EFFECTS OF URBANIZATION ON AVIFAUNA IN

KATHMANDU VALLEY FORESTS, NEPAL

A Dissertation Submitted to
GoldenGate International College
Battisputali, Kathmandu
Institute of Science and Technology
Tribhuvan University

In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Award of Degree of

M.Sc. in Environmental Science

By
Devendra Chapagain
T.U. Registration No.: 5- 2- 37- 1210- 2006
Exam Roll No.: Env.101/069

April, 2015
 DECLARATION

I hereby declare that the work presented in this dissertation is a genuine work done
originally by me and has not been submitted elsewhere for the award of any degree. All
sources of information have been specifically acknowledged by reference to the
author(s) or institution(s).

...................................
Devendra Chapagain
Date: April, 2015

ii
 LETTER OF RECOMMENDATION

This is to certify that Mr. Devendra Chapagain has completed this dissertation work
entitled “Effects of Urbanization on Avifauna in Kathmandu Valley Forests, Nepal”
as a partial fulfillment of the requirements of M.Sc. in Environmental Science under
our supervision and guidance. To our knowledge, this research has not been submitted
for any other degree, anywhere else.
We therefore, recommend the dissertation for acceptance and approval.

……......................... …………………….
Supervisor Co-supervisor
Dr. Tej Bahadur Thapa Mr. Prakash Chandra Aryal
Professor (Faculty)
Central Department of Zoology Department of Environmental Science
Tribhuvan University GoldenGate Int’l College
Kirtipur, Kathmandu, Nepal Battisputali, Kathmandu, Nepal

iii
 LETTER OF APPROVAL

On the recommendation of supervisor “Dr. Tej Bahadur Thapa” this dissertation submitted
by “Mr. Devendra Chapagain entitled “Effects of Urbanization on Avifauna in
Kathmandu Valley Forests, Nepal” is approved for the examination and submitted to the
Tribhuvan University in partial fulfillment of the requirements of M.Sc. in Environmental
Science.

........................................
Man Kumar Dhamala, Ph.D.
Coordinator
Department of Environmental Science
GoldenGate Int’l College
Battisputali, Kathmandu, Nepal

iv
 CERTIFICATE OF ACCEPTANCE

This dissertation entitled “Effects of Urbanization on Avifauna in Kathmandu Valley

Forests, Nepal” submitted by “Mr. Devendra Chapagain” is examined and accepted as a
partial fulfillment of the requirements of M.Sc. in Environmental Science.

Evaluation Committee

………………………. …………………
Supervisor External Examiner
Tej Bahadur Thapa, Ph.D. Hem Sagar Baral, Ph.D.
Professor Country Representative
Central Department of Zoology Zoological Society of London, Nepal
Tribhuvan University

………………… ……………………….
Co- supervisor Internal Examiner
Mr. Prakash Chandra Aryal Man Kumar Dhamala, Ph.D.
Faculty Head
GoldenGate Int’l College Department of Environmental
Science

……………………………
Man Kumar Dhamala, Ph.D.
Head
Department of Environmental Science

v
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I express my highest gratitude and appreciation to my respected supervisor Dr. Tej

Bahadur Thapa, Professor, Central Department of Zoology, Tribhuvan University,
Kathmandu and my co-supervisor Mr. Prakash Chandra Aryal for their supervision,
creative and valuable suggestions and guidance till completion of this research work.
I extend my sincere thanks to Dr. Man Kumar Dhamala, head of the Department of
Environmental Science, GoldenGate College, all staff of the department for their
support and guidance and the entire team of the GoldenGate Int’l College.
I am very much thankful to Mr. Jaya Narayan Bhanadari, Mr. Kiran Bhusal and Mr.
Taranidhi Neupane for their help and co-operation to complete my field work and
technical support.
I am extremely thankful to Resources Himalayan Foundation and Wildlife
Conservation Nepal, for providing me financial support as WCN-RHF grant to conduct
the research.
Lastly, I would like to extend my deep gratitude to my family for their support and
inspiration and all those helping hand directly and indirectly to this work.

Devendra Chapagain
April, 2015

vi
 SUMMARY
Urbanization in Kathmandu has created increased interests in urban biodiversity. The
forest remnants in Kathmandu Valley exist in patches around sacred places like
temples and religious sites. Forest patches in urban Kathmandu were surveyed for
exploring the diversity of trees and birds.
The survey of nine forests identified and measured the height, canopy cover and
diameter at breast height (DBH). The canopy cover ranged from 20-95 percent. Tree
DBH ranged from 21-210 cm with an average of 65.33 cm. The maximum height of the
tree was 27.78 m whereas the minimum height of the tree was 6.86 m with average tree
height 12.42 m. Using point count (N=158) method with same effort in nine forest-
patches, Pre monsoon and Post Monsoon variation of bird species richness, diversity
and abundance were recorded. A total of 1926 individual birds belonging to 61 species
were recorded during the Pre Monsoon Season whereas for Post Monsoon season it was
1729 individual birds belonging to 63 species. At the point level, Pashupati forest had
the highest value of bird richness and Hattiban had the least. Bird abundance ranged
from 2 to 40 (12.2±6.3), species richness ranged from 2 to 17 (6.44± 2.5) and Shannon
Index (H’) ranged 0.56 to 2.65 (1.62±0. 4) with 29 points having five species of birds
and only 12 had more than 10 species for Pre Monsoon season. Similarly, for Post
Monsoon season at point level, Bajrabarahi had the highest value of average bird
richness and Gokarna had the least. Bird abundance ranged from 0 to 57 (10.93±8.2),
species richness ranged from 0 to 13 (5.34± 2.3) and Shannon Index (H’) ranged 0 to
2.3 (1.41±0.49) with 33 points having five species of birds and only 3 plots having
more than 10 species.
Furthermore, Species richness and diversity varied from Pre Monsoon and Post
Monsoon seasons significantly. Gokarna, Hattiban and Swyambhu had significantly
low richness among the forests whereas bird diversity was significantly different
among the forests and in particular significantly low for Gokarna and Hattiban.
Bird species richness and diversity (H’) did not show significant relationship with
forest characteristics like canopy cover; maximum tree height and size. The seasonal
impacts of shrub cover and canopy cover on bird diversity were not significant. In
general, bird species richness showed positive relationship with increase in patch size.
The richness, diversity and abundance of birds showed that urban forests are stronghold
of bird diversity in Kathmandu Valley yet threats persist at high levels.

vii
 CONTENTS
Page no.
DECLARATION ......................................................................................................... ii
LETTER OF RECOMMENDATION ......................................................................... iii
LETTER OF APPROVAL .......................................................................................... iv
CERTIFICATE OF ACCEPTANCE ............................................................................ v
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ........................................................................................ vi
SUMMARY .............................................................................................................. vii
LIST OF TABLES ....................................................................................................... x
LIST OF FIGURES .................................................................................................... xi
ACRONYMS/ABBREVIATIONS AND SYMBOLS ................................................ xii
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ................................................................................. 1
1.1. Background ....................................................................................................... 1
1.2. Statement of Problem ........................................................................................ 4
1.3. Research Questions............................................................................................ 4
1.4. Objectives.......................................................................................................... 4
1.5. Working Hypothesis .......................................................................................... 5
1.6. Limitations ........................................................................................................ 5
1.7. Overview of Contents ........................................................................................ 5
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW ...................................................................... 6
CHAPTER 3: MATERIALS AND METHODS ......................................................... 13
3.1. Study Area....................................................................................................... 13
3.1.1 Hydrology and Climate ......................................................................... 14
3.1.2 Vegetation ............................................................................................... 14
3.2. Research Design .............................................................................................. 15
3.3. Data Collection methods .................................................................................. 16
3.3.1. Habitat Survey ......................................................................................... 16
3.3.2. Bird Survey .............................................................................................. 16
3.4. Data Analysis .................................................................................................. 18
3.4.1. Vegetation data analysis: ...................................................................... 18
3.4.2. Bird data analysis: ................................................................................ 18
CHAPTER 4: RESULTS ........................................................................................... 19

viii
 4.1. Bird richness, abundance and diversity ........................................................ 19
4.2. Bird and Vegetation Relationship................................................................. 25
4.3. Patch Size and Bird Species Richness .......................................................... 27
CHAPTER 5: DISCUSSION ..................................................................................... 29
5.1. Bird Richness, Abundance and Diversity ......................................................... 29
5.2. Habitat Feature and Bird .................................................................................. 31
5.3. Patch Area and Bird ......................................................................................... 32
CHAPTER 6: CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS .................................. 35
REFERENCES .......................................................................................................... 37
APPENDICES .............................................................................................................. I

ix
 LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Description of point level bird populations and diversity in Pre Monsoon ..... 19
Table 2: Description of point level bird populations and diversity in Post Monsoon ... 20
Table 3: Descriptive tree parameters of forest patches ................................................ 26
Table 4: Description of patch level bird richness between seasons.............................. 28

x
 LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Study forest patches with Nepal and districts covered in inset ..................... 13
Figure 2: The flow chart of the research process is shown in above diagram .............. 15
Figure 3: Description of Pre Monsoon point level (A) bird diversity and (B) bird
abundance in forest patches ........................................................................................ 20
Figure 4: Description of Pre Monsoon point level bird richness in forest patches ....... 21
Figure 5: Description of Post Monsoon point level bird richness in forest patches ...... 21
Figure 6: Description of Post Monsoon point level bird abundance (A) and Shannon
Diversity Index (B) in forest patches .......................................................................... 22
Figure 7: Relation between Shannon Diversity Index (H’) and bird abundance
smoothed by loess ...................................................................................................... 22
Figure 8: Relation between Shannon Diversity Index (H’) & bird abundance smoothed
by loess ...................................................................................................................... 23
Figure 9: Seasonal Variation in species accumulation curves for Pre Monsoon (A) and
Post Monsoon (B) representing species number and sample efforts. ........................... 24
Figure 10: Seasonal (Pre Monsoon and Post Monsoon) variation in bird richness ....... 24
Figure 11: Seasonal variation in bird diversity (A) and bird abundance (B) ................ 25
Figure 12: Relation between bird diversity with shrub cover and canopy cover (A to D)
for Pre Monsoon and Post Monsoon season ............................................................... 26
Figure 13: Relation between bird diversity, max DBH and max Height (A to D) for Pre
Monsoon and post monsoon season............................................................................ 27
Figure 14: Relationship between Pre Monsoon (A) and Post Monsoon (B) bird richness
with area .................................................................................................................... 28

xi
 ACRONYMS/ABBREVIATIONS AND SYMBOLS

BCN Bird Conservation Nepal

DBH Diameter at Breast Height
DNPWC Department of National Parks and Wildlife Conservation
ESRI Environmental Systems Research Institute
FID Fight Initiation Distances
GIS Geographical Information System
H’ Shannon Weaver Diversity Index
ha Hectare
ICIMOD International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development
km Kilometer
masl Meters above sea level
USA United States of America
z Slope of regression line

xii
 CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
1.1. Background

Urbanization is simply the residential and industrial settings having dense human
presence with their associated effects (Marzluff, 1997) incorporating many unsolved
issues, concerns and problems. Its future status, probabilities and direction are still a
matter of uncertainty (Davis, 1955). World’s urban population was 3.6 billion in 2011
and is expected to attain a figure of 6.3 billion with the rate of 72 percent by 2050 with
less developed regions of the world expected to have the world’s population growth
concentrated (Heilig, 2012). Urbanization and urban sprawl occurs simultaneously
driving environmental change multi dimensionally uplifting materials demands for
production with consumption altering various natural processes, cycles, biodiversity,
land use cover both locally and globally (Grimm et al., 2008).

