Density of Indian Peafowl- Gurjar et al

PODOCES 2013 Vol. 8, No. 1 Journal homepage: www.wesca.net

Density of the Indian Peafowl Pavo cristatus in Satpura Tiger Reserve, India
Raju Lal Gurjar1*, Ramesh Pratap Singh2 & Ashok Mishra2
1) Senior Project Officer, SML, WWF-India, 172-B, Lodhi Estate, New Delhi-110003, India 2) Satpura Tiger Reserve, Hoshangabad, Madhya Pradesh, India

Article Info Original Research Received 17 May 2013 Accepted 28 December 2013 Keywords Density Distance sampling Indian Peafowl Line transects Satpura Tiger Reserve

Abstract We used line transect method to estimate the density of Indian Peafowl Pavo cristatus in the Satpura Tiger Reserve, Madhya Pradesh, India during April 2012 and January 2013. A total of 222 line transects were taken in 111 beats of the Tiger Reserve. In 2012, total length and sampling effort were 705 km with 387 observations while in 2013 sampling effort and observations were 425 km and 203 respectively. A total of 1,213 Indian Peafowls were recorded with density of 5.60 0.24 per km2 in April 2012 and similarly 661 birds were found in January 2013 with density of 6.29 0.45 per km2.

1. Introduction Birds are widely recognized as good bioindicators of the quality of the ecosystems (Gill 1994) and health of the environment. They are being used as tools for conservation and environmental impact assessment. Galliformes species are useful indicators of environmental quality and the assessment of their status is essential for management purposes (Fuller & Garson 2000). The Indian Peafowl Pavo cristatus also known as the Blue Peafowl is the national bird of India and comes in Schedule-I of the Indian Wildlife Protection Act, 1972. This bird is listed as of Least Concern (LC) by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN).

The Indian Peafowl is a resident breeder across the Indian subcontinent and found mainly on the ground in dry, semi-desert areas, grasslands, scrublands, open and deciduous forests, roost in trees or other high places at night. Peafowls are omnivorous and eat seeds, fruit, insects, small rodents and reptiles (snakes, lizards). Male Indian Peafowl shows the characteristic colorful tail feathers or train during breeding season. Its train makes the male peafowl one of the largest flying birds in the world. The Indian Peafowls are terrestrial birds; their loud calls make them easy to detect, and in forest areas often indicate the presence of a predator such as a tiger.

* Corresponding: gurjarraju2005@gmail.com

12

Podoces, 2013, 8(1): 1218

2. Study Area and Methods 2.1. Study area Satpura Tiger Reserve (STR), Hosangabad, Madhya Pradesh (22152245N; 7750 7830E; 1,352 m a.s.l.) is in the Satpura range (Mahadeo Hills) and situated in Hoshangabad district of Madhya Pradesh (Figs. 12). Bori Wildlife Sancturay and Pachmarhi Wildlife Sanctuary are a part of Satpura Tiger Reserve. Core area is 1,339 km2 and buffer area is 794 km2. STR area has three distinct seasons, i.e. cold (NovemberFebruary), hot (MarchJune) and the rainy (JulyOctober). There is great variation in temperature and precipitation in different parts. STR area is well known for its rich bio-diversity and rare and endangered species of flora and fauna. The forests are tropical dry deciduous, tropical moist deciduous and sub-tropical. The biodiversity is rich with over 1,300 species of plants, including numerous rare bryophytes and pteridophytes. Forest is mainly dominated by Tectona grandis, Shorea robusta, Buchanania latifolia, Terminalia arjuna, Emblica officinalis, Madhuca indica, and Rauwolfia serpentina. The forest types consist of Southern moist mixed deciduous, Southern dry mixed deciduous, and Dry peninsulas Sal (Champion & Seth 1968). There are 52 species of mammals, 287 species of birds, and 31 species of reptiles (Management Plan of Satpura Tiger Reserve, unpubl. data). The principal species of carnivores are tiger Panthera tigris, leopard Panthera pardus, wild dog Cuon alpinus, hyena Hyaena hyaena and jackal Canis aureus. The sloth bear Melursus ursinus, the honey badger Mellivora capensis and the wild pig Sus scrofa are the three important omnivores. Small carnivores include the jungle cat Felis chaus, the palm civet Paradoxurus hermaphroditus and the small Indian civet Viverricula indica. There are two important arboreal mammals, the Indian Giant Squirrel Ratufa indica and the Large Brown Flying Squirrel Petaurista philippensis. The only record of the Horseshoe Bat Rhinolophus luctus in central India is around the Pachmarhi plateau.

