International Research Journal of Biological Sciences ___________________________________ ISSN 2278-3202Vol. 3(2), 1-8, February (2014) Int. Res. J. Biological Sci. International Science Congress Association 1 Community Structure and Population Dynamics of Aquatic Avifauna of Gharana Wetland (Reserve), Jammu, IndiaSharma K.K.and Saini MinakshiDepartment of Zoology, University of Jammu, Jammu-180006, INDIAAvailable online at: www.isca.in, www.isca.me Received 6th June 2013, revised 16th August 2013, accepted 17th October 2013Abstract The present piece of work has been conducted (2008-09) on Gharana Wetland (Reserve) to determine the seasonal diversity and population dynamics of aquatic avifauna. The study revealed the occurrence of 21 species belonging to 5 orders and 6 families, out of which 6 species were resident, 14 species were migratory and 1 species was occasional visitor. Among migratory aquatic avifauna, 8 species were wintering and 6 species were transients. The highest number of species (18 species) was found in Novemberand February. November had the highest (10673 individuals) and July had the lowest (44 individuals) waterbird population. During November, Bar-headed Goose Anserindicuscontributed 92.01% (9820 individuals) to the total population of 10673 individuals. Family Anatidae accounts for 87.94% of the waterbird count. Various ecological indices as well as statistical methods have also been applied to comment on the community structure of the aquatic avifauna. Keywords: Community, population, aquatic avifauna, wetland. Introduction Wetlands are the areas of marsh, fern, peatland or water, whether natural or artificial; permanent or temporary; with water that is static or flowing; fresh, brackish or salt; including areas of marine water, the depth of which at low tides does not exceed six meters. Wetlands constitute the most productive ecosystems of the world with specific ecological characteristics, functions and values. Their high productivity places them among the richest and most biologically diverse ecosystems in the world2-3. Most of the wetlands in India are host to rare, threatened and endangered species of flora and fauna. Waterbirds constitute an important component of wetlands. The diversity of the waterbirds is an indication of the congenial habitat for survival and depicts the various ways of life possible for them in wetlands5-6. Ornithological studies indicate that of about 350 taxa out of 2060 taxa, known from the Indian sub-continent, are migrants; including both terrestrial and aquatic birds. Generally, Most of these birds breed outside the sub-continent in the Palaearctic region. India has a rich variety of wetland habitats which provide wintering grounds for these migratory waterbirds. The most copious and remarkable winter migrants to the Indian sub-continent are the ducks and geese (Anatidae) which constitute about 85% of the migrant bird populations, out of approximately 3 million birds1,7. Gharana Wetland (Reserve) is one of the important wetland reserves of Jammu region of Jammu and Kashmir state and serves as feeding, resting and wintering grounds for large number of migratory waterbirds during their Palaearctic to Oriental migration. In the present paper, an attempt has been made to evaluate the community structure of aquatic avifauna of Gharana Wetland in different periods of the year, so that proper conservatory measures can be adopted by the wildlife authorities for the preservation of the wetland in accordance with the particular requirements of the avifauna in their habitat. Material and MethodsStudy Area: Gharana Wetland (Reserve) 32º 32 26 N, 74º 4124 E is irregular in shape, covering approximately 1kmsurface area and is situated in subtropical Jammu and Kashmir State, North western India (~) 10 miles east of the Indo-Pakistan International border (figure 1). The Wetland is declared as ‘Important Bird Area’ and is under J and K Wildlife Protection Act, 1978. The wetland lies along the Palaearctic - Oriental migratory route of aquatic birds and serves as a wintering ground for many bird species from Central Asia. It is surrounded by ‘Gharana’ village on its one half and by