Jalaplavit_Vol10_No3

Jalaplavit (ISSN 2331-1881), Vol. 10, No. 3, Oct.-Nov. 2020 Cox, G. W. (1999). Alien Species in ecosystems: external and internal nutrient sources and restoration North America and Hawaii: Impacts strategies. In: Restoration of Temperate Wetlands, pp. 73–90, on Natural Ecosystems. Island Press, B.D. Wheeler, S.C. Shaw, W.J. Fojt and R.A. Robertson (eds), John Wiley Washington, DC. & Sons, Chichester, UK. Currin, C. A., S.C. Wainright, K.W. Able, Le Maitre, D. C., Versfeld, D. B., and Chapman, R. A. 2000. The impact of M.P. Weinstein and C.M. Fuller (2003). invading alien plants on surface water resources in South Africa: a Determination of food web support and preliminary assessment. Water South Africa 26: 397–408. trophic position of the mummichog, Levine, J.M., M. Vila, C.M. Fundulus heteroclitus, in New Jersey D’Antonio, J.S. Dukes, K. Grigulis and S. Lavorel (2003). Mechanisms smooth cordgrass (Spartina underlying the impacts of exotic plant invasions. Proceedings of the alterniflora), common reed (Phragmites Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 270: 775–781. australis), and restored salt marshes. Lopez, R. D. and Fennessy, M. S. Estuaries, 26: 495–510 2002. Testing the floristic quality assessment index as an indicator of Ehrenfeld, J. G. (2003). Effects of exotic wetland condition. Ecol. Appl. 12: plant invasions on soil nutrient cycling 487–497. processes. Ecosystems, 6: 503–523. 51 Galatowitsch, S. M., N.O. Anderson and P.D. Ascher (1999). Invasiveness in wetland plants in temperate North America. Wetlands, 19: 733–755 Kercher, S. M. and J.B. Zedler (2004). Multiple disturbances accelerate invasion of reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea L.) in a mesocosm study. Oecologia, 138: 455–464. Koerselman, W. and J. Verhoeven (1995). Eutrophication of fen

Jalaplavit (ISSN 2331-1881), Vol. 10, No. 3, Oct.-Nov. 2020 Mitsch, W.J. and J.G. Gosselink Rooth, J., C. Stevenson and J.C. (2000). Wetlands, 3rd ed. John Cornwell (2003). Increased sediment Wiley, New York. accretion rates following invasion by Phragmites australis: the role of Otto, S., P.M. Groffman, S.E.G. Findlay litter. Estuaries, 26: 475–483. and A.E. Arreola (1999). Invasive plant species and microbial processes in a Sainty, G., G. McCorkelle, and M. tidal freshwater marsh. J. Environ. Julien (1998). Control and spread of Quality, 28: 1252–1257. alligator weed Alternanthera philoxeroides (Mart.) Giseb., in Pysek, P. and D.M. Richardson Australia: lessons for other regions. Wetlands Ecol. Manage., 5: 195–201. (2010). Invasive species, environmental change and management, and ecosystem health. Scheffer, M., S.R. Carpenter, J.A. Foley, C. Folke and B. Walker (2001). Annual Review of Environment and Catastrophic shifts in ecosystems. Nature, 413: 591–596. Resources, 35: 25–55. Ravit, B., J.G. Ehrenfeld and M.M. Sobrino, E., M. Sanz-Elorza, E.D. Haggblom (2003). A comparison of Dana and A. Gonzalez-Moreno sediment microbial communities (2002). Invasibility of a coastal strip associated with Phragmites australis and in NE Spain by alien plants. J. Spartina alterniflora in two brackish Vegetation Sci., 13: 585–594. wetlands of New Jersey. Estuaries, 26: 465–474 Richardson, D. M., P. Pysek, M. Soukup, A., O. Votrubova and H. Rejmanek, M.G.Barbour, F.D. Panetta and C.J. West (2000). Cizkova (2000). Internal Naturalization and invasion of alien plants: concepts and definitions. segmentation of rhizomes of Diversity Distributions, 6: 93–107 Phragmites australis: protection of the internal aeration system against being flooded. New Phytologist, 145: 52

Jalaplavit (ISSN 2331-1881), Vol. 10, No. 3, Oct.-Nov. 2020 71–75. Zedler, J. B. and S. Kercher (2004). Causes and consequences of invasive Werner, K. J. and J.B. Zedler (2002). plants in wetlands: opportunities, How sedge meadow soils, opportunists, and outcomes. Critical microtopography, and vegetation reviews in plant sciences, 23(5): 431- respond to sedimentation. Wetlands, 452. 22: 451– 466. About the Authors Sushmita Krishnan S. Darshini Sushmita Krishnan is a Masters student in Life sciences from Bharathidasan University, Trichy. She is a recipient of the Indian Academy of Sciences – summer research fellowship to specilalise in chemical ecology at the Indian Institute of Sciences, Bangalore. She is a youth leader at the UNESCO- MGIEP at their Talking Across Generations on Education. She is a scientific collaborator at the Herbivory Variability Network of the Michigan State University, East Lansang. She spends her leisure time as a freelance archivist at the National Center for Biological Sciences, Bangalore. S. Darshini is currently pursuing M.Sc. Life Sciences (5 Year Integrated Course) in Bharathidasan University, Tiruchirappalli, Tamil Nadu. She is very keen in exploring the floral life forms in and around her area and is interested in creating green cover even if it is small scale. 53

Jalaplavit (ISSN 2321-1881), Vol. 10, No. 3, Oct.-Nov. 2020 Avifaunal Diversity of Thol Wetland and its Conservation Mahendra H. Bhadrecha and Pradeep C. Mankodi1 1 Email: [email protected] Introduction In a wetland ecosystem, birds recorded at Thol wetland (GEER play an important role especially in an Foundation, 2002; Sasikumar, 2014; aquatic food chain. Being an essential Kamboj and Tatu, 2017). Thol wetland entity of wetlands’ wildlife, their also supports several species of occurrence and distribution help us to mammals, reptiles, amphibians and understand overall status of the fishes (GEER Foundation, 2002, wetland as a habitat. In India, out of Sasikumar, 2014). Wetland birds feed the total around 1230 bird species, 310 on vegetation, fishes and other species are wetland dependent (Kumar animals of wetlands. Wetlands also et al., 2005). Gujarat state, enriched provide them all habitat needs. with well over 490 species of avifauna, Anthropogenic aspects resulting from geographically falls along the Indus human activities either damage the flyway zone (MoEFCC, 2018). About habitat or result into loss of habitat 100 species of water birds have been (Mistry and Mukherjee, 2016; MoEFCC, 54

Jalaplavit (ISSN 2321-1881), Vol. 10, No. 3, Oct.-Nov. 2020 2017). This piece of work aims at The visits were carried out in the field creating general awareness about observing the diversity of birds birds found in and around Thol wetland between April 2015 and February 2018, and highlight it so that Thol wetland generally in winter seasons (total 4 gets legitimate appreciation as an visits viz. on 03.04.2015, 28.02.2016, important abode for migratory birds 09.11.2017 and 28.02.2018). The and underlying the importance of wetland was stratified visually into reducing various forms of zones with distinguishable habitat anthropogenic influence thus categories (Table 1, Fig. 1). Birds facilitating its conservation. were watched from 8:00 AM to 5:30 PM covering the active period in the day Methodology i.e. mornings and late afternoons. The birds were observed using a pair of Study area: Thol Wildlife Sanctuary binoculars (10 X 50 magnification) and field guides (Dy.CF Sanand, Pocket (TWS) is located in Kadi taluka of Field Guide; Kumar et al., 2005). They were also assigned common and Mehsana district, Gujarat between 23o scientific names and the status of the bird was categorized into R- Resident, 15’ to 23o30’N latitudes and 72o30’ to RM- Resident Migratory and M- Migratory (GEER Foundation, 2002; 72o45’E longitudes. Originally Kamboj and Tatu, 2017, Prajapati and Mahato, 2018) (Table 2). Regular constructed for irrigation purpose by observations were made for various bird species found in different zones of the Gayekwadi State Rulers in the year Thol Wetland. Field photographs were taken and when required, experts 1912; however, owing to its high were also consulted for identification purpose. Care was taken not to disturb conservation value it was declared as any birds during the field observations. a Sanctuary in November 1988. It has a total area of 6.99 sq. km and 5.62 km periphery (PCCF & HoFF GoG, 2018 and Kamboj and Tatu, 2017). This wetland is also found to be facing human disturbances due to oil drilling by ONGC, livestock grazing, wood extraction, agriculture in nearby areas and withdrawal of water for irrigation. 55

