Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T13:03:30.806Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Hornbill abundance in unlogged forest, selectively logged forest and a forest plantation in Arunachal Pradesh, India

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 April 2009

Aparajita Datta
Aparajita Datta
Affiliation:
Wildlife Institute of India, Post Bag # 18, Dehradun 248-001, India.
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

The responses of hornbills to selective logging were determined by comparing their diversity and abundance in five habitats classified according to logging history. Relative abundance of three hornbill species was compared along trails in recently logged forest, 20–25-year-old logged forest, unlogged primary forest, a relatively disturbed primary forest and a plantation in Pakhui Wildlife Sanctuary and adjoining reserve forests in western Arunachal Pradesh. The species recorded were the Oriental pied hornbill Anthracoceros albirostris, wreathed hornbill Aceros undulatus and great hornbill Buceros bicornis. The great hornbill was the most common species overall and its abundance varied across habitats, being highest in unlogged forest. The Oriental pied hornbill, which was recorded in only two habitats, seemed to show a distinct habitat preference for secondary growth, rivermargin forests. Wreathed hornbill abundance did not differ between habitats. Differences in species abundance probably reflect aspects of their ecology, such as degree of territoriality, diet and movement patterns, and differential vulnerability to hunting and disturbance. Great hornbill abundance was correlated with large tree density (GBH ≥ 150 cm) and basal area characteristic of unlogged primary forests, while Oriental pied hornbill abundance was negatively correlated with tall forest, indicating its greater numbers in low-stature river-margin forest. Wreathed hornbill abundance was not correlated with any vegetation variable, which is probably related to its reported nomadic movements in search of fruit patches. Hornbill abundance was not correlated with densities of potential food and nest tree species. Although hornbill abundance was not correlated with fig tree density, this was probably because areas where relative fig tree densities were lower often contained a few large fruiting figs. Because hornbills are large mobile birds, they can find resources such as fruiting figs even in otherwise unsuitable habitat.

Type
Research Article
Information
Oryx , Volume 32 , Issue 4 , October 1998 , pp. 285 - 294
Copyright
Copyright © Fauna and Flora International 1998