Urbanization has profound impacts on biodiversity. Easily observed impacts including

habitat loss (Czech, 2005; Davis et al., 2013), species loss (Czech, 2005; Lees & Peres,
2008; Khatiwada, 2013; Magurran, 2004), invasion by exotic species (Czech, 2005;
Davis et al., 2013; Pauchard et al., 2006) and extinction (Blair, 2001; Kale et al, 2012;
Vitousek et al, 1997). One of the animal community facing direct threats from
urbanization is avian community (Surya, 2013).

Urbanization affects diversity of species by two specific ways: I. Habitats are

fragmented and green spaces are reduced II. Introduction of exotic species (Mckinney,
2002). Urbanization is an important driver of the changes in habitat quantity, quality
and configuration. Urban areas holds environment that change unpredictably (Pouyat et
al., 2007), local species those who can cope with such environmental shifts exists (Kark
et al., 2007; Williams et al., 2009). Consequently, viable and native ecosystem present
prior to urbanization may be impossible to protect and re-establish native system
similar in functions like that has been replaced by the urban areas. Next best alternative
must be addressed as if neither protection nor restoration is possible (Rosenzweig,
2004). The influence of urbanization on bird communities has been examined in
number of studies (e.g. Elmen, 1974), that urbanization has profound effects on bird
species richness (McKinney, 2008), abundance (Gavareski, 1976) and community
composition (Beissinger & Osborne, 1982). Nearly half of the world’s population lives
in urban areas making biodiversity loss a concern (Miller, 2005). Within cities,

1
urbanization and suburbanization usually reduce both species richness and evenness for
most biotic communities (Paul & Meyer, 2001; McKinney, 2002) despite increases in
abundance and biomass of birds (Chace & Walsh, 2004).

Although, abundance, dispersal, strategies of individual species and habitat

requirements are responsible for the structure and long term persistence of avian
population, the heterogeneity of habitat (environment) supports local bird richness,
small and isolated forest (patches) fragments in urban areas failed to sustain high
diversity (Yu et al., 2013). There is a strong relationship between local bird richness
and patch characteristics (size, vegetation), urbanization intensity around the patches
and distance to the nearest natural remnant. The disturbance of settlement in response
of bird diversity is generally consistent with the intermediate disturbance hypothesis
(Roxburgh et al., 2004), and the disturbance heterogeneity model (Porter et al., 2001).
Certain species are known to coexist with human ecosystems than with natural sites
with their maintained density which can be clearly elaborated by the following
example. In Tucson, overall bird density increased 26-fold from the Sonoran desert to
urban habitats (Elmen, 1974). During the case of extreme disturbance, syanthropic
species dominate bird communities, conversely when the disturbance is rare, native
forest species dominate but, a rich diversity of species coexists at the case of moderate
disturbance (Marzluff, 2005). Avian assemblages in forest patches primarily comprise
species that either have good dispersal abilities or are highly tolerant to the non-forest
matrix, rather than those whose minimum spatial requirements can be met by the size
of available forest fragments (Lees & Peres, 2008).

The sewage lagoons provided a much localized but relatively species-rich ecosystem,
which acted as a eutrophic oasis of algae and aquatic macrophytes and benefited birds
at several tropic levels (Stainforth, 2002). Consequently, urban environments can no
longer be viewed as lost habitat for wildlife, but rather as new habitat that, with proper
management, has the potential to support diverse bird communities. During the last
decade urban ecosystems have therefore become ecological challenges in conservation,
restoration, and reconciliation ecology (Miller & Hobbs, 2002). Blair (1996) reported
that bird diversity may be affected by urbanization in two distinct ways, either
moderate development increases the overall species diversity with the decrease in
native species diversity or the severity in urbanization lowers both overall and native
species diversity. For this reason urban habitats and their characteristics are still the

2
matter of concern that urban habitat patches can also be the important habitat for the
avifaunal distribution. The urban environment can also deliver the chance to
incorporate ecological management with landscape design to provide a variety of
societal goods and services (Cadenasso & Pickett, 2008).

Birds are ideal study organisms for evaluating the effects of urbanization on species
richness due to their mobility. If habitat loss and fragmentation are limiting the
avifauna community, it is likely that less mobile organisms, with similar habitat
requirements, are being affected as well. Ecologists have traditionally worked in
pristine, or relatively pristine, environments making limited knowing on the effect of
urbanization on ecosystem, communities, species and population (Raman, 2006).
Although urbanization can provide a large-scale measurable experiment to test the
effects of habitat fragmentation on ecological communities, urbanizing landscapes have
received relatively little attention because ecologists have traditionally focused on more
natural systems (Gilbert, 1989; McDonnell & Picket, 1990; Pickett et al., 2001). The
ultimate drivers of avian population and community change need to be identified and
understood in order to establish the Best Management Practices for urban planning in
areas of rapid urbanization (Chace & Walsh, 2004).

Even though urban sprawl is a worldwide problem, most studies on the effects of
urbanization, and the conceptual models have focused on developed countries with
prevailing environmental awareness and research gap in urban areas of developing
countries (Pauchard et al., 2006). In developing countries like Nepal, urbanization is
considered as a result of rural migrants have been pushed rather pulled into the urban
areas seeking various opportunities for quality life (Basyal & Khanal, 2001). Within the
last decades, characterized by rapid population growth and urbanization processes
Kathmandu Valley has been suffering from environmental degradation, pollution and
factors such as population growth, economic development and lack of perspectives in
rural areas will continue the urbanization (Nehren et al., 2013) causing specific
concerns as solid waste management, air pollution, noise pollution, traffic congestion,
poorly managed housing and last but not the least biodiversity loss and disruption of
ecosystem structure and function.

Nepal harbours a wide variety of flora and fauna among which bird represents 8.5% of
the world’s bird’s diversity with a total of 871 bird species recorded in Nepal (BCN &

3
DNPWC, 2011). Many of these species are facing enormous pressure from increasing
human population in the country. With 149 species of birds identified as nationally
threatened in 2010 (BCN & DNPWC, 2011) and an alarming number - 99 species
being Critically Threatened or Endangered, depicts immediate need for urgent
intervention to prevent further decline decline. Continuation of threats will lead to local
extinction of these species or may reduce certain bird populations to the point where
they are no longer viable. A recent paper by Inskipp and Baral (2011) has also
discussed potential impacts to Nepal’s birds due to changing agriculture practice.
Therefore, it is crucial to understand the importance of birds in sustaining the
ecosystem functions and processes and that are providing services for the humankind.

1.2. Statement of Problem

Environment on the earth is deteriorating day by day due to rapid growth of human
population in the earth. Many valuable species like birds, insects, plants etc. are
vanishing gradually due to deteriorated environment in most of the urban settlements.
Rapid urbanization in Valley floor due to fast habitat alteration (Thapa et al., 2009) and
very low level of conservation concerns by the public and the related authority,
urbanization is posing a direct threat to the biodiversity particularly for sensitive
species like avifauna. Furthermore, for effective implementation of conservation
strategies and principles, closer examination of avifauna towards urbanization needs to
be assessed for locating the information gap on local habitat and species occurrence.
Conservation of potential areas of bird habitats, specifically, in the urban settlements is
very important.

1.3. Research Questions

 How are avifauna distributed in urban forest patches in Kathmandu valley?
 What are the major factors driving the distribution of avifauna in urban forest
patches?

1.4. Objectives
General objective of this research was to study the effects of urbanization on avifaunal
distribution in Kathmandu Valley.
Specific objectives were:

4
 1. To assess richness, abundance and distribution of avifauna in Kathmandu
Valley
2. To assess the influence of habitat features on distribution patterns of avifauna
3. To compare the richness of avifauna among the forests patches respective to
their area

1.5. Working Hypothesis

Null Hypothesis (Ho): There is no effect of urbanization on avifaunal richness in urban
forest patches of Kathmandu Valley

1.6. Limitations
Constrains of time is the major limitations for the study. Due to this problem the study
could not cover all the patches of the valley floor. Finance was the next problem as
there was no sufficient funding available. To study the seasonal composition in limited
time period of six months was the difficult task. Kathmandu Valley floor itself is a
very sensitive area due to the urbanization. Since, the patches are highly disturbed
influencing bird and vegetation the study did not covered all the disturbance variables.

1.7. Overview of Contents

Chapter I include introduction regarding the urbanization, trends, processes, their
impacts on urban biodiversity with problem statements, key research questions,
objectives, working hypothesis and limitations of study. Chapter II describes briefly
about the literature in urbanization and biodiversity issues, urbanization, birds and
diversity, urbanization in Kathmandu and sacred grooves. Furthermore, different works
done regarding the urban biodiversity focusing on bird overall world, region and
Nation. Chapter III gives the detail about method applied during work. Chapter IV
describes result of work and chapter V presents the discussion part based on the result
section. Last but not the least, chapter VI concludes the overall study and provides the
recommendation for effective management and policy implementation for enhancing
urban biodiversity.

