Spatio-temporal assemblages of commensal bird species in urban landscapes of Ludhiana city

Introduction

Avian species constitute the most diverse evolutionary group and they have a unique place in the ecosystem. There are many roles of birds in an ecosystem and they act as pollinators, pests and scavengers etc (Mariyappan et al., 2023 ) [1]. Urbanized areas provide food resources to birds both directly and indirectly. Directly, they provide food resources as feeders and indirectly in the form of garbage, waste treatment and transfer. In man-made habitats, granivores species are the more successful than insectivore because seeds are more easily available in human occupied areas as compared to other food resources (Patankar et al., 2021) [2] . The function of urban ecosystem can be interpreted by estimating the spatial relation of bird diversity and vegetation fertility, transforming urban planning policies. Many bird species get benefit from urbanization as their natural environmental areas get protected or new conditions are formed whereas some get threatened (Reis et al., 2012) [3] . The spatial pattern of vegetationrelated resources in urban landscape is determined by human activity (Alberti, 2015) [4] . The temporal stabilization of habitat and food resources and exclusion of migrant species encouraged by urbanization cause a seasonal homogenization of bird composition (Leveau et al., 2015) [5] . Most ornithology studies conducted along urban-rural gradients have shown that the diversity and structure of avian communities are negatively affected by urbanization. The increase in urbanization affects bird species richness and urban habitats were dominated by urban generalist species; thus, creating biotic homogenization. Species living in urban areas differ from those existing in their natural habitats and with the expansion of residential areas, there is fragmentation of bigger ecosystems (McKinney, 2002) [6] , substitution by exotic ornamental species of pre-existing native species and purging of natural vegetation (Aronson et al., 2015) [7] . A study conducted on urban landscape showed negative effect of population elevation like pollution, climatic variations, desertification, habitat destruction and fragmentation and invasion of exotic species (Aravind et al., 2010) [8] . [9][10][11] .

The objective of the study was to determine spatial and temporal assemblage of three most abundant commensal bird species i.e. Blue Rock Pigeon, Common Myna and House Crow in urbanized landscapes of Ludhiana city so that efforts should be done to create sustainable environments for both humans and these commensal bird species in urban ecosystems. Location 1: Rajguru Nagar was a varied housing structure. Vegetation consisted of native as well as introduced tree and shrub species. It was an unplanned urban area with narrow streets. Mostly houses were two or three storeys. There was one Gurudwara and two parks at this location. Points 1-12 were taken at this location.

Material and Methods

Location 2: Agar Nagar was a highly urbanized residential area including high human disturbances. There were few small shops run by people from within their houses. This location had two public parks and one school. There was a temple at the entrance of the location. Points 13-24 were taken at this location.

Location 3: Phase-3, Dugri Estate had modern housing structures with mature trees and newly planted saplings. This was a well-planned urban area with wide roads. The houses were mostly two or three storeys. There was one school and a small market at this location. Points 14-36 were taken at this location.

Location 4: Punjab Agricultural University Campus (PAU) had residential houses lacking structural diversity and characterized by diversity of tree types both as rows along lanes and fruit trees in their backyards. The houses were mostly two storeys. Points 37-48 were taken at this location.

Structural features of locations

The data on structural features of the studied locations i.e. area covered under vegetation, build up, parks, fallow land and road cover was taken from Punjab Remote Sensing Centre Ludhiana.

Point count method: Point count method was followed for noting spatial activities of different bird species and data was taken on monthly intervals to ascertain temporal trends in their activities and abundance (Bibby et al., 1992) [12] . Sampling was carried out by taking 12 equidistant points in 1 Km transect to monitor and record bird activity systematically and thoroughly; thereby a total of 48 points were visited for 4 selected transects on monthly intervals. Time duration of 10 minutes per point per observation was taken to observe the bird species namely Blue Rock Pigeon, Common Myna and House Crow. Bird traits were recorded and compared with the morphological features mentioned in the standard field guides, namely The Book of Indian Birds (Ali, 2002) [13] for proper identification.

Relative abundance

Relative abundance was calculated using the formula:

Where ni is referred to as the number of species of ith species and N is the total number of species recorded in the study area.

Data analysis was done on abundance values recorded per point per bird species per month in the studied area, out of pooled data of individual species the graph were plotted to understand spatial and temporal patterns of studied three bird species. Bird observations taken were also analysed in relation to structural habitat types of each transect to understand their utilization and abundance of studied commensal bird species.

