesting behaviour.Date of publication (online): 26 March 2012Date of publication (print): 26 March 2012ISSN 0974-7907 (online) | 0974-7893 (print)Editor: Aziz AslanManuscript details:Ms # o2715Received 21 February 2011Final received 04 November 2011Finally accepted 08 February 2012Citation: Devi, O.S. & P.K. Saikia (2012). Notes on the nesting behaviourof Yellow footed Green Pigeon Treron phoenicoptera at Jeypore ReserveForest, Assam, India. Journal of Threatened Taxa 4(3): 2470–2475.Copyright: © O.S. Devi & P.K. Saikia 2012. Creative Commons Attribution3.0Unported License. JoTT allows unrestricted use of this article in anymedium for non-profit purposes, reproduction and distribution by providingadequate credit to the authors and the source of publication.Acknowledgements: The authors thank the State Forest Department,Assam for providing necessary permissions to conduct the research workJeypore Reserve Forest. The authors are also thank the Department ofScience and Technology for providing necessary funds to conduct theresearch work under a major research project.OPEN ACCESS | FREE DOWNLOAD2470Study areaThe Jeypore Reserve Forest is located at DibrugarhDistrict of Upper Assam which falls between 27 0 06 ’ –27 0 16 ’ N & 95 0 21 ’ –95 0 29 ’ E (Image 1). The total areaof the reserve is 108km 2 . The terrain of the reserveis slightly undulating and is continuous with theforests of Arunachal Pradesh. Burhi-Dihing andthe Dilli rivers form a part of the reserve boundary.Many small perennial streams and nullahs also flowwithin the Forest. Swamps and grassland patches alsooccur inside the forest (Kakati 2004). This forest isa part of an important IBA - the Upper Dihing WestComplex, IBA Site No. IN-AS-45 and is notified asa reserve forest way back in 1888 (Kakati 2004).The habitat is tropical rainforest. Champion & Seth(1968) described it as “Assam Valley Tropical WetEvergreen Forest” (category 1B/ C1) also called theJournal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | March | 4(3): xxxx–xxxx

Nesting behaviour of Yellow-footed Green PigeonO.S. Devi & P.K. Saikia95 0 24’0”E 95 0 28’0”EJeypore Reserve ForestDibrugarhJaipurAuguri27 0 16’0”NTaratoliSarukheremiaParbatpurArunachal Pradesh27 0 12’0”NNagamati27 0 8’0”NAgricultural land (Kharif)Agricultural Plantations (Tea Garden)Built-up Area (Rural)Forest (Evergreen/Sem Evergreen - Dense)Forest (Evergreen/Sem Evergreen - Open)Forest BlankRiver/StreamLocationsStreamsMajor RoadOther RoadRailwayR.F. BoundaryImage 1. Location of Jeypore Reserve Forest, Dibrugarh District, Assam.Upper Assam Dipterocarpus-Mesua Forest. Theforest is characterised by a top canopy dominated byDipterocarpus macrocarpus reaching heights of 50m,a middle canopy dominated by Mesua ferrea andVatica lanceaefolia and undergrowth consisting ofwoody shrubs such as Saprosma ternatum, Livistoniajenkinsiana and canes Calamus erectus etc. (Kakati2004).MethodsWe studied the Yellow-footed Green Pigeon atJeypore Reserve Forest between January 2008 andDecember 2009 for two years and made observationson its nesting behaviour. Visits were made on thefive nesting colonies encountered during the breedingseasons starting from early April to late July eachyear.Pigeon activities were observed using binoculars(8×40 and 7×35). Telephoto lenses (135–500 mm) on35mm still cameras were used to record behaviouralactivities. Digital camcorders were also used to filmthe behavioural activities which were later analyzed.Behavioural sequences were timed with a wristwatch.Observations at five closely watched nests were madefrom an elevated platform about 5–10 m from thenests. At the nests, at least two hours each was spentrecording pigeon activities at morning (0600–0800hr), noon (1100–1300 hr) and evening (1600–1800hr) but these timings changed according to weatherconditions. Bad weather hampers bird activities asobserved personally in case of the pigeons.All nests located were assigned numbers and wereplotted on maps of the study area. In general, activityat the closely watched individual nests was checkedevery two days throughout the breeding period startingfrom nest building to hatching of squabs.Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | March 2012 | 4(3): 2470–24752471

Nesting behaviour of Yellow-footed Green PigeonResultsPair formation: Pair formation usually started in themonth of April at Jeypore Reserve Forest in 2008 and2009. At this time, birds were seen flying together,feeding together, roosting and preening together inpairs on feeding trees (Image 2a).It was observed that formation of pairs usuallybegan when the male pigeon starts calling from a perchsimultaneously performing a “tail–wagging’ dancedisplay. Whenever a pigeon landed near its territory,the resident male flew to the newly arrived pigeonand started displaying with the dance and “woohwoo-whoo-woo”whistle. If the arriving pigeon wasa female then she stayed near the displaying male in asubmissive posture. Chasing of females by displayingmales was frequently observed until the arriving femalegave in and joined the male