5
 CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW

The population of the world is proliferating (World Urbanization Prospects, 2011) and
this rapid increase in population has urged the importance of wildlife conservation in
urban areas as it alters the animal diversity and abundance relative to the native lands
(McKinney, 2002; Blair, 1999). Synanthropic generalists, species are highly adapted to
extremely built and modified habitats and are called as ‘‘global homogenizers’’
McKinney, (2006) found in urban cores. However, the species that are less tolerant
can’t adapt to the place and reach the face of extinction (Glazier, 1986). Although high
animal density in cities is supported by high resource availability (Anderies et al.,
2007), local (alpha) diversity (i.e. within-patch diversity) tends to decline with the rate
of urbanization (Beissinger & Osborne, 1982). Habitat fragmentation, disturbance, and
the introduction of invasive species have a positive relationship with the functional
homogenization of birds (Devictor et al., 2008; Pauchard et al., 2006). With proper
management and hard works only, these areas provide valuable space for many wildlife
species, especially birds. Limited studies regarding the impacts of disturbance on the
population, some examples representing the relationship between disturbance and
population size have been made by Mallord et al., (2007); Liley and Sutherland,
(2007); Stillman et al., (2007); Kerbiriou et al., (2009); West et al., (2002).

The determinants of population density of birds in urban areas has been found to be the
age of the suburb and the distance of the site from the remnant setting, the study was
made by (Munyenyembe et al., 1989) in Canberra. This increase in density corresponds
to the change in habitat condition over the passage of time (number of open forest and
woodland species increased) with the consistency in the number of grassland and exotic
species. Also, competitive superiority of exotic species over native species and
opportunistic use of ecological opportunities derived from human activities have also
been linked to urbanization by an ecological theory (Sol et al., 2012). These facts
depicts that the number of individual in urban areas are poor predictor of species
richness as in relation with the wilderness areas.

Several hypotheses suggest that urbanization is related to the loss of habitat due to
fragmentation of landscape and these fragmentation leads to the creation of patches that
are isolated with habitat edges creating subsequent impact on forest-interior bird

6
species (Deng & Gao, 2005). Edges may affect the organisms by causing changes in
the biotic and abiotic conditions in the forest, such as increased amounts of sunlight,
high wind speeds, and larger fluctuations in temperature and humidity (Saunders et al.,
1991; Murcia, 1995). Species that require forest interior may avoid edges due to altered
microclimate, vegetation structure, or high density of predators or brood parasites
(Yahner & Scott, 1988; Stephens et al., 2004). On the other hand, although predators
and brood parasites may be more abundant or active in the adjacent habitat and edge,
some bird species are concentrated near to edge areas. This paradox of high bird
abundance and richness but low nesting success near edges was termed an ecological
trap by Gates and Gysel (1978). Many studies have tested the occurrence of edge
effects on nesting success of forest birds and concluded that high predation and brood
parasitism rates near edges were main causes of nest failures (Manolis et al., 2002;
Hannon & Cotterill, 1998). Indeed, edges are in controversial states as some hypothesis
suggests the edges are beneficial for maintaining species diversity whereas some
hypothesis suggests that edges modifies the distribution and dispersal of wildlife and
the increase in nest predation and parasitism and therefore warns the wildlife and land
managers (Yahner, 1988).
Species-area relationship is partly due higher habitat diversity in larger parks. For
instance, Habitat diversity was all assessed on the basis of park area on Belgian urban
and suburban parks (Cornelis & Hermy, 2004). Studies regarding the species richness
and habitat diversity have shown the positive relationship (Carbó-Ramírez & Zuria,
2011) and even for small parks with area up to (0.1-2 ha). Another prominent study by
Gavareski (1976) is the change in species richness and abundance with the size of the
urban patches (reduced patch size holds reduced diversity and abundance of birds).
There is also consistent relationship between park age (tree age) and bird species
richness, as for example 24 parks in Lublin city, Poland: tree age was more influential
on bird species richness than park area and degree of isolation (Biadun & Zmihorski,
2011).

Shochat et al., (2006) found that altered habitat conditions in urban areas are
responsible for reduced diversity and increase in abundance of certain species, thus
leading change in behavior, morphology, and genetics as well as the selection pressure
of animals. New species arise through the process of speciation and species are lost by
the process of extinction. Rapid rates of speciation can occur during selection process

7
(Slabbekoorn & Smith, 2002), resulting in an increase in the species richness of a
taxon. Extinction rates also vary among taxa and over time i.e. species that have broad
tolerant limit and are good in dispersal abilities within the non-forest matrix live and
continues their biological processes while the other species which do not met the
requirements goes extinct (Lees & Peres, 2008) this suggests that avian assemblages in
forest fragments primarily comprise species that either have good dispersal abilities or
are highly tolerant to the non forest matrix, rather than those whose minimum spatial
requirements can be met by the size of available forest fragments, while extinction and
colonization determines the diversity of the landscapes dominated by humans
(Marzluff, 2005).

Ecological factors are influential to local species richness as for example, higher
productivity can cause increase in species richness although the relationship is still
controversial (Mittelbach et al., 2001; Tilman, 1993; Waide et al., 1999). There is a
negative relationship between relative richness and landscape variables describing the
level of urban development. Humans affect ecosystems by changing land cover, using
resources, producing waste, and changing native communities of fauna and flora (Liu et
al., 2007, Marzluff et al., 2001). In many communities, species richness is greatest at
intermediate frequency and/or intensity of disturbance (the intermediate disturbance
hypothesis) (Wilson, 1994; Roxburgh et al., 2004). This is because very frequent
disturbance eliminates sensitive species, whereas very infrequent disturbance allows
time for superior competitors to eliminate species that cannot compete. A study by
Nguyen (2007) estimated bird composition as an ecological indicator for accessing
disturbance level of a forest in areas of Western Mexico.

As the rate of disturbances proliferates bird distribution is negatively impacted

consequently hindering the conservationist’s capabilities to pursue sustainable forest
management and maintained bird abundance and diversity.

The influence of humans on other animals is profound. In particular, urbanization

affects species survival, population structure, reproduction, and behavior. As
urbanization increases and expands worldwide, an understanding of how animals
respond to the conversion of wild, rural areas to human dominated landscapes is
necessary to successfully conserve biodiversity. These modifications in land cover also
provide a natural experiment for exploring how animals respond to modified

8
environments. Thus, urbanization provides a unique venue for applied and basic
theoretical research on natural selection. Birds are particularly well suited for such
study in that they are ubiquitous worldwide and responsive (both positively and
negatively) to human action (Chace & Walsh, 2004; Marzluff, 2005; Marzluff et al.,
2001; Chamberlain et al., 2004; Robb et al., 2008; Evans et al., 2009; Clucas et al.,
2011). Robb et al., (2008) agreed that supplementary feeding serves as a driver of
ecological change in avian populations altering the natural dynamics of food supply
leading to artificial perturbation of natural selection affecting every aspect of bird
ecology such as reproduction, behavior, demography, and distribution. A study made
on different habitat types within the Mihintale Sanctuary of Sri lanka by (Wimalasekara
& Wickramasinghe, 2014) had shown the species diversity to be higher near aquatic
habitat because they serves as a favorable niche and better source of food for the birds
compared to the forested land. Luniak (2004) has found out that the fast process of
synurbization within recent decades shows possibilities for coexistence of species
between rural and urban landscapes as well as the possibility and opportunity for
wildlife managers for the management of wildlife within the cities.

Development is a rapid phenomenon in valley and its fringes and this process has lead
role for the deterioration of natural environment, increasing trend in built-up areas has
proliferated since 1980s and has contributed the fragmented and heterogeneous land
use practices in the valley and this practice have reduced nearby half of the shrub land.
Similarly, forest land decreased dramatically in the 1980s. Shrubs and forest landscape
in rural areas of the valley mostly changed to agricultural areas (Thapa & Murayama,
2009).

The valley has 20,945 ha of forests, about 32.7% of the total area of the valley. The
natural vegetation, except in a few conservation areas, has been under intense pressure.
The area under natural forest cover, excluding shrubs, is 9,580 ha (45.7% of the total
forest land), of which only about 22% has good forest cover with more than 50% of
crown coverage. Mature hardwood forests are now confined to parks and sacred areas
such as Nagarjun (Raniban), Gokarna, Nilbarahi, Ranibari, Hattiban, Swyambhu,
Mhepi, Pashupati, Bhandarkhal and Shivapuri watershed and Wildlife Conservation
forest and Bajrabarahi forest. Shrubland occupies nearly 34% of the total forest area
(ICIMOD et al., 2007). Sacred groove has its own significance and holds its own

9
legends, lore, and myths which form the integral part, beside this importance changes
are being taken place in their structure and function. and therefore a holistic approach
should be undertaken for assessing their ecological role and formulating strategies
for their conservation respective to the current status, structure and function of the
sacred grooves (Khan et al., 2008).

Birds are often termed as one of the most important indicator species used while
assessing the status of a given area under study, they are very sensitive towards the
small change in the environmental factors (average temperature, precipitation, major
soils and geology, slope, major vegetation, aspect, evapo-transpiration etc) and other
natural and anthropogenic disturbances (habitat fragmentation, cattle rearing,
urbanization, noise pollution etc). These changes leads enthusiasm for different
researchers towards the understanding on the status of avifauna on a given study site
and provides a robust basis for their long term persistence, conservation and
management combating the adverse factors and remediating where possible. Therefore,
the proposed study will use birds as a scaling example to demonstrate the range of
research necessary to assess biodiversity across multiple scales in an urban
environment. This study will also assess the impacts of fragmentation (leading isolation
with change in area) and urbanization towards the richness of the species.

Till date there are many different studies, relating the avifaunal assemblages with the
urbanizations. Studies on competition changing species composition, local extinction
and colonization, importance of predation in driving distribution and abundance,
behavioral mechanisms and hetero-specific attractions for species variance, bird size
and abundance, ground nesting species dynamics, meta-analysis of bird feeding, local
vegetation pattern affecting bird communities, seasonality, reproductive pattern and
migratory behavior has been studied so far with a little effort provided on
fragmentation making islands of varying sizes playing role species distribution. As
development continues in its own pace with or without input from conservation
scientists unplanned growth will proliferate to replace native habitats leaving the threats
to biodiversity (Miller & Hobbs, 2002) with the few winners (invaders) replacing large
no of resident/native losers (Crooks et al., 2004).