Jalaplavit (ISSN 2321-1881), Vol. 10, No. 3, Oct.-Nov. 2020 Table 1: Observation Zones with main features Zone 1 (Z 1) Zone 2 (Z 2) Zone 3 (Z 3) Near Culvert no. 1 Front of Camp Site Near Culvert no. 4 Comparatively minimal Comparatively maximum Comparatively deeper human intervention, human intervention, region, water remains proximity to catchment Transit between the other almost throughout the water influx and Narmada two locations. Mainly Falls year. Falls under Core Zone river water influx through under Recreational/ as well as Recreational/ canal, pristine wetland Tourism zone. Tourism zone. area. Mainly Falls under the Core Zone of Wetland. Fig. 1: Observation zones of Thol wetland (a Sanctuary) (Source: Google Earth) Findings and Discussion Thol wetland is a freshwater resident birds were observed during ecosystem rich with waterbirds. During most of the months of a year, but the the study, maximum number of birds migratory birds were observed mostly were observed during morning hours during the winter months. The and late evening hours. Avifaunal occurrence of migratory and resident species recorded at Thol wetland birds in and around Thol wetland area during the study period is given in indicates that it is a vital habitat for Table-2 along with their them. The wetland provides residential/migratory status. The favourable conditions for their feeding 56

Jalaplavit (ISSN 2321-1881), Vol. 10, No. 3, Oct.-Nov. 2020 nesting and breeding needs [Vyas, surrounding Thol wetland provide et.al., 2010; Patel and Dharaiya, foraging grounds for the resident and 2016]. It was also noticed that besides migratory wetland birds. In Thol waterbirds, the wetland supports wetland, 41 species of birds (40 aquatic organisms like fishes and waterbird spp.) belonging to 17 various invertebrates along with families were recorded during the hydrophytes and plankton. Moreover, study. The status-wise composition of it supports canal based irrigation birds observed during the study is water to nearby villages, and graphically depicted in Fig. 2. therefore, agricultural fields Table 2: Avifauna observed at Thol wetland during the study SN Common Name Scientific Name Status R/RM/M Family : Anatidae 1 Greylag Goose Anser anser M 2 Ruddy Shelduck Tadorna ferruginea RM 3 Comb Duck Sarkidiornis melanotus R 4 Eurasian Wigeon Anas penelope M 5 Mallard Anas platyshynchos RM 6 Spot-billed Duck Anas poecilorhyncha RM 7 Northern Shoveler Anas clypeata M 8 Northern Pintail Anus acuta M 9 Common Pochard Aythya fernia M 10 Red-crested Pochard Netta rufina M 11 Garganey Anas querquedeula M 12 Cotton Pygmy-Goose Nettapus coromandeilinus R Family : Alcedinidae 13 Small Blue Kingfisher Alcedo atthisi RM Family : Cerylidae 14 Pied Kingfisher Ceryle rudis R Family : Strigidae 15 Brown Fish Owl Ketupa zeylonensis R Family : Gruidae 16 Sarus Crane Grus antigone R 17 Common Crane Grus grus M Family : Rallidae 18 Common Moorhen Gallinula chloropuss RM 19 Common Coot Fulica atra RM 57

Jalaplavit (ISSN 2321-1881), Vol. 10, No. 3, Oct.-Nov. 2020 SN Common Name Scientific Name Status R/RM/M Family : Charadridae 20 Black-winged Stilt Himantopus himantopus RM 21 Red-wattled Lapwing Vanellus indicus R Family : Accipitridae 22 Osprey Pandion haliaetus M Family : Podicipedidae 23 Little Grebe Tachybaptus ruficollis RM Family : Phalacrocoracidae 24 Little Cormorant Phalacrocorax niger RM 25 Great Cormorant Phalacrocorax carbo RM Family : Anhingidae 26 Darter Anhinga rufa RM Family : Ardeidae 27 Little Egret Egretta garzetta R 28 Grey Heron Ardea cinerea RM 29 Indian Pond Heron Ardeola grayii R 30 Striated Heron Butorides striatus R 31 Great Egret Ardea alba RM Family : Phoenicopteridae 32 Greater Flamingo Phoenicopterus roseus RM 33 Lesser Falmingo Phoeniconaias minor RM Family : Threskiornithidae 34 Red-naped Ibis Pseudibis papillosa R 35 Glossy Ibis Plegadis falcinellus RM 36 Eurasian Spoonbill Platalea leucorodia RM Family : Pelecanidae 37 Great White Pelican Pelicanus onocrotolus RM 38 Dalmatian Pelican Pelicanus crispus M Family : Ciconidae 39 Painted Stork Mycteria leucocephala R 40 White Stork Ciconia ciconia M Family : Phasianidae 41 Indian Peafowl Pavo cristatus R (R- Resident, RM- Resident Migratory and M- Migratory(extra-limital) for the Indian Subcontinent) 58

Jalaplavit (ISSN 2321-1881), Vol. 10, No. 3, Oct.-Nov. 2020 RELATIVE OCCURRENCE OFBIRDS AT THOLWETLAND M Migratory RM Resident Migratory R Resident 29% 27% 44% Fig. 2. Composition of waterbird species at Thol Wetland during study period The family-wise diversity zone 1 followed by zone 3 and zone 2; revealed that species diversity was clearly indicating that the birds maximum in Anatidae followed by prefered areas and patches with least Ardeidae, Threskionithidae, Gruidae(= disturbances. Field observations also Rallidae = Pelecanidae = Charadriidae revealed active efforts being taken up = Phalacrocorcidae = Phoenicopteridae by the Forest Department aiming at = Ciconiidae) and Alcedinidae (= conservation aspects of Thol wetland. Cerylidae = Strigidae = Acciptridae = Moreover, Forest Department carries Podicipedidae = Anhingidae = out biennial census of waterbirds at Phasianidae) in that order. About 27% Thol Bird Sanctuary. The year wise of the waterbird species observed estimated population of waterbirds is were migratory. Bird diversity and given in Table-3. The census clearly bird density of the identified water shows an increasing trend for most of birds showed variation across the the groups and also for overall zones of Thol wetland. Visually, the population of waterbirds at Thol highest bird density was observed at wetland (Fig. 3). Hoardings / Banners / Signboards / Information displayed at strategic locations of Thol wetland by Gujarat Forest Department 59

Jalaplavit (ISSN 2321-1881), Vol. 10, No. 3, Oct.-Nov. 2020 Picking up of plastic wastes, strengthening of the outer bund wall, making of shallow pools and islands in Thol Wetland Watch towers and gallery with shade and descriptive display for bird-watchers Fig.3 Some efforts made by Forest Department at Thol Wetland Table 3: Estimated Population Census of Waterfowl at Thol Wildlife Sanctuary SN Name of Group 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 / Year 1 Grebes 2 40 3 16 164 21 29 6 110 2 Pelicans 4 321 750 1292 2 429 47 294 433 3 Ducks & Geese 1753 5599 7671 8679 16872 9648 16397 11396 18148 21 943 552 122 5027 3057 2413 1733 1036 4 Rails, Coots, 0 Crakes 0 0 0 39 28 10 23 6 5 Jacanas 6 Cormorants 830 942 482 167 375 277 367 845 505 7 Herons, Egrets, 479 485 210 529 436 1633 615 1111 2507 Bittern 8 Storks 83 236 95 306 67 19 75 635 7 9 Ibises & 768 183 5099 8761 18263 5553 20895 18924 31932 Spoonbills 10 Flamingos 0 273 205 706 0 140 1 0 0 11 Cranes 380 664 1651 2613 2013 440 5922 2448 487 13839 8140 8120 7652 7832 2638 14293 2724 9013 12 Wader- 234 166 208 Shorebirds 199 143 53 17 152 582 13 Gulls -Terns 14 Kingfishers 10 15 25 20 47 53 69 39 21 15 Wagtails & Pipit 0 0 53 317 33 3173 106 151 793 16 Eagles & 4 7 15 34 32 54 47 40 42 Harriers Grand Total 18372 17991 25165 31380 51255 27180 61438 40951 65248 (Source: Office of the Dy.CF, Wildlife Division, Sanand) 60

