GI C AL
LO S
Proc Zool Soc
DOI 10.1007/s12595-017-0239-6
RESEARCH ARTICLE
Composition of Avian Communities in a Human-modified
Wetland Okhla Bird Sanctuary, India: With Notes
on Conservation Initiatives
Subhendu Mazumdar1
Received: 2 June 2017 / Revised: 7 August 2017 / Accepted: 18 August 2017
Ó Zoological Society, Kolkata, India 2017
Abstract Monitoring of avian community composition in
different landscapes are being emphasized from environ-
mental monitoring perspective. Okhla bird sanctuary is an
important bird area and has widest flood plains along the
stretch of river Yamuna flowing through National Capital
Region, India. At the same time, this sanctuary is under
tremendous pressure particularly due to encroachment,
unsustainable harvesting and pollution. Present study was
carried out in Okhla bird sanctuary from July 2004 to June
2005 to assess the species composition and richness of the
avifaunal community along with their seasonal variation. A
total of 126 species belonging to 18 orders and 44 families
were recorded. The avian species richness was highest for
the order Passeriformes followed by Charadriformes,
Anseriformes, Pelicaniformes and others. Anatidae was the
most diverse avian family in the study area. Species rich-
ness of avifauna was highest in January (83 species) and
least during July (37 species). This wetland supports good
number of resident (86 species) and migratory birds (40
species). Most avian species (41.27%) were found to be
wetland-dependent followed by wetland-associated
(34.13%) and terrestrial (24.6%) birds. Kruskal–Wallis test
revealed significant variation in the number of migratory
and wetland-dependent species in different seasons. This
study emphasize the importance of Okhla bird sanctuary
for resident and migratory, as well as, terrestrial, wetland-
associated and wetland dependent birds and thus contribute
towards the existing knowledge of the seasonal pattern
& Subhendu Mazumdar
subhendumazumdar@gmail.com
1
Shibpur Dinobundhoo Institution (College),
Shibpur, Howrah, India
O
O
O
CI E
TH E Z
TY
KO
L K ATA
avifaunal composition of this wetland. Long-term moni-
toring of avifaunal composition over the years is an
excellent means to assess the health of this waterbody and
thus might be useful to foster its sustainable improvement.
Keywords Birds  Wetland  Species richness 
Relative diversity index (RDi)
Introduction
Wetlands are defined as lands transitional between terres-
trial and aquatic ecosystems where the water table is usu-
ally at or near the surface, or the land is covered by shallow
water (Mitsch and Gosselink 2000). Wetlands provide
home for a huge diversity of wildlife such as birds, mam-
mals, fish, frogs, insects and plants (Buckton 2007).
Gangetic Plains in India contains several natural fresh
water wetlands, along with, several man-made wetlands
such as canals, tanks, and dams with the primary purpose
of irrigation and water supply for domestic purposes
(Manral et al. 2013). Artificial wetlands often serve as
complementary habitats for wildlife (Kadlec and Knight
1996; USEPA 1999; Knight et al. 2001), particularly
waterbirds (Weber and Haig 1996; Connor and Gabor
2006; Ma et al. 2010). Freshwater wetlands in India sup-
port around 20% of the known range of biodiversity of this
country (Deepa and Ramachandra 1999). These are often
considered as ‘hot spots’ of biodiversity within a region or
a landscape and support unique communities which
involve a diversity of plants and animals (Gopal and Sah
1993).
With rapid urbanization and industrialization, many
wetlands are facing various threats (Mitsch and Gosselink
2000). Encroachment of wetland habitat, unsustainable
123

harvesting of resources, industrial pollution, poisoning,
agricultural runoff, siltation and introduction of invasive
plants and weeds often put wetland biodiversity in jeopardy
(Baral and Inskipp 2005; Kafle et al. 2008; Manral et al.
2013). Many riverine wetlands situated adjoining urban
areas suffer particularly from heavy load of pollution
caused by the discharge of untreated wastewater into rivers.
These anthropogenic activities not only deteriorate the
water quality, but also have severe consequences on water
bird populations, leading to change in community structure
of birds and decline in their abundance (Kloskowski et al.
2009). Stewart (2001) suggested that the selection of
habitats by birds depends on various factors, like depth and
quality of water, availability of food, presence of vegeta-
tion for shelter, presence of predators and inter-species
competitors. Thus, characteristic bird species assemblages
of a particular landscape can be useful predictor of
ecosystem integrity and functions (Kumar et al. 2006;
Kumar and Gupta 2013). Moreover, understanding the
structure and diversity of bird communities is essential to
delineate the importance of any landscape for avian con-
servation at regional of local level (Kattan and Franco
2004).
Floodplain located on river Yamuna in Okhla region of
National Capital Region (NCR), India was declared a
Wildlife Sanctuary under the Wildlife (Protection) Act,
1972 in 1990 by the Govt. of Uttar Pradesh, particularly for
the protection of birds. But, being situated amidst densely
populated city, Okhla bird sanctuary (henceforth OBS) was
facing threats of encroachment due to rapid urbanization,
as well as, deterioration of water quality due to discharge
of untreated domestic sewage and industrial effluents (Urfi
1993a; Manral and Khudsar 2013). Despite of being a
paradise for birds, prior to this study, very few surveys on
birds had been carried out in this wetland (Singh 1983; Urfi
1993a, b, 1995, 2003). Therefore, scientific literatures on
avian community composition of this wetland were also
very few. Urfi (2003) visited Okhla bird sanctuary during
1989–2002 (regularly during 1989–1991 and less inten-
sively during 1996–2002) and prepared checklist of dif-
ferent species of birds of this wetland combining his own
observations along with other old literatures (Hutson 1954;
Ganguli 1975; Harris 2001; Vyas 1996, 2002). But, none of
these previous studies analyzed the seasonal pattern of
community composition in this important bird area. Doc-
umentation of bird species assemblages is often empha-
sized to understand the condition of an ecosystem
(Bradford et al. 1998; Browder et al. 2002). Monitoring
avian species richness is, therefore, important for estimat-
ing spatiotemporal pattern of population structure and
developing appropriate conservation strategies (Lee et al.
2004; Gopisundar and Kittur 2013). So, I had carried out
this study (1) to document the composition and richness of
123
Proc Zool Soc
avian species, as well as, (2) to assess the seasonal change
in the species composition of birds in this wetland.
Few more studies were carried out in OBS after my
study, but most of them focused on hydrological features
(Manral et al. 2012) and floral diversity (Manral et al.
2013; Mukherjee and Sharma 2014) of this wetland.
Manral and Khudsar (2013) assessed waterbird of OBS but
for a much shorter span (only for 4 months i.e. Jan–Apr
2009) which did not cover all seasons and had given
greater emphasis on the water quality, sub-merged and
free-floating plant communities and their impact on avi-
fauna. This study is, therefore, important to ascertain the
status of various avifaunal species and their richness in
different seasons of the concerned wetland.
Materials and Methods
Area of Study
A yearlong study was conducted in a man-modified flood
plain wetland on river Yamuna situated in NCR, India
(between latitudes 28°320 4400 N and 28°340 1800 N and lon-
gitudes 77°170 4100 E and 77°190 1200 E). Construction of the
Okhla barrage across the river Yamuna has converted a
small portion of the river into a static water system, which
turned out to be an avian abode and serve as wintering and
stopover site for many migratory waterfowls. OBS is sit-
uated on a vast alluvial plain with a gentle south-eastern
slope and is surrounded by well-metalled roads (Fig. 1).
The floodplains of Yamuna in Delhi are restricted between
lateral bunds with maximum width of active floodplains
observed in and around OBS. Depending upon water depth,
the 4 km2 heterogeneous habitat of OBS can be broadly
classified into shallow marsh and open waters (2.73 km2),
reed and sand beds (0.97 km2) and roads and bunds
(0.3 km2) area (Manral and Khudsar 2013). The marshy
areas are dominated by emergent macrophytes (viz. Typha
angustata, Typha domingensis, Cyperus spp., Phragmytis
maxima etc.). The submerged vegetation includes Hydrilla
verticillata, Vallisneria spiralis, Potamogiton crispus, etc.
(Urfi 2003). Along the margin of the wetland and at the
areas of shallow depth, Ipomea sp. was recorded. Eich-
hornea crassipes form dense floating vegetation cover on
the water surface in most areas of the waterbody. Special
management is practiced in this wetland to control this
water hyacinth. Pistia sp., Wolffia sp., Spirodella sp.,
Lemna sp. and Salvinia molesta and Alternantha philoxir-
oides were also reported from the study area (Urfi 2003).
Along the bank of the wetland Tamarix dioica, Prosopis
spp., Ficus spp., Azadirachta indica, Caesalpinia pul-
cherrima, Casia fistula, Casuarina equisitifolia, Delonix
regia (Krishen 2006) and few other unidentified trees and
Proc Zool Soc