As there are numerous gaps to be fulfilled on urbanization and avifaunal distributions

analyses of the relationships between human disturbance and tolerance levels for less

10
tolerant and less abundant species, which are mainly the target of conservation efforts;
evidence on the effect of different spatial arrangements of pathways within parks on the
tolerance levels and densities of urban birds; assessment of the relationship between
visitation and demography (breeding success and survivorship), particularly for the
least tolerant species; determination of visitation thresholds that may maintain breeding
density levels of urban birds; investigation on how the temporal dynamics of visitors to
urban parks (daily and seasonally) may influence tolerance levels of bird species; long
term demographic data and long term analysis on survival and reproduction of urban
bird and further analyses of the data including quantitative spatial analysis of the effect
of the size and isolation of remnants, as well as analysis of the effect of surrounding
land use at multiple scales. These gaps and challenges have become both the
responsibility and opportunity for environmental scientists, conservationists and
ecologists. Multiple challenges for ecologists have been depicted regarding urban
ecosystems concerning anthropogenic impacts and heterogeneity and these should be
dealt integrating various social and ecological dimensions, concepts, approaches and
theories (Grimm et al., 2000).

Dearborn and Kark (2009) suggested that urban biodiversity can be maintained by
preserving local biodiversity, creating stepping stones to nonurban habitat,
understanding and facilitating responses to environmental change, conducting
environmental education, providing ecosystem services, fulfilling ethical
responsibilities, and improving human well-being. Although with challenges for
attaining these goals, major concerns that are common to the urban environment, such
as localized pollution, disruption of ecosystem structure, and limited availability of land
must be addressed properly and this requires specific strategies and approaches for
conquering the challenges. Also, McKinney (2002) gave more emphasis towards
educating urban population regarding the urbanization impacts (although poorly
understood) which could ultimately improve species conservation throughout all
ecosystems. Short term studies are mostly focused for assessing the status, ecological
behavior, trends and other various factors affecting composition, structure, therefore
more precise and long term ecological monitoring of urban environment plays a pivotal
role to acquire such information (Ormond et al., 2014).

11
Ditchkoff et al., (2006) has shown the interaction among wildlife and humans with the
continuation of urban sprawl, the close proximity disabling the resource manager’s
capability to address issues, therefore understanding of bird relation to urbanization is
necessary to predict the biodiversity situation in areas so as to develop various
conservation strategies (Pauchard et al., 2006). Meanwhile these patches in and around
the Kathmandu area seem to fall under the less prioritized area of government and non-
government organizations working for conservation as a result of this small countable
studies have been conducted (Khatiwada, 2013). This study emphasizes the relationship
between the pace of urbanization and its effects on bird species on the forest patches of
Kathmandu Valley.

12
 CHAPTER 3: MATERIALS AND METHODS
3.1. Study Area
Kathmandu, a bowl shaped valley having three districts namely Kathmandu, Lalitpur,
and Bhaktapur, lies at 1,300 masl and is located between latitudes 27°32’13” and
27°49’10” north and longitudes 85°11’31” and 85°31’38” east covering 665 square
kilometers (figure 1). Kathmandu Valley is the main urban center in Nepal with rate of
urbanization among the highest in Asia and the Pacific (ICIMOD et al., 2007) currently
inhabited by the population of 2.51 million (NPHC 2011).

Figure 1: Study forest patches with Nepal and districts covered in inset

13
There are over 25 forest patches in Kathmandu Valley HMG (2056). The study was
conducted in nine forest patches Bajrabarahi (BJB), Bhandarkhal (BND), Gokarna
(GKR), Hattiban (HTB), Mhepi (MEP), Nilbarahi (NLB), Pashupati (PSP), Ranibari
(RNB) and swyambhu (SWM). The study sites were selected on the basis of available
information representing the major protected sacred forest patches of Kathmandu
Valley in general.

A study carried out by Kathmandu Valley Town Development Committee in 2001,

revealed that 32% (20,945 ha) of the valley was covered with forest, 40% with
agriculture, 17% with rural settlements, and 11% with municipal areas (ADB and
ICIMOD., 2006). The forest area of the surrounding watersheds decreased by 40%
from 1955-1996 and the rivers of Kathmandu Valley, particularly in the core
areas, have already lost aquatic biodiversity.

3.1.1 Hydrology and Climate

The Bagmati River is the principal river originating from Shivapuri ridge at an
elevation of about 2,650 m and drops to 1,340m over a distance of about 8 km with 20
tributaries (ICIMOD et al., 2007).

The climates of Kathmandu valley are subtropical, temperate and cool-temperate, with
four distinct seasons: spring from March to May; summer from June to August; autumn
from September to November; and winter from December to February (ICIMOD et al.,
2007).

3.1.2 Vegetation
The Valley is surrounded by the Mahabharat mountain range on all sides. The
Mountains are forested in upper reaches, most of these in the regenerating stage and
mature hardwood forests confined to parks and sacred areas.

Most of the forests in the valley are in the regenerating stage. Some patches of forest
exist in, Hattiban, Swyambhu, Mhepi, Nilbarahi, Pashupatinath, Raniban, and Gokarna.
These have mostly the species of Schima castanopsis, Pinus roxburghii, Jacaranda
mimosifolia, Choerospondias axillaris, Cinnamomum camphora and Eucalyptus.

14
3.2. Research Design
Transect based point count method bases on (Bibby et al., 2000), direct count of the
birds was carried out during the Pre Monsoon and Post Monsoon season within April to
May 2014 and late September to October 2014 respectively and birds were recorded
using survey check list. Each count lasted 5 min, during which all birds seen or heard
were recorded. The birds were counted through direct sighting and using the binoculars
within the site to determine the diversity, abundance and richness of the bird visit at the
study site. The studied patches with their respective bird and vegetation point are given
in Appendix 3. Figure 2 reflects the process of the research.

Figure 2: The flow chart of the research process is shown in above diagram

15
3.3. Data Collection methods

Sampling Design
Point based bird count method and time constrained approach (Bibby et al., 2000) was
conducted for each patch where the number of points depends upon the size of the each
patch. For birds, a total of 72 points were found suitable and the information for birds is
taken from these points. For vegetation survey, Geographic Information System
generated random points with minimum 100m distance between two points and the site
features with at least four vegetation plots and four points for bird survey have been
checked for the accessibility.

The vegetation points with 50 m buffer and bird points occurring in those regions were
taken for analysis involving birds and vegetation together.

3.3.1. Habitat Survey

Using the GIS, the forest patches were digitized from Google Earth image after geo-
referencing the image. Area of each patch was calculated in ArcGIS 10 (ESRI). These
surveys included trees and shrubs using circular quadrates of size 250 m2 and 12 m2
respectively noting presence-absence and enumerations to calculate a mean value for
each descriptor per patch. The vegetation survey was conducted by the same observer
to minimize any potential observer effect (Prodon & Lebreton, 1981).The patch
characteristics such as Max DBH, Mean Stand DBH, Max Height, Canopy and Shrub
were collected from the field by sampling each patch.

Canopy height was also estimated using the clinometers. Shrub cover and Canopy
cover was examined by visual estimation whereas DBH meter tape was used for
assessing the tree DBH.

3.3.2. Bird Survey

A stratified random sampling approach was adopted to assess avian species richness in
the forest patches of Kathmandu Valley. Surveys were conducted from April to
October 2014 in nine forest patches. Point counts were used along transects (Bibby et
al., 2000) for estimating the species richness, species diversity and bird abundance.
Transects were randomly established, which was determined based on the area of a
patch and the points were spaced at fixed intervals of 50m provided with a radius of

16
20m. Points were spaced relatively closely together to provide a comprehensive
inventory. The counting session at each point lasts for 5 min, during which the observer
counts all birds seen or heard. Bird species in the field were identified with the help of
field guides Birds of Nepal (Fleming et al., 1976; Grimmett et al., 2000; Inskipp et al.,
2003). Field personnel capable of distinguishing bird calls were used in field surveys
and species identification. Based on checklists and expert advice the birds were
identified up to species level. The equipments used during survey were GPS (etrex
GARMIN 16Q798309), Binoculars: Olympus (8×42), Camera (Sony DSC S.60)

Bird surveys were conducted between sunshine 06:30 to approximately 08:30 in the
morning on days with no rain.

Species Diversity: Species diversity is a measure of the diversity within an ecological

community that incorporates both species richness (the number of species in a
community) and the evenness of species' abundances. Species diversity is one
component of the concept of biodiversity.

Shannon Weave Diversity Index:

H = -SUM[(pi) × ln(pi)] E=H/Hmax

Where, SUM = Summation

pi= Numbe of individuals of species i/total number of samples

S = Number of species or species richness

Hmax = Maximum diversity possible

E= Eveness=H/Hmax

Species Richness: Species richness is the number of different species represented in an

ecological community, landscape or region. Species richness is simply a count
of species, and it does not take into account the abundances of the species or their
relative abundance distributions.

Abundance: Abundance is an ecological concept referring to the relative

representation of a species in a particular ecosystem. It is usually measured as the large
number of individuals found per sample.

17
3.4. Data Analysis
Primary data from bird surveys and habitat surveys were the major part of research
data.

3.4.1. Vegetation data analysis:

Vegetation data were managed for Average Canopy, DBH, Height and Shrub Cover.
T-tests and linear regression models e.g. analysis of variance (ANOVA) was carried
out using R (R Core Team, 2013).

3.4.2. Bird data analysis:

Bird data recorded from visual and call surveys were managed and measures of species,
richness, diversity using diversity indices and inferences for abundance were
calculated. Species richness and individual counts were used to relate the distribution
patterns with forest patch size, canopy cover, and shrubs cover using regression and
non parametric lowess smoothing using R (R Core Team, 2013).

All the data gathered were entered and managed in Microsoft Excel and R software
was used to analyze the data.

18
 CHAPTER 4: RESULTS

4.1.Bird richness, abundance and diversity

In Pre Monsoon Season, a total of 1926 (Appendix 4) birds belonging to 61 (Appendix
1) species were recorded from 158 point count survey of nine forest patches in
Kathmandu valley. At the point level, Pashupati had the highest value of average bird
richness and Hattiban had the least, Mhepi with similar pattern of abundance followed
by Pashupati and Ranibari (Table 1).