The pangolin Manis crassicaudata is patchily distributed. The ungulates include the gaur Bos gaurus, sambar Cervus unicolor, spotted deer Axis axis in plain and rolling terrain and valleys only, nilgai Boselaphus tragocamelus, barking deer Muntiacus muntjak, four horned antelope or chousingha Tetracerus quadricornis, wild pig Sus scrofa, chinkara Gazella bennettii and the mouse deer Moschiola meminna. Four species of vultures viz., White-backed Vulture Gyps bengalensis, Long-billed Vulture G. indicus, King Vulture Sarcogyps calvus and Egyptian Vulture Neophron percnopterus, are reported in different areas of Satpura Tiger Reserve (Gurjar 2007). Tiger population was 39, ranging 2652 in 2006, from an area of 1,503 km2 (Jhala et al. 2007, 2008), and 43, ranging 4246 in 2011, from 1,671 km2 (Jhala et al. 2011). 2.2. Materials and Methods Field sampling was carried out during April 2012 and January 2013, in area of 1,503 km within the Tiger Reserve (Fig. 1). The data were collected by 120 forest guards of Satputa Tiger Reserve. We used a Distance Sampling line transect method to estimate the population of the Indian Peafowl (Anderson et al. 1979, Burnham et al. 1980, Buckland et al.1993). Within forest areas, a beat was considered as the sampling unit and two transects of 2 km length were studied in each beat. Since beats are spread out the entire protected area, this transect layout design allows for sampling across all habitat types within the Protected Area (Jhala et al. 2009). A total of 222 permanently marked transects were studied in 111 beats of 6 ranges. In each transect we walked three times in the morning (6:3009:00 hrs) resulting in a sampling effort of 705 km (DISTANCE 6.0 software) in April 2012 and 425 km (DISTANCE 6.0 software) in January 2013. For each peafowl species, detection time, group size, sex, sighting angle and the sighting radial distance from the transect line were recorded. Sighting angles were recorded using a hand held compass. Sighting distances were measured accurately using a laser rangefinder.

13

Density of Indian Peafowl- Gurjar et al

Fig. 1. Location of Satpura Tiger Reserve.

Fig. 2. Map of study area- Satpura Tiger Reserve.

14

Podoces, 2013, 8(1): 1218

Data analysis Line transects data were analysed using DISTANCE 6.0 software (Thomas et al. 2009). Distance enables the computation of detection probability for the sightings obtained during transect (Buckland 1985, Buckland et al. 1993, Karanth & Nichols 2002). Four key functions (uniform, half-normal, hazard rate and negative exponential all with cosine series adjustment) were considered for analysis. Key function selection was evaluated using Akaikes Information Criteria (AIC) and chi-squared statistics were used to assess the goodness of fit of each function (Burnham et al., 1980; Buckland et al. 1993). The distribution of the data was first examined by assigning very small cut-off points to the distance intervals during the curve fitting, to detect evidences of evasive movements by the peafowl. After choosing convenient cut-off points for the distance intervals, the best key function with the appropriate adjustment term was selected using the criterion of lowest AIC.

3. Results During the surveys, 1,213 and 661 Indian Peafowls were recorded in April 2012 and January 2013. Maximum group size was 19 Indian fowls and minimum group size was one peafowl on line transects. In 2012, the total length and sampling effort were 705 km with total 387 observations. Uniform with Polynomial adjustment was selected as the best fit estimator for computing effective strip width 49 meter, minimum AIC 311.13 and Chi-square value 0.9999. The density of Indian Peafowl was estimated to be 5.60 0.24 per km2. In 2013, the 203 observations yielded about total length and sampling effort of 425 km. Hazard with Cosine adjustment was selected as the best fit estimator for computing effective strip width 38 meter, minimum AIC 406.14 and Chisquare value 0.9262. The density of Indian Peafowl was estimated to be 6.29 0.45 per km2.