Fig. 1 Satellite image of Okhla bird sanctuary in National Capital Region, India (White line on satellite image indicate the boundary of Okhla
bird sanctuary; Yellow lines indicate the line transects used for observing avifauna; Source of satellite image: Google Earth)

bushes were present. In the present study, March–May was
considered as summer, June–August as monsoon,
September–November as post-monsoon and December–
February as winter.
Data Collection
Monthly surveys were carried out between July 2004 and
June 2005. The line transect method was used due to the
openness and better visibility of this wetland habitat
(Sutherland et al. 2005). A total of 10 transects were laid on
the Okhla barrage, left afflux bund and weir bund (Fig. 1)
to record the assemblage and species richness avifauna of
the study site. All these transects were traversed on foot
every month between 06:00 and 10:00 h and the starting
point and the direction of line-transects was alternated
during every subsequent visit. During every visit species
richness was measured to find out the community structure
of birds in the area. Birds were observed through unaided
eye or with a binocular (Nikon 8 9 40) depending on their
distance. Identification of birds, as well as, their classifi-
cation based on dispersal status (resident or migratory) and

123

habitat-use (wetland-dependent, wetland-associated, and
terrestrial) was done following Grimmett et al. (1998).
Names and taxonomic position of birds was accorded fol-
lowing del Hoyo et al. (2014). The local status of birds was
also assessed as very common (Vc: bird species which
were recorded on 80–100% of field visits), common (Co:
bird species which were recorded on 50–79.9% of field
visits), fairly common (Fc: bird species which were
recorded on 20–49.9% of field visits) and rare (Ra: bird
species which were recorded on less than 19.9% of field
visits) following Khan and Naher (2009). The International
Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) status of birds
was also noted to compare their local status with the global
status. Species richness was estimated by recording the
number of bird species observed. During the surveys, other
information or threats to birds’ conservation were also
noted.
Data Analysis
Species richness data was pooled together corresponding to
four seasons viz. summer, monsoon, post-monsoon and
winter to test the seasonal pattern of avian assemblage in
the study site. The relative diversity (RDi) of families was
calculated using the following formula (Torre-Cuadros
et al. 2007):
Number of bird species in a family
RDi ¼  100
Total number of species
Non parametric Kruskal–Wallis test was carried out to
justify the seasonal difference of species richness from
statistical viewpoint (Fowler and Cohen 1986). Statistical
tests were computed using XLSTAT software (Addinsoft
2010).
Results
During the present study 126 species of birds belonging to
18 orders and 44 families were recorded from OBS
(Table 1). Passerines (Order Passeriformes) form the most
predominant avian taxa in India (c. 54%), followed by the
orders Charadriiformes and Accipitriformes (Praveen et al.
2016). Similarly, in the present study, maximum avifaunal
species belonged to order Passeriformes (45 species) fol-
lowed by Charadriiformes (19 species), Anseriformes (12
species), Pelicaniformes (10 species) and others. More than
half (68.25%) of the species found in OBS during this
study belonged to these four orders, three of which (viz.
Charadriformes, Anseriformes and Pelicaniformes) com-
prise of wetland and wetland dependent species. Anatidae
was the most diverse avian family in the study area com-
prising of 12 species. 16 families in the study area were
123
Proc Zool Soc
poorly represented in the study area, each with single
species (Tables 1, 2). The highest RDi value was also
recorded for family Ardeidae followed by Anatidae
(Table 2).
Overall, maximum number of avifaunal species was
recorded in January (83 species) and least during July (37
species) as in Fig. 2. Among the avian species observed in
OBS, 86 species (68.25%) were resident and 40 species
(31.75%) were migratory (Fig. 3a). Migratory avifauna
used this wetland as their wintering site. In winter season
22 species, 28 species and 21 migratory species were
recorded during December, January and February respec-
tively. The birds began departing from OBS during the last
week of February. The number of migratory species sig-
nificantly varied in different seasons (Kruskal–Wallis test:
K = 9.445; df = 3; p \ 0.05) and their richness increased
from post-monsoon, reached peak in winter, then declined
in summer and was minimum in monsoons (Fig. 3b). On
the other hand, the species richness of resident avifauna did
not show any significant variation between seasons
(Kruskal–Wallis test: K = 0.553; df = 3; p [ 0.05) and
remained similar throughout the study period (Fig. 3b).
Out of 126 species recorded during the study, 52 species
(41.27%) were wetland-dependent, 43 species (34.13%)
were wetland-associated and 31 species (24.6%) were ter-
restrial in nature (Fig. 4a). It is interesting to note that the
number of wetland-dependent species (Kruskal–Wallis
test: K = 9.368; df = 3; p \ 0.05) varied seasonally, but
the terrestrial species (Kruskal–Wallis test: K = 2.999;
df = 3; p [ 0.05) and wetland-associated species (Krus-
kal–Wallis test: K = 2.574; df = 3; p [ 0.05) showed no
significant seasonal variation (Fig. 4b).
Local abundance of birds revealed that 23 species
(18.254%) were very common, 31 species (24.603%) were
common, 33 species (26.190%) were fairly common and 39
species (30.952%) were rare at OBS. Among the avian
species observed during this study, Common Pochard
(Aythya ferina) and Bristled Grassbird (Chaetornis striata)
falls under vulnerable, as well as, Ferruginous Pochard
(Aythya nyroca), River Lapwing (Vanellus duvaucelii),
River Tern (Sterna aurantia), Black Tailed Godwit (Li-
mosa limosa) and Eurasian Curlew (Numenius arquata)
falls in the near threatened category of IUCN (del Hoyo
et al. 2014). On the other hand, two critically endangered
species (viz. white-rumped vulture Gyps bengalensis and
Indian vulture Gyps indicus), nine vulnerable species (viz.
Dalmatian pelican Pelecanus crispus, Baikal teal Anas
formosa, Baer’s pochard Aythya baeri, sarus crane Grus
antigone, sociable lapwing Vanellus gregarius, Indian
skimmer Rynchops albicollis, Pallas’s fishing eagle Hali-
aeetus leucoryphus, lesser adjutant stork Leptoptilos
javanicus, and Finn’s Weaver Ploceus megarhynchus), and
two near threatened species (viz. black-bellied tern Sterna
Proc Zool Soc