Table 1: Description of point level bird populations and diversity in Pre Monsoon

Forest Area (ha) Sample Richness Abundance Diversity

Size (H’)
BJB 21.5 20 6.5±2.6 12.05±6.4 1.61±0.4
BND 8.28 4 7±1.6 13.5±4.04 1.7±0.3
GKR 188 43 6.02±2.4 11.02 ±6.4 1.6±0.4
HTB 2.2 8 5.5±1.9 14±5.01 1.4±0.4
MEP 1.58 6 6.5±1.5 18.7±11.1 1.6±0.2
NLB 19.9 10 6±1.7 8.8±3.4 1.7±0.2
PSP 61.5 12 9.3±2.98 16±6.4 2.0±0.3
RNB 7.19 18 7.2±2.3 15.6±5.03 1.7±0.5
SWM 25.4 36 5.8±2.2 10.1±4.8 1.5±0.41
Note: Patch Codes: BJB: Bajrabarahi, BND: Bhandarkhal, GKR: Gokarna, HTB:
Hattiban, MEP: Mhepi, NLB: Nilbarahi, PSP:Pashupati, RNB: Ranibari, SWM:
Swyambhu

In Post Monsoon Season, a total of 1729 (Appendix 4) birds belonging to 63 species

(Appendix 1)were recorded from 158 point count survey of nine forest patches in
Kathmandu valley. At the point level, Bajrabarahi had the highest value of average bird
richness and Gokarna had the least with similar pattern of abundance and diversity
(Table 2).

19
 Table 2: Description of point level bird populations and diversity in Post Monsoon
Forest Area(ha) Sample Richness Abundance Diversity
Size (H’)
BJB 21.5 20 6.7±2.54 15.25±7.8 1.63±0.4
BND 8.28 4 7±1.4 17.25±7.7 1.71±0.3
GKR 188 43 4.1±2.4 8.6 ±8.0 1.11±0.6
HTB 2.2 8 4.12±1.5 6.62±2.4 1.23±0.3
MEP 1.58 6 5.5±0.8 19.8±18.5 1.37±0.4
NLB 19.9 10 5.9±1.9 7.8±2.3 1.63±0.4
PSP 61.5 12 6.42±2.1 15.08±10.6 1.62±0.3
RNB 7.19 18 6.2±1.6 10.1±0.3 1.66±0.3
SWM 25.4 36 5.19±1.9 10±6.4 1.41±0.4
Note: Patch Codes: BJB: Bajrabarahi, BND: Bhandarkhal, GKR: Gokarna, HTB:
Hattiban, MEP: Mhepi, NLB: Nilbarahi, PSP:Pashupati, RNB: Ranibari, SWM:
Swyambhu

Point level bird abundance ranged 2 to 40 (12.2 ± 6.3), species richness ranged from 2
to 17 (6.44 ± 2.5) and Shannon Index (H’) ranged 0.56 to 2.65 (1.62 ± 0. 4) with 29
points having five species of birds and only 12 points had more than 10 species (Fig.
3). In comparing the bird species richness among the forest patches, it is found that the
average bird richness was around 10 for Pashupati forest while Gokarna had low
species richness and bird richness, differed significantly (p <0.05) (Fig. 4) among
patches.

Figure 3: Description of Pre Monsoon point level (A) bird diversity and (B) bird
abundance in forest patches
Average bird abundance varied between pre Monsoon (12.19 ± 6.3) and post monsoon
seasons (10.94 ± 8.2) but not significantly (t = -1.5, p= 0.13). The abundance variation
among forests was significantly different, particularly low abundance for Nilbarahi,

20
Swyambhu, Gokarna and Mhepi (F= 5.49, p<0.05). In particular, Hattiban had the least
values compared to Pashupati, Ranibari Bhandarkhal, Bajrabarahi and Mhepi. A
maximum of 14 species were recorded from Pashupati.

Figure 4: Description of Pre Monsoon point level bird richness in forest patches
Point level bird abundance ranged 0 to 57 (10.93 ± 8.2), species richness ranged from 0
to 13 (5.34 ± 2.3) and Shannon Index (H’) ranged 0 to 2.3 (1.41 ± 0.49) with 33 points
having five species of birds and only 3 points having more than 10 species. In
comparing the bird species richness among the forest patches, it is found that the
average richness was more than 6 for Bhandarkhal forest while others had six or less
species (Fig. 5). Among forests, bird richness, differed significantly (p <0.05). In
particular, Gokarna had the least values compared to Bajrabarahi, Pashupati and
Ranibari. A maximum of 13 species were recorded in Bajrabarahi.

Figure 5: Description of Post Monsoon point level bird richness in forest patches

21
Point level bird abundance and diversity varied significantly (F 8, 148 = 4.494, p <0.05)
among the patches and were the highest for Bhandarkhal and the least for Gokarna
(Fig. 6). In particular, Gokarna had the least values and significantly different low to
Bajrabarahi, Pashupati and Ranibari.

Figure 6: Description of Post Monsoon point level bird abundance (A) and Shannon
Diversity Index (B) in forest patches

It is found that the bird abundance has quadratic i.e. polynomial function relation with
bird diversity. However, it is found that the abundance increased up to certain level i.e.
20 individuals per point, causing increase in diversity. Thereafter, decline in diversity
occurred towards higher abundance (Fig. 7).

2.5
Shannon Index (H')

1.5

0.5

0
0 10 20 30 40 50
Abundance

Figure 7: Relation between Shannon Diversity Index (H’) and bird abundance
smoothed by loess
It is found that the bird abundance has quadratic i.e. polynomial function relation with
bird diversity (Intercept = 1.22, Slope= 0.02, F 2,154 = 41.41, p <0.05). However, it is
found that the abundance increases up to certain level i.e. 20 individuals per point,

22
cause increase in diversity. Thereafter, decline in diversity occurs towards higher
abundance (Fig. 8).

Figure 8: Relation between Shannon Diversity Index (H’) & bird abundance smoothed
by loess

Point level bird abundance and diversity varied significantly (F 8, 148 = 4.494; p <0.05)
among the patches and were the highest for Mhepi and the least for Nilbarahi (Fig. 6).
In particular, Nilbarahi had the least values and significantly different and lower to
Swyambhu, Bajrabarahi and Gokarna.

Considering the patch level information, Gokarna patch has the highest value of
abundance 13.9 ± 15.7 and richness 35 whereas least for Nilbarahi patch with 3.8 ± 3.6
and 23 respectively for abundance and richness whereas for post monsoon season
Bajrabarahi patch was rich in birds with a value of 36, both richness and diversity for
Hattiban patch was least with values 12 and 4.4 ± 5.4 respectively but the abundance at
Swyambhu was highest i.e. 13.3 ± 16.6. Gokarna patch pose a satisfactory abundance
11.9 ± 16.7 with richness 32 (Appendix 2).

23
Figure 9: Seasonal Variation in species accumulation curves for Pre Monsoon (A) and
Post Monsoon (B) representing species number and sample efforts.
The species accumulation curves revealed a similar pattern that the abundance of
species increases with the increase of sampling points although the curves have not
reached asymptote.

Figure 10: Seasonal (Pre Monsoon and Post Monsoon) variation in bird richness

Species richness varied from Pre Monsoon (6.44 ± 2.5) and post monsoon seasons
(5.34 ± 2.3) significantly between seasons (t = -4.0888, p<0. 05). In particular,
Gokarna, Hattiban and Swyambhu had significantly (F= 5.3 8, 307, p<0. 05) low richness
among the forests.

24
Figure 11: Seasonal variation in bird diversity (A) and bird abundance (B)
Bird diversity (Shannon H’) varied between pre (1.62 ± 0. 4) and post monsoon seasons
(1.41 ± 0.49) significantly (t = -3.9552, p<0. 05) but not the abundance (t = -1.5, p=
0.13). Bird diversity was significantly different among the forests and in particular
significantly low for Gokarna and Hattiban (F= 4.37 8, 307, p <0.05).

It is interesting to note that scavengers such as House crow and Black kite were found
abundant almost at each point level and have occupied 20.53 % of total bird abundance
for post monsoon season whereas it was 20.66 % for pre monsoon season.

4.2.Bird and Vegetation Relationship

Average canopy cover ranged from 20-95 % (67.43 %). Max DBH ranged from 21-210
cm with an average of 65.33 m. The maximum height of the tree was 22.78 m whereas
the minimum height of the tree was 6.86 m with average tree height (12.42 m).
The patch level average DBH was found the least in Ranibari and Bhandarkhal whereas
it was highest for Pashupati and Bajrabarahi respectively. In terms of average height,
largest tree was found in Bajrabarahi followed by Bhandarkhal. Bhandarkhal and
Bajrabarahi forest have the highest values in terms of average canopy coverage.
Nilbarahi forest patche have the highest average shrub coverage out of nine patches of
the valley (Table 3).

25
 Table 3: Descriptive tree parameters of forest patches
Forest Average Average DBH Average Height Average
Canopy Shrub cover
BJB 66.66 71.00 23.77 4.16
BND 67.50 54.50 22.00 20.00
GKR 78.04 69.85 19.30 16.52
HTB 50.00 56.00 20.50 16.87
MEP 50.00 66.00 19.25 3.50
NLB 51.66 58.33 15.33 81.65
PSP 66.66 76.00 14.88 11.05
RNB 62.50 50.75 18.25 7.50
SWM 65.71 57.08 17.32 22.51

Neither species richness nor Shannon Index were significantly different for two seasons
(p = 0.07). Furthermore, the seasonal impacts of shrub cover and canopy cover on bird
diversity were not significant (p> 0.05) (Fig. 14).

Figure 12: Relation between bird diversity with shrub cover and canopy cover (A to D)
for Pre Monsoon and Post Monsoon season

26
Bird species richness and diversity (H’) were not influenced by forest characteristics
like canopy cover, maximum tree height and size (Fig. 13) for both seasons showing no
significance.

Figure 13: Relation between bird diversity, max DBH and max Height (A to D) for Pre
Monsoon and post monsoon season
Further, no significant relationship between bird diversity and abundance were found
with vegetation parameters at plot level variables like average DBH, height, tree
density, canopy and height (p >0.05).

4.3.Patch Size and Bird Species Richness

With the increase in area species richness have also increased in both Pre Monsoon and
Post Monsoon season though Hattiban and Bhandarkhal forest showed contradictory
results. Ranibari being the small patch have high species richness in both seasons.
Forest patches Mhepi, Nilbarahi and Bajrabarahi have increased their species richness
trend from Pre Monsoon to Post Monsoon.

27
Table 4: Description of patch level bird richness between seasons

Richness
Forest Area
Pre Monsoon Post Monsoon

MEP 1.58 13 16
HTB 2.20 17 12
RNB 7.19 30 24
BND 8.28 14 13
NLB 19.90 23 25
BJB 21.50 28 36
SWM 25.40 30 27
PSP 61.50 31 21
GKR 188.00 35 31

Bird species richness increased with the increase in area of the patch, the largest patch
surveyed was Gokarna with 188 ha and the smallest patch was Mhepi with area of 1.58
ha (Fig 14).