Results and Discussion Structural Features of different locations

Location 1 was having maximum area under built up (46.01%) followed by road cover (27.75%), vegetation cover (15.06%), park area (6.43%) and fallow land (4.74%) (Table 1). Location 2 had maximum area under built up (68.59%) followed by road cover (18.48%), park cover (5.68%), vegetation (5.12%) and fallow land (5.68%). The maximum area at location 3 was cover by built up (38.68%) followed by road cover (32.56%), vegetation (19.42%), park cover (7.13%) and fallow land (2.21%). At location 4, maximum area was under vegetation (61.92%) followed by built up (21.20%), road cover (8.96%), fallow land (5.88%) and park (2.05%). The spatial description of the structural features of the studied locations showed that road cover was maximum at location 3 (32.56%), built up was maximum at location 2 (68.59%), vegetation cover came out to be maximum at location 4 (61.92%), fallow land was found covering maximum area at location 4 (5.88%), parks covered most area at location 3 (7.13%).These types of structural features of a landscape in urban cities with houses having patches of native vegetation play a beneficial role for native birds (Humphrey et al., 2023) [14] .

Spatial distribution of commensal birds

The spatial distribution of three commensal bird species recorded at different points in four locations (Fig 1 [15] . Common Myna was maximum at point 32 (location 3) and House Crow was maximum at point 33 (location 3) and these points had vegetation and modernized housing structures which offered an optimal balance by providing foraging and breeding opportunities in the form of food waste, nesting sites on buildings and insects, fruits, shelter in vegetation (Grünwald and Reif, 2025) [16] . The corvids such as house crow in present study demonstrated high levels of adaptability to urban environments because of their flexibility in resource use and behavioral plasticity that enabled them to exploit novel resources for nesting and feeding (Benmazouz et al., 2021) [17] .The three commensal bird species were influenced by factors related to spatial scaling and were found exploiting wider resources as well as thriving well in urbanized landscape. Granivores species such as Rock Pigeon are benefitted from anthropogenic food which ultimately supports their higher abundance as corroborated by Lim and Sodhi (2004) [18] . The abundance of Common Myna was high at location 3 due to the fact that these species can feed on fruits, insects as well as anthropogenic food and getting benefitted from proximity to humans pertaining to their commensal behaviour (Khera et al., 2009) [19] .

Temporal distribution of commensal birds

Temporal variation among the studied locations showed that Rock Pigeon being the most abundant commensal species was found to have maximum value in May (57.89%) at location 1, January (42.50%) at location 2, January (62.04%) at location 3 and January (28.57%) at location 4 (Fig. 2).This finding is in accordance with that of Ali et al. (2013) [20] which also observed higher population density of the pigeon in Islamabad during winter season due to availability of suitable roosting sites, nesting sites, feeding sites and water points. The minimum variation in distribution of Rock Pigeon was recorded during October (21.95%) at location 1, August (17.53%) location 2, both August and September (0%) at location 3 as well as location4. Common Myna was having maximum value in April (21.62%) at location 1, February (22.35%) at location 2, April (15.94%) at location 3 and February (15.25%) at location 4 whereas it was recorded minimum during February (5.13%) at location 1 (Fig. 3), December (3.60%) at location 2, November (0.13%) at location 3 and January (0%) at location 4. Common mynas are considered to opportunistic omnivores whose diet shifts seasonally, relying heavily on insects during the breeding season to meet higher protein demands (Griffioen and Clarke, 2002) [21] . Thus availability of insects required as food and for breeding of common myna might be one of the factor for its monthly variation at different locations. The House Crow had maximum value recorded during April (13.51%) at location, September (31.71%) at location2, April (14.49%) at location 3 and January (8.57%) at location 4 whereas its minimum values were recorded during August (3.33%) at location 1, March (0.84%) at location 2, December as well as January (0.08%) at location 3 and November (0.02%) at location 4 (Fig. 4). The temporal variation in House Crow observed was due to seasonal movement ad changes in its foraging behaviour in urban environments as reported by Ryall (2003) [22] . There are many factors in environment that affect the spatial and temporal distribution of these commensal bird species. The built-up infrastructure influenced the spatial distribution of birds in urban landscapes (Suarez-Castro et al., 2024) [23] . The climatic factors caused temporal fluctuations in bird assemblages and abiotic factors such as low temperature and high precipitation caused decrease in bird abundance (Santilla´n et al., 2018) [24] . Moreover, the birds are distributed according to type of habitat available for them for their shelter, presence of suitable food materials such as grains, insects etc, and proper nesting sites. Sahni and Kler (2023) [25] reported that bird species i.e. Rock Pigeon, Common Myna, Eurasian Collared-Dove, House Crow, House Sparrow, Red-vented Bulbul and Rose-ringed Parakeet owing to their habitat flexibility were able to exploit the ample feeding and nesting resources offered by urban landscapes.

Conclusions:

The present study suggests that in an urbanized landscape, the spatial and temporal distribution of commensal bird communities are governed by surrounding structural features and environmental factors in an ecosystem.

Acknowledgement

AcknowledgementsThe authors thank the Head, Department of Zoology, Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana and ICAR, New Delhi for providing financial support and necessary facilities for conduct of study.