Table 1 The bird species observed in Okhla bird sanctuary, Northern T terrestrial birds; Local status: Vc very common, Co common, Fc
Capital Region, India, along with their respective taxonomic positions fairly common, Ra rare; IUCN status: LC least concern, VU
(order, family), dispersal status, habitat, IUCN and local status and vulnerable, NT near threatened; Global population trend: : increas-
global population trend [Dispersal status: R resident, M migratory; ing, ? stable, ; decreasing, ? unknown]
Habitat: W wetland-dependent birds, WA wetland-associated birds,
Sl. Common and scientific names Family Dispersal Habitat Local IUCN Global population
no. status status status trend

Order: Accipitriformes
1 Eurasian Marsh Harrier Circus aeruginosus Accipitridae M WA Fc LC :
(Linnaeus, 1758)
2 Black-shouldered Kite Elanus caeruleus Accipitridae R T Fc LC ?
(Desfontaines, 1789)
3 Shikra Accipiter badius (Gmelin, 1788) Accipitridae R T R LC ?
4 Oriental Honey Buzzard Pernis ptilorhynchus Accipitridae R T R LC ?
(Temminck, 1821)
5 Black Kite Milvus migrans govinda Sykes, 1832 Accipitridae R T Vc LC ?
Order: Anseriformes
6 Northern Shoveller Spatula clypeata (Linnaeus, Anatidae M W Co LC ;
1758)
7 Northern Pintail Anas acuta Linnaeus, 1758 Anatidae M W Co LC ;
8 Garganey Spatula querquedula (Linnaeus, 1758) Anatidae M W Co LC ;
9 Ruddy Shelduck Tadorna ferruginea (Pallas, 1764) Anatidae M W Fc LC ?
10 Gadwall Mareca strepera (Linnaeus, 1758) Anatidae M W Fc LC :
11 Tufted Duck Aythya fuligula (Linnaeus, 1758) Anatidae M W Fc LC ?
12 Lesser Whistling Duck Dendrocygna javanica Anatidae R W Fc LC ;
(Horsfield, 1821)
13 Eurasian Wigeon Mareca Penelope (Linnaeus, Anatidae M W Fc LC ;
1758)
14 Common Pochard Aythya farina (Linnaeus, 1758) Anatidae M W Fc VU ;
15 Bar-headed Goose Anser indicus (Latham, 1790) Anatidae M W R LC ;
16 Ferruginous Pochard Aythya nyroca (Güldenstädt, Anatidae M W R NT ;
1770)
17 Spotbill Anas poecilorhyncha Forster, 1781 Anatidae R W Vc LC ;
Order: Bucerotiformes
18 Common Hoopoe Upupa epops Linnaeus, 1758 Upupidae R T Co LC ;
Order: Caprimulgiformes
19 House Swift Apus nipalensis (Hodgson, 1836) Apodidae R T Fc LC :
Order: Charadriiformes
20 River Lapwing Vanellus duvaucelii (Lesson, 1826) Charadriidae R WA R NT ;
21 Red-wattled Lapwing Vanellus indicus (Boddaert, Charadriidae R WA Vc LC ?
1783)
22 Bronze winged Jacana Metopidius indicus (Latham, Jacanidae R W R LC ?
1790)
23 Pheasant-tailed Jacana Hydrophasianus chirurgus Jacanidae R W R LC ;
(Scopoli, 1786)
24 Brown-headed Gull Larus brunnicephalus Jerdon, Laridae M W Co LC ?
1840
25 Gull-billed Tern Gelochelidon nilotica (Gmelin, Laridae M W Co LC ;
1789)
26 River Tern Sterna aurantia Gray, 1831 Laridae R W Co NT ;
27 Black-headed Gull Larus ridibundus Linnaeus, Laridae M W Fc LC ?
1766
28 Common Tern Sterna hirundo Linnaeus, 1758 Laridae M W Fc LC ?

123
 Proc Zool Soc

Table 1 continued
Sl. Common and scientific names Family Dispersal Habitat Local IUCN Global
no. status status status population trend

29 Whiskered Tern Chlidonias hybridus (Pallas, Laridae M W R LC ?

1811)
30 Black-winged Stilt Himantopus himantopus Recurvirostridae R W Co LC :
(Linnaeus, 1758)
31 Common Red Shank Tringa tetanus (Linnaeus, Scolopacidae M W Fc LC ?
1758)
32 Common Sandpiper Actitis hypoleucos Linnaeus, Scolopacidae M W Fc LC ;
1758
33 Black-tailed Godwit Limosa limosa (Linnaeus, Scolopacidae M W Fc NT ;
1758)
34 Pintail Snipe Gallinago stenura (Bonaparte, 1830) Scolopacidae M W R LC ?
35 Wood Sandpiper Tringa glareola Linnaeus, 1758 Scolopacidae M W R LC ?
36 Ruff Calidris pugnax (Linnaeus, 1758) Scolopacidae M W R LC ;
37 Eurasian Curlew Numenius arquata (Linnaeus, Scolopacidae M W R NT ;
1758)
38 Common Snipe Gallinago gallinago (Linnaeus, Scolopacidae M WA R LC ;
1758)
Order: Ciconiiformes
39 Painted Stork Mycteria leucocephala (Pennant, Ciconiidae R WA Co NT ;
1769)
40 Asian Openbill Anastomus oscitans (Boddaert, Ciconiidae R WA R LC ?
1783)
41 Black Stork Ciconia nigra (Linnaeus, 1758) Ciconiidae M WA R LC ?
Order: Columbiformes
42 Rufous-turtled Dove Streptopelia orientalis Columbidae M T Co LC ?
(Latham, 1790)
43 Laughing Dove Spilopelia senegalensis (Linnaeus, Columbidae R T Co LC ?
1766)
44 Yellow-footed Green Pigeon Treron Columbidae R T Fc LC :
phoenicopterus (Latham, 1790)
45 Spotted Dove Spilopelia suratensis (Gmelin, 1789) Columbidae R T R LC :
46 Rock Pigeon Columba livia Gmelin, 1789 Columbidae R T R LC ;
47 Eurasian Collared Dove Streptopelia decaocto Columbidae R T Vc LC :
Frivaldszky, 1838
Order: Coraciiformes
48 Pied Kingfisher Ceryle rudis (Linnaeus, 1758) Alcedinidae R WA R LC ?
49 Common Kingfisher Alcedo atthis (Linnaeus, Alcedinidae R WA R LC ?
1758)
50 Stork-billed Kingfisher Pelargopsis capensis Alcedinidae R WA R LC ;
(Linnaeus, 1766)
51 White-throated Kingfisher Halcyon smyrnensis Alcedinidae R T Vc LC :
(Linnaeus, 1758)
52 Blue Tailed Bee-eater Merops philippinus Meropidae R WA R LC ?
Linnaeus, 1766
53 Small Green Bee-eater Merops orientalis Latham, Meropidae R T Vc LC :
1802
Order: Cuculiformes
54 Greater Coucal Centropus sinensis (Stephens, Cuculidae R T Co LC ?
1815)
55 Asian Koel Eudynamys scolopaceus (Linnaeus, Cuculidae R T Fc LC ?
1758)

123
Proc Zool Soc

Table 1 continued
Sl. Common and scientific names Family Dispersal Habitat Local IUCN Global
no. status status status population trend