Jalaplavit (ISSN 2321-1881), Vol. 10, No. 3, Oct.-Nov. 2020 Population in Numbers CENSUS OF WATERFOWL AT THOL BIRD SANCTUARY 70000 60000 50000 40000 30000 20000 10000 0 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 Year Fig. 3. Increasing trend of waterbird population Table 4: Tourists scenario at Thol Wildlife Sanctuary SN Year Number of Tourists Visited 1 2008-09 24,162 2 2009-10 30,188 3 2010-11 34,167 4 2011-12 81,035 5 2012-13 64,941 6 2013-14 59,012 7 2014-15 100001 8 2015-16 1,39,463 9 2016-17 1,33,621 10 2017-18 95,899 11 2018-19 1,14,437 12 2019-20 88,120 (Source: Office of the Dy.CF, Wildlife Division, Sanand) 61

Jalaplavit (ISSN 2321-1881), Vol. 10, No. 3, Oct.-Nov. 2020 NUMBER OF TOURISTS VISITED THOL BIRD SANCTUARY 160000 140000 120000 100000 80000 60000 40000 20000 0 Number of Tourist 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 Year Fig. 4. Graph showing increasing trend of visitors visiting Thol Wetland Sarus Crane (Grus antigone) can by the availability of water (GEER be considered as a flagship species of Foundation, 2002, Sasikumar K., Thol. Thol wetland is an important 2014). During field visits carried out all place for pre-breeding congregation through the study period, following and for nesting of the Sarus Crane. The types of anthropogenic pressures were foraging habits, roosting habits along observed. with the richness and abundance of water fowls in a wetland is influenced Tourists and Visitors of Thol Wetland Tourists visit this wetland from for photography/filming (Sasikumar, nearby villages as well as from distant 2014). This pattern undermines the places like Ahmedabad. Tourists roam real significance of Thol Wildlife on peripheral bund and on inner Sanctuary, especially as an important periphery on west–south side of the Bird destination site. wetland. They also play games. Plastic trash: The area is declared According to a survey, 84% tourists Plastic Free Zone by the Forest came for picnic/recreation, 14% came Department. Even then, some tourists for bird watching and about 2% came were found littering on few spots by 62

Jalaplavit (ISSN 2321-1881), Vol. 10, No. 3, Oct.-Nov. 2020 leaving their rubbish plastic trashes buffalo, sheep and goats found their like wrappers, fast food packages, way from the open (unprotected) end bottles etc. This waste then finds its falling in the wetland’s catchment way in the wetland and its premises area into the Sanctuary area and spoiling the natural habitat. However, grazed in the dry parts mainly in its it was also noted that these plastic middle and Northern areas. Cattle trashes were being picked up at least wading was observed mainly in the partially, by the daily wagers deployed stagnant water (almost 1m deep) by the Forest Department. towards south-east corner of this ONGC Oil Wells: ONGC wells are not wetland Sanctuary only scattered throughout the Cloth Washing: Sometimes, cloth catchment area, but also located in washing activity (very small scale) was the Sanctuary itself especially towards observed towards the north-west side the southeast and northern areas of and south-east side of this wetland the Sanctuary. The wells within the Sanctuary. wetland are elevated at a height of Industries: Industrial units are mainly few meters. However, during heavy located on downstream and upstream rains or in worst case scenario, the oils of the Sanctuary’s periphery. Most of from the said ditches might reach Thol these industries are of small or wetland’s waters and impair the medium scale and they mainly belong aquatic life and the agricultural to chemical, plastic, ceramics, paper ecosystems as well (Sasikumar, 2014). and packaging sectors. Agriculture run-off: There is a possibility of the pesticides and The above factors can either fertilisers used in the catchment area damage or degrade the wetland finding their way into Thol wetland in habitat. Hence, the avifaunal diversity the form of agriculture run-off. of the wetland is prone to these types Leaching of fertilisers containing of habitat disturbances. Haphazard nitrogen and phosphorus contribute to cutting of nesting trees and the nitrate and phosphate enrichment cutting/grazing of foraging plants of of the wetland causing eutrophication. birds are also major factors Cattle wading and Cattle grazing: responsible for shrinking of avian During the study, the livestock like foraging habitat and their nesting sites. Conservation does not 63

Jalaplavit (ISSN 2321-1881), Vol. 10, No. 3, Oct.-Nov. 2020 necessarily imply complete protection 3. Thol wetland needs more attention from all such human interferences, to minimize disturbances, The Ramsar Convention promotes particularly during the winter wetland conservation and ‘wise use’ season when the numbers of and the same strategy should be visitors and birds are at peak. followed for Thol wetland. Heavy vehicular movement from Recommendations the main gate to the camp site 1. Proper awareness programmes should also be restricted. Parking regarding the importance of birds outside the main gate can be and their vital role among the local arranged. Online permit (booking) people of adjoining villages on system for visitors can be planned regular basis will make them and implemented with clear and continually sensitive towards birds, strict “Do’s & Don’ts” instructions thus enhancing the protection of during the visit keeping in mind the birds of this region. Students from sustainable ecotourism. The local schools and colleges can also magnitude of tourism should not be be roped in for successful and allowed to go out of proportion. special programmes like Service of a naturalist guide for the ‘Appreciation Training Programme Sanctuary for every group of on Birds, Ecology and Conservation visitors can be arranged. (ATPBEC) with Bird Watching’ Orientation Centre and organized by GEER Foundation, interpretation Centre can be made Gandhinagar. Training as “bird- active for educating the guides” can be imparted to the ecotourists. nature-loving unemployed youth of 4. Appropriate and relevant nearby villages. technological interventions for 2. Well-planned plantation of fruit- patrolling and conservation aspects bearing trees in the surrounding can be thought of and villages can be taken up. It will not implemented. only help villagers in monetary 5. Ensuring total ban on plastic as it is gain, but it will also attract many declared as ‘Plastic Free Zone'. frugivorous birds, which may lead 6. All sorts of threats to wetland to rural ecological enrichment. including drainage must be 64

Jalaplavit (ISSN 2321-1881), Vol. 10, No. 3, Oct.-Nov. 2020 eliminated/regulated. De-siltation actions to be initiated as and when and De-weeding of Thol Wildlife gaps are observed. Sanctuary at regular intervals will 10.Integrating wetlands into planning help controlling the nutrient level strengthening legal and policy and silt deposition. arrangements to conserve 7. Because of its location in the arid wetlands, implementing Ramsar region and also release of water for recommendations for the wise use, irrigation, water level and water applying economic and financial spread gets depleted fast, incentives for communities, sometimes resulting into mere ensuring participation of all 0.3m depth in most areas. stakeholders in wetland Reduction in water spread may also management. reduce bird species richness and abundance and therefore the Epilogue decision to maintain water level More than 100 different species from 1m to 2m has to be observed of waterbird species belonging to 24 strictly. Integrating water quality different families have been recorded monitoring with water quantity will at Thol wetland. It is also a potential help protect and restore unique Ramsar Site as it regularly supports features of this wetland. more than 20,000 waterbirds. Several 8. ONGC has to come out with bird species recorded in Thol wildlife effective oil spill prevention plan sanctuary are identified as rare, considering the worst case scenario vulnerable, threatened or endangered and regular mock drills for the globally. Since the population of same in coordination with the majority of the bird groups have been forest department, irrigation increasing, and also looking to the department and other active involvement and efforts of the stakeholders. Forest Department, Thol wetland is 9. The achievement of activity wise expected to acquire the status of a physical and financial targets as Ramsar Site soon, provided the laid down in the Management Plan ecological character of Thol wetland is for Thol Wildlife Sanctuary has to maintained by implementing stringent be monitored and appropriate monitoring, maintenance and 65