agricultural fields along its other side. The present study was conducted from March, 2008 to February, 2009. Identification: Survey of the wetland to study the aquatic avifauna was conducted by using binocular (Bushnell Costom 10X50) mounted on a tripod at 4-5 day intervals. Birds were counted by four ‘main’ observers at a time from the terrace of houses near the wetland. An experienced observer was deployed to each ‘main’ observer to avoid double counting of the birds while they move. Due to the lack of emergent vegetation, it did not interfere with the visibility of the birds during counting. The avifauna thus, observed was identified with the help of pertinent literature: “Birds of the Indian Subcontinent”, “A Field Guide International Research Journal of Biological Sciences ________________________________________________ ISSN 2278-3202 Vol. 3(2), 1-8, February (2014) Int. Res. J. Biological Sci. International Science Congress Association 2 to the Birds of India”, “Waterbirds of Northern India”10, “The Book of Indian Birds”11 and “A Photographic Guide to the Birds of India”12. Census: Census of aquatic avifauna was made during day-time, from 0930h to 1700h, with the help of binocular by Line Transect method13-14. Four transects each of 500 m were traversed for counting the birds. Block Count method14 was adopted for estimating aquatic birds present in dense flocks either in flight or on ground. Each block was about 200 m. Statistical methods: Species diversity was determined by applying Shannon-Weaver Diversity Index15, H' = - , in which H is the information content of sample (bits/individuals), Sis the number of species and pi is the proportion of total species belonging to ith species. Simpson’s Index of dominance (C) was calculated according to Stone and Pence16, C = where pi is the proportion of total number of individuals of each species. Species richness was determined applying Marglef’s Index17, d' = S – 1/Log (N), in which S is the total number of species, N is the total number of individuals in sample and Logn is the Natural log. Evenness was calculated using the Pielou’s Index18, E = H'/ln S, where H' is the Index of diversity of Shannon-Weaver, lnis the Natural log and S is the total number of species. Percentage similarity of the bird communities in different seasons was calculated by Sorenson’s Quotient of Similarity19, Q/S = , where j is the number of species common to both samples, a is the total number of species in sample 1 and b is the total number of species in sample 2. Morisita-Horn Index20 was applied to determine the similarity of bird communities in different seasons in terms of abundance using the formula: MH = 2 , in which Nia and Nib number of individuals of species ‘i’ in the samples for site a and b, Na and Nb are the number of individuals in the samples from sites a and b and n is thetotal number of species. Chi-square test was applied to test the dependency of species richness on the months21. Diversity indices were correlated using Karl Pearson’s Coefficient of Correlation which was tested at 5% level using Student-t test. Correlation coefficient and Student-t test was calculated with the help of Microsoft Excel (MS Office, 2007) and SPSS Software (Ver. 16.0). Results and DiscussionDiversity: During the present study, a total of 21 species belonging to 5 ordersand 6 families were recorded (table 1). Highest number of species (7 species) belonged to Family Ardeidae followed by 6 species to Family Anatidae, 3 species to Family Rallidae and Charadriidae each and 1 species to Family Phalacrocoracidae and Laridae each. Singh22 and Sharma23 have recorded 14 and 24 species respectively from Gharana Wetland while Singh24 had presented the records of 43 species of aquatic avifauna from this wetland. During the present study period, only 21 species of the waterbirds were recorded. No species from Family Podicipitidae, Ciconidae, Threskiornithidae and Recurvirostridae were observed during the present study. Figure-1 Map of Gharana Wetland (from Google) International Research Journal of Biological Sciences ________________________________________________ ISSN 2278-3202 Vol. 3(2), 1-8, February (2014) Int. Res. J. Biological Sci. International Science Congress Association 3 Table-1 Aquatic Avifauna inhabiting Gharana Wetland (Reserve) Name of the Bird Common Name Order Family Status Amaurornisphoenicurus White-breasted Waterhen Gruiformes Rallidae Resident Porphyrioporphyrio Purple Moorhen Gruiformes Rallidae Resident Fulicaatra Common Coot Gruiformes Rallidae Transient Anascrecca Common Teal Anseriformes Anatidae Transient Anasstrepera Gadwall Anseriformes Anatidae Wintering Anasclypeata Northern Shoveller Anseriformes Anatidae Transient Anas Penelope Eurasian Wigeon Anseriformes Anatidae Transient (Anasacuta Northern Pintail Anseriformes Anatidae Wintering Anserindicus Bar-headed Goose Anseriformes Anatidae Transient Ardeacinerea Grey Heron Ciconiformes Ardeidae Wintering Ardeapurpurea Purple Heron Ciconiformes Ardeidae Wintering Ardeolagrayii Pond Heron Ciconiformes Ardeidae Resident Bubulcus ibis Cattle Egret Ciconiformes Ardeidae Resident Casmerodius alba Large Egret Ciconiformes Ardeidae Wintering Egrettagarzetta Intermediate Egret Ciconiformes Ardeidae Wintering Egrettaintermedia Little Egret Ciconiformes Ardeidae Resident Phalacrocoraxniger Little Cormorant Pelecaniformes Phalacrocoracidae Wintering Vanellusindicus Red Wattled Lapwing Charadriiformes Charadriidae Resident Vanellusleucurus White tailed Lapwing Charadriiformes Charadriidae Transient Tringa tetanus Common Red Shank Charadriiformes Charadriidae Wintering Sterna aurantia Indian River Tern Charadriiformes Laridae Occasional Visitor Gharana Wetland was subjected to continuous anthropogenic pressure in the form of cattle bathing, washing of clothes and vehicles, entry of domestic sewage and cattle waste, drawing of water by electric motor, hunting, fishing, expansion of agricultural fields towards wetland etc. Man wildlife conflict was also encountered among the villagers as the waterbirds used to destroy their crops in the nearby agricultural fields by foraging over them. On the consequence of this, villagers started scaring campaigns by exploding crackers near the waterbirds to make them fly from the wetland and thereby, directly posing stress on them. Rice fields can provide important waterbird habitat from perspectives of food quality and quantity25-26 as they provide natural food in the form of moist-soil plant seeds, aquatic invertebrates and green forage27. Decline in the waterbird number due to human disturbance28 in the form of scaring campaigns has also been suggested by Klaassenet al.29. The absence of ob.cit. families resulting in the decline in the number of species clearly indicated the possibility of degradation of the habitat conditions. Waterbirds in Gharana Wetland that used to procure their additional food from the rice fields flanking the wetland was principally the main reason behind deliberate interference to the waterbirds by the villagers who had to face a great loss in their crop production. Out of 21 species, 6 species were categorized as resident, 14 species as migratory and 1 species as occasional visitor. Resident species were White-breasted waterhen, Purple Moorhen, Pond Heron, Cattle Egret, Little Egret and Red-wattled Lapwing. Among migratory waterbirds, two sub-categories were recognized as Transients and Wintering. 6 species of waterbirds viz. White tailed Lapwing, Common Coot, Common Teal, Northern Shoveller, Eurasian Wigeon and Bar-headed Goose were categorized as Transients which comprised of those waterbirds which utilized the wetland as stop-over sites. They visited the wetland during their Palaearctic to Oriental journey, stayed there and then migrated southwardly. They again visited the wetland during their Oriental to Palaearctic journey. Wintering waterbirds included those which visited the wetland during their winter migration, utilized the wetland for few months and then returned to their native place. 