in the dance. During thefirst days of pair formation, the pairs allo-preened, fedand rested together in suitable tree branches.Courtship and Copulation: Courtship displayO.S. Devi & P.K. Saikiaamong the Yellow-footed Green Pigeon was usuallystarted by the male calling from a prominent perch.Whenever a female arrived at the perch, the malestarted to perform the display by turning 180 0 onthe perch, then he expanded his throat subsequentlybowing deeply and making the ‘wooh-woo’ sound.Afterwards he spread his tail and turned another 180 0and repeated the display. Initially, the female remainedstill watching the male perform but later on she joinedthe male and eventually moved close to the male ina submissive posture. After about five seconds, themale stepped onto the female’s back and twisted histail under the female’s tail to make cloacal contact.During the act, the male gave a quick wing flutter andthen stepped off the female’s back. The copulationlasted for about three seconds and the pair stayed onthe branch for about 10–15 minutes before they set offto the nearby fruiting trees. Courtship and copulationwere mostly seen during early morning 0600–0800hr and evening 1600–1800 hr respectively during ourabcdImage 2. Nesting behaviours of Treron phoenicoptera in the study area.a - Breeding pair; b - Nest building activity; c - Incubation activity; d - Nest exchange behaviour of breeding pair2472Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | March 2012 | 4(3): 2470–2475

Nesting behaviour of Yellow-footed Green Pigeonstudy period.Nest building: Building of nests by the YellowfootedGreen Pigeon was watched closely at five nestsfor more than 50 hours. It was observed that both thesexes share the duty of nest building, although the maledid majority of the work ranging from gathering ofnest materials to delivering while the female sat on thenest mending it (Image 2b). Most of the nest buildingactivity occured between 0700–0930 hr and 1500–1800 hr. Nest materials such as twigs were collectedfrom dried branches of trees about 20–40 m from thenest sites. The twig gathering areas were defendedagainst intruding pigeons. The male pigeon brokesuitable twigs from the branches and carried towardsthe nest and the waiting female gently arranged it intothe nest structure securely.Apart from these, the frequency of nest buildingby the parents was maximum during the early stage ofnest building activities but it gradually declined duringlater stages. The frequency of nest building trips wasmaximum during the 2 nd and 3 rd day which graduallydecreased in the following days (Table 1).Exchange of incubation duty: Both male andfemale pigeons shared the duty of incubation (Image2c). They were seen exchanging incubation dutyabout four times a day at an average interval of 2–4hours depending upon the weather condition and foodavailability.Two nests were closely watched during 2008 and2009 at Jeypore Reserve Forest to determine the timeinterval between each shift and it was found that theaverage time interval between each shift in Nest 1which was on a Bombax ceiba tree was approximately3, 4 and 2 hours respectively between 1 st – 2 nd , 2 nd –3 rdand 3 rd –4 th shifts. Similarly, the average time intervalat the Nest 2 which was on a Michellia champaca treewas found to be 4, 2 and 3 hours respectively between1 st –2 nd , 2 nd –3 rd and 3 rd –4 th shifts (Fig. 1).It was also observed that shifting incubation dutywas delayed and took longer time when the food sourceis far from the nesting tree and it took place regularlywhen plenty of food was available near the nest.Clutch size: The clutch size of Yellow-footedGreen Pigeon, ranged from 1–2 in all the live nestslocated during 2008 and 2009. Eggs are spotlesswhite, typical Columbidae, about 5cm long and weighabout 9.5–14.3 g.Nest exchange behaviour: During shifting ofDaysof NestbuildingHours ofobservationHoursof nestbuildingO.S. Devi & P.K. SaikiaTable 1. Nest building activity at five Yellow-footed GreenPigeon nests at Jeypore Reserve Forest, during May–June,2009Nest A12345Nest B12345Nest C12345Nest D12345Nest E123455.204.304.506.108.204.103.30-5.006.102.303.504.003.005.002.00-2.303.004.002.00-2.002.003.004.183.353.505.221.113.302.50-4.1102.102.403.152.0901.20-1.502.2001.05-1.351.150No. oftrips tonest2631342352837-21-19313823-15-2117-13-2419-No. oftrips/ minto nest0.100.15*0.16*0.070.070.140.25*-0.09-0.150.22*0.20*0.18-0.21-0.24*0.19-0.21-0.30*0.28-* - Nest Building activity gradually decreases during 4 th and 5 th days.‘0’ indicates that adults were seen sitting on the nest but no nest buildingis seen.incubation, the breeding pair showed some peculiarbehaviour while exchanging their duty (Image 2d).The incoming bird stayed on the perch for about 30–40 minutes, preening and resting before going to thenest. Sometimes the bird also whistled in a typical‘whoo- woo- whoo-woo’ sound by frequently movingits tail. After this, the other bird sitting on the nestearlier, responsed to the advertisement call of theincoming bird by moving its tail rhythmically. Boththe pair moved their tail for about two minutes beforethe incoming bird slowly walked inside the nest andchecked the eggs. The resident bird then flew away tothe nearby fruiting tree.Nesting season and days of incubation: During thestudy period of two years, the nesting season startedduring the month of April and ended by June.During the breeding season of 2008, seven livenests were discovered near Tipam Mandir and werewatched closely for nesting behaviour and incubationperiod. The average incubation period of five nestsJournal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | March 2012 | 4(3): 2470–24752473