References

1. Mariyappan M, Rajendran M, Velu S, Johnson AD, Dinesh GK, Solaimuthu K, et al. Ecological role and ecosystem services of birds: a review. Int J Environ Clim Chang. 2023;13(6):76-87.
2. Patankar S, Jambhekar R, Suryawanshi KR, Nagendra H. Which traits influence bird survival in the city? A review. Land. 2021;10(2):92. doi:10.3390/land10020092.
3. Reis E, López-Iborra GM, Pinheiro RT. Changes in bird species richness through different levels of urbanization: implications for biodiversity conservation and garden design in central Brazil. Landsc Urban Plan. 2012;107(1):31-42.
4. Alberti M. Eco-evolutionary dynamics in an urbanizing planet. Trends Ecol Evol. 2015;30(2):114-126.
5. Leveau LM, Isla F, Bellocq MI. Urbanization and the temporal homogenization of bird communities: a case study in central Argentina. Urban Ecosyst. 2015;18:1461-1476.
6. McKinney ML. Urbanization, biodiversity, and conservation. Bioscience. 2002;52(10):883-890.
7. Aronson MFJ, Handel SN, La Puma IP, Clemants SE. Urbanization promotes non-native woody species and diverse plant assemblages in the New York metropolitan region. Urban Ecosyst. 2015;18:31-45.
8. Aravind NA, Rao D, Ganeshaiah KN, Uma Shaanker R, Poulsen JG. Impact of the invasive plant, Lantana camara, on bird assemblages at Malé Mahadeshwara Reserve Forest, South India. Trop Ecol. 2010;51(2 Suppl):325-338.
9. Ranjana VR, Acharya CA. Selection of roosting tree and communal roosting benefitted the common myna to survive. GAP Interdisciplinarities. 2019;2(3):220-227.
10. Tan HZ, Low GW, Sadanandan KR, Rheindt FE. Population assessment of the house crow (Corvus splendens) in Singapore. Malayan Nat J. 2020;72(2):133-142.
11. Lim KN, Soh MC, Leong DY, Loo AH, Lee BPH, Er KB. Proximity to anthropogenic food sources determine roosting and nesting prevalence of feral pigeons (Columba livia) in a tropical city. Ecol Solut Evid. 2023;4(2):e12234. doi:10.1002/2688-8319.12234.
12. Bibby CJ, Burgess ND, Hill DA. Bird census techniques. 1st ed. London: Academic Press; 1992. 257 p.
13. Ali S. The book of Indian birds. Bombay: Oxford University Press; 2002.
14. Humphrey JE, Haslem A, Bennett AF. Housing or habitat: what drives patterns of avian species richness in urbanized landscapes? Landsc Ecol. 2023;38(8):19191937.
15. Sol D, González-Lagos C, Moreira D, Maspons J, Lapiedra O. Urbanisation tolerance and the loss of avian diversity. Ecol Lett. 2014;17(8):942-950.
16. Grünwald J, Reif J. Urban bird assemblages in India: the role of traffic, greenspaces, and dietary traits in shaping community composition. Urban Ecosyst. 2025;28(3):118. doi:10.1007/s11252-025-01732-4.
17. Benmazouz I, Jokimäki J, Lengyel S, Juhász L, Kaisanlahti-Jokimäki ML, Kardos G, et al. Corvids in urban environments: a systematic global literature review. Animals. 2021;11:3226. doi:10.3390/ani11113226.
18. Lim HC, Sodhi NS. Responses of avian guilds to urbanisation in a tropical city. Landsc Urban Plan. 2004;66(4):199-215.
19. Khera N, Mehta V, Sabata BC. Interrelationship of birds and habitat features in urban greenspaces in Delhi, India. Urban For Urban Green. 2009;8(3):187-196.
20. Ali S, Rakha BA, Hussain I, Nadeem MS, Rafique M. Ecology of feral pigeon (Columba livia) in urban areas of Rawalpindi/Islamabad, Pakistan. Pak J Zool. 2013;45(5):1229-1234.
21. Griffioen PA, Clarke MF. Large-scale bird-movement patterns evident in eastern Australian atlas data. Emu. 2002;102(2):99-125.
22. Ryall C. Factors affecting the distribution of the house crow (Corvus splendens) in Great Britain. Bird Study. 2003;50(2):181-188.
23. Suarez-Castro AF, Oh RRY, Tulloch AIT, Bonn A, Fuller RA, Rhodes JR. Landscape structure influences the spatial distribution of urban bird attractiveness. Landsc Ecol. 2024;39:149. doi:10.1007/s10980-02401950-9.
24. Santillán V, Quitián M, Tinoco BA, Zárate E, Schleuning M, Böhning-Gaese K, et al. Spatio-temporal variation in bird assemblages is associated with fluctuations in temperature and precipitation along a tropical elevational gradient. PLoS One. 2018;13(5):e0196179. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0196179.
25. Sahni NK, Kler TK. Impact of urban landscape on relative abundance of invasive bird species. Indian J Ecol. 2023;50(5):1801-1805.