Figure 14: Relationship between Pre Monsoon (A) and Post Monsoon (B) bird richness
with area

28
 CHAPTER 5: DISCUSSION

5.1. Bird Richness, Abundance and Diversity

The richness, abundance and diversity of birds within the urban patches have provided
evidence of rich biodiversity Kathmandu. Moreover, this indicates importance of
understanding the relationship of birdlife to urban habitats and interesting insights into
the urban avian diversity issues. This study is in agreement with Pautasso et al., (2011)
and Strohbach et al., (2013) in terms of their suggestions that urbanized landscapes
support surprisingly diverse bird assemblages and therefore add importance of efforts
aimed at the preservation of the remaining patches.

Although this study does not follow the results of Huhtalo & Järvinen (1977) & Batten
(1972) who reported the decreased bird species diversity with urbanization as our
results have provided the scenario of increase of bird richness abundance and diversity
although with some exceptions, this is in accordance with the result of (Thapa et al.,
2008). It has been reported that urbanization diminishes bird species richness (Chace &
Walsh, 2004), however some studies have shown that species richness might peak at
lower or intermediate levels of urbanization, rather than at zero or very low
urbanization (Jokima¨ki & Suhonen, 1993). Other studies on breeding bird have
investigated the influence of urbanization on the number of breeding species providing
evidence of a alternate relationship between the level of urban development and
richness (Batten, 1972; Beissinger & Osborne; 1982, Clergeau et al., 1998; Emlen,
1974; Huhtalo & Järvinen, 1977; Jokima¨ki & Suhonen, 1993), or evidence that
richness peaks at intermediate levels of urban development (Blair, 1996; Jokima¨ki &
Suhonen, 1993). However this study did not distinguish breeding and non breeding bird
species.

Different pattern exists between pre monsoon and post monsoon bird communities.
During pre monsoon, total species richness and bird abundance for all forest patches
was higher than post monsoon season this may be due the availability of food and
sources, Bajrabarahi and Bhandarkhal forest showed the reduction of abundance to
some extent for post monsoon season. Seasonal variation in diversity between forest
patches did not vary significantly, only Pashupati forest patch had a considerable
increment. Additionally, the point level richness did not follow the predicted

29
pattern as found in a west African forest patches by (Beier et al., 2002) that species
richness per transect increased with patch size over the entire range of patch sizes
observed.

In this study, around 20% of total abundance of birds in pre monsoon and post
monsoon season has been supplied by scavenger type such as House crow, Black kite
and crested serpent eagle. It is noteworthy fact that bank of rivers and open space of the
valley has been used to dump waste by Kathmandu Metropolitan City because of the
irregularity of waste collection and disposal system, wastes including chicken viscera,
bone, food materials, etc. got scattered rampantly in the area (Dahal & Bhuju, 2008).

Similarly, all forest patches under the study are sacred grooves having temples and
have their own cultural and religious significance and therefore the patches have been
protected which support a large number of birds such as Pigeons, House crow, Kites
and Eagles. Pilgrims and picnic makers visiting the temple throw away foods in the
area. Thus, the birds are attracted by the food stuff that have been left altering the
natural dynamics of food supply intervening the wild avian community (Robb et al.,
2008) and this is better described by the modified behavior as an adaptation to urban
pressures (Ditchkoff et al., 2006).

The abundance of bird species showed that, invasive Kite Birds were most abundant in
several areas that could be due to availability of foods and their invasive nature
(Blanco, 1994). This can be explained through invasive urban bird species that
colonized urban environments over a long period achieved the largest increases in
population abundance (Møller et al., 2012). Such species are highly adaptive to urban
conditions because their life history traits of diverse feeding niches available in urban
areas.

It is interesting to note that Bhandarkhal is one of the highest disturbed sites among the
patches yet had the highest point level richness. Since local species presence is in
general more influenced by the isolation from surrounding forests than by patch size
alone (Boscolo & Paul Metzger, 2011), this could be the case for Bhandarkhal due to
connectivity and proximity to Pashupati forest.

More specifically, Ferenc et al., (2014) showed that mature tree stands with DBH at
least 30 cm support richer woodland bird communities. This could be associated to

30
rich diversity in forest patches with large trees supports the high bird richness in
Gokarna. This study is not in line with Bakermans et al., (2012) in terms of bird
densities and contrasts study by Ferenc et al., (2014).

In former case, songbird species densities were positively related to canopy openness,
which is usually a function of canopy gaps. In later case, Ferenc et al., (2014) found
that lowest bird species richness at sampling sites with low overall cover of vegetation
and low proportion of old trees. This could be due to the fact that present study did not
differentiate between habitat specificity of birds. Rather this study opposes their
observation in Gokarna forest that had most of the area with dense canopy and large
sized trees yet low point level abundance of birds and this fact is in line with the recent
theoretical and empirical studies that regional factors might have influenced the local
richness (Cam et al., 2000). However, due to large number of sampling points and area
coverage the overall richness of Gokarna confirms the species-area relationship. This
could not be tested that the richness among patches is due to sampling artifacts of the
vegetation characteristics.

5.2. Habitat Feature and Bird

Different habitat factors are also responsible to affect bird species abundances within
different scales of study (Jokimäki & Kaisanlahti Jokimäki, 2003). For example, age of
the green space has been shown to influence bird species richness (Fernández Juricic,
2000). For the study sites there might have profound effects of suburb age and distance
from remnant native vegetation on the species richness and abundance of bird
populations as the city is surrounded by mountains with forests which could have
served the varieties of species in the studied patches. This can be further explained by
the study made by Munyenyembe et al., (1989), considering the point level
information, the small patches of forests like Bhandarkhal, Bajrabarahi and Ranibari
with smaller area had the highest bird diversity and richness.
Cushman & McGarigal (2002) showed that species richness and abundance responded
more strongly to mature forest area than to fragmentation on one hand whereas on the
other hand it could be reasoned based on the study of Rompré et al., (2007). They
studied Neotropical forests and provided support for the hypothesis that bird species
richness increases with structural complexity of the habitat. The complexity here

31
should not mean the forest structure rather it should be surrounding matrix of habitat
and connectivity.

Boscolo and Paul Metzger (2011) found evidence that in highly fragmented landscapes,
birds that cannot find patches large enough to settle may be able to overcome short
distances through the matrix and include several nearby patches within their home-
ranges to complement their resource needs.

Fragmentations affects on some urban birds those are linked to the type of peri-urban
matrix (Hedblom & Söderström, 2010). Connectivity between green spaces must also
influence bird species richness and abundance of birds in cities (Fernandez-Juricic and
Jokimäki, 2001, Jokimäki, 1999). We have not made the measurement regarding the
connectivity but our observation depicts the presence of several isolated patches in the
valley. Some bird species may be able to move between green spaces by flying above
buildings and roads, while other species may be more reluctant to cross open and
disturbed spaces (Desrochers & Hannon, 1997), and may be using wooded streets as
corridors or as an alternative habitat for feeding and nesting (Fernández-juricic, 2001).

Moreover, the forest attributes like tree abundance did not follow the study of
(Pennington & Blair, 2011) showed native tree and understory stem frequency were the
most important vegetation variables explaining bird distributions in temperate
metropolitan area of Cincinnati, Ohio, USA.

Studies of urban birds should include more variables relating landscape features and
birds which this study did not consider i.e. proportion of forested and non forested
areas in patches. As suggested, wasteland habitats have potential for nature
conservation that should be considered by urban planners and landscape architects
(Meffert & Dziock, 2012). Also the assessment of diversity has been considered as a
useful index for determining the conservation status of natural habitats (Bezzel &
Reichholf, 1974).

5.3. Patch Area and Bird

Bird species richness increased with patch size for both seasons. In general, urban
forest patches (area) was the most important variable that positively influenced bird
species richness in Kathmandu Valley, for both the pre monsoon and the post monsoon
season. Actually, the results follow species–area relationship (MacArthur & Wilson,
1963) and species–abundance relationship but did not consider species–biomass

32
relationships in point level data. The species-area relationship was supported in general
when patch level richness were compared leaving the exceptions. In overall data, the
bird diversity increased with abundance up to certain value reaching an asymptote and
declined for higher abundance levels. The findings of higher species richness in larger
patches are consistent with the previous studies (Carbó-Ramírez & Zuria, 2011;
Suarez-Rubio & Thomlinson, 2009; Oliver et al., 2011) particularly in the urban
landscapes.

The slopes and intercepts of the log–log species–area relationships were not statistically
different between pre monsoon and post monsoon season, while the species–area
relationship occurred for both season, the slope was slightly steeper (m=0.2848,
R2=0.5602) for pre monsoon season compared to post monsoon season (m=0.27,
R2=0.4683). The equation of the regression line for each species–area relationship
suggested that bird communities in the studied forest patches were more likely shaped
by the size of the patch rather than by the suitability of the local habitat. Cherkaoui et
al., (2009) on the other hand described a negative relationship underlying the role of
local habitat and patch isolation. The slope represents the average rate of increase in
species number over all plots. Area independent factors (sampling error, variation in
habitat quality, and uneven representation of plot size) cause change in species number
which can modify the species-area slope and determination of the appropriate function.
Martin (1981) examined birds in 69 forest islands and compared the slope value for
plots less than 1 ha (z = 0.404) is similar to the slope for all plots, while the slope for
plots greater than 1 ha was considerably lower z = 0.290. Also Steinmann et al., (2011)
has explained the role of niche-related factors and stochastic factors like neutral
processes or dispersal for the generation of species area curves.

The steepness of Species accumulation curve for pre monsoon season is greater, with a
steep initial increase followed by slower increase in richness with sample number this
is due to the fact that common species have been caught early in sampling.
Furthermore, the species accumulation curves for both season confirms that saturation
has not been reached this is probably due to the sampling effort 5 min/point within pre
monsoon and post monsoon season probably did not detect all species that are present.
Also the discontinuity in the size of the patch and the exclusion of water birds,
agricultural field birds and edge birds have effects on the curve as many sites within the

33
study area is either connected to the agricultural land (Nilbarahi, Gokarna) or they are
linked with the water bodies (Pashupati, Gokarna, Mhepi).