Nesting behaviour of Yellow-footed Green Pigeon201816141210864201 st shift 2 nd shift 3 rd shift 4 th shiftEnchange of shifting duty during incubationFigure 1. Average time interval during exchange ofIncubation duty in two closely watched nest trees ofYellow-footed Green Pigeon at Jeypore Reserve Forestduring 2008 and 2009.Average time interval between shiftsNest 1Nest 2was 23 days while two nests were destroyed by stormon the eleventh and fifteenth days of incubation (Fig.2). One squab each hatched on all the five successfulnests. In 2009, pair formation and nest building wasobserved from the first week of May. A total of twelvelive nests were closely watched for nesting behaviourand incubation periods. The average incubationperiods of seven nests was 21 days and one squab eachwere hatched in six nests while one nest hatch hadtwo squabs (Fig. 2). The remaining five nests wereabandoned or destroyed before hatching due to heavystorm and thus were not successful.Post-hatching behaviour: It was observed that nestattentiveness declined after hatching of the youngone. The nest with newly hatched young squabs wereleft a unattended for few hours after the fourth day ofhatching and was largely unattended after the tenthday of hatching. After the tenth day the parents cometo the nest only to feed the young and left soon afterfeeding. Sometimes they stayed on the nearby perchto protect the young from predators as in one case theparents were seen chasing away a crow which circledthe nest.DiscussionsThe Jeypore Reserve Forest is one among the fewremaining tropical forest patches of eastern Assamwhich is unique for its varied avian fauna (Saikia &Devi 2011). The present study was one of the fewattempts to gather valuable data regarding the bird’snesting behaviour and breeding biology.From the study it was revealed that the breedingseason of Yellow-footed Green Pigeon starts fromDays of incubation2520151050O.S. Devi & P.K. Saikia1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12Number of nestsFigure 2. Incubation periods of successful nests indifferent nesting colonies of Jeypore Reserve Forestduring 2008 and 2009.April and lasts till June at the study area. The seasonmay start even earlier in other areas, but no birds wereobserved to breed during March here. Pair formationand nest building starts by early April and they makeopen nests of mostly twigs in tall trees near the forestedges and human habitation areas. It is interesting tonote that during the two breeding seasons, not a singlenesting colony of Yellow-footed Green Pigeons wereencountered inside the closed forest. Both sexes wereseen sharing nest building and duty of incubation. Asper the observations, only one or two squabs are hatchedas the clutch sizes were normally one or two eggs perpair and that the days of incubation range between 20–24 days. Parental care and nest attentiveness declinesafter 10 days post hatching of squabs and parent wereseen chasing away predators such as crows, hawks etc.during the first few days after hatching.It may be mentioned that the present populationstatus of Treron phoenicoptera in the wild is unknownbut evidences suggest that the species might befacing serious threat from habitat loss and hunting(Walker 2007). Long-term population monitoringand ecological studies are required immediately.Conservation programs must also focus on these leaststudied important frugivores which are abundantlyavailable now-a-days but might become rare andthreatened in the near future if left unchecked.REFERENCESAli, S & S.D. Ripley (1987). Handbook of Birds of India,Pakistan and Srilanka. Oxford University Press, Oxford,700pp.200820092474Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | March 2012 | 4(3): 2470–2475