Order: Galliformes
56 Gray Francolin Francolinus pondicerianus Phasianidae R T Co LC ?
(Gmelin, 1789)
57 Indian Peafowl Pavo cristatus Linnaeus, 1758 Phasianidae R T Fc LC ?
Order: Gruiformes
58 White Breasted Waterhen Amaurornis phoenicurus Rallidae R WA Co LC ?
(Pennant, 1769)
59 Common Coot Fulica atra Linnaeus, 1758 Rallidae R W Co LC :
60 Bailon’s Crake Zapornia pusilla (Pallas, 1776) Rallidae M WA R LC ?
61 Purple Swamphen Porphyrio porphyrio (Linnaeus, Rallidae R W Vc LC ?
1758)
62 Common Moorhen Gallinula chloropus (Linnaeus, Rallidae R W Vc LC ?
1758)
Order: Passeriformes
63 Unidentified Warbler Acrocephalus spp. Acrocephalidae M WA Fc – –
64 Common Tailorbird Orthotomus sutorius (Pennant, Cisticolidae R T Co LC ?
1769)
65 Yellow-bellied Prinia Prinia flaviventris Cisticolidae R WA Co LC ;
(Delessert, 1840)
66 Plain Prinia Prinia inornata Sykes, 1832 Cisticolidae R WA Fc LC ?
67 Ashy Prinia Prinia socialis Sykes, 1832 Cisticolidae R WA Vc LC ?
68 Rufous Treepie Dendrocitta vagabunda (Latham, Corvidae R T R LC ?
1790)
69 House Crow Corvus splendens Vieillot, 1817 Corvidae R T Vc LC ?
70 Thick-billed Flowerpecker Dicaeum agile (Tickell, Dicaeidae R T R LC ?
1833)
71 Bronze Drongo Dicrurus aeneus Vieillot, 1817 Dicruridae R T R LC ?
72 Black Drongo Dicrurus macrocercus Vieillot, Dicruridae R T Vc LC ?
1817
73 Indian Silver Bill Euodice malabarica (Linnaeus, Estrildidae R T Co LC ?
1758)
74 Red Avadavat Amandava amandava (Linnaeus, Estrildidae R WA Fc LC ?
1758)
75 Black-headed Munia Lonchura Malacca Estrildidae R WA Fc LC ?
(Linnaeus, 1766)
76 Barn Swallow Hirundo rustica Linnaeus, 1758 Hirundinidae M WA Vc LC ;
77 Long-tailed Shrike Lanius schach Linnaeus, 1758 Laniidae R T Fc LC ?
78 Grey-backed Shrike Lanius tephronotus (Vigors, Laniidae M T Fc LC ?
1831)
79 Bay-backed Shrike Lanius vittatus Valenciennes, Laniidae R T Fc LC ?
1826
80 Brown Shrike Lanius cristatus Linnaeus, 1758 Laniidae M T Fc LC ;
81 Common Babbler Argya caudate (Dumont, 1823) Leiotrichidae R T Co LC ?
82 Jungle Babbler Turdoides striata (Dumont, 1823) Leiotrichidae R T Fc LC ?
83 Striated Babbler Argya earlei (Blyth, 1844) Leiotrichidae R WA R LC ;
84 Bristled Grassbird Chaetornis striata (Jerdon, Locustellidae R WA R VU ;
1841)
85 Grey Wagtail Motacilla cinerea Tunstall, 1771 Motacillidae M WA Fc LC ?
86 Yellow Wagtail Motacilla flava Linnaeus, 1758 Motacillidae M W Fc LC ;
87 Citrine Wagtail Motacilla citreola Pallas, 1776 Motacillidae M W R LC :
88 Paddyfield Pipit Anthus rufulus Vieillot, 1818 Motacillidae R T R LC ?

123
 Proc Zool Soc

Table 1 continued
Sl. Common and scientific names Family Dispersal Habitat Local IUCN Global
no. status status status population trend

89 Indian Robin Saxicoloides fulicatus (Linnaeus, Muscicapidae R T Co LC ?

1766)
90 Oriental Magpie Robin Copsychus saularis Muscicapidae R T Fc LC ?
(Linnaeus, 1758)
91 Brown Rock-chat Oenanthe fusca (Blyth, 1851) Muscicapidae R T Fc LC ?
92 Bluethroat Cyanecula svecica (Linnaeus, 1758) Muscicapidae M WA R LC ?
93 Pied Bushchat Saxicola caprata (Linnaeus, 1766) Muscicapidae R T Vc LC ?
94 Purple Sunbird Cinnyris asiaticus (Latham, 1790) Nectariniidae R T Vc LC ?
95 House Sparrow Passer domesticus (Linnaeus, Passeridae R T Co LC ;
1758)
96 Sind Sparrow Passer pyrrhonotus Blyth, 1844 Passeridae R WA R LC ?
97 Spanish Sparrow Passer hispaniolensis Passeridae M T R LC ;
(Temminck, 1820)
98 Hume’s Warbler Phylloscopus humei (Brooks, Phylloscopidae M T R LC ?
1878)
99 Baya Weaver Bird Ploceus philippinus (Linnaeus, Ploceidae R T Co LC ?
1766)
100 Red-whiskered Bulbul Pycnonotus jocosus Pycnonotidae R T R LC ;
(Linnaeus, 1758)
101 Red-vented Bulbul Pycnonotus cafer (Linnaeus, Pycnonotidae R T Vc LC :
1766)
102 Common Myna Acridotheres tristis (Linnaeus, Sturnidae R T Co LC :
1766)
103 Jungle Myna Acridotheres fuscus (Wagler, 1827) Sturnidae R T R LC ;
104 Pied Myna Gracupica contra (Linnaeus, 1758) Sturnidae R T Vc LC :
105 Bank Myna Acridotheres ginginianus (Latham, Sturnidae R T Vc LC :
1790)
106 Yellow-eyed Babbler Chrysomma sinense Sylviidae R T Fc LC ?
(Gmelin, 1789)
107 Lesser Whitethroat Sylvia curruca (Linnaeus, Sylviidae M T R LC ?
1758)
Order: Pelecaniformes
108 Grey Heron Ardea cinerea Linnaeus, 1758 Ardeidae R W Co LC ?
109 Great Egret Ardea alba Linnaeus, 1758 Ardeidae R WA Co LC ?
110 Intermediate Egret Ardea intermedia Wagler, Ardeidae R W Co LC ;
1829
111 Little Egret Egretta garzetta (Linnaeus, 1766) Ardeidae R W Fc LC :
112 Black-crowned Night Heron Nycticorax Ardeidae R WA R LC ;
nycticorax (Linnaeus, 1758)
113 Indian Pond Heron Ardeola grayii (Sykes, 1832) Ardeidae R WA Vc LC ?
114 Cattle Egret Bubulcus ibis (Linnaeus, 1758) Ardeidae R WA Vc LC :
115 Purple Heron Ardea purpurea Linnaeus, 1766 Ardeidae R WA Vc LC ;
116 Black-headed Ibis Threskiornis melanocephalus Threskiornithidae R WA Co NT ;
(Latham, 1790)
117 Eurasian Spoonbill Platalea leucorodia Linnaeus, Threskiornithidae R W R LC ?
1758
Order: Phoenicopteriformes
118 Greater Flamingo Phoenicopterus roseus Pallas, Phoenicopteridae M W Co LC :
1811
Order: Piciformes
119 Coppersmith Barbet Psilopogon haemacephalus Megalaimidae R T Co LC :
(Müller, 1776)

123
Proc Zool Soc

Table 1 continued
Sl. Common and scientific names Family Dispersal Habitat Local IUCN Global population
no. status status status trend