34
 CHAPTER 6: CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

6.1. Conclusions

The main conclusion of this study is that urban patches and sacred grooves may be
considered important sites for biodiversity conservation in cities. Although the study
did not consider connectivity, food supplementary, edge effects and human influence
but they could also have profound and noticeable effects on urban avian diversity as the
fact can be verified by the evidence from the richness and diversity of small patches
such as Bhandarkhal.

It is interesting to find similar abundance of scavenger birds during pre monsoon and
post monsoon season ~20 %. This suggests that ecological conditions found in the
urban environment are similar for these species in the two seasons.

Moreover, the park area has a positive impact on biodiversity, so larger parks can
contribute more to the conservation of biodiversity then smaller ones, although small
parks can play an important role as stepping stones between isolated habitats.

6.2. Recommendations
 The study provides no significant relationship between habitat variables and birds
but this does not imply that green spaces are not necessary. This study is limited to
only to few variables. Broad scale study of birds with different variables such as
bird’s behavior, their feeding guilds, nesting and other variables might have
significant relationship with the vegetation.
 It may not be possible to increase the patch size of most of the forest; nevertheless,
connectivity can serve as an effective means for enhancing biodiversity as all the
studied patches are either connected to remnant forest patches or water bodies and
agricultural fields.
 Protection and management status based on public belief have remained the central
point in conservation values of these sacred sites. If understood timely, these urban
forests have the potential to play a positive role for maintaining the diversity and
conservation, under burgeoning threats of urbanization. The remnant diversity and
ecosystem functions will be preserved only if timely steps are taken to restore the
socio-ecological perspectives.

35
 Environmental education, especially of the people leaving around the forest on the
role the forest plays would be important for its conservation. Further year round
based research needs to be done to obtain the accurate result minimizing the errors.
In addition, this will give a clearer picture of the birds found in this forest all year
round. For monitoring purposes, having a clear picture of the birds found in this
forest would form basis for future monitoring purposes.

36
 REFERENCES

Anderies, J. M., Katti, M., & Shochat, E. (2007). Living in the city: resource
availability, predation, and bird population dynamics in urban areas. Journal of
theoretical biology, 247(1), 36-49.
Bakermans, M. H., Rodewald, A. D., & Vitz, A. C. (2012). Influence of forest structure
on density and nest success of mature forest birds in managed landscapes. The
Journal of Wildlife Management, 76(6), 1225-1234.
ADB., & ICIMOD. (2006). Environment Assessment of Nepal: Emerging Issues and
Challenges. Kathmandu: International Center for Integrated Mountain
Development.
Basyal, G. K., & Khanal, N. R. (2001). Process and Characteristics of Urbanization in
Nepal. CNAS, 28(2), 187-225.
Batten, L. A. (1972). Breeding bird species diversity in relation to increasing
urbanisation. Bird Study, 19(3), 157-166.
BCN, & DNPWC (2011). Birds of Nepal: An Official Checklist. Kathmandu: : Bird
Conservation Nepal and Department of National Parks and Wildlife
Beier, P., Van Drielen, M., & Kankam, B. O. (2002). Avifaunal collapse in West
African forest fragments. Conservation Biology, 16(4), 1097-1111.
Beissinger, S. R., & Osborne, D. R. (1982). Effects of urbanization on avian
community organization. Condor, 84(1), 75-83.
Bezzel, E., & Reichholf, J. (1974). The diversity as a criterion for evaluating the
abundance of waterfowl habitats. Journal of Ornithology 115(1), 50-61.
Biadun, W., & Zmihorski, M. (2011). Factors Shaping a Breeding Bird Community
Along an Urbanization Gradient: 26-Years Study In Medium Size City (Lublin,
Se Poland). Polish Journal of Ecology, 59(2), 381-389.
Bibby, C. J., Burgess, N. D., Hill, D. A., & Mustoe, S. (2000). Bird Census Techniques,
Second Edition. Great Britain: Academic Press.
Blair, R. B. (1996). Land Use and Avain Species Diversity along an Urban Gradient.
JSTOR, 6(2), 506-519.
Blair, R. B. (1999). Birds and butterflies along an urban gradient: surrogate taxa for
assessing biodiversity? Ecological applications, 9(1), 164-170.
Blair, R. B. (2001). Creating a homogeneous avifauna: Springer US.

37
Blanco, G. (1994). Seasonal Abundance of Black kites Associated With the Rubbish
Dump of Madrid, Spain J Raptor Res, 28(4), 242-245.
Boscolo, D., & Paul Metzger, J. (2011). Isolation determines patterns of species
presence in highly fragmented landscapes. Ecography, 34(6), 1018-1029.
Cadenasso, M. L., & Pickett, S. T. A. (2008). Urban Principles for Ecological
Landscape Design and Management: Scientific Fundamentals. Cities and the
Environment (CATE), 1(2), 1-16.
Cam, E. N., J. D., Sauer, J. R., Hines, J. E., & Flather, C. H. (2000). Relative species
richness and community completeness: birds and urbanization in the mid-
Atlantic states. Ecological Applications, 10(4), 1196-1210.
Carbó-Ramírez, P., & Zuria, I. (2011). The value of small urban greenspaces for birds
in a Mexican city. Landscape and Urban Planning, 100(3), 213-222.
Chace, J. F., & Walsh, J. J. (2004). Urban effects on native avifauna: a review. Elsevier
1-24.
Chamberlain, D. E., Cannon, A. R., & Toms, M. P. (2004). Associations of garden
birds with gradients in garden habitat and local habitat. Ecography, 27(5), 589-
600.
Cherkaoui, I., Selmi, S., Boukhriss, J., Hamid, R. I., & Mohammed, D. (2009). Factors
affecting bird richness in a fragmented cork oak forest in Morocco. Acta
oecologica, 35(2), 197-205.
Clucas, B., Marzluff, J. M., Kübler, S., & Meffert, P. (2011). New directions in urban
avian ecology: Reciprocal connections between birds and humans in cities. In
Perspectives in Urban Ecology, Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 167-195.
Cornelis, J., & Hermy, M. (2004). Biodiversity relationships in urban and suburban
parks in Flanders. Landscape and Urban Planning, 69(4), 385-401.
Crooks, K. R., Suarez, A. V., & Bolger, D. T. (2004). Avian assemblages along a
gradient of urbanization in a highly fragmented landscape. Biological
Conservation 115 451-462.
Cushman, S. A., & McGarigal, K. (2002). Hierarchical, multi-scale decomposition of
species-environment relationships. Landscape Ecology, 17(7), 637-646.
Czech, B. (2005). Urbanization as a Threat to Biodiversity: Trophic Theory, Economic
Geography, and Implications for Conservation and Acquisition. Policies for
managing urban growth and landscape change: a key to conservation in the

38
 21st century. Gen. Tech. Rep. NC-265. St. Paul, MN: U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service, North Central Research Station, 8-13.
Dahal, B. R., & Bhuju, D. R. (2008). Bird mobility and their habitat at Tribhuvan
international airport, Kathmandu. Nepal Journal of Science and Technology, 9,
119-130.
Davis, K. (1955). The Origin and Growth of Urbanization in the World. Chicago
Journals, 60(5), 429-437.
Davis, R. A., Gole, C., & Roberts, J. D. (2013). Impacts of urbanisation on the native
avifauna of Perth, Western Australia. Urban Ecosystems, 16(3), 427-452.
Dearborn, D. C., & Kark, S. (2009). Motivations for Conserving Urban Biodiversity.
Conservation Biology, 24(2), 1-9.
Deng, W. H., & Gao, W. (2005). Edge effects on nesting success of cavity-nesting
birds in fragmented forests. Biological Conservation, 126(3), 363-370.
Desrochers, A., & Hannon, S. J. (1997). Gap crossing decisions by forest songbirds
during the post fledging period. Conservation Biology, 11(5), 1204-1210.
Devictor, V., Julliard, R., Clavel, J., Jiguet, F., Lee, A., & Couvet, D. (2008).
Functional biotic homogenization of bird communities in disturbed landscapes.
Global Ecology and Biogeography, 17, 252-261.
Ditchkoff, S. S., Saalfeld, S. T., & Gibson, C. J. (2006). Animal behavior in urban
ecosystems: modifications due to human-induced stress. Urban Ecosystems,
9(1), 5-12.
Emlen, J. T. (1974). An Urban Bird Community in Tucson, Arizona: Derivation,
Structure, Regulation The Condor 76, 184-197.
Evans, K. L., Newson, S. E., & Gaston, K. J. (2009). Habitat influences on urban avian
assemblages. Ibis, 151(1), 19-39.
Ferenc, M., Sedláček, O., & Fuchs, R. (2014). How to improve urban greenspace for
woodland birds: site and local-scale determinants of bird species richness.
Urban Ecosystems, 17(2), 625-640.
Fernández-juricic, E. (2001). Avian spatial segregation at edges and interiors of urban
parks in Madrid, Spain. Biodiversity & Conservation, 10(8), 1303-1131.
Fernandez-Juricic, E., & Jokimäki, J. (2001). A habitat island approach to conserving
birds in urban landscapes: case studies from southern and northern Europe.
Biodiversity & Conservation, 10(12), 2023-2043.

39
Fernández Juricic, E. (2000). Avifaunal use of wooded streets in an urban landscape.
Conservation Biology, 14(2), 513-521.
Fleming, R. L. S., Fleming, J. R. L., & Bangdel., L. S. (1976). Birds of Nepal (with
text & photographs): Nature Himalayas Kathmandu.
Gates, J. E., & Gysel, L. W. (1978). Avian nest dispersion and fledging success in
field-forest ecotones. Ecology, 59(5), 871-883.
Gavareski, C. A. (1976). Relation of park size and vegetation to urban bird populations
in Seattle, Washington. Condor, 375-382.
Gilbert, O. L. (1989). The Ecology of Urban Habitats: Chapman and Hall.
Glazier, D. S. (1986). Temporal variability of abundance and the distribution of
species. Oikos, 47, 309-314.
Grimm, N. B., Faeth, S. H., Golubiewski, N. E., Redman, C. L., Wu, J., Bai, X., et al.
(2008). Global Change and the Ecology of Cities. Science, 319(756), 756-760.
Grimm, N. B., Grove, J. M., Pickett, S. T. A., & Redman, C. L. (2000). Integrated
Approaches to Long-Term Studies of Urban Ecological Systems. BioScience,
50(7), 571-584.
Grimmett, R., Inskipp, C., & Inskipp, T. (2000). Birds of Nepal. : Princeton University
Press, Princeton.
Hannon, S. J., & Cotterill, S. E. (1998). Nest predation in aspen woodlots in an
agricultural area in Alberta: the enemy from within. The Auk, 115(1), 16-25.
HMG (2056), Forest Act (2049), Forest Regulation (2051), Forest Department,
Ministry of Forest and Soil Conservation, Kathmandu, Nepal.
Hedblom, M., & Söderström, B. (2010). Landscape effects on birds in urban
woodlands: an analysis of 34 Swedish cities. Journal of Biogeography, 37(7),
1302-1316.
Heilig, G. K. (2012). World urbanization prospects: the 2011 revision. United Nations:
Department of Economic and Social Affairs (DESA), Population Division,
Population Estimates and Projections Section, New York.
Huhtalo, H., & Järvinen, O. (1977). Quantitative composition of the urban bird
community in Tornio, Northern Finland. Bird Study, 24(3), 179-185.
ICIMOD, MOEST-GON, & UNEP (2007). Kathmandu Valley Environment Outlook.
Kathmandu: International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development
(ICIMOD).