Nesting behaviour of Yellow-footed Green PigeonBancroft, G.T., R. Bowman & R.J. Sawicki (2000). Rainfall,fruiting phenology and nesting season of White-crownedPigeons in the Upper Florida Keys. The Auk 117(2): 416–426.Bhattacharya, B.N. (1994). Diversity of feeding adaptationsin certain columbid birds: a functional morphologicalapproach. Journal of Bioscience 19(4): 415–427.Birdlife International (2010). Species factsheet: Treronphoenicopterus. Downloaded from http://www.birdlife.orgon 14.09.2010.Burger, J., M. Gochfeld, D.J. Gochfeld & J.E. Saliva (1989).Nest site selection in Zenaida Dove (Zenaida aurita) inPuerto Rico. Biotropica 21(3): 244–249.Champion H.G. & S.K. Seth (1968). A Revised Survey ofThe Forest Types of India. The Manager of Publications,Government of India, New Delhi, 404pp.Corlett, R.T. (1998). Frugivory and seed dispersal by vertebratesin the oriental (Indo-Malayan) region. Biological Reviews73: 413–448.Kakati, K. (2004). Impact of Forest Fragmentation on theHoolock Gibbon in Assam, India. PhD Thesis. WildlifeResearch Group, Department of Anatomy, CambridgeUniversity, 230pp.McConkey, K.R., H.J. Meehan & D.R. Drake (2004). Seeddispersal by Pacific Pigeons (Ducula pacifica) in Tonga,Western Polynesia. Emu 104: 369–376.O.S. Devi & P.K. SaikiaMeehan, H.J., K.R. McConkey & D.R. Drake (2005). Earlyfate of Myristica hypargyraea seeds dispersed by Duculapacifica in Tonga, Western Polynesia. Austral Ecology 30:374–382.Saikia, P.K. & O.S. Devi (2011). A checklist of avian fauna atJeypore Reserve Forest, eastern Assam, India with specialreference to globally threatened and endemic species inthe Eastern Himalayan biodiversity hotspot. Journal ofThreatened Taxa 3(4): 1711–1718.Steadman, D.W. (1997). The historic biogeography andcommunity ecology of polynesian pigeons and doves.Journal of Biogeography 24(6): 737–753.Stiles, F.G. (1985). On the role of birds in the dynamics ofneo-tropical forests, pp. 49–212. In: Diamond, J.M. & T.E.Lovejoy (eds.). Conservation of Tropical Forest Birds.ICBP, Cambridge, UK.Strong, A.M. & M. D. Johnson (2001). Exploitation ofseasonal resource by non-breeding plain and WhitecrownedPigeons: implications for conservation of tropicaldry forests. The Wilson Bulletin 113(1): 73–77.Walker, J.S. (2007). Geographical patterns of threat amongpigeons and doves (Columbidae). Oryx 41(3): 289–299.Wiley, J.W. & B.N. Wiley (1979). The biology of WhitecrownedPigeon. Wildlife Monographs 64: 1–54.Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | March 2012 | 4(3): 2470–24752475

JoTT Sh o r t Co m m u n ic a t i o n 4(3): 2476–2480Incidence of orthopteran species (Insecta:Orthoptera) among different sampling sites withinSatoyama area, JapanS. Abu ElEla 1 , W. ElSayed 2 & K. Nakamura 31,2Department of Entomology, Faculty of Science, Cairo University, Giza 12613, Egypt2Graduate School of Science and Technology, Kanazawa University, Kakuma, Kanazawa, 920-1192, Japan3Division of Biodiversity, Institute of Nature and Environmental Technology, Kanazawa University, Kakuma, Kanazawa, 920-1192,JapanEmail: 1 shosho_ali76@yahoo.com (corresponding author), 2 wael_elsayed88@yahoo.com, 3 kojin9@gmail.comAbstract: In a survey of the orthopteran assemblages in fourdifferent sampling sites in Satoyama area, fifty different specieshave been recorded. These species belong to 10 families, 17subfamilies and 27 tribes. Family Acrididae was found to exhibitthe highest number of subfamilies and tribes (four subfamiliesand eight tribes). This was followed by Tettigoniida with sixtribes. However, both of Gryllidae and Tettigoniida harboredthe highest number of observed species (12 species). On theother hand, three families were considered comparatively poorfamilies exhibiting a single subfamily, a single tribe and a singlespecies. These families were Eneopteridae, Mecopodidae andPyrgomorphidae.Keywords: Distribution, incidence, Orthoptera, presenceabsence,Satoyama.Orthoptera are one of the largest and most diversegroups of insects. They are functionally important,Date of publication (online): 26 March 2012Date of publication (print): 26 March 2012ISSN 0974-7907 (online) | 0974-7893 (print)Editor: Magdi El-HawagryManuscript details:Ms # o2775Received 27 April 2011Final received 17 December 2011Finally accepted 07 March 2012Citation: ElEla, S.A., W. ElSayed & K. Nakamura (2012). Incidence oforthopteran species (Insecta: Orthoptera) among different samplingsites within Satoyama area, Japan. Journal of Threatened Taxa 4(3):2476–2480.Copyright: © S. Abu Elela, W. Elsayed & K. Nakamura 2012. CreativeCommons Attribution 3.0 Unported License. JoTT allows unrestricted useof this article in any medium for non-profit purposes, reproduction anddistribution by providing adequate credit to the authors and the source ofpublication.Acknowledgements: Authors wish to express their sincere thanksto members of the Laboratory of Ecology and Biodiversity, School ofNatural Science and Technology, Kanazawa University for their supportand encouragement in the fieldwork. Cordial thanks are given to allpersons and institutions for their special permission, keen advice andencouragement in the course of this study in Satoyama especially Zontanarea and Kanazawa Castle Park.OPEN ACCESS | FREE DOWNLOADbeing the dominant aboveground invertebratesin pastures and natural grasslands when judgedby biomass (Scott et al. 1979; Risser et al. 1981).Some orthopteran species, in particular acridids,cause significant damage to tree seedlings (Joshiet al. 1999) and agricultural crops. They are alsoimportant components of the food chain for manybirds and mammals (Capinera et al. 1997; Mayya etal. 2005), and hence resource management practicesthat alter orthopteran population dynamics will affectseveral trophic levels in the food chain (Capinera etal. 1997). In recent years man-made impacts havealtered cropping patterns and agronomical practicesdue to urbanization, labour problems and a desire forgreater profits. The changing scenario in agricultureis affecting primary consumers and thereby creatingimpacts for entire food webs, thus it is necessary tostudy the distribution and incidence of orthopteranspecies as primary consumers in relation to theirhabitats.In this study, 50 different orthopetran speciesrepresenting 10 families, 17 subfamilies and 27tribes have been tabulated during a survey of theirassemblages from different habitats of Satoyamaarea.Material and MethodsStudy AreaThe survey of orthopteran assemblage wasconducted in four sampling sites (Kitadan Valley -36.5457N & 136.694E; Zontan area - 36.560N &136.682E; Kakuma Campus grassland - 36.546N& 136.708E; Kanazawa Castle Park: - 36.561N &136.656E) within Satoyama area of Kanazawa City,Ishiakawa Prefecture, Japan. Kanazawa is located on2476Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | March | 4(3): 2476–2480

Orthoptera of Satoyama areathe area facing Japan Sea, boarded by the Japan Alps,Hakusan National park and Noto Peninsula NationalPark. The city sits between the Sai and Asano riverscovering an area of ca. 467.77km 2 . Satoyama covers anarea of ca. 74ha and is located at 150m altitude, 5kmsoutheast from the city center. The area comprisesvarious habitat types ranging from secondary forestsdominated by Konara Quercus serrata, Abemaki Q.variabilis, Moso Bamboo Phyllostachys pubescens,and Japanese Cedar Cryptomeria japonica.Sampling protocolThe entomological sweep net was used for samplingorthopteran species from various habitats to cover asampling period extending from May till Septemberfor two consecutive years, 2008 and 2009. Samplingwas achieved in 1000 to 1400 hr once in a month.Collected specimens were immediately preserved in70% ethanol. They were later identified, counted,sorted and kept in individual labeled glass vials inthe laboratory. These vials could be stored in freezerfor a year with no apparent damage to the specimens(Mulkern & Anderson 1959; Brusven & Mulkern1960; ElSayed 2003; ElSayed & ElShazly 2006).IdentificationOrthopteran species were identified following thetaxonomic key of Ichikawa et al. (2006). Specimenswere also compared with identified museum specimensin Kanazawa University for further confirmation.Meteorological variablesThe weather of Kanazawa is temperate, thoughrainy. Average temperature were 4 0 C in January, 15 0 Cin April, 25 0 C in July and August, 15 0 C in October,and around 5 0 C in December. The average minimumrecord was -2.3 0 C (2007); on the other hand, theaverage maximum temperature was 37.5 0 C (2007).The city is relatively wet with an average relativehumidity of 73% and an average of 178 rainy days ayear. Precipitation is relatively the highest in autumnand winter with an average rainfall of more than250mm from November through January.Average temperature, relative humidity andprecipitation data of 2008 and 2009 were obtainedfrom Japan Meteorological Office (http://www.data.kishou.go.jp) and compared with data collected fromthe study sites for further confirmation.S.A. ElEla et al.Table 1. Number of families, subfamilies, tribes and speciesof orthopteran species co-occurring in four sampling siteswithin Satoyama area.FamilySubfamiliesNumberTribesRecordedspeciesAcrididae 4 8 8Eneopteridae 1 1 1Gryllidae 2 3 12Mecopodidae 1 1 1Phaneropteridae 1 2 3Pyrgomorphidae 1 1 1Mantidae 1 1 2Tetrigidae 2 2 7Tettigoniidae 2 6 12Trigonididae 2 2 3Total 17 27 50ResultsA total of 50 orthopteran species were collectedduring the study period from the four samplingsites within Satoyama area (Table 1). Collectedorthopteran species were belonging to 10 familiesrepresenting 17 subfamilies and 27 tribes (Table 1).Comparatively, the highest number of species wasconfined to Gryllidae and Tettigoniidae (12 species).This was followed by family Acrididae (8 species).However, family Acrididae was found to harbor,comparatively, the highest number of subfamilies andtribes (four subfamilies and eight tribes) as indicatedin Table 1. The least number of species (one) wasfound in three families: Eneopteridae, Mecopodidaeand Phaneropteridae (Table 1).It was interesting to notice that no orthopteranspecies was recorded in the four main sampling sitesin Satoyama (Table 2). However, seven species wererecorded at three of the main sampling sites (Table2): Oxya yezoensis, Teleogryllus emma, Velarifictorusmikado, Tenodera angustipennis, Tetrix japonica,Eobiana gradiella ichikawa and Gampsocleis mikado(Table 2). The majority of these seven species werecollected from Kitadan Valley, Zontan area andKakuma Campus grasslands (Table 2). However, onlyVelarifictorus mikado was recorded in Kitadan Valley,Kanazawa Campus grasslands and Kanazawa CastlePark and was absent in Zontan area (Table 2).Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | March 2012 | 4(3): 2476–24802477