120 Eurasian Wryneck Jynx torquilla Linnaeus, Picidae M T R LC ;

1758
Order: Podicipediformes
121 Little Grebe Tachybaptus ruficollis (Pallas, Podicipedidae R W Vc LC ;
1764)
Order: Psittaciformes
122 Rose-ringed Parakeet Psittacula krameri Psittacidae R T Vc LC :
(Scopoli, 1769)
Order: Suliformes
123 Darter Anhinga melanogaster Pennant, 1769 Anhingidae R W Co NT ;
124 Indian Cormorant Phalacrocorax fuscicollis Phalacrocoracidae R W Co LC ?
Stephens, 1826
125 Little Cormorant Microcarbo niger (Vieillot, Phalacrocoracidae R W Vc LC ?
1817)
126 Great Cormorant Phalacrocorax carbo Phalacrocoracidae R W Vc LC :
(Linnaeus, 1758)

acuticauda and grey-headed fish eagle Ichthyophaga
ichthyaetus) reported earlier from OBS (Urfi 2003), were
not seen during the present study. When this local abun-
dance of avian species in OBS was compared with its
global population trend (del Hoyo et al. 2014), it was found
that some of the species having a globally declining trend
were very common in OBS during the present study
(Fig. 5).
Discussion
Okhla is one of the most important wetlands within the
boundary of the National Capital Region (Singh 1983; Urfi
1993a, b, 1995) and serve as refuge for 29.4% of the total
avifaunal species recorded from Delhi (Anon 2004). More
than two third of the avian species found in OBS are either
dependent or associated with wetlands (34.13% wetland-
associated and 41.27% wetland-dependent), which thrive in
the open water and marshlands of this riverine floodplain.
Besides, 24.6% of terrestrial species are also recorded from
the study area, which inhabit the reed beds and bushes,
shrubs and trees of adjoining roads and bunds. Ardeidae
and Anatidae to be the two most diverse avian family in
OBS as also evident from other studies in wetland habitats
(Vijayan et al. 2006; Vyas et al. 2009; Zakaria et al. 2009;
Zakaria and Rajpar 2010; Ali et al. 2011; Datta 2011;
Zhang et al. 2012; Dal and Vaghela 2015; Lad and Patil
2015; Chowdhury 2015; Tulasi et al. 2016; Ghosh 2016).
The overall capacity of any wetland complex to support
bird populations may be increased when the landscape
comprises habitat patches in close proximity (Dunning
et al. 1992). The sanctuary had extensive reed beds,
shallow vegetated areas, and open deep waters. Relative
availability of habitats for different activities has a major
influence on the number and species richness of wintering
populations (Dunning et al. 1992; Andrikovics et al. 2006).
Vegetations in and around the river and shallow water body
provide food and shelter to birds. According to Manral and
Khudsar (2013), submerged plant species (viz. H. verti-
cillata and P. crispus) and free floating species (viz. L.
minor and A. pinnata) provide food to herbivore waterfowl,
as well as, tall vegetation (like Phragmites carca and
Typha angustifolia) provide shelter to many avian species
(viz. Anser indicus, Tadorna ferruginea, Ardea purpurea,
Pseudibis papillosa, Mycteria leucocephala etc.). Several
ducks, geese and swans and some resident aquatic birds are
known to forage on various plant materials like root, shoot,
foliage, fruits and seeds produced by the emergent, sub-
merged and floating plants in the wetlands (Ali and Ripley
1987; Rahmani and Islam 2008; Jha 2010). Therefore,
mosaic pattern of habitats within the wetland is possibly
one of the major features for high species richness of OBS.
This wetland serves as an important wintering ground
for the migratory waterfowls. In winter season, the birds
were noticed to be uniformly distributed as water was
available in most of the areas of OBS. Presence of highest
number migratory species in January also results in the
maximum overall species richness of avifauna in this
wetland. Migratory trend observed during this yearlong
study corroborates with other studies on migratory water
birds carried out in other parts of this country (Mazumdar
et al. 2005; 2007; 2008). With the onset of migratory
season, the barrage is closed to increase the water level. As
a result, the open water areas increase to accord large
number of migratory ducks. Migratory birds start appearing

123
 Proc Zool Soc

Table 2 Relative diversity (RDi) of various avian families in Okhla 90

bird sanctuary, India 80

70
Avian families Overall number of species Rdi value ± SE
60

Species richness
Accipitridae 5 1.39 ± 0.22 50
Acrocephalidae 1 0.20 ± 0.10 40
Alcedinidae 4 0.93 ± 0.21 30

Anatidae 12 3.84 ± 0.77 20

Anhingidae 1 0.40 ± 0.12 10

Apodidae 1 0.20 ± 0.10 0

Ardeidae 8 4.30 ± 0.25
Charadriidae 2 0.86 ± 0.07
Ciconiidae 3 0.60 ± 0.17
Cisticolidae 4 1.92 ± 0.25
Columbidae 6 2.12 ± 0.18
Corvidae 2 0.07 ± 0.07
Cuculidae 2 0.86 ± 0.18
Dicaeidae 1 0.07 ± 0.07
Dicruridae 2 0.79 ± 0.10
Estrildidae 3 0.99 ± 0.14
Hirundinidae 1 0.79 ± 0.00
Jacanidae 2 0.26 ± 0.15
Laniidae 4 0.93 ± 0.24
Laridae 6 2.12 ± 0.38
Leiotrichidae 3 0.73 ± 0.21
Locustellidae 1 0.07 ± 0.07
Megalaimidae 1 0.40 ± 0.12
Meropidae 2 0.86 ± 0.07
Motacillidae 4 0.86 ± 0.32
Muscicapidae 5 1.65 ± 0.25
Nectariniidae 1 0.73 ± 0.07
Passeridae 3 0.66 ± 0.19
Phalacrocoracidae 3 1.85 ± 0.15
Phasianidae 2 0.66 ± 0.16
Phoenicopteridae 1 0.40 ± 0.12
Phylloscopidae 1 0.07 ± 0.07
Picidae 1 0.07 ± 0.07
Ploceidae 1 0.40 ± 0.12
Podicipedidae 1 0.79 ± 0.00
Psittacidae 1 0.79 ± 0.00
Pycnonotidae 2 0.86 ± 0.07
Rallidae 5 2.25 ± 0.24
Recurvirostridae 1 0.60 ± 0.10
Scolopacidae 8 0.99 ± 0.50
Sturnidae 4 2.18 ± 0.14
Sylviidae 2 0.26 ± 0.11
Threskiornithidae 2 0.60 ± 0.10
Upupidae 1 0.60 ± 0.10
to OBS from September, gradually increase from October,
reach peak in the month of January, then start declining and
leave the wetland by May flying back to their breeding
Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun
Fig. 2 Species richness of avifauna in OBS, India
grounds. Subsequently, with arrival of many migratory
waterfowls, the richness of wetland-dependent species
significantly varied seasonally; increased from post mon-
soon, reached peak in winter, then again declined in sum-
mer and was least in monsoon. However, few migratory
species (3–5 species) were observed here throughout the
year. OBS is located in the Central Asian Flyway of
migratory birds (Manral and Khudsar 2013), hence some
migratory species possibly use this wetland as a stopover
site during their onward and return from wintering grounds
located further south in this country. On the other hand,
most of the areas of OBS had dried up during summer and
the water was present in patches, resulting in more or less a
clumped distribution of the species. In July, except four, all
other migratory species left this wetland. Herons, storks
and egrets are also reported to leave OBS in search of
nesting sites with the advent of monsoon (Urfi 1996, 1997).
Therefore, least overall richness of avifauna was recorded
in the month of July.
In addition to the migratory birds, this wetland also
serve as an important habitat for the resident birds (both
aquatic and terrestrial). Species richness of wetland-asso-
ciated and terrestrial birds did not significantly vary in
different seasons, which indicate that they are dependent on
this wetland in all seasons to survive. Therefore, proper
management of the water regime and habitat heterogeneity
of this riverine floodplain is very important from the con-
servation perspective of the entire avian community.
I recorded two vulnerable and five near threatened
species of birds from OBS during my study, but 13 other
red-listed species reported in an earlier study by Urfi
(2003) were not seen during my surveys. I presume fol-
lowing reasons behind not recording these threatened
species during my study: (1) it is to be noted that areas
along the right marginal bund could not be thoroughly
monitored during present survey, but was intensively
studied by Urfi (2003). So, optimistically I assume that
some of those species might still be present in those areas
of OBS and missed during my surveys; (2) Urfi (2003)
recorded birds of OBS for 13 years (during 1989–2002)