Jalaplavit (ISSN 2321-1881), Vol. 10, No. 3, Oct.-Nov. 2020 conservation mechanisms wisely and of Gujarat for granting us permission on a long-term basis to carry out this study. Thanks are also due to Gujarat Ecological Education Acknowledgements and Research (GEER) Foundation, We thank the Department of Gandhinagar for providing necessary Forest and Environment, Government support during the study. Bibliography Gujarat Ecological Education and Climate Change (2017). The Wetlands Research (GEER) Foundation (2002). (Conservation and Management) Rules, Ecological Study of Thol Lake Wildlife 2017, Notification no. G.S.R .1203 (E) (Bird) Sanctuary, Report no. dated 26 September 2017. ECOS/20/37. Ministry of Environment, Forest and Dy.CF Sanand Wildlife Division (Gujarat Climate Change, Wildlife Division Forest Department). A Paradise for (2018). India’s National Action Plan for Birds, Thol Wildlife Sanctuary- A pocket Conservation of Migratory Birds and their field guide. Habitats along Central Asian Fly way (2018-2023), CAF National Flyway Action Kamboj R.D. and K. Tatu (2017). Plan 2018. Important Wetland Destinations of Mistry, J. and S. Mukherjee (2015). Status and Threats of Water Birds in Gujarat – A guide for ecotourists to Ahiran Lake, Murshidabad, West Bengal, India, International Journal of Plant, explore some wetland jewels in Gujarat, Animal and Environmental Sciences 5: 59-64. Gujarat Ecological Education and Patel, S. and N. Dharaiya (2016). Research (GEER) Foundation, Inventory of Aquatic Birds with Special Reference to Urban and Desert Gandhinagar. Wetlands, North-Western Gujarat, India, J. Wetlands Biodiversity 6: 29-36. Kumar, A., J. P. Sati, P.C. Tak and J. R. B. Alfred (2005). Handbook on Indian Wetland Birds and their Conservation: i- xxvi; 1- 468 (Published by the Director, Zool. Surv. India). Ministry of Environment, Forest and 66

Jalaplavit (ISSN 2321-1881), Vol. 10, No. 3, Oct.-Nov. 2020 Prajapati, H. and A. K. Roy Mahato Sasikumar K. (2014). Management Plan (2018). Status and distribution of for Thol Wildlife Sanctuary (2014-2024), aquatic birds in the Thol Lake Gujarat Forest Department. environment, Gujarat, International Journal of Fauna and Biological Studies Vyas, V., M. Vishwakarma and N. Dhar 2018; 5(4): 87-92 (2010). Avian Diversity of Bhoj Wetland: A Ramsar Site of Central India, Our Principal Chief Conservator of Forest Nature 8: 34-39 and Head of the Forest Force Govt. Of Gujarat(2020).<https://forests.gujarat. gov.in, accessed on 21.12.2016 and 08.01.2018 and on 23.06.2020> About the Authors Dr. Mahendra H. Bhadrecha (left) earned his Doctoral degree from the Maharaja Sayajirao University of Baroda, Vadodara in the year 2019. His Ph. D. topic was ‘Ecosystem assessment of Thol Bird Sanctuary with special reference to Benthic Macro Invertebrate Community’. He had done his Masters in Zoology from the same University in the year 1995. He has been associated with Gujarat Pollution Control Board(GPCB) since 1996. Currently he is rendering his services in the functioning of the State Level Expert Appraisal Committee (SEAC) Cell, Head Office, GPCB as a technical and administrative associate in appraisal of environmental clearance of Mining proposals covered under the EIA Notification 2006 Dr. Pradeep C. Mankodi (right) is a Professor of Zoology at the Department of Zoology, Faculty of Science, The Maharaja Sayajirao University of Baroda, Vadodara and Research Guide for the subjects of Zoology and Environmental studies at the Maharaja Sayajirao University of Baroda, Vadodara. He has teaching experience of 31 years whereas research experience is of 38 years. He has completed 10 research projects and published about 70 research papers. He has delivered approx. 85 lectures at various platforms Prof. Mankodi has guided 14 students for their Ph. D., 7 students for their M. Phil. Six students are pursuing their Ph. D. under his supervision. He been honoured as Best Research Supervisor (ISCA, 2014), Best Researcher and Academician Award (ETCST, 2017) and Best PG Teacher (GSA, 2020). Prof. Mankodi is Fellow of 7 Societies and Life member of 12 Societies. 67

Jalaplavit (ISSN 2321-1881), Vol. 10, No. 3, Oct.-Nov. 2020 Insect Diversity and Adaptations in Wetlands Shatarupa Sarkar Email: [email protected] Shatarupa Sarkar Wetland at Kalinga Centre for Rainforest Ecology, Agumbe, India An Introduction to Aquatic Insects Although only six per cent of the in the world, wetlands are referred to as the Earth’s kidneys. Earth’s surface is occupied by wetlands, the biodiversity (flora and fauna) in The most abundant group of these wetlands is immense. Wetlands invertebrates that have successfully include swamps, lakes, bogs, fens, colonized the wetlands are the aquatic floodplains, ponds and marshlands. As insects. These organisms have survived one of the most productive ecosystems in such waterlogged habitats for many 68

Jalaplavit (ISSN 2321-1881), Vol. 10, No. 3, Oct.-Nov. 2020 generations. A closer look at wetlands are moth-like aquatic insects with hairy would reveal the presence of several wings and long antennae. They are types of insects — ranging from various omnivorous in nature and can produce species of moths, wasps, beetles and silk to make cases using natural bugs to mayflies, stoneflies, dragonflies, materials such as twigs, small pebbles to damselflies and caddisflies — housing in hide from predators. Stoneflies found in the watery habitats. Mayflies are small flowing water ecosystems are aquatic sized insects with transparent wings. insects possessing long antennae and These insects occupy shallow wetlands membranous wings. They are inefficient and are omnivorous in nature. fliers due to their folded wings. Another Dragonflies are large long-bodied group of aquatic insects — lacewings, aquatic insects with huge bulging eyes are predatory insects with veined wings. and membranous, generally transparent These are the commonly found insects wings. They are fast moving aerial at wetlands. predators living in wetlands. Caddisflies Adaptive Strategies of Aquatic Insects In the course of evolution, respire using plastrons, which are air aquatic insects underwent holding chambers arising from spiracles. morphological, behavioral and Such structures help the insects to stay physiological changes leading to underwater for longer time durations. adaptation to their water-logged When faced with flowing waters, surroundings. Since most of the wetland insects survive mostly through changes insects spend a part of their life cycle in in their morphology. Production of water, the earlier stages of these insects sticky secretions, presence of hook and are characterised by respiration through friction-pad like structures, and lesser gills and skin. Mature stages of these number of projecting structures from insects respire using air-tubes the body allow the insects to not get connected to respiratory openings on blown away by the force of running the insect’s thorax and abdomen water. Behavioral changes like living referred to as spiracles. Several species 69

Jalaplavit (ISSN 2321-1881), Vol. 10, No. 3, Oct.-Nov. 2020 between rock crevices and under rock are found to feed on leaf litter and wood slits are also observed in order to matter. Predators have been observed protect themselves from the strong to feed on other invertebrates and gushes of water. Living in still waters do smaller sized vertebrates. Scrappers not require such modifications to occur feed on algae and other plants growing in insects to be able to adapt to their on a solid substrate in waters. Piercers immediate environment. or suckers are found to suck the bodily fluids out from the other plants and Further, in the struggle for animals in the waters while collectors existence, niche compartments are possess a fan shaped mouth part to generated in the process of evolution in gather fine particulate organic matter aquatic insects. Different ecological from the waters. roles and functions are played by the several insects underwater. Shredders Conservation of the aquatic insects Being an essential part of the water quality — that is essential for the food web like any other living organism, survival of human beings. The wetlands aquatic insects should be conserved and along with the insects, also add on to protected in their natural habitats – the the aesthetic and cultural value of the wetlands. They keep a check on the ecosystem (Suter et al., 2014). Owing to population of organisms belonging to the ecosystem functions and services lower trophic levels, thereby provided by aquatic insects, they have contributing to energy and nutrient been now recognized as the processing in aquatic ecosystems (Suter bioindicators of wetlands. A poor et al., 2014) and in the process, cleanse biodiversity of aquatic insects in the waters from accumulation of excess wetlands would be indicative of a organic matter. This ensures a good gradually degrading wetland region. About the Author Shatarupa Sarkar is a researcher at the Centre for Ecological Sciences, Indian Institute of Science (IISc), Bangalore, India, where she is currently studying ecology and evolutionary biology. She holds a Master’s degree in Biotechnology from the University of Pune, India. Her favorite subjects are Chemical Ecology and Molecular Ecology. She is an ardent reader of scientific fictions and popular science books. She is passionate about telling science stories and communicating science through writing. 70