References

Champion, H.G. and Seth, S.K. 1968. A Revised Survey of the Forest Types of India. Manager of Publications, Government of India, New Delhi.Google Scholar
IUCN. 1996. 1996 Red List of Threatened Animals. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland.Google Scholar
Johns, A.D. 1983. Wildlife can live with logging. New Scientist, 99, 206–211.Google Scholar
Johns, A.D. 1985. Selective logging and wildlife conservation in tropical rainforest: problems and recommendations. Biological Conservation, 31, 355–375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johns, A.D. 1986. Effects of selective logging on the ecological organization of a peninsular Malaysian rainforest avifauna. Forktail, 1, 65–79.Google Scholar
Johns, A.D. 1987. The use of primary and selectively logged rainforest by Malaysian hornbills (Bucerotidae) and implications for their conservation. Biological Conservation, 40, 179–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johns, A.D. 1989. Recovery of a Peninsular Malayasian rainforest avifauna following selective timber logging: the first twelve years. Forktail, 4, 89–106.Google Scholar
Kannan, R. 1994. Ecology and conservation of the great pied hornbill (Buceros bicornis) in the Western Ghats of southern India. PhD thesis, University of Arkansas.Google Scholar
Katti, M., Singh, P., Manjrekar, N., Mukherjee, S. and Sharma, D. 1992. An ornithological survey in eastern Arunachal Pradesh, India. Forktail, 7, 75–89.Google Scholar
Kemp, A.C. 1979. A review of hornbills: biology and radiation. The Living Bird, 17, 105–136.Google Scholar
Kemp, A.C. and Kemp, M. I. 1975. Report on a study of hornbills in Sarawak, with comments on their conservation. WWF, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.Google Scholar
Lambert, F. 1991. The conservation of fig-eating birds in Malaysia. Biological Conservation, 58 (1), 31–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leighton, M. 1982. Fruit resources and patterns of feeding, spacing and grouping among sympatric Bornean hornbills (Bucerotidae). PhD thesis, University of California (Davis).Google Scholar
Leighton, M. 1986. Hornbill social dispersion: variations on a monogamous theme. In Ecological Aspects of Social Evolution (eds Rubenstein, D. and Wrangham, R. W.), pp. 108–130. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey.Google Scholar
Leighton, M. and Leighton, D. R. 1983. Vertebrate responses to fruiting seasonality within a Bornean rain forest. In Tropical Rain Forest: Ecology and Management(eds Sutton, S. L., Whitmore, T. C. and Chadwick, A. C.), pp. 181–196. Blackwell Scientific Publications, Oxford.Google Scholar
Norusis, M.J. 1990. SPSS/PC+4.0 Base Manual – Statistical Data Analysis.SPSS Inc.Google Scholar
Patel, A. 1996. Strangler fig–host associations in roadside and deciduous forest sites. Journal of Biogeography, 23 (4), 409–414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Payne, J.B. 1980. Competitors. In Malayan Forest Primates (ed. Chivers, D. J.), pp. 261–277. Plenum Press, New York and London.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poonswad, P. 1995. Nest site characteristics of four sympatric species of hornbills in Khao Yai National Park, Thailand. Ibis, 137, 183–191.Google Scholar
Poonswad, P. and Tsuji, A. 1994. Ranges of males of the Great Hornbill Buceros bicornis, Brown Hornbill Ptilolaemus tickelii and Wreathed Hornbill Rhyticeros undulatus in Khao Yai National Park, Thailand. Ibis, 136, 79–86.Google Scholar
Poonswad, P., Tsuji, A. and Ngampongsai, C. 1983. A study of the breeding biology of hornbills (Bucerotidae) in Thailand. Proceedings of the Jean Delacour/ICFB Symposium on Breeding Birds in Captivity. 02 24–27, 1983, Los Angeles, California, USA.Google Scholar
Poonswad, P., Tsuji, A. and Ngampongsai, C. 1986. A comparative ecological study of four sympatric hornbills (Family Bucerotidae) in Thailand. Acta XIX Congressus Internationalis Ornithologici. Vol. II, 06 22–29, 1986, Ottawa, Canada. University of Ottawa Press.Google Scholar
Poonswad, P., Tsuji, A. and Ngampongsai, C. 1987. A comparative study on breeding biology of four sympatric hornbill species (Family Bucerotidae) in Thailand with implications for breeding in captivity. Proceedings of the Jean Delacour/ICFB Symposium on Breeding Birds in Captivity. 02 11–15, 1987, Los Angeles, California, USA.Google Scholar
Rijksen, H.D. 1978. A Field Study of the Sumatran Orang-utan (Pongo pygmaeus abelii, Lesson, 1827): Ecology, Behaviour and Conservation. H. Veenman and Zonen, Wageningen, Holland.Google Scholar
Singh, P. 1991. Avian and mammalian evidences in Pakhui Wildlife Sanctuary in East Kameng district, Arunachal Pradesh. Arunachal Forest News, 9 (2), 1–10.Google Scholar
Singh, P. 1995. Recent bird records from Arunachal Pradesh. Forktail, 10, 65–104.Google Scholar
Suryadi, S., Kinnaird, M.F. and O'Brien, T.G. 1996. Home range and daily length of the Sulawesi redknobbed hornbills Aceros cassidix during the nonbreeding season. Abstract, The Second International Asian Hornbill Workshop, 10–18 04 1996.Google Scholar
Wells, D.R. 1985. The Forest avifauna of Western Malesia and its conservation. In Conservation of Tropical Forest Birds (eds Diamond, A. W. and Lovejoy, T. E.), pp. 213–232. International Council for Bird Preservation, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Wildlife (Protection) Act, (India). 1972. Natraj Publishers, Dehradun.Google Scholar