Table 1. Density estimates for Indian Peafowl in STR during April 2012 & January 2013. CV= Coefficient of variation of estimate. Variables Total effort (km) Total sample Total observations Strip (km) Model Model adjustment term Akaike Information Criterion (AIC) value Density (number/ Sq. km) Standard Error of density CV% of density Lower Confidence Limit of 95% Upper Confidence Limit of 95% Chi-Square value Probability of detection CV % of probability Effective Strip Width (meter) CV % of Effective Strip Width April 2012 705 323 387 200 Uniform Polynomial 311.13 5.60 0.24 4.23 5.15 6.08 0.9999 0.2450 3.27 49.01 3.27 January 2013 425 213 203 80 Hazard Cosine 406.14 6.29 0.45 7.11 5.47 7.23 0.9262 0.4750 6.46 38.00 6.46

15

Density of Indian Peafowl- Gurjar et al

Fig. 3. Peafowl captured in Satpura Tiger Reserve Camera Trap, 5 February 2013, the photographers name: Automatic Cuddeback Cameras (Camera Trap).

4. Discussion The line transect method was found to be more convenient as most of the birds were detected close to the line making the detection and counting easier. Past research has also suggested that line transects produce more accurate densities of bird species than point counts (Jarvinen 1978, Verner 1985, Raman 2003). The line transect method was previously used for estimating abundance of peafowl in Gir National Park (Trivedi 1993, Sankar et al. 2004). We counted 1,213 Indian Peafowls with density of 5.60 0.24 per km2 in April 2012 and 661 birds with density of 6.29 0.45 per km2 in January 2013. Density was higher in January 2013. There was water scarcity in some areas of Satpura during summer season i.e. April and subsequent May and June months. Tiger, leopard, wild dog, jungle cat, civet and jackals are main predators of peafowl in Satpura Tiger Reserve. Predators usually take the birds down in a surprise attack; otherwise, it is difficult to hunt the peafowl because of its fast running and perfect camouflage ability in shrubs. The male train can contribute to a higher predation rate on this species.

Conservation Due to maintaining and increasing populations, the Indian Peafowl has a conservation rating of Least Concern by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN). However, poaching of Indian Peafowl for their meat and feathers in addition to accidental poisoning by feeding on pesticide treated seeds are known threats to the wild birds (Alexander 1983). Adult birds can usually escape from ground predators by flying into trees. Large animals such as tigers, leopards and dholes can sometimes ambush them; and in some areas such as the Gir forest, Indian Peafowls are fairly common prey for such formidable predators (Parasharya et al. 1999, Arviazhagan et al. 2007). They are also sometimes hunted by large birds of prey such as the Crested Hawk-Eagle Nisaetus cirrhatus and Rock Eagle-owl Bubo bengalensis (Dhanwatey & Amrut 1986, Tehsin & Tehsin 1990). Chicks are somewhat more prone to predation than adult birds. Adults living near human habitations are also sometimes hunted by domestic dogs.

16

Podoces, 2013, 8(1): 1218

Acknowledgements We are really grateful to Ravi Singh, Secretary General & CEO, WWF-India, Principal Chief Conservator of Forest Wildlife & Chief Wildlife Warden, Madhya Pradesh for funding support. We wish to thank Dr. Sejal Worah, Programme Director, Dr. Dipankar Ghose, Dr. Chittranjan Dave, Jimmy Borah and Joseph Vattakaven for their timely inputs and help with logistics and coordination. We would like to thank the ACF; Range officers of Kamti, Bori, Bhoura, Matkuli, Park Pachmari and Pachmari Sanctuary and all forest staffs for logistic support, secondary information, and assistance in data collection. We are also thankful to Shweta Gurjar, Jyotirmay Jena, Amol Kumhar, Ratnesh Dholpuriya and all staff of SML for help and support during the field work, data collection, discussion and analysis. References Alexander J.P. (1983). Probable diazinon poisoning in peafowl: a clinical description. Vet Rec. 113(20), 470. doi:10.1136/vr.113.20.470. Anderson D.R., Laake J.L., Crain B.R. & Burnham K.P. (1979). Guidelines for line transect sampling of biological populations. Journal of Wildlife Management, 43, 7078. Arviazhagan C., Arumugam R. & Thiyagesan K. (2007). Food habits of leopard Panthera pardus fusca, dhole Ceuon alpines and striped hyaena Hyaena hyaena in a tropical dry thorn forest of southern India. Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society, 104, 178187. Buckland S.T. 1985. Perpendicular distance models for line transect sampling. Biometrics, 41, 177195. Buckland S.T., Anderson D.R., Burnham K.P. & Laake J.L. (1993). Distance Sampling: Estimating Abundance of Biological Populations. Chapman & Hall, London, 446 pp. Buckland S. T., Elston D.A & Beaney S.J. (1996). Predicting distributional change, with application to bird distribution in northeast Scotland. Global Ecology and Biogeography Letters, 5, 6684. Burnham K.P., Anderson D.R. & Laake J.L. (1980). Estimation of density from line transect sampling of biological populations. Wildlife Monographs, 72, 1 202. Champion H.G. & Seth S.K. (1968). A Revised Survey of the Forest Types of India. Publish by Government of India Press. Dhanwatey A.S. (1986). A Crested Hawk-Eagle Spizaetus cirrhatus (Gmelin) killing a Peafowl Pavo cristatus Linnaeus. Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society, 83(4), 202.