Orthoptera of Satoyama areaS.A. ElEla et al.Table 2. Distribution of orthopteran species among different sampling sites of Satoyama area (data combined for 2008and 2009)Acridid speciesKitadan Valley(36.5457N &136.694E)Zontan area(36.560N &136.682E)Kakuma Campusgrasslands(36.546N &136.708E)KanazawaCastle Park(36.561N &136.656E)Acrida cinerea + +Stethophyma magister + +Parapodisma mikado + +Aiolopus thalassinus tumulus + +Eusphingonotus japonicas +Oedaleus infernalis + +Trilophidia annulata + +Oxya yezoensis + + +Oecanthus simulator ichikawa +Acheta domesticus +Loxoblemmus equestris +Loxoblemmus sylvestris +Loxoblemmus tsushimensis ichikawa +Stethophyma magister +Teleogryllus occipitalis + +Teleogryllus emma + + +Velarifictorus asperses +Velarifictorus mikado + + +Velarifictorus ornatus +Modicogryllus siamensis +Sclerogryllus punctatus +Mecopoda niponensis +Ducetia japonica + +Phaneroptera falcate + +Phaneroptera nigroantennata +Atractomorpha lata + +Tenodera angustipennis + + +Tenodera aridifolia +Criotettix japonicas +Euparatettix tricarinatus +Tetrix japonica + + +Tetrix macilenta +Tetrix minor ichikawa + +Tetrix nikkoensis +Tetrix silvicultrix ichikawa +Conocephalus japonica + +Conocephalus melaenus +Euconocephalus varius +Ruspolia dubia +Chizuella bonneti + +Eobiana gradiella ichikawa + + +Eobiana engelhardti subtropica + +Gampsocleis mikado + + +Hexacentrus japonicas +Tettigonia orientalis +Tettigonia sp 6 * +Tettigonia sp 8 * +Dianemobius furumagiensisPteronemobius fascipes +Trigonidium pallipes +* According to Ichikawa et al. (2006)2478Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | March 2012 | 4(3): 2476–2480

Orthoptera of Satoyama areaDiscussionFrom the gathered results of orthopteran assemblageand their community structure in different samplingsites, it could be suggested that the orthopteranassemblages were moderately species rich in some sitesand poor in others. The highest richness was recordedfrom different sampling sites in Zontan area. However,the relatively poor assemblage was detected in forestmargins of Kitadan Valley. The species compositionsof the collected orthopteran species were quite differentin the study sites within Satoyama. In general,orthopteran species were not present in all the studiedsites of Satoyama, characterizing their ubiquitousnature. While many species were exclusively found ina definite sampling site and were likely to show highhabitat specificity, these results are in accordance withother findings on different orthopterans or acrididsassemblages in different localities (Thiele 1977; Luff1982; Horvatovich 1986; van Dijk 1987; Sunose 1992;Lövei & Sunderland 1996; Olsson et al. 2000).It has to be mentioned that there were high variationsin species composition among different sampling siteswithin Satoyama (Kato 2001, ElSayed & Nakamura2010). This could be explained by the differencesbetween the habitats. These sampling sites composeddifferent kinds of ‘elements’ as suggested by Rainio& Niemelä (2003), and ElSayed (2010). Grasslandsin Zontan area, for instance having more refuges,relatively good levels of moisture, many dietaryfeeding resources or preys could be encountered as aresult of the presence of relatively good canopy, etc.These grasslands have favored levels of moisture thatattract species for breeding, feeding and overwintering(ElSayed 2010; Pfiffner & Luka 2000). Moreover,arable and floral rich lands are known to be speciesrich of Orthoptera, especially acridids, as suggested byPurtauf et al. (2003) which are common components inagroecosystem and feed on various arthropods, weeds,seeds and slugs (Sunderland 1975).Few numbers of orthopteran species were probablyable to utilize these sources of such habitat for enhancingtheir breeding and feeding. In addition, sampling sitessubjected to regular man-made disturbances includingremoval of weeds and other plant species that growwildly, mowing regimes and rearrangement of fieldrims of these fields have relatively fewer species andhigher number of individuals. These human-madedisturbances are conceivably altering the necessaryS.A. ElEla et al.sources for orthopteran species in a way that thesesources could not be used by all orthopteran species.Thus, few orthopteran species could utilize, or harshlyutilize these resources and increase in their individualscomparing with other orthopteran species. In addition,grasslands of Kakuma Campus were relatively poorin their canopy reflecting the relatively poor speciesrichness in these sampling sites over the two-yearstudy period.It has to be mentioned that the landscapecomposition variables showed a significant effecton Orthoptera diversity (Marini et al. 2010, 2011).The Orthoptera species richness and compositionwere also significantly related to the proportion ofgrassland in the surrounding landscape (Marini etal. 2010, 2011). Chorthippus parallelus benefitedfrom a large proportion of grassland, while mostof the species belonging to Ensifera and Caeliferawere affected negatively. At the landscape scale,an enhanced mortality because of mowing of largeareas is suggested to be the main constraint to highdiversity of Orthoptera