8 species of waterbirds viz. Northern Pintail, Gadwalls, Grey Heron, Purple Heron, Intermediate Egret, Large Egret, Little Cormorants and Common Red Shank were recognized as Wintering waterbirds. Indian River Tern was kept under Occasional visitor which visited the wetland occasionally.Various authors have categorized the avifauna into different categories. Categorization of aquatic avifauna as residents, transients, wintering and local migrants has been opined by Sharma23. Xu and Zhao30 also categorized the waterbirds of Chongming Dongtan Nature Reserve as residents, transients, winter migrants and summer breeders. Population Dynamics: A well marked seasonal variation in waterbird population was recorded during the present study period. The highest number of waterbird species (18) was found in November, 2008 and February, 2009. Summer months (May, June and July, 2008) had the lowest number of waterbird species (6 species). Monthly records of waterbird population exhibited a peak in water bird population (10673 individuals) in November, 2008 whereas lowest count (44 individuals) was International Research Journal of Biological Sciences ________________________________________________ ISSN 2278-3202 Vol. 3(2), 1-8, February (2014) Int. Res. J. Biological Sci. International Science Congress Association 4 observed in July, 2008 (table 2, figure 2). Waterbird population in March, 2008 and from August, 2008 to February, 2009 remained higher due to the presence of large number of migratory waterbirds. Highest diversity in winter months was attributed to the influx of migratory waterbirds during this season. Least diversity in the summer months was ascribed to the absence of migratory waterbird species. Giri and Chalise21 have also recorded the greater diversity in winter months due to the addition of migratory birds in this season. Annual percent contribution of different families of aquatic avifauna were recognized as Anatidae�Charadriidae�Phalacrocoracidae� Ardeidae�Rallidae�Laridae (figure 3). Table-2 Seasonal variations in Aquatic Avifauna of Gharana Wetland (Reserve) Name of the Bird Spring Summer Autumn Winter Annual Count Mean ± sd White-breasted Waterhen 2 6 3 5 16 1.33 ± 0.47 Purple Moorhen 28 27 16 76 147 12.25 ± 9.29 Common Coot 12 0 42 77 131 10.29 ± 12.05 Common Teal 0 0 160 477 637 53.08 ± 67.83 Gadwall 54 0 0 342 396 33 ± 46.77 Northern Shoveller 0 0 0 299 299 24.92 ± 49.57 Eurasian Wigeon 0 0 0 108 108 9 ± 23.84 Northern Pintail 0 0 0 32 32 2.67 ± 8.84 Bar-headed Goose 0 0 0 13212 13212 1101 ± 2730.37 Grey Heron 0 0 2 10 12 1 ± 1.29 Purple Heron 3 0 0 15 18 1.5 ± 2.36 Pond Heron 9 22 12 19 62 5.17 ± 2.41 Cattle Egret 65 75 47 59 246 20.5 ± 9.60 Large Egret 0 0 0 18 18 1.5 ± 2.22 Intermediate Egret 0 0 0 5 5 0.42 ± 0.64 Little Egret 22 30 6 6 64 5.33 ± 4.11 Little Cormorant 19 90 215 133 457 38.08 ± 54.98 Red Wattled Lapwing 19 44 11 30 104 8.67 ± 3.90 White tailed Lapwing 0 0 0 2 2 0.17 ± 0.55 Common Red Shank 0 0 0 730 730 60.83 ± 112.12 Indian River Tern 2 0 0 0 2 0.17 ± 0.55 Total Avifauna Count 235 294 514 15655 16698 1391.5 ± 2927.1 1756064534413343282106733183640115920004000600080001000012000 Number of WaterbirdsMonths Number of WaterbirdsFigure-2 Monthly variations in Aquatic Avifauna of Gharana Wetland (Reserve) International Research Journal of Biological Sciences ________________________________________________ ISSN 2278-3202 Vol. 3(2), 1-8, February (2014) Int. Res. J. Biological Sci. International Science Congress Association 5 1.76%87.94%2.55%2.74%5.01% Rallidae Anatidae Ardeidae Phalacrocoracida e Figure-3 Annual percent contribution of various families of Aquatic avifauna Bar-headed Goose contributed 92.01% (9820 individuals) to the total population of 10673 individuals in November, 2008, thus constituting the peak in this month.Green forage in rice fields is most important to geese and its availability contributes to the increase in goose populations31-32. Geese, being herbivorous/ graminivorous33 winter in large, contiguous regions of agricultural habitat34. Kaminski and Prince35 and Merendinoet al.36 reported that waterbirds preferred wetland with vegetational characteristics thereby providing cover and foraging area to them. Moreover, macrobenthic invertebrates which constitute the principle diet for waterfowl37-41 were more closely associated with aquatic vegetation than the barren substrate42-43 as decomposition of the vegetation provided an additional nutrients and surface for the proliferation