123
Proc Zool Soc

Fig. 3 a Proportion and

b seasonal species richness of
resident and migratory avian
40 species; 31.75%
species in OBS, India

Resident
Migratory

86 species; 68.25%

(a)
Resident Migratory

60

50

40
Number of species

30

20

10

0
Monsoon Post-monsoon Winter Summer
Seasons

(b)

which is much longer than my yearlong survey. Longer
study period allowed him to record higher number of birds
along with those threatened species; (3) the list of birds
reported by Urfi (2003) contained several other older
published and unpublished records (Hutson 1954; Ganguli
1975; Harris 2001; Vyas 1996, 2002); and (4) the most
awful alarming presumption is that some of these threat-
ened species possibly used to visit this wetland earlier, but
had stopped visiting this wetland due to several anthro-
pogenic threats. More intensive and long-term studies are
necessary to comment on the present status of these
threatened birds in this wetland. Interestingly, I had found
four species with globally declining population trend (viz.
Spotbill Anas poecilorhyncha, Barn Swallow Hirundo
rustica, Purple Heron Ardea purpurea and Little Grebe
Tachybaptus ruficollis) to be very common in OBS, which
indicate that favourable resources for these birds were
available in OBS when this study was carried out. So, from
global bird conservation perspective, these species need to
be prioritized for regular monitoring and conservation
initiatives along with other threatened taxa present in this
wetland.
The course of the river Yamuna in Delhi is facing
anthropogenic pressure leading to deteriorating water
quality and changing water regime (Rawat et al. 2003;
Aleem and Malik 2005; Sengupta 2006; Trisal et al. 2008).
A large area of Yamuna floodplains in Delhi has been lost
due to various development activities and the remaining

123
 Proc Zool Soc

Fig. 4 a Proportion and

b seasonal occurrence of
terrestrial, wetland-dependent
and wetland-associated species 43 species, 34.13%
in OBS, India
52 species, 41.27%

Wetland-dependent
Wetland-associated
Terrestrial

31 species, 24.60%

(a)

Terrestrial Wetland-dependent Wetland-associated

35

30

25
Number of species

20

15

10

0
Post-monsoon Winter Summer Monsoon
Seasons

(b)

Very Common (Vc) Common (Co) Fairly Common (Fc) Rare (R)
areas of these floodplains are also under severe anthro-
18
16
pogenic pressure (Manral et al. 2012). Such excessive
16 15
anthropogenic pressure on the riparian habitat and high
14
load of pollutants make this stretch of Yamuna one of the
Number of Species

12 12
12
9 9
10 most threatened riverine habitats of the world (Kumar
10
8 7
2001). Besides, the two most frequent and abundant tree
6 6
6 5 5 species (L. leucocephala and P. juliflora) are exotic to the
4 4 4
4 area (Manral et al. 2013). Such polluted water and exotic
2
2 vegetation of the adjoining area can adversely influence the
0 avian diversity of this ‘important bird area’. Manral et al.
? (2013) suggested plantation of indigenous plant species
Global Populaon Trend
like Ficus spp., Morus alba, Acacia nilotica, Zizyphus spp.
Fig. 5 Comparison of local abundance of an avian species in OBS, etc. in the adjoining area of OBS. Excessive growth of
India with its global population trend vegetation and reduced area of open water was noticed

123
Proc Zool Soc
during summer, possibly due to high pollutant load and
reduced volume of water in summer months. In agreement
to this observation, Manral et al. (2012) also opined that
water pollution is one of the major threats which affect the
integrity of this sanctuary in summer. They observed that
reduced flow, narrowing of floodplains due to restricted
river channel, heavy load of silt and organic wastes (par-
ticularly through untreated or partially treated wastewater,
night soil from unauthorized colonies and religious offer-
ings) led to a cascade of harmful effects, which not only
degrade the immediate water regime of the sanctuary, but
also result in broader watershed pollution along the Delhi
stretch (Manral et al. 2012). Moreover, if Okhla barrage is
closed to retain water in the bird sanctuary, then such
greater retention time of water allows sediments (of or-
ganic matter) to settle. As evidence to this, water sample
collected from OBS shows higher annual average of bio-
logical oxygen demand (BOD) and chemical oxygen
demand (COD) and lower dissolved oxygen (DO) levels
than Agra canal which is situated upstream to OBS (Sen-
gupta 2006). Encroachment and overharvesting of Typha
spp. and other wetland vegetations for commercial use are
other problems of this wetland (Mazumdar 2005). These
aquatic plants directly or indirectly provide food, shelter
and breeding sites to animals (Dvořaki and Best 1982),
support livelihood subsistence to humans living in the
nearby areas (Banerjee et al. 2012; Irfanullah 2002; Ghosh
2005). In spite of being designated as a ‘protected area’,
any of the provisions of WPA was hardly practised during
this study period. Nevertheless, presently the situation has
changed and the wetland is now better protected and the
provisions are strictly enforced.
Rich avian diversity of OBS warrants for long-term
monitoring of population size of different avian species to
understand possible effects of various anthropogenic
threats. Besides, in-depth studies on the resource utilization
by avifauna in OBS are necessary to assess the importance
of this wetland to the resident and migratory species, and
also to prepare suitable conservation plans for this pro-
tected area. Mosaic patterns of habitats sustain rich avian
diversity in OBS (Manral et al. 2013), which need to be
included in the management plans of this important bird
habitat. Reduction of pollution load of water, controlling
exotic plants and weed infestation, maintaining habitat
heterogeneity and proper water level are crucial to maintain
the ecological integrity and conserve overall biodiversity,
as well as, sustaining the avifauna of this site. Awareness
generation and community participation can be other fea-
sible conservation measures. Proper management of OBS
is imperative to support and increase the overall avian
diversity of the entire region.
Acknowledgements My friends Kaushik and Niladri accompanied
me in some of the field visits at the OBS, and my wife Bidisa helped
me in preparation of this manuscript. I sincerely thank Prof. Goutam
Kumar Saha of C.U. and Dr. Dipankar Ghose of WWF-India for their
valuable suggestions and guidance. Thanks are due to all the members
of the Delhi Bird Group who had been instrumental for the protection
of the birds in general and this paradise of birds in particular.
Encouragement and support extended by the Wildlife Trust of India,
New Delhi (my employer when this survey was conducted) and
Principal, Shibpur Dinobundhoo Institution (College) (my present
employer) are gratefully acknowledged. I also thank two anonymous
reviewers whose constructive comments have helped me in improving
this paper.
Funding This research did not receive any specific grant from
funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
References
Addinsoft. 2010. XLSTAT, data analysis and statistics software for
Microsoft Excel [Internet]. Paris: Addinsoft Corporation.
http://www.xlstat.com.
Aleem, A., and A. Malik. 2005. Genotoxicity of the Yamuna river
water at Okhla (Delhi), India. Ecotoxicology and Environmental
Safety 61(3): 404–412.
Ali, S., and S.D. Ripley. 1987. Compact handbook of birds of India
and Pakistan together with those of Bangladesh, Nepal, Bhutan,
and Srilanka. Delhi: Oxford University Press.
Ali, Z., F. Bibi, S.Y. Shelly, A. Qazi, and A.M. Khan. 2011.
Comparative avian faunal diversity of Jiwani Coastal Wetlands
and Taunsa barrage Wildlife Sanctuary, Pakistan. The Journal of
Animal and Plant Sciences 21(2 Suppl.): 381–387.
Andrikovics, S., L. Forró, G. Gere, G. Lakatos, and L. Sasvári.
2006. Water bird guilds and their feeding connections in the
Bodrogzug, Hungary. Hydrobiologia 567(1): 31–42.
Anon, 2004. Checklist of the birds of the Delhi region—2004 update.
Delhi: Delhibird and the Northern India Bird Network.
Banerjee, S., D. Kar, A. Banerjee, and D. Palit. 2012. Utilization of
some aquatic macrophytes in Borobandh-a lentic water body in
Durgapur, West Bengal, India: Implications for socio-economic
upliftment of local stakeholder. Indian Journal of Applied and
Pure Biology 27(1): 83–92.
Baral, H.S., and C. Inskipp. 2005. Important bird areas in Nepal: Key
sites for conservation. Kathmandu, Nepal and Cambridge, UK:
Bird Conservation Nepal and BirdLife International.
Bradford, D.F., S.E. Franson, A.C. Neale, D.T. Heggem, G.R. Miller,
and G.E. Canterbury. 1998. Bird species assemblages as
indicators of biological integrity in Great Basin rangeland.
Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 49(1): 1–22.
Browder, S.F., D.H. Johnson, and I.J. Ball. 2002. Assemblages of
breeding birds as indicators of grassland condition. Ecological
Indicators 2(3): 257–270.
Buckton, S. 2007. Managing wetlands for sustainable livelihoods at
Koshi Tappu. Danphe 16(1): 12–13.
Chowdhury, S. 2015. A study on avifaunal species diversity of
Purbasthali Oxbow Lake, West Bengal, India. International
Journal of Science and Research 6(3): 866–871.
Connor, K.J., and S. Gabor. 2006. Breeding waterbird wetland habitat
availability and response to water-level management in Saint
John River floodplain wetlands, New Brunswick. Hydrobiologia
567: 169–181.
123