communities (Gardiner 2006;Marini et al. 2010, 2011). In contrast, in landscapeswith a low proportion of grassland, the local diversitycould benefit from the presence of ecotonal habitatssuch as forest edges, hedgerows and bushes (Mariniet al. 2010). Grassland areas possibly accumulatedmore visiting species from these habitats by providingsuitable conditions for foraging and reproduction ascited by Gardiner (2006) and Marini et al. (2010).REFERENCESBrusven, M.A. & G.B. Mulkern (1960). The use of epidermalcharacteristics for the identification of plants recoveredin fragmentary condition from the crops of grasshoppers.North Dakota Agricultural Experimental Station ResearchReports 3: 11.Capinera, J.L, C.W. Scherer & J.B. Simikins (1997). Habitatassociations of grasshoppers at the Macarthur agro-ecologyresearch center, Lake Placid, Florida. Entomologist 80(2):255–261.ElSayed, W.M. (2003). Grasshopper (Orthoptera: Acrididae)communities in Abu Rauwash District. PhD Thesis. CairoUniversity, 169pp.ElSayed, W.M. (2010). Diversity anad structure of groundbeetle (Coleoptera: Carabidae) assemblages in Satoyama.PhD Thesis. Kanazawa University, Japan, 123pp.ElSayed W.M. & M. ElShazly (2006). The structure and hostJournal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | March 2012 | 4(3): 2476–24802479

Orthoptera of Satoyama areaplant selection of an acridid community on the edge betweena desert- and an agro-ecosystem in Egypt. EnvironmentalInformatics Archives 4: 1–25.ElSayed W.M. & K. Nakamura (2010). Abundance, diversityand distribution of the ground beetles (Coleoptera:Carabidae) in a Satoyama Valle in Kanazawa, Japan, withspecial reference to the body size and feeding categories.Far Eastern Entomologists 205: 1–20.Gardiner, T. (2006). The Impact of Grassland Managementon Orthoptera Populations in the UK. Unpublished PhDThesis. University of Essex, Colchester, UK.Horvatovich, S. & I. Szarukán (1986). Faunal investigation ofground beetles (Carabidae), in the arable soils of Hungary.Acta Agronomica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 35:107–123.Ichikawa, A., Y. Kano, Y. Kawai, M. Kawai, O. Tominago &T. Murai (2006). Orthoptera of the Japanese Archipelagoin Color—2nd Edition. Hokkaido University Press,Hardcover, 687pp. (In Japanese).Joshi, P.C., J.A. Lockwood, N. Vashishth & A. Singh(1999). Grasshopper (Orthoptera: Acridoidea) communitydynamics in a moist deciduous forest in India. Journal ofOrthopteran Research 8: 17–25.Kato, M. (2001). ‘Satoyama’ and biodiversity conservation:‘Satoyama’ as important insect habitats. Global EnvironmentResearch 5: 135–149.Lövei, G.L. & K.D. Sunderland (1996). Ecology and behaviorof ground beetles (Coleoptera: Carabidae). Annual Reviewof Entomology 41: 231–256.Luff, M.L. (1982). Population dynamics of Carabidae. Annalsof Applied Biology 101: 164–170.Marini, L., R. Bommarco, P. Fontana & A. Battisti (2010).Disentangling area and habitat diversity effects onorthopteran species with contrasting mobility. BiologicalConservation 143: 2164–2171Marini, L., E. Bona, W.E. Kunin & K.J. Gaston (2011).Exploring anthropogenic and natural processes shapingfern species richness along elevational gradients. Journalof Biogeography 38: 78–88S.A. ElEla et al.Mayya, S., K.S. Sreepada & M.J. Hegde (2005). Survey ofshort-horned grasshoppers (Acrididae) from DakshinaKannada District, Karnataka. Zoos’ Print Journal 20(9):1977–1979.Mulkern, G.B. & J.F. Anderson (1959). A technique forstudying to the food habits and preferences of grasshoppers.Journal of Economic Entomology 52: 342.Olsson, E.G.A., G. Austrheim & S.N. Grenne (2000).Landscape change patterns in mountains, land use andenvironmental diversity, Mid-Norway 1960–1993.Landscape Ecology 15: 155 – 170.Pfiffner, L. & H. Luka (2000). Overwintering of arthropodsin soils of arable fields and adjacent semi-natural habitats.Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 78: 215–222.Purtauf, T., J. Dauber & V. Wolters (2003). Carabidcommunities in the spatio-temporal mosaic of a rurallandscape. Landscape and Urban Planning 67(1–4): 185–193.Rainio, J. & J. Niemelä (2003). Ground beetles (Coleoptera:Carabidae) as bioindicators. Biodiversity Conservation 12:487–506.Risser, P.G., E.C. Birney, H.D. Blocker; S.W. May, W.J.Parton & J.A. Wiens (1981). The True Prairie Ecosystem.Hutchinson Ross Pub. Co., Stroudsburg, Penn, 557pp.Scott, J.A., N.R. French & J.W. Leetham (1979). Pattern ofconsumption in grasslands, pp. 89–105. In: French, N.R.(ed.) Perspectives in Grassland Ecology. Springer-Verlag,New York.Sunderland, K.D. (1975). The diet of some predatoryarthropods in cereal crops. Journal of Applied Ecology 12:507–515.Sunose, T. (1992). A comparison of carabid and silphidassemblages in Minuma Greenbelt. Nature & Insects,Tokyo 27(2): 13–15. (In Japanese)Thiele, H.U. (1977) Carabid Beetles in Their Environments.Springer Verlag, Berlin, 369pp.van Dijk, T.S. (1987). The long-term effects on the carabidfauna of nutrient impoverishment of a previously arablefield. Acta Phytopathologica et Entomologica Hungarica22: 103–118.2480Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | March 2012 | 4(3): 2476–2480