and habitation of macroinvertebrates35,44-46. Sharp decline in the waterbird count was observed after March, 2008 i.e. from April to July, 2008. Low waterbird count from April, 2008 to July, 2008 was owing to the absence of maximum number of waterbird species during April, 2008 and the complete absence of migratory waterbirds from May, 2008 to July, 2008. Afterwards, the population of waterbirds started increasing from August to November, 2008 with a peak in November, 2008 and a sharp trough in October, 2008. Number of most of the migratory waterbirds exhibited fall from December, 2008 onwards and a prominent decline was observed in January, 2009 (figure 2). The fall in the population of waterbirds from December, 2008 onwards was the consequence of southward migration of certain transient species while sudden fall in the population during October, 2008 and January, 2009 was credited to the absence of certain species of transient waterbirds in these months. The most diverged season was winter season in terms of species number as well as species abundance. Akosim et al.47also recorded more waterbirds in dry season rather than rainy season, which were indicative of the occurrence of migrant birds at the wetland areas of Yankari National Park, during dry season. This observation is in line with the present findings, where large numbers of migratory birds were observed during dry period. Ysebaert48 observed clear seasonality with lowest number of waterbirds in the period April, 2008 to July, 2008 and a peak in the period November, 2008 to January, 2009. Among all the species, Bar-headed Goose had the largest population. Other abundant waterbirds were Northern Shoveller, Common Red Shank, Little Cormorants, Common Teal and Gadwall whilst the population of the remaining species were relatively small. Migratory waterbirds (Wintering and Transients) started visiting the Gharana Wetland (Reserve) in August, 2008. Little Cormorants were the first to enter the wetland in this month. Common Coot and Common Teal arrived in September, 2008 while Northern Shoveller, Eurasion Wigeon, Bar-headed Goose, Gadwalls, Common Red Shank, Intermediate Egret and Large Egret registered their arrival in November, 2008. Last arrival among migratory waterbirds was registered by Northern Pintail in February, 2009. During the period of migration from Oriental to Palaearctic route, Little Cormorants and Gadwalls departured the Gharana Wetland (Reserve) in the month of March, 2008, followed by Common Coots in the month of April, 2008. White-tailed lapwing departured the wetland in January, 2009.Most of the other waterbirds like Common Teal, Northern Shoveller, EurasionWigeon, Bar-headed Goose, Northern Pintail, Common Red Shank, Intermediate Egret and Large Egret left the wetland in the month of February, 2009. The Shannon-Weaver Index of diversity was highest (H' = 1.982) in January, 2009 and lowest (H' = 0.438) in November, 2008. Shannon-Weaver Index values in January, 2009 revealed that this month had the greatest diversity in terms of both species richness and evenness. Gerritsenet al.49 revealed that the increases in the value of H'is directly associated with the increase in the number and distribution of species (biotic diversity) within the community, thereby confirming the present observation. Simpson’s Index of dominance revealed that November, 2008 had the highest dominance (C = 0.848) and January, 2009 had the lowest (C = 0.176). Simpson’s dominance, which weights towards the abundance of the most common species, indicated that greatest dominance was shown by the most abundant species i.e. Bar-headed Goose in the month of November, 2008. Krebs50 stated that this index gives relatively less importance to rare species and more to common species. The value closer to ‘0’ indicates a low level of dominance i.e. all tax a are equally present while the value closer to ‘1’ exhibits higher level of dominance i.e. one taxon dominates the community completely. The value of Simpson’s Index in the month of November was 0.848 i.e. closer to ‘1’, thus, having higher dominance as compared to the value 0.176 (closer to 0), indicating the lower dominance in the month