Dal, P., and A.K. Vaghela. 2015. Preliminary survey of avifaunal
diversity around Shetrunji River, Dhari, India. Journal of
Biology and Earth Sciences 5(1): 19–24.
Datta, T. 2011. Human interference and avifaunal diversity of two
wetlands of Jalpaiguri, West Bengal, India. Journal of Threat-
ened Taxa 3(12): 2253–2262.
Deepa, R.S., and T.V. Ramachandra. 1999. Impact of urbanization in
the interconnectivity of wetlands. In: Proceedings of National
Symposium on Remote Sensing Applications for Natural
Resource: Retrospective and Perspective (XIX-XXI, 1999). Ban-
galore: Indian Society of Remote Sensing.
del Hoyo, J., N.J. Collar, D.A. Christie, A. Elliott, and L.D.C.
Fishpool. 2014. HBW and BirdLife International Illustrated
Checklist of the Birds of the World. Barcelona, Spain and
Cambridge, UK: Lynx Edicions and BirdLife International.
Dunning, J.B., B.J. Danielson, and H.R. Pulliam. 1992. Ecological
processes that affect populations in complex landscapes. Oikos
65: 169–175.
Dvořaki, J., and E.P. Best. 1982. Macro-invertebrate communities
associated with the macrophytes of Lake Vechten: Structural and
functional relationships. Hydrobiologia 95(1): 115–126.
Fowler, J., and L. Cohen. 1986. Statistics for ornithologists (BTO
Guide No. 22). Hertfordshire: British Trust for Ornithology.
Ganguli, U. 1975. A guide to the birds of the Delhi area. New Delhi:
Indian Council of Agricultural Research.
Ghosh, K. 2016. Avian diversity and species richness in Khanyan and
adjoining areas of Hooghly District, West Bengal. International
Journal of Fauna and Biological Studies 3(3): 119–126.
Ghosh, S.K. 2005. Illustrated aquatic and wetland plants in harmony
with mankind. India: Standard Literature.
Gopal, B., and M. Sah. 1993. Conservation and management of rivers
in India: case-study of the river Yamuna. Environmental
Conservation 20(3): 243–254.
Gopisundar, K.G., and S. Kittur. 2013. Can wetlands maintained for
human use also help conserve biodiversity? Landscape-scale
patterns of bird use of wetlands in an agricultural landscape in
north India. Biological Conservation 168: 49–56.
Grimmett, R., C. Inskipp, and T. Inskipp. 1998. Birds of the Indian
Subcontinent. London: Christopher Helm.
Harris, C. 2001. Checklist of the birds of Yamuna river (Okhla to
Jaitpur village). http://www.delhibird.org/checklists/checklists_
yamuna.htm.
Hutson, H.P.W. 1954. The birds about Delhi. Delhi: Delhi Bird-
watching Society.
Irfanullah, H.M. 2002. Studies on aquatic vascular plants in
Bangladesh: An appraisal. Bangladesh Journal of Plant Taxon-
omy 9(1): 85–116.
Jha, K.K. 2010. Food plants, weeds and other management aspects of
some protected biodiversity rich wetlands in Uttar Pradesh. In
Proceedings of National Conference on Biodiversity, Develop-
ment and Poverty Alleviation (22nd May, 2010), 79–85.
Lucknow: UP State Biodiversity Board. http://www.upsbdb.org/
pdf/Souvenir2010/15.pdf
Kadlec, R.H., and R.L. Knight. 1996. Treatment wetlands. Boca
Raton: CRC Press Inc.
Kafle, G., M. Cotton, J.R. Chaudhary, H. Pariyar, H. Adhikari, S.B.
Bohora, U.K. Chaudhary, A. Ram, and B. Regmi. 2008. Status of
and threats to waterbirds of Rupa Lake, Pokhara, Nepal. Journal
of Wetlands Ecology 1(1): 9–12.
Kattan, G.H., and P. Franco. 2004. Bird diversity along elevation
gradients in the Andes of Colombia: Area and mass effects.
Global Ecology and Biogeography 13: 451–458.
Khan, S.I., and H. Naher. 2009. Birds in Kurigram district of
Bangladesh. Journal of Threatened Taxa 1(4): 245–250.
Kloskowski, J., A.J. Green, M. Polak, J. Bustamante, and J. Krogulec.
2009. Complementary use of natural and artificial wetlands by
123
Proc Zool Soc
waterbirds wintering in Doñana, south-west Spain. Aquatic
Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 19(7):
815–826.
Knight, R.L., R.A. Clarke, and R.K. Bastian. 2001. Surface flow (SF)
treatment wetlands as habitat for wildlife and humans. Water
Science and Technology 44(11): 27–37.
Krishen, P. 2006. Trees of Delhi: A field guide. New Delhi: Penguin
Books.
Kumar, A., P.C. Tak, and J.P. Sati. 2006. Residential, population and
conservation status of Indian wetland birds. In Waterbirds
around the world, ed. G.C. Boere, C.A. Galbraith, and D.A.
Stroud, 308. The Stationery Office: Edinburgh.
Kumar, P. 2001. Cost of wetland conversion: A case study of
floodplain wetland ecosystems along the Yamuna river corridors
of Delhi region. In Report of open meeting of the Global
Environmental Change Research Community, 6th–8th October
2001, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
Kumar, P., and S.K. Gupta. 2013. Status of wetland birds of
Chhilchhila Wildlife Sanctuary, Haryana, India. Journal of
Threatened Taxa 5(5): 3969–3976.
Lad, D., and S. Patil. 2015. Status and diversity of avian fauna in the
estuarine wetland area of Bhayander and Naigaon, Maharashtra,
India. Bioscience Discovery 6(1): 39–44.
Lee, P.F., T.S. Ding, F.H. Hsu, and S. Geng. 2004. Breeding bird
species richness in Taiwan: Distribution on gradients of eleva-
tion, primary productivity and urbanization. Journal of Biogeog-
raphy 31(2): 307–314.
Ma, Z., Y. Cai, B. Li, and J. Chen. 2010. Managing wetland habitats
for waterbirds: An international perspective. Wetlands 30:
15–27. doi:10.1007/s13157-009-0001-6.
Manral, U., A. Raha, R. Solanki, S.A. Hussain, D. Mohan, G.
Talukdar, and G.G. Veeraswami. 2012. Hydrological character-
istics and flood plain vegetation of human impacted wetlands: A
case study from Okhla bird sanctuary, National Capital Region,
India. Asian Journal of Conservation Biology 1(2): 110–119.
Manral, U., A. Raha, R. Solanki, S.A. Hussain, M.M. Babu, D.
Mohan, G.G. Veeraswami, K. Sivakumar, and G. Talukdar.