Dr. Carlos Alberto S de Lucena, Porto Alegre, BrazilDr. Glauco Machado, São Paulo, BrazilDr. Gowri Mallapur, Mamallapuram, IndiaDr. George Mathew, Peechi, IndiaProf. Richard Kiprono Mibey, Eldoret, KenyaDr. Lionel Monod, Genève, SwitzerlandDr. Shomen Mukherjee, Jamshedpur, IndiaDr. P.O. Nameer, Thrissur, IndiaDr. D. Narasimhan, Chennai, IndiaDr. T.C. Narendran, Kozhikode, IndiaStephen D. Nash, Stony Brook, USADr. K.S. Negi, Nainital, IndiaDr. K.A.I. Nekaris, Oxford, UKDr. Heok Hee Ng, SingaporeDr. Boris P. Nikolov, Sofia, BulgariaProf. Annemarie Ohler, Paris, FranceDr. Shinsuki Okawara, Kanazawa, JapanDr. Albert Orr, Nathan, AustraliaDr. Geeta S. Padate, Vadodara, IndiaDr. Larry M. Page, Gainesville, USADr. Prakash Chand Pathania, Ludhiana, IndiaDr. Malcolm Pearch, Kent, UKDr. Richard S. Peigler, San Antonio, USADr. Rohan Pethiyagoda, Sydney, AustraliaMr. J. Praveen, Bengaluru, IndiaDr. Robert Michael Pyle, Washington, USADr. Muhammad Ather Rafi, Islamabad, PakistanDr. H. Raghuram, Bengaluru, IndiaDr. Dwi Listyo Rahayu, Pemenang, IndonesiaDr. Sekar Raju, Suzhou, ChinaDr. Vatsavaya S. Raju, Warangal, IndiaDr. V.V. Ramamurthy, New Delhi, IndiaDr (Mrs). R. Ramanibai, Chennai, IndiaDr. M.K. Vasudeva Rao, Pune, IndiaDr. Robert Raven, Queensland, AustraliaDr. K. Ravikumar, Bengaluru, IndiaDr. Luke Rendell, St. Andrews, UKDr. Anjum N. Rizvi, Dehra Dun, IndiaDr. Leif Ryvarden, Oslo, NorwayProf. Michael Samways, Matieland, South AfricaDr. Yves Samyn, Brussels, BelgiumDr. K.R. Sasidharan, Coimbatore, IndiaDr. Kumaran Sathasivam, IndiaDr. S. Sathyakumar, Dehradun, IndiaDr. M.M. Saxena, Bikaner, IndiaDr. Hendrik Segers, Vautierstraat, BelgiumDr. R. Siddappa Setty, Bengaluru, IndiaDr. Subodh Sharma, Towson, USAProf. B.K. Sharma, Shillong, IndiaProf. K.K. Sharma, Jammu, IndiaDr. R.M. Sharma, Jabalpur, IndiaDr. Tan Koh Siang, Kent Ridge Road, SingaporeDr. Arun P. Singh, Jorhat, IndiaDr. Lala A.K. Singh, Bhubaneswar, IndiaProf. Willem H. De Smet, Wilrijk, BelgiumMr. Peter Smetacek, Nainital, IndiaDr. Humphrey Smith, Coventry, UKDr. Hema Somanathan, Trivandrum, IndiaDr. C. Srinivasulu, Hyderabad, IndiaDr. Ulrike Streicher, Danang, VietnamDr. K.A. Subramanian, Pune, IndiaMr. K.S. Gopi Sundar, New Delhi, IndiaDr. P.M. Sureshan, Patna, IndiaDr. Karthikeyan Vasudevan, Dehradun, IndiaDr. R.K. Verma, Jabalpur, IndiaDr. W. Vishwanath, Manipur, IndiaDr. E. Vivekanandan, Cochin, IndiaDr. Gernot Vogel, Heidelberg, GermanyDr. Ted J. Wassenberg, Cleveland, AustraliaDr. Stephen C. Weeks, Akron, USAProf. Yehudah L. Werner, Jerusalem, IsraelMr. Nikhil Whitaker, Mamallapuram, IndiaDr. Hui Xiao, Chaoyang, ChinaDr. April Yoder, Little Rock, USAEnglish EditorsMrs. Mira Bhojwani, Pune, IndiaDr. Fred Pluthero, Toronto, CanadaJournal of Threatened Taxa is indexed/abstractedin Zoological Records, BIOSIS, CAB Abstracts,Index Fungorum, Bibliography of Systematic Mycology,EBSCO and Google Scholar.

Jo u r n a l o f Th r e a t e n e d Ta x aISSN 0974-7907 (online) | 0974-7893 (print)March 2012 | Vol. 4 | No. 3 | Pages 2409–2480Date of Publication 26 March 2012 (online & print)CommunicationsA new species of barb Puntius nigripinnis(Teleostei: Cyprinidae) from southern WesternGhats, India-- J.D. Marcus Knight, K. Rema Devi, T.J. Indra &M. Arunachalam, Pp. 2409–2416Odonata of Sungai Bebar, Pahang, Malaysia,with four species recorded for the first time frommainland Asia-- Rory A. Dow, Yong Foo Ng & Chee Yen Choong,Pp. 2417–2426Evaluation of some mangrove species on thenature of their reproduction along the coastal beltof the Indian Sunderbans-- Arunima Ghosh & Prabir Chakraborti, Pp. 2427–2435DNA barcoding of the Bryde’s WhaleBalaenoptera edeni Anderson (Cetacea:Balaenopteridae) washed ashore along Keralacoast, India-- A. Bijukumar, S.S. Jijith, U. Suresh Kumar &S. George, Pp. 2436–2443An avifaunal case study of a plateau from Goa,India: an eye opener for conservation of plateauecosystems-- Minal Desai & A.B. Shanbhag, Pp. 2444–2453Avian diversity in the Naliya Grassland, AbdasaTaluka, Kachchh, India-- Sandeep B. Munjpara & Indra R. Gadhvi,Pp. 2454–2463Short CommunicationsConservation status of Bengal FloricanHoubaropsis bengalensis bengalensis (Gmelin,1789) (Gruiformes: Otididae) in Koshi TappuWildlife Reserve and adjoining areas, easternNepal-- Hem Sagar Baral, Ashok Kumar Ram, BadriChaudhary, Suchit Basnet, Hathan Chaudhary, TikaRam Giri & Dheeraj Chaudhary, Pp. 2464–2469Notes on the nesting behaviour of Yellow-footedGreen Pigeon Treron phoenicoptera (Columbidae)at Jeypore Reserve Forest, Assam, India-- O.S. Devi & P.K. Saikia, Pp. 2470–2475Incidence of orthopteran species (Insecta:Orthoptera) among different sampling sites withinSatoyama area, Japan-- S. Abu ElEla, W. ElSayed & K. Nakamura,Pp. 2476– 2480Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License. JoTT allows unrestricted use of articles in any mediumfor non-profit purposes, reproduction and distribution by providing adequate credit to the authors and thesource of publication.