Jalaplavit (ISSN 2321-1881), Vol. 10, No. 3, Oct.-Nov. 2020 Within a time-span of around 100 slowly going towards the path of years, we humans, through urbanization reduction in terms of numbers and types have already destroyed around fifty of species. Thus, there is an urgent need percent of the existing wetlands of our to protect our few remaining wetland home planet. The wetlands are habitats to restore the biodiversity of gradually diminishing in their vastness the insects in order to maintain the and expanse over time. With this, the ecological balance. biodiversity of the aquatic insects is References habitats, Academic Press, London, 450 pp. Batzer, D. P. and S.A. Wissinger (1996). Ecology of insect communities in Subramanian, K.A. and K.G. nontidal wetlands. Annual Review of Sivaramakrishnan (2007). Aquatic Entomology, Volume 41, 75-100. Insects of India — A Field Guide. Ashoka Trust for Ecology and Environment Hansen, J.D. and A. J. Castelle (1999). (ATREE), Bangalore, India, 62 pp. Insect diversity in soils of tidal and non- tidal wetlands of Spencer Island, Suter, G. W. and S. M. Cormier (2014). Washington. Journal of the Kansas Why care about aquatic insects: Uses, Entomological Society, Volume 72, No. benefits and services. Integrated 3, 262-272. Environmental Assessment and Management, Volume 11, Issue 2, Pages Wilcox, C. (2001). Habitat size and 188-194. isolation affect colonization of seasonal wetlands by predatory aquatic insects. Israel Journal of Zoology, 47:4, 459-476. Collins, N. M. and J.A. Thomas (1991). The conservation of insects and their 71

Jalaplavit (ISSN 2321-1881), Vol. 10, No. 3, Oct.-Nov. 2020 Human-Wildlife Conflicts in Deserted Mangrove Patch of Mahanadi Delta, Odisha 1Subhechha Tapaswini & Sabmeet Singh 1Email: [email protected] Lush green mangrove forest patch of Mahanadi Delta An introduction to Mangroves marine floral and faunal species that can grow swamps well in the estuarine areas (Selvam et Mangroves refer to the coastal al., 2010). Mangroves are dominated intertidal vegetation found in river by trees that are rooted in hydric delta and coastline of India (Day et soils. The leaves of the mangrove al., 1987). Their growth can only be trees are highly nutrient rich. It is a possible in the saline intertidal zones. detritus-based ecosystem which is They are the habitats for many 72

Jalaplavit (ISSN 2321-1881), Vol. 10, No. 3, Oct.-Nov. 2020 highly productive and acts as a buffer Mangroves of Odisha for both terrestrial and aquatic Odisha is located between environments. Mangrove wetlands have many uses that perform number 17°49' N and 22° 34' N latitudes and of ecological and economical between 81° 27' E and 87° 29' E functions to sustain biodiversity and longitudes. About 52,472 sq.km is gives livelihood security to the forested area, which amounts to coastal communities (Kathiresan and 33.7% of the geographical area. Out Bingham, 2001). Mangrove ecosystem of 52,472 sq.km of forested area, acts as a natural barrier against mangrove forests cover 243 sq.km, cyclonic storms and provides habitats which is only about 0.46% of the total to sport and commercial fisheries. It forest area of Odisha. The Mahanadi, prevents soil erosion, facilitates Brahmani and Baitarani rivers show nutrient (nitrogen and sulfur) cycling tremendous growth of mangrove (Alongi 1994; Holguin et al. 2001; forests, which are the habitats of Rojas et al., 2001). It is also a global many organisms. They are endowed carbon sink. It is an abode for many with high faunal diversity and birds, estuarine crocodile and various biomass. Salt tolerant paddy and other faunal species (Ong, 1995) due aquaculture is the major practice of to high leaf production, leaf fall and the people of costal belt of Odisha in rapid breakdown of the detritus the mangrove areas. The mangrove (Aksornkoae, 1986). The economic all along Odisha coast are threatened values of mangrove wetlands include due to booming population, high provisioning timber, poles, posts and demand of land for agriculture and firewood. They also provide non- prawn farming. The patch of timber forest products such as mangrove over Bhitarkanika is well fodder, honey, thatching material preserved due to declaration of etc. protected area, but the mangrove vegetation in the Mahanadi delta 73

Jalaplavit (ISSN 2321-1881), Vol. 10, No. 3, Oct.-Nov. 2020 region from Barunei mouths to Jogidhankud, Nipania, Sarlikud of Mahanadi mouth (Paradwip) is Mahakalpara block, Kendrapara fragmented and degraded due to district. large scale encroachment. Large mangrove forest areas have been Human-wildlife Conflict converted into artificial fishing ponds Human wildlife conflict is a and agriculture land for these purposes. In Paradwip area, large burning issue in all over the India. The tracts of mangroves were cleared for growing population and increasing the development of Paradwip port demand for land and food resources and pesticide industry. The major makes the situation worsen. Human mangrove and mangrove associate wildlife interactions predictably arise genera in Mahanadi wetland are when the needs of the forest Avecennia, Brugeguira, Ceriops communities bumps with those of Dalbergia, Agecerus, Heriteriera, wildlife. Relatively defenseless Sonnaratia, Exoecaria, Kandelia, livestock and standing crop are easy Rhizzopora, Derris, Xylocarpus, target for wildlife. These surveyed Phoenix, and Tamarix (Source: Atlas panchayats are also not escaped from of Mangrove Wetland India, M S human wildlife conflict. These areas Swaminathan research Foundation, are prone to severe wild boar and 2004). crocodile conflicts with man. Wild Boar raids the cultivation of paddy, A study was conducted in sweet potato and other tuberous vegetables. Paddy is the one and only Batighara panchayat constituting of a cultivated crop of these marginal people and its depredation creates good number of different villages difficulty in sustenance of livelihood. Sometimes during these interaction such as Badatubi, Batighara, people get fatal injuries too. A news Hukitola, Kansardia, Sanatubi, Barkolikhola, Hatamundia, 74

Jalaplavit (ISSN 2321-1881), Vol. 10, No. 3, Oct.-Nov. 2020 article was published in a local very common and increasing day by newspaper indicating an incident of man-animal conflict in the study day. Animals often stray into village area. According to the article, three persons were injured in a Wild Boar lands to eat crops and vegetable attack at Badatubi village under Mahakalpara block in Kendrapara plants. The boars also attack human district. According to reports, the trio had been to their farmland to harvest beings. the paddy when they were attacked by the wild swine. According to Besides Wild Boar-man respondents, attacks by Wild Boars have reached alarming proportions conflict, crocodile-man conflict has during the crop-cutting season. Boars stray into the village areas close to also been taking place in these the Sanctuary, attack people and damage crops. The mangrove forest coastal villages as per the people cover within the reserve forest is the home to thousands of Wild Boars. In interrogated during this study. While recent years, the sharp increase in population of these animals has crocodiles have created terror in emerged as a major cause of worry for the Wildlife Sanctuary officials creeks and other waterbodies, Wild and local people who reside on the periphery of the mangrove forest. Boars are on the rampage on land. With thickly populated villages dotting the periphery of forest, man- Most conflict resolution wild boar conflicts have been become methods employed can be broadly classified in two categories: proactive measures and reactive or mitigation measures (Mishra 1997, Madhusudhan and Mishra 2003,). Proactive strategies include barriers (natural or man-made), improved anti-predator measures and livestock management, guarding fields and livestock, etc. Reactive measures include compensation schemes, relocation and granting of rights to natural resources local communities. During the study, local people were 75