2013. Plant species of Okhla bird sanctuary: A wetland of Upper
Gangetic Plains, India. Check List 9(2): 263–274.
Manral, U., and F.A. Khudsar. 2013. Assessment of wetland water
quality and avian diversity of a human-modified floodplain
wetland on river Yamuna. Notulae Scientia Biologicae 5(1):
25–33.
Mazumdar, S. 2005. Crisis in a birds paradise. Panda: WWF
Newsletter, (September 2005): 3–4. http://assets.wwfindia.org/
downloads/september_newsletter.pdf
Mazumdar, S., K. Mookherjee, and G.K. Saha. 2007. Migratory
waterbirds of wetlands of southern West Bengal, India. Indian
Birds 3(2): 42–45.
Mazumdar, S., K. Mookherjee, and G.K. Saha. 2008. Diversity and
dominance of migratory waterbirds in six wetlands of southern
West Bengal, India. In Zoological research in human welfare,
ed. Z.S.I. Director, 161–166. Zooloical Survey of India: Kolkata.
Mazumdar, S., P. Ghosh, and G.K. Saha. 2005. Diversity and
behaviour of waterfowl in Santragachi Jheel, West Bengal, India,
during winter season. Indian Birds 1(3): 68–69.
Mitsch, W.J., and J.G. Gosselink. 2000. Wetlands. 3rd ed. New York:
Wiley.
Mukherjee, A., and K. Sharma. 2014. Community structure of plant
species in Okhla bird sanctuary, Delhi, India. International
Journal of Conservation Science 5(3): 397–408.
Praveen, J., R. Jayapal, and A. Pittie. 2016. Checklist of the birds of
India. Indian Birds 11(5–6): 113–172.
Rahmani, A.R., and M.Z. Islam. 2008. Ducks, Geese and Swans of
India: Their status and distribution, 374. New Delhi: Oxford
University Press.
Proc Zool Soc
Rawat, M., M.C.Z. Moturi, and V. Subramanian. 2003. Inventory
compilation and distribution of heavy metals in wastewater from
small-scale industrial areas of Delhi, India. Journal of Environ-
mental Monitoring 5(6): 906–912.
Sengupta, B. 2006. Water quality status of Yamuna river (1999–
2005), assessment and development of river basin series:
ADSORBS/41/2006–07. Delhi: Central Pollution Control Board.
http://www.cpcb.nic.in/newitems/11.pdf.
Singh, J.L. 1983. Birds in the Okhla barrage. Newsletter for
Birdwatchers 23: 18–19.
Stewart, R.E. Jr. 2001. Technical aspects of wetlands: Wetlands as
bird habitats. National water summery on wetland resources
(United States Geological Survey Water Supply Paper 2425).
https://water.usgs.gov/nwsum/WSP2425/birdhabitat.html.
Sutherland, W.J., I. Newton, and R.E. Green. 2005. Bird ecology and
conservation, a handbook of techniques. New York: Oxford
University Press.
Torre-Cuadros, M.D.L.A.L., S. Herrando-Perez, and K.R. Young.
2007. Diversity and structure patterns for tropical montane and
premontane forests of central Peru, with an assessment of the use
of higher-taxon surrogacy. Biodiversity and Conservation 16:
2965–2988.
Trisal, C., T. Tabassum, and R. Kumar. 2008. Water quality of the
river Yamuna in the Delhi stretch: Key determinants and
management issues. Clean—Soil, Air, Water 36(3): 306–314.
Tulasi, P.T., B.B. Lakshmi, P. Laxmikanth, and P. Srinivas. 2016.
Biodiversity conservation of Tatipudi reservior with reference to
avifauna. International Journal of Plant, Animal and Environ-
mental Sciences. 7(1): 45–55.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1999. Treatment
wetland habitat and wildlife use assessment, executive summary.
EPA 832-S-99-001. Gainesville, Florida: U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency.
Urfi, A.J. 1993a. The birdlife of Okhla. Sanctuary Asia 13(5): 50–53.
Urfi, A.J. 1993b. Heronries in the Delhi region of India. Oriental Bird
Club Bulletin 17: 19–21.
Urfi, A.J. 1995. Wetlands of ornithological significance in the Delhi
region. Oriental Bird Club Bulletin 22: 38–41.
Urfi, A.J. 1996. On some new breeding records of waterbirds from the
Delhi region. Journal of Bombay Natural History Society 93:
94–95.
Urfi, A.J. 1997. The significance of Delhi Zoo for wild waterbirds,
with special reference to Painted Stork Mycteria leucocephala.
Forktail 12: 87–98.
Urfi, A.J. 2003. The birds of Okhla barrage bird sanctuary, Delhi,
India. Forktail 19: 39–50.
Vijayan, L., S.N. Prasad, N. Sridharan, and M.B. Guptha. 2006. Status
of wetlands and wetland birds in selected districts of Tamilnadu.
Coimbatore: Sálim Ali Centre For Ornithology & Natural
History. http://www.sacon.in/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/FT-
2006-PR135s-STATUS-OF-WL-TN.pdf.
Vyas, S. 1996. Checklist of the birds of the Delhi region: An update.
Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society 93: 219–237.
Vyas, S. 2002. Some interesting bird records from the Delhi area.
Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society 99: 325–330.
Vyas, V., S. Saxena, S. Balapure, and P. Shrivastava. 2009
Biodiversity conservation in wetlands of Barna reservoir with
reference to migratory birds. In Proceedings of the 13th world
lake conference. Wuhan: International Lake Environment Com-
mittee. http://wldb.ilec.or.jp/data/ilec/WLC13_Papers/others/42.
pdf.
Weber, L.M., and S.M. Haig. 1996. Shorebird use of south Carolina
managed and natural coastal wetlands. Journal of Wildlife
Management 60: 73–82.
Zakaria, M., and M.N. Rajpar. 2010. Bird species composition and
feeding guilds based on point count and mist netting methods at
the Paya Indah Wetland Reserve, Peninsular Malaysia. Tropical
Life Sciences Research 21(2): 7–26.
Zakaria, M., M.N. Rajpar, and A.S. Sajap. 2009. Species diversity and
feeding guilds of birds in Paya Indah Wetland Reserve,
Peninsular Malaysia. International Journal of Zoological
Research 5(3): 86–100.
Zhang, Y., Y. Jia, S. Jiao, Q. Zeng, D. Feng, Y. Guo, and G. Lei.
2012. Wuliangsuhai wetlands: A critical habitat for migratory
water birds. Journal of Resource Ecology 3(4): 316–323.
123