of January, 2009. Simpson51 opined that dominance varies International Research Journal of Biological Sciences ________________________________________________ ISSN 2278-3202 Vol. 3(2), 1-8, February (2014) Int. Res. J. Biological Sci. International Science Congress Association 6 inversely with diversity which is in consonance to the present observations. Marglef’srichness Index varied between 1.202 (May, 2008) and 2.476 (January, 2009). Species richness which was greater in winter season was in line with the findings of Hamdi et al.52. Zhouet al.53also recorded more number of waterbird species in winter season than in summer. Evenness in bird communities was highest (E = 0.932) in May, 2008 and lowest (E = 0.152) in November, 2008 (figure 4). Routledge 54 stated that the value of evenness closer to ‘0’ indicates low evenness and high single species dominance while close to ‘1’ depicts maximum evenness and abundance of all species. In the present study, the value of evenness was 0.932 (closer to 1) in May indicating that all the species were abundant while it was 0.152 (closer to 0) which revealed that there was less evenness and dominance of a single species (Bar-headed Goose). Correlation coefficients between different diversity indices revealed significant negative correlation between diversity and dominance (r = - 0.955, p0.05), diversity and evenness (r = - 0.880, p0.05) and dominance and evenness (r = - 0.929, p0.05) (table 3). Sorenson’s Quotient of similarity was found highest (Q/S = 82.35%) between summer and autumn and lowest (Q/S = 51.85%) between summer and winter. in terms of abundance of aquatic avifauna, Morisita-Horn Index indicated highest similarity (MH = 0.697) between spring and summer and lowest (MH = 0.01) between summer and winter (table 4). Winter season exhibited less similarity in community composition and abundance with other season which may be attributed to the presence of migratory waterbirds as also suggested by Giri and Chalise21. Chi-square test recorded that species richness was dependent on the months (2 = 24.27, p0.05). Prevalence of seasonality in the species richness was also recorded by Hamdi et al.52 and Giri and Chalise21. 0.51.52.5 Index ValuesMonth Shannon Index Values Simpson's Index Values Marglef's Index Values Pielou's Index ValuesFigure-4 Monthly variations in different Diversity Indices Table-3 Correlation coefficients (r) between various Diversity Indices Indices Shannon Index Simpson’s Index Marglef’s Index Pielou’s Index Shannon Index - 0.955* - 0.126 -0.880* Simpson’s Index 0.078 - 0.929* Marglef’s Index - 0.330 Pielou’s Index *marked correlations were significant (P 0.05). Table-4 Different Similarity Indicesto compare the community structurebetween different seasons Compared Seasons Sorenson’s Quotient of Similarity Morisita-Horn Index Spring Vs Summer 77.78% 0.697 Spring Vs Autumn 76.19% 0.308 Spring Vs Winter 64.52% 0.018 Summer Vs Autumn 82.35% 0.65 Summer Vs Winter 51.85% 0.01 Autumn Vs Winter 66.67% 0.65 International Research Journal of Biological Sciences ________________________________________________ ISSN 2278-3202 Vol. 3(2), 1-8, February (2014) Int. Res. J. Biological Sci. International Science Congress Association 7 Conclusion Gharana Wetland serves as an important feeding and wintering ground for large number of migratory waterbirds but the continuous anthropogenic stress over the wetland has resulted into the decline in the number of waterbird species as well as count. Thus, the information generated from this study would be essential to better formulating the various strategies for the conservation of waterbirds as well as their habitat. AcknowledgementThe authors are highly thankful to the Department of Wildlife, J & K State for rendering the necessary facilities to carry out the studies. References 1.Scott D. A.,A directory of Asian Wetlands, IUCN, Gland, Switzerland, and Cambridge, UK, (1989)2.Kivaisi A. K., The potential for constructed wetlands for wastewater treatment and reuse in developing countries, Ecological Engineer, 16, 545-560 (2001)3.Samsunlu A. L., Akca C. K., Findik N. and Tanik A., Significance of wetlands in water qualiy management - past and present situations of Kizilirmak delta, Turkey, Water Sci. Technol., 46,145-152 (2002)4.Menon M., Vanishing wetlands of Kerala, India, Tigerpaper, 31(1), 19-22 (2004)5.Sonobe K. and Usui S., A Field Guide to the Waterbirds of Asia, Wild Bird Society of Japan, Tokyo, (1993)6.Jayson E. A. and Mathew D. N., Structure and composition of two bird communities in the southern Western Ghats, Journal of Bombay Natural History Society, 99(1), 8-25 (2002)7.Alfred J. R. B., Kumar A., Tak P. C. and Sati J. P., Waterbirds of Northern India, Zoological Survey of India, Kolkata, (2001)8.Grimmet R., Inskipp C., and Inskipp T., Birds of the Indian Subcontinent, Oxford University Press, New Delhi, (1998)9.Kazmierczak K. and Perlo B. V., A Field Guide to the Birds of India, OM Book Service, New Delhi, (2000)10.Alfred J. R. B., Kumar A., Tak P. C. and Sati J. P., Waterbirds of Northern India, Shiva Offset Press, Dehradun, 2ndEdn, (2002)11.Ali S., The Book of Indian Birds, Bombay Natural History Society, Mumbai, 13thEdn, (2002)12.Grewal B., Harvey V., and Pfister O., A Photographic Guide to the Birds of India, Periplus Editions (HK) Ltd., Singapore, (2002)13.Verner J., Assessment of counting techniques, Current Ornithology, , 247-302 (1985)14.Singh S.K., Text Book of Wildlife Management, International Book Distributing Co., Lucknow, 2ndEdn.(2009)15.Shannon C. E. and Weaver W., The mathematical theory of communication, University of Illinois Press, Urbana, II, (1949)16.Stone J. E. and Pence D. B., Ecology of helminth parasitism in the bobcat from West Texas, Journal of Parasitology, 64, 295-302, (1978)17.Marglef R., Perspectives in ecological theory, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, II, (1968)18.Pielou E.C., An introduction to mathematical ecology, New York: John Wiley, 326 (1969)19.Sorensen T. A method of establishing groups of equal amplitude in plant sociology based on similarity of species content and its application to analyses of the vegetation on Danish commons, Kongelige Danske Videnskabernes Selskab Biologiske Skrifter, , 1-34, (1948)20.Wolda H., Spatial and temporal variations in abundance of tropical animals. In: Whitmore TC, Chadwick AC and Sutton SL (eds.) The tropical rainforest: Ecology and Management, Blackwell Scientific Publications, Oxford, U.K., 93-105 (1983)21.Giri B. and Chalise M. K., Seasonal diversity and population status of waterbirds in Pehwa lake, Pokhara, Nepal, Journal of Wetlands Ecology, 1(1/2), 3-7 (2008)22.Singh A. R.,Ecology of aquatic bird populations at Gharana Wetland Reserve (Jammu), M.Phil. Dissertation, University of Jammu, Jammu, (1988)23.Sharma S. P., Studies on the impact of anthropogenic influences on the ecology of Gharana Wetland, Jammu, Ph.D. Thesis, University of Jammu, Jammu, (2002)24.Singh P., Faunal diversity and ecology of wetlands of Jammu, Ph.D. Thesis, University of Jammu, Jammu, (2004)25.Reinecke K. J., Kaminski R. M., Moorehead D. J., Hodges J. D. and Nassar J. R., Mississippi Alluvial Valley, In: Smith LM, Pederson RL and Kaminski RM (eds). Habitat management for migrating and wintering waterfowl in North America. Texas Tech University Press, Lubbock, Texas, USA, 203-247 (1989)26.Huttink G. and Siebenmorgen T., Maintaining yield and grain quality, In: Helms RS (ed.) Rice production Handbook. Publication MP-192, Cooperative Extension Service, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, Arkansas, USA, 79-85 (1996)27.Manley S. W., Kaminski R. M., Reinecke K. J. and Gerard P. D., Waterbird foods in winter-managed ricefields in International Research Journal of Biological Sciences ________________________________________________ ISSN 2278-3202 Vol. 3(2), 1-8, February (2014) Int. Res. J. Biological Sci. International Science Congress Association 8 Mississippi, Journal of Wildlife Management, 68(1), 74-83 (2004)28.Razafimanjato G, Sam TS and Thorstrom R (2007). Waterbird monitoring in the Antsalova region, Western Madagascar, Waterbirds, 30(3), 441-447 (1969)29.Klaassen M., Bauer S., Madsen J. and Tombre I. M., Behavioural and fitness consequences of disturbance for geese along their spring flyway, Journal of Applied Ecology, 43, 92-100, (2006)30.Xu