Jalaplavit (ISSN 2321-1881), Vol. 10, No. 3, Oct.-Nov. 2020 interrogated it indicated that they seemed to be malfunctioned. Village face confrontation with Wild Boars people have neither been getting and crocodiles in their daily life. compensation for their damage nor Among the respondents, 81.15% they see implementation of stated about wild boar crop appropriate fencing strategies yet. depredation and around 18.85% According to the local people, respondents were affected by especially Wild Boar has become a crocodile conflicts (Fig.1). For major threat for them, owing to its verification, the villages were stubborn habit of frequent crop surveyed rigorously and both the raiding. proactive and mitigation measures Crocodile, 18.85 Wild Boar, 81.15 Fig.1 Proportions of types of conflicts 76

Jalaplavit (ISSN 2321-1881), Vol. 10, No. 3, Oct.-Nov. 2020 Trampling by Wild boar Fencing used for Wild boar Fencing used for Wild boar 77

Jalaplavit (ISSN 2321-1881), Vol. 10, No. 3, Oct.-Nov. 2020 Epilogue income capital depends on fisheries. These people don’t have Mangroves are Tropical and costal their own crop land so next vegetation found in costal river maximum income source is share delta. They are highly adapted to cropping. They work as daily these areas. Due to wild Boar laborer and share cropper to meet conflict most of the people are their daily needs. Very few people refrain from doing cultivation over have their own shops inside the study area. Inside those village. Pollution is the major villages there is no alternative threat to the mangrove ecosystem. source of income that’s why many Polluted water from industries people used go outside like present in Paradwip port highly Paradwip town to work. According influences mangrove growth. to the survey not all villages are Effluents and polluted water from fully dependent on forest for pesticide industry is easily firewood collection. The villages in released without treatment and which people have large Orchard gets mixed with river water which they collect wood mostly from effects leaves of mangrove there, and the villagers those who vegetation nearby and leads to have their own cow and calf they their turning black. People cut are mostly dependent on cow dung down mangrove vegetation to for fuel and least dependent on make artificial pond (Gheri) for forest for firewood collection. shrimp and prawn cultivation. Due Similarly, occupation of most to strictness of forest department, villages like Nipania, Barkolikhola, some ponds are converted into Tubi, Kajalpatia and Kochila is mangrove forest but still some fisheries. These people are artificial ponds remain to be economically very poor the major converted into mangrove forests. 78

Jalaplavit (ISSN 2321-1881), Vol. 10, No. 3, Oct.-Nov. 2020 Acknowledgments help and guidance throughout the work, enabling me to integrate This research would not have been science, conservation and possible without the tremendous academics. His valuable and help, support and patience of friendly guidance on every stage of numerous people over the months, my research is greatly from supervisors to well-wisher. It acknowledged. I express my is impossible to thank everyone sincere thanks to him during this who has helped me and this work phase. I sincerely thank Dr. along the way. To all involved Satyaranjan Behera, Zoologist of directly and on the periphery, I Odisha Biodiversity Board, for his offer my most sincere appreciation constant help and support in and thanks. Several individuals carrying out this study have made this study on successfully. My sincere thanks and community dependence on appreciation are owed to all the mangroves successful and I would Dr, Janmenjay Sethy for his help in like to express my sincere data analysis and guidance at gratitude to everyone. My sincere various stages of my field work. I appreciation and thanks are for Dr. truly and deeply wish to thank to NPS Chauhan, who served as my my colleagues, co-author, Villagers internal supervisor and who of Batighara panchayat for support provided me with essential and cooperation in many ways. academic and scientific support, 79

Jalaplavit (ISSN 2321-1881), Vol. 10, No. 3, Oct.-Nov. 2020 References Ministry of Environment and Forest, New Delhi. Aksornkoae, S. (1986). Mangrove ecosystem general background. In: Kathiresan, K. and B. L. Bingham Training course on life history of (2001). Biology of mangrove and selected species of flora and fauna mangrove ecosystems Adv Mar Biol in mangrove ecosystems pp. 17- 23 40 81-251 UNDP/ UNESCO Regional Project (RAS/86/120) Alongi DM (1994) The Kumar, P. (2010). The economics role of bacteria in nutrient of ecosystems and biodiversity: recycling in tropical mangrove and ecological and economic other coastal benthic ecosystems. foundations. Earthscan, London Hydrobiologia 285:19–32 Ong, J. E. (1995). The ecology of mangrove conservation and Day, J.W., W. Conner, F, Ley-Lou. management Hydrobiologia 295 R. Day, and A. M. Navarro (1987). 343-351 The productivity and composition of mangrove forests, Laguna de Rojas, A., G. Holguin, B.R. Glick, Terminos, Mexico Aquatic Botany and Y. Bashan (2001). Synergism 27 267- 2844. between Phyllobacterium sp. (N2- fixer) and Bacillus licheniformis (P- Holguin, G., P. Vazquez and Y. solubilizer), both from a semiarid Bashan (2001). The role of mangrove rhizosphere. FEMS sediment microorganisms in the Microbiol Ecol 35:181–187 productivity, conservation, and rehabilitation of the mangrove Wildlife Conservation of Odisha, ecosystems: an overview. Biol Forest and Environment Fertile Soils 33:265–278 Department, Government of Odisha, [Online] Available Kathiresan, K. (2000) Mangrove at:http://odishawildlife.org/mang atlas and status of species in India. roves.html. 80

Jalaplavit (ISSN 2321-1881), Vol. 10, No. 3, Oct.-Nov. 2020 V,Selvam., K.K.Ravichandaran, wetlands: Situation Analysis, V.M.Karunakaran, K.G.Mani, E. J. Beula and L.Gnanappazham International Union for (2010). Pichavaram mangrove Conservation of Nature and Natural Web-sites referred to: https://pragativadi.com/three- Resource. injured-wild-boar-attack- kendrapara/ About the Author https://www.telegraphindia.com/ Subhechha Tapaswini is a researcher at north-east/boars-on-rampage-in- Wildlife Institute of India, Dehradun, where odisha-forest/cid/1425583 she works on Landscape level planning and management department. She holds a master’s degree in Forestry and Wildlife sciences from Amity University Noida. She has a keen research interest in Animal ecology and behavior. She has also worked in the field of bioacoustics. Sabmeet Singh is a research trainee at Centre for Conservation of Natural Resources, Bangalore. He is currently pursuing his masters in Wildlife sciences from University of Kota, Rajasthan. He has a research interest in the field of Wildlife forensics. 81

Jalaplavit (ISSN 2321-1881), Vol. 10, No. 3, Oct.-Nov. 2020 Sightings of Sociable Lapwing in Saurashtra, Gujarat, India Viral Joshi Email: [email protected] Devvratsinh Mori Fig. 1 Sociable Lapwing (Vanellus gregarious) Sociable Lapwing (Vanellus loss etc. Only a few thousand mature individuals survive in wilderness gregarius) is an uncommon/rare (BirdLife International, 2020). In migratory species in India (Grimmett, Gujarat, this species has been recorded 2014). It breeds in Kazakhstan; Russian in the Great Rann of Kachchh(GRK), Federation and spends winters in India, Little Rann of Kutch(LRK) and Thol Pakistan, Sri Lanka and Sudan (Wiersma wetland in Kadi taluka of Mehsana et al., 2020). This species has been district (Prasad, 2016; Figs.1,1A) listed as a Critically Endangered (CR) species (IUCN, 2020). The population of Fascinating Fact: Two Sociable Lapwings, this species has rapidly decreased due to satellite tagged in Kazakhstan recently had illegal hunting during migration, habitat flown more than 8047 km to central Sudan. (https://thewebsiteofeverything.com/animals/birds/) 82

Jalaplavit (ISSN 2321-1881), Vol. 10, No. 3, Oct.-Nov. 2020 Devvratsinh Mori Fig.1A Sociable Lapwing in one of its habitats. Recently, a large flock had been home in Saladi village in Amreli Gujarat. sighted around Nalsarovar Bird I was trying to find River Terns’ nests on Sanctuary (eBird, 2020). an exposed island in the pond. All of a sudden, I saw an unusual lapwing along The species is uncommon in with a group of Red-wattled Lapwing Saurashtra (Dharmkumarshinhji,1959). (Vanellus indicus) and Black-winged Stilt In fact, very few sightings are reported (Himantopus himantopus). It was an form Saurashtra. On 16 February 2020, olivish bird with a prominent white at around 17:00 hrs, I visited my regular supercilium (eye-brow). I identified the birding spot Saladi pond (21° 34' 30.18\" bird as a Sociable Lapwing and tried to N, 71° 19' 24.78\"E) which is take a few pictures (record shots). approximately 1.5 km away from my 83