Fuller R.A. & Garson P.J. (2000). Pheasants: Status Survey and Conservation Action Plan 20002004. WPA/Birdlife/SSC Pheasant Specialist Group, IUCN, Gland, Switzerland, and Cambridge, UK, and the World Pheasant Association, Reading, UK. Gill F.B. (1994). Ornithology2nd Edition. Oxford University Press, New York, 117 pp. IUCN (2012). IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2012.2. <www.iucnredlist.org>. Downloaded on 10 May 2013. Gurjar R.L. (2007). Long-billed Vulture Gyps indicus breeding in Satpura Tiger Reserve, Madhya Pradesh, India. Indian Birds, 3(3), 150. Jarvinen O. (1978). Estimating relative densities of land birds by point counts. Ann. Zool. Fennici, 15, 290293. Jhala Y.V., Gopal R. & Qureshi Q. (Eds.) (2007). Status of the Tigers and Co-predators in Central Indian Landscape: a preliminary report. New Delhi & Dehradun: National Tiger Conservation Authority, Government of India & Wildlife Institute of India. Jhala Y.V., Gopal R. & Qureshi Q. (Eds.) (2008). Status of the Tigers, Co-predators, and Prey in India. National Tiger Conservation Authority, Govt. of India, New Delhi, and Wildlife Institute of India, Dehradun. TR 08/001 pp-151. Jhala Y.V., Quereshi Q., Gopal R. & Amin R. (2009). Field Guide: Monitoring Tigers, Co-predators, Prey and their Habitats- 3rd ed. Technical Publication of National Tiger Conservation Authority, New Delhi and the Wildlife Institute of India, Dehradun. Jhala Y.V., Qureshi Q., Gopal R. & Sinha P.R. (Eds.) (2011). Status of Tiger Co-predators, and Prey in India,2010. National Tiger Conservation Authority, Govt. of India, New Delhi and Wildlife Institute of India, Dehradun. TR 2011/003 pp-302. Karanth K.U. & Nichols J.D. (2000). Ecological Status and Conservation of Tigers in India: Final Technical Report submitted to US Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington DC, and Wildlife Conservation Society, New York. Centre for Wildlife Studies, Bangalore. Parasharya B.M. & Mukherjee A. (1999). Roosting behaviour of Indian Peafowl Pavo cristatus. Journal of Bombay Natural History Society, 96(3), 471472. Raman S.T.R. (2003). Assessment of census techniques for interspecific comparisons of tropical rainforest bird densities: a field evaluation in the Western Ghats, India. Ibis, 145(1), 921. Sankar K., Qureshi Q., Shah N., Mukherjee S. & Dave C. (2004). Monitoring of Gir: A Technical consultancy report submitted to the Gujarat Forest

17

Density of Indian Peafowl- Gurjar et al

Department under GEF-India eco-development program, Wildlife Institute of India, pp. 4454. Tehsin R. & Tehsin F. (1990). Indian Great Horned Owl Bubo bubo Linn. and Peafowl Pavo cristatus Linn. Journal of Bombay Natural History Society, 87(2), 300. Thomas L., Laake J.L., Rexstad E., Strindberg S., Marques F.F.C., Buckland S.T., Borchers D.L., Anderson D.R., Burnham K.P., Burt M.L., Hedley S.L., Pollard J.H., Bishop J.R.B. & Marques T.A.

(2009). Distance 6.0. Release 2. Research Unit for Wildlife Population Assessment, University of St. Andrews, UK. http://www.ruwpa.stand.ac.uk/distance/ Trivedi P. (1993). Habitat selection by Indian peafowl Pavo cristatus. M.Sc. Dissertation. Wildlife Institute of India. Verner J. (1985). Assessment of counting techniques. Current Ornithology, 2, 247302.

18