H.F. and Zhao Y.L., Comprehensive survey on Chogming Dongtan Nature Reserve for migratory birds, Shanghai, Chiness Forestory, Beijing, (2005)31.Krapu G.L., Reinecke K.J., Jorde D.G. and Simpson S.G., Spring-staging ecology of midcontinent greater white-footed geese, Journal of Wildlife Management, 59,736-746 (1995)32.Abraham K.F. and Jefferies R.L., High goose populations: causes, impacts and implications, In: Batt BDJ (ed.) Arctic ecosystems in peril: report on the Arctic Goose Habitat Working Group. Arctic Goose Joint Venture Special Publication, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C., USA, and Canadian Wildlife Service, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, (1997)33.Baldassarre G.A. and Bolen E.G., Waterfowl ecology and management. Krieger Publishing Company, Malabar, Florida, (2006)34. Hupp J. W., Schmutz J. A. and Ely C. R., The annual migration cycle of emperor geese in western Alaska, Arctic, 61, 23–34 (2008) 35.Kaminski R. M. and Prince H. H., Dabbling duck and aquatic macroinvertebrate responses to manipulated wetland habitat, Journal of Wildlife Management, 45(1), 1-15 (1981)36.Merendino M.T., McCullough G. B. and North N. R., Wetland availability and use by breeding waterfowl in Southern Ontario, Journal of Wildlife Management, 59(3), 527-532 (1995)37.Nilsson L., Local distribution, food choice, and food consumption of diving ducks on a south Sweden lake, Oikos, 23, 82-91 (1972)38.Stott R.S. and Olson D.P., Food habitat relationships of sea ducks on the New Hampshire Coastline, Ecology, 54, 996-1007 (1973)39.Bellrose F.C., Ducks, geese and swans of North America, Stackpole Books, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, USA, (1980)40.Jones J.J. and Drobney R.D., Winter feeding ecology of scaup and common goldeneye in Michigan, Journal of Wildlife Management, 50, 446-452 (1986)41.Chick J.H. and McIvor C. C., Patterns in the abundance and composition of fishes among beds of different macrophytes: viewing a littoral zone landscape, Canadian Journal of Fish and Aquatic Sciences, 51, 2873-2882 (1994)42.Swanson G. A., Meyer M. I. and Serie J. R., Feeding ecology of breeding blue-winged teals, Journal of Wildlife Management, 38, 396-407 (1974)43.Joyner D. E., Influence of invertebrates on pond selection by ducks in Ontario, Journal of Wildlife Management, 44(3), 700-705 (1980)44.McKnight D.E. and Low J.B., Factors affecting waterfowl production of a spring-fed salt marsh in Utah, Trans. North Am. Wildl. Nat. Resour. Conf., 34, 307-314 (1969)45.Whitman W. R., Impoundments for waterfowl, Can. Wildl. Serv. Occas. Pap., 22, 21 (1976)46.Murkin H.R., Kaminski R. M. and Titman R. D., Responses by dabbling ducks and aquatic invertebrates to an experimentally manipulated cattail marsh, Canadian Journal of Zoology, 60, 2324-2332 (1982) 47.Akosim C., Isa M., Ali A. and Kwaga B. T., Species obsolute population density and diversity of waterbirds in wetlands areas of Yankari National Park, Bauchi State, Nigeria, Environmental Research Journal2(1), 28-32 (2008) 48.Ysebaert T., Macrobenthos and Waterbirds in the estuarine environment: Spatio-temporal patterns at different scales, Communication 16, The Institute of Nature Conservation, Brussels, (2000)49.Gerritsen J., Carlson R. E., Dycus D. L., Faulkner C., Gibson G. R., Harcum J. and Marcowitz S. A., Lake and Reservoir Bioassessment and Biocriteria, Technical Guidance Document, US Environmental Protection Agency, (1998)50.Krebs C. J., Ecology: The Experimental Analysis of Distribution and Abundance, Harper Collins, New York, 4th Edn., 705-706 (1994)51.Simpson E. H., Measurement of diversity. Nature, 163, 688. (1949) 52.Hamdi N., Charfi F. and Moali A., Variation of the waterbird community relying to the Ichkeul National Park, Tunisia, European Journal of Wildlife Research, 54, 417–424 (2008), doi:10.1007/s10344-007-0162-7 53.Zhou J., Kang S., Schadt C. W. and Garten C. T. Jr., Spatial scaling of functional gene diversity across various microbial taxa, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, 105, 7768-7773 (2008) 54.Routledge R. D., Bias in estimating the diversity of large, uncensused communities, Ecology, 61(2), 276-281 (1980)