Jalaplavit (ISSN 2321-1881), Vol. 10, No. 3, Oct.-Nov. 2020 From 2009, I have been observing region as all the birds of this species birds in Saladi pond in Amreli district, were recorded around wetlands. Gujarat. This was the first time I had Sociable Lapwing (also called Sociable sighted this species in Saladi pond Plover) is a highly threatened species as (Fig.2). In 2012, I had recorded a large mentioned elsewhere earlier. Hence, flock of this species consisting of 8 for the well-being of the individuals of individuals at Dhari dam, Amreli (Fig.3; this species wintering in Saurashtra Joshi and Shah, 2016). That was one of region and elsewhere in Gujarat State, the largest flocks recorded in Saurashtra it is important to understand its regular (Table 1). Mr. Pravin Gohil had seen few wintering areas in the region and the birds of this species in 2008/09 in Rajula state. For its long-term conservation in taluka (Tehsil) of Amreli district and the state, it is also important to study there has also been a single record in its ecological requirements and Gir-Somnath and Jamanager each. In behaviour during wintering (non- winter, this species has also been breeding) season. Therefore, each sighted in Great Rann of Kachchh, Little sighting of this species should be treated Rann of Kachchh and around Nal and seriously. We still do not have enough Thol wetlands. In Kachchh, large flock of information about wintering time and 50 individuals has been recorded winter areas in Gujarat, leave alone its (Tiwari, 2015). ecological requirements. A proper study (including surveys) could help Sociable Lapwing is a rare winter understand the strategies to be planned visitor in Saurashtra region of Gujarat and implemented for the well-being of State and thus it is not regularly seen in this Critically Endangered species in this region. Undoubtedly, all the Saurashtra and in other regions of sightings of this species in Saurashtra Gujarat state, India. prove importance of wetlands in the 84

Jalaplavit (ISSN 2321-1881), Vol. 10, No. 3, Oct.-Nov. 2020 Table:1. Records of Sociable Lapwing in Saurashtra Sr. Location Date of sighting Number of Observer No. birds 1 Rangmati Dam, 05/12/2009 2 Dr. Maulik Varu and Jamnagar Mr. Ashwin Trivedi 2 Viktor pond, Amreli - - Mr. Pravin Gohil 3 Dhari Dam, Amreli 28/11/2012 8 Mr. Viral Joshi and Mr. Divyaraj Shah 4 Prasnavda wetland, 29/11/2018 1 Mr. Ravi Patel 1 Sutrapada, junagadh Mr. Viral Joshi 5 Saladi pond, Amreli 16/02/2020 Viral Joshi Fig.2 Sociable Lapwing with Red-wattled Lapwing at Saladi Pond, Amreli, Gujarat. 85

Jalaplavit (ISSN 2321-1881), Vol. 10, No. 3, Oct.-Nov. 2020 Viral Joshi Fig.3 A group of Sociable Lapwings at Dhari Dam, Amreli district, Gujarat state. References Tiwari, J. K. (2016). Field notes on Sociable Lapwing in Kachchh. Flamingo 14 BirdLife International (2020). Species (1): 19. factsheet: Vanellus gregarius. Varu, M. and A. Trivedi (2009). Record of Dharmakumarsinhji, R. S. (1959). Birds of Sociable Lapwing from Jamnagar District. Saurashtra, India: With Additional Notes Flamingo 7:10. on the Birds of Kutch and Gujerat :170. Wiersma, P., G. M. Kirwan and C. J. Ganpule, P. (2016). The Birds of Gujarat - Sharpe (2020). Sociable Lapwing (Vanellus Status and Distribution. Flamingo VIII 3 - gregarius). In: del Hoyo, J., Elliott, A., XII 4:1-40. Sargatal, J., Christie, D.A. & de Juana, E. (eds.). Handbook of the Birds of the Joshi, V. and D. Shah (2016). Sighting of World Alive. Lynx Edicions, Barcelona. Sociable Lapwing in Amreli district. <https://www.hbw.com/node/53811 on Flamingo, 14: 9 25 April 2020> 86

Jalaplavit (ISSN 2321-1881), Vol. 10, No. 3, Oct.-Nov. 2020 Acknowledgments: I would like to thank Dr. Maulik Varu, Mr. Ravi Patel and Mr. Pravin Gohil for sharing information and Member of Ecology Evolution Lab, IISER, Tirupati for scientific inputs. I am also grateful to Mr. Devvratshinh Mori for providing the pictures of Sociable Lapwing. About the Author Viral Joshi’s thrust areas are Bioacoustics and Avian biology. Currently he is working as a Project Associate at the Indian Institute of Science Education and Research (IISER), Tirupati. He has earned his Master's degree in Environmental Science. He is primarily interested in bioacoustics, especially avian acoustics. He believes that bioacoustics is an essential research and conservation tool to understand and monitor avian diversity. More information about him is available on: http://www.skyisland.in/viral-joshi.html 87

Jalaplavit (ISSN 2321-1881), Vol. 10, No. 3, Oct.-Nov. 2020 A Diminutive Snakehead Fish Channa Andrao (Britz, 2013) -An Endemic Fish of the Wetlands of Northern West Bengal Priyankar Chakraborty Email: [email protected] Priyankar Chakraborty Fallen Leaves for Home Andrew’s Snakehead Priyankar Chakraborty Priyankar Chakraborty This extraordinary looking fish, Stagnant, rain-fed wetlands are home to this fish. Interestingly, only a with blushing cheeks and an inquiring few other fishes reside in the pools gaze, has the scientific name Channa where C.andrao lives including a small, andrao, honouring its discoverer dark coloured catfish that is probably Andrew Arunava Rao of Malabar new to science. Plentiful of submerged Tropicals. The fish is a sophisticated vegetation and fallen leaf litter predator, opportunistically plucking provides ample hiding spots for this fallen insects from the surface of the dwarf snakehead. water. Like all other snakeheads, it periodically needs to come to the surface to breathe air, which is an advantage in the hot summer months when oxygen depletes from the water. 88

Jalaplavit (ISSN 2321-1881), Vol. 10, No. 3, Oct.-Nov. 2020 Hibernating Fish! Sustainable Collection? Priyankar Chakraborty Priyankar Chakraborty Locally, this fish is called 'Lal The reasons that make these Cheng' and is unpalatable because of fish inedible are the same ones that its small size and flashy colours. The make them valuable in the aquarium locals claim that these fish hide in trade. The Rabba tribals who resides in burrows during the winter months. the buffer zones of the forests, collect According to them, as the swamp these fish for aquarium fish traders water recedes (during the winter), and exporters. According to the Rabba some fish escape to nearby streams. people, they only collect these fishes But most remain in the drying pools during the summer and monsoon and resort to burying themselves in the season. They maintain that collecting soupy mud. They remain embedded in these snakeheads during the winter the mud till the arrival of the months or even the onset of winter monsoons (the next season). Once the results in their death. Hence they rains arrive, the earth softens, and the usually refrain from collecting the fish snakeheads wriggle free and disperse during that time-frame. Whether this around (to feed and probably even form of collecting is sustainable for the mate). Their behaviour shows population of this highly endemic fish, similarities with members of the remains to be understood. lungfish family found in tropical Africa and South America. 89

Jalaplavit (ISSN 2321-1881), Vol. 10, No. 3, Oct.-Nov. 2020 Priyankar Chakraborty The process of collecting Channa andrao is often fraught with dangers. Elephants and Gaurs frequent the same pools and swamps where ‘Lal Cheng’ lives. The picture here indicates water collected in the footprints of elephants left in the soft mud of the swamp. About the Author Priyankar Chakraborty completed his MSc in Wildlife Conservation from BVIEER in Pune, India and he is captivated about fish systematics and conservation of elasmobranchs. He currently works as an independent researcher. 90

Jalaplavit (ISSN 2321-1881), Vol. 10, No. 3, Oct.-Nov. 2020 Student Niche Dog-faced Water Snake in Pichavaram Mangroves, Tamil Nadu Puja Deb Email: [email protected] Pichavaram Mangrove Forest The Pichavaram mangroves are currently faces major degradation due to excessive human disturbance (Alongi located in the State of Tamil Nadu in et al., 2005). Pichavaram mangrove Southern India. They are an integral part wetland consists of three Reserve of the Cauvery deltaic zone. They are Forests (RF), namely Killai RF, sandwiched between the Vellar estuary Pichavaram RF and Pichavaram in the north and Coleroon estuary in the Extension RF. According to the remote south (Pandian, 2018). It is the second sensing data, in 1986 the total area of largest mangrove forest in the world. these RFs was about 1,474 hand are The Pichavaram mangrove ecosystem 91

Jalaplavit (ISSN 2321-1881), Vol. 10, No. 3, Oct.-Nov. 2020 colonized by 13 true mangrove species. tons (85%) of the catch (Selvam et al., The Pichavaram mangrove wetland is 2010). Avicennia sp. and Rhizophora sp. also rich in fishery resources. Annually were found to be the most dominant about 245 tons of fishery produce is species in Pichavaram mangrove forest harvested from this mangrove wetland, (Kumaravel, 2018). of which prawns alone constitute 208 Another view of Mangroves at Pichavaram Sighting of a Dog-faced Water Snake vegetation. At about 1000 hours, a Dog - It was 19th of September, 2018 faced Water Snake (Cerberus rynchops) was found dead lying in the brackish when we visited Pichavaram mangrove water (N11024’25.48” E79048’21.97”). forests as a part of excursion trip from The body was submerged in the water our college accompanied by two of our and the head of the species was missing professors, Dr. N. Baskaran and Dr. J. from which we assume that it was most Pandiyan. It was a different exposure probably being consumed or killed by provided to us as we were completely some other species. There was no new to mangrove forests. We were published record of C.rynchops in explained by our professors about the mangrove ecosystem and its associated 92

Jalaplavit (ISSN 2321-1881), Vol. 10, No. 3, Oct.-Nov. 2020 Pichavaram Mangrove Forest, so this CITES and in Schedule II – Part 2 of the sighting proves to be the lone evidence Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 in India, of C.rynchops in the area. C.rynchops which helped conservation efforts in has been classified as “Least Concern” protected areas as well as non- by the IUCN, Appendix II species by protected areas. A dead Dog-faced Water Snake Cerberus rynchops in Pichavaram mangrove forest The Family Homalopsidae is a allows members of the genus to move moderately diverse group comprising of across a wide range of salinities from snakes that reside in brackish water full salt water to freshwater (Murphy, habitats. Out of the 53 species recorded 2012). Dog-faced Water Snake (Cerberus worldwide, 10 species are known to rynchops) is a wide-spread species occur in India. Snakes of the genus distributed in the coastal mudflats and Cerberus Cuvier, 1829 occupy a unique, mangrove forests of South and South widespread coastal distribution and East Asia. It is a nocturnal species, have a salt-tolerant physiology that particularly abundant in areas of human 93

Jalaplavit (ISSN 2321-1881), Vol. 10, No. 3, Oct.-Nov. 2020 fishing and fish cleaning activities zone prevostiana and Acrochordus (Murphy, 2007). It was historically granulatus. In spite of being one of the traded and exploited for its skins in most widespread ophidian genera, a various countries. This species is found little is known about its natural history in sympatry with other Homalopsids (Gyi, 1970). such as Fordonia leucobalia, Gerarda Our excursion group from Dept. Zoology & Wildlife Biology, A.V.C. College (Autonomous) Conservation Awareness Pichavaram mangrove forests been subjected to tsunami on December, 2004. Due to lack of data and have witnessed several floral, physio- research studies, various wild species of conservation value go unnoticed and chemical, avifaunal and livelihood become endangered. Therefore, further research works on herpetofaunal species studies. Unfortunately, no in Pichavaram mangrove forests is highly recommended and suggested. herpetofaunal studies are recorded from these forests. This mangrove forest is one among the 11 sites chosen for development of Critical Habitat Information System (CHIS). It also has 94

Jalaplavit (ISSN 2321-1881), Vol. 10, No. 3, Oct.-Nov. 2020 Acknowledgements for being a part of this field trip. I wish to extend my sincere thanks to I would like to thank Pichavaram Forest Debaprasad Sengupta and S. staffs to grant permission for our visit to Sathishkumar for their help in drafting the field site. I would also like to thank this article and Dr. S. R. Ganesh for the Dr. N. Baskaran, Dr. J. Pandiyan and the identification of the snake species. students of P.G. Wildlife Biology I and II FSI (2017). India state of forest report. References Forest survey of India, Dehradun, pp 55– Alongi, D. M., A. L. Ramanathan, L. 61. Kannan, F. Tirendi, L. A. Trott, and M. Bala Krishna Prasad (2005). Influence of FAO (2007). The World’s Mangroves human-induced disturbance on benthic 1980–2005, FAO Forestry Paper 153. microbial metabolism in the Pichavaram Rome: Forest Resources Division, FAO, mangroves, Vellar–Coleroon estuarine p. 77. complex, India. Marine biology 147: 1033-1044. Gyi, K.K. (1970). A revision of colubrid snakes of the subfamily Homalopsinae. Duke, N. C. (1992). Mangrove floristics University of Kansas. Museum Natural and biogeography. In: Tropical Mangrove History. Ecosystems, Coastal and Estuarine Studies 41: 63-100 (Robertson AI and Honculada-Primavera, J. (2000). Alongi DM, eds.). American Geophysical Union, District of Columbia. Mangroves of Southeast Asia. In Duke, N. (2011). Encyclopedia of Modern Mangrove-Friendly Aquaculture: Coral Reefs- Structure, Form and Process. Springer. Pp. 655-663. Proceedings of the Workshop on 10.1007/978-90-481-2639-2_108. Mangrove-Friendly Aquaculture organized by the SEAFDEC Aquaculture Department, January 11-15, 1999, Iloilo 95

Jalaplavit (ISSN 2321-1881), Vol. 10, No. 3, Oct.-Nov. 2020 City, Philippines (pp. 1-12). Aquaculture Engineering Research, 13(19), 14165- Department, Southeast Asian Fisheries 14172. Development Centre. Ragavan, P., S. K. Dubey, J. C. Dagar, P. Kumaravel, S., & R.Ranganathan (2018). M. Mohan, K. Ravichandran, R. S. C. Survey of mangroves and their Jayaraj,& T. S. Rana. (2019). Current associates in Pichavaram mangrove Understanding of the Mangrove Forests forest. International Journal of Science of India. In: Research Developments in Invention Today 7:176-182. Saline Agriculture (pp. 257-304). Springer, Singapore. Murphy, J. C. (2007). Homalopsid Snakes: Evolution in the Mud. Krieger Sandilyan, S., K. Thiyagesan, R. Publishing Company, Malabar, Florida. Nagarajan, and J. Vencatesan. (2010). Salinity rise in Indian mangroves–a Murphy, J.C., H.K. Voris, and D.R.Karns. looming danger for coastal biodiversity. (2012). The dog-faced water snakes, a Current Science 98: 754-756. revision of the genus Cerberus Cuvier,(Squamata). Zootaxa, 3484, Selvam, V., K. K. Ravichandaran, V. M. pp.1-34. Karunakaran, K. G. Mani, E. L. Beula, and L. Gnanappazham (2010). Pandian, P. K. (2018). Geospatial Study Pichavaram mangrove wetlands: on Pichavaram Mangroves Region: situation analysis. M.S. Swaminathan Remote Sensing and GIS Approach. Research Foundation, India. International Journal of Applied About the Author Puja Deb is pursuing her Master's in Wildlife Biology at A.V.C. College (Autonomous), Tamil Nadu. She had been an intern under WWF, India where she worked with large carnivores in Sathyamangalam Tiger Reserve and Erode Forest Division. Holding a passion and strong interest in large carnivores, she also feels the necessity of conserving the biodiversity as a whole focusing on the underdog species as well. 96



The theme to observe the World Wetlands Day-2021 (2-2-2021) is “Wetlands & Water”. The next issue of Jalaplavit (ISSN 2321-1881) will revolve around this global theme. Please send your articles, papers, notes, pictures etc. on “Water, Wetlands and Life” (as shown in the Ramsar’s poster below). Send by 7-1-2021 to [email protected].