40
Inskipp, C., & Baral, H. S. (2011). Potential impacts of agriculture on Nepal bird. Our
Nature, 2010(8), 270-312.
Inskipp, C., Inskipp, T., Grimmett, R., & Baral, H. S. (2003). Birds of Nepal.
Jokima¨ki, J., & Suhonen, J. (1993). Effects of Urbanization on Breeding Bird Species
Richness in Finland: A Biogeographical Comparision. Ornis Fennica, 70, 71-
77.
Jokimäki, J. (1999). Occurrence of breeding bird species in urban parks: effects of park
structure and broad-scale variables. Urban Ecosystems, 3(1), 21-34.
Jokimäki, J., & Kaisanlahti Jokimäki, M. L. (2003). Spatial similarity of urban bird
communities: a multiscale approach. Journal of Biogeography, 30(8), 1183-
1193.
Kale, M., Dudhe, N., Kasambe, R., Chakane, S., & Bhattacharya, P. (2012). Impact of
urbanization on avian population and its status in Maharashtra state, India.
International Journal of Applied Environmental Sciences, 7(1), 59-76.
Kerbiriou, C., Le Viol, I., Robert, A., Porcher, E., Gourmelon, F., & Julliard, R. (2009).
Tourism in protected areas can threaten wild populations: from individual
response to population viability of the chough Pyrrhocorax pyrrhocorax. 46,
3(657-665).
Khan, M. L., Bongmayum, A. D. K., & Tripathi, R. S. (2008). The Sacred Groves and
Their Significance in Conserving Biodiversity An Overview. International
Journal of Ecology and Environmental Sciences, 34(3), 277-291.
Khatiwada, K. R. (2013). Composition of the birds and butterfly in the Coronation
Garden, Tribhuvan University, Kirtipur, Kathmandu Nepal Tribhuvan
University Kathmandu.
Lees, A. C., & Peres, C. A. (2008). Avian life-history determinants of local extinction
risk in a hyper-fragmented neotropical forest landscape. The Zoological Society
of London, 1-10.
Liley, D., & Sutherland, W. J. (2007). Predicting the population consequences of
human disturbance for Ringed Plovers Charadrius hiaticula: a game theory
approach. Ibis, 149(s1), 82-94.
Liu, J., Dietz, T., Carpenter, S. R., Alberti, M., Folke, C., Moran, E. (2007).
Complexity of Coupled Human and Natural Systems. Science, 317(1513),
1513-1516.

41
Luniak, M. (2004). Synurbization-adaptation of animal wildlife to urban development.
Proc. 4th Int. Symposium Urban Wildl. Conserv. Tucson, 50-55.
MacArthur, R. H., & Wilson, E. O. (1963). An equilibrium theory of insular
zoogeography. Evolution, 17(4), 373-387.
Magurran, A. E. (2004). Measuring biological diversity. Africam Journal of Aquatic
Science, 285-286.
Mallord, J. W., Dolman, P. M., Brown, A. F., & Sutherland, W. J. (2007). Linking
recreational disturbance to population size in a ground nesting passerine.
Journal of Applied Ecology, 44(1), 185-195.
Manolis, J. C., Andersen, D. E., & Cuthbert, F. J. (2002). Edge effect on nesting
success of ground nesting birds near regenerating clearcuts in a forest-
dominated landscape. The Auk, 119(4), 955-970.
Martin, T. E. (1981). Limitation in small habitat islands: chance or competition? The
Auk, 98, 715-734.
Marzluff, J. M. (1997). Effects of Urbanization and Recreation on Songbirds: Rocky
Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station Fort Collins, Colorado.
Marzluff, J. M. (2005). Island biogeography for an urbanizing world: how extinction
and colonization may determine biological diversity in human-dominated
landscapes. Urban Ecology (8), 157-177.
Marzluff, J. M., Bowman, R., & Donnelly, R. (2001). A historical perspective on urban
bird research: trends, terms, and approaches: Avian ecology and conservation
in an urbanizing world, Springer US.
McDonnell, M. J., & Picket, S. T. A. (1990). Ecosystem structure and function along
urban-rular gradients: An Unexploited opportunity for ecology esa, 71 (4),
1232-1237.
McKinney, M. L. (2002). Urbanization, Biodiversity, and Conservation. BioScience,
52(10), 883-890.
McKinney, M. L. (2006). Urbanization as a major cause of biotic homogenization.
Biological conservation, 127(3), 247-260.
Meffert, P. J., & Dziock, F. (2012). What determines occurrence of threatened bird
species on urban wastelands? Biological Conservation, 153, 87-96.
Miller, J. R., & Hobbs, R. J. (2002). Conservation Where People Live and Work.
Conservation Biology, 16(2), 330-337.

42
Mittelbach, G. G., Steiner, C. F., Scheiner, S. M., Gross, K. L., Reynolds, H. L., Waide,
R. B. (2001). What is the Observed Relationship between Species Richness and
Productivity? Ecology, 82(9), 2381-2396.
Møller, A. P., Diaz, M., Flensted-Jensen, E., Grim, T., Ibáñez-Álamo, J. D., Jokimäki,
J. (2012). High urban population density of birds reflects their timing of
urbanization. Oecologia, 170(3), 867-875.
Munyenyembe, F., Harris, J., Hone, J., & Nix, H. (1989). Determinants of bird
populations in an urban area. Australian Journal of Ecology, 14(4), 549-557.
Murcia, C. (1995). Edge effects in fragmented forests: implications for conservation.
Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 10(2), 58-62.
Nehren, U., Subedi, J., Yanakieva, I., Sandholz, S., Pokharel, J., Lal, A. C. (2013).
Community perception on climate change and climate-related disaster
preparedness in Kathmandu Valley, Nepal. Natural Resources And
Development, 04, 35-57.
Nguyen, H. M. (2007). Bird composition as an ecological indicator of forest
disturbance levels.
NPHC (2011). National Population and Housing Census: Government of Nepal,
National Planning Commission Secretariat, Central Bureau of Statistics.
Oliver, A. J., Hong-Wa, C., Devonshire, J., Olea, K. R., Rivas, G. F., & Gahl, M. K.
(2011). Avifauna richness enhanced in large, isolated urban parks. Landscape
and Urban Planning, 102(4), 215-225.
Ormond, S. E., Whatmough, R., Hudson, I. L., & Daniels, C. B. (2014). Environmental
and Anthropogenic Impacts on Avifaunal Assemblages in an Urban Parkland,
1976 to 2007. Animals, 4, 119-130.
Pauchard, A. b., Aguayo, M., a, E. P., & Urrutia, R. (2006). Multiple effects of
urbanization on the biodiversity of developing countries: The case of a fast-
growing metropolitan area (Concepcio´n, Chile). Biological Conservation 127
272-281.
Paul, M. J., & Meyer, J. L. (2001). Streams In The Urban Landscape. Annual Review of
Ecology and Systematics, 32, 333-365.
Pautasso, M., Böhning Gaese, K., Clergeau, P., Cueto, V. R., Dinetti, M., Fernández
Juricic, E. (2011). Global macroecology of bird assemblages in urbanized and
semi‐natural ecosystems. Global Ecology and Biogeography, 20(3), 426-436.

43
Pennington, D. N., & Blair, R. B. (2011). Habitat selection of breeding riparian birds in
an urban environment: untangling the relative importance of biophysical
elements and spatial scale. Diversity and Distributions, 17(3), 506-518.
Pickett, S. T. A., Cadenasso, M. L., Grove, J. M., Nilon, C. H., Pouyat, R. V., Zipperer,
W. C. (2001). Urban Ecological Systems : Linking Terrestrial Ecological,
Physical, and Socioeconomic Components of Metropolitan Areas. 127-157.
Porter, E. E., Forschner, B. R., & Blair, R. B. (2001). Woody vegetation and canopy
fragmentation along a forest-to-urban gradient. Urban Ecosystems 5, 131-151.
Prodon, R., & Lebreton, J.-D. (1981). Breeding avifauna of a Mediterranean
succession: the holm oak and cork oak series in the eastern Pyrenees. Analysis
and modelling of the structure gradient. Oikos, 37, 21-38.
R Core Team (2013). R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. R
Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria.
Raman, T. R. S. (2006). Restoration Ecology: The New Frontier.
Robb, G. N., McDonald, R. A., Chamberlain, D. E., & Bearhop, S. (2008). Food for
thought: supplementary feeding as a driver of ecological change in avian
populations. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 6(9), 476-484.
Rompré, G., Douglas Robinson, W., Desrochers, A., & Angehr, G. (2007).
Environmental correlates of avian diversity in lowland Panama rain forests.
Journal of Biogeography, 34(5), 802-815.
Roxburgh, S. H., Shea, K., & Wilson, J. B. (2004). The intermediate disturbance
hypothesis: patch dynamics and mechanisms of species coexistence. Ecology,
85(2), 359-371.
Saunders, D. A., Hobbs, R. J., & Margules, C. R. (1991). Biological consequences of
ecosystem fragmentation: a review. Conservation biology, 5(1), 18-32.
Shochat, E., Warren, P. S., Faeth, S. H., McIntyre, N. E., & Hope, D. (2006). From
patterns to emerging processes in mechanistic urban ecology. Trends in Ecology
& Evolution: 21(4), 186-191.
Surya, P. (2013). Urban Avifaunal Diversity: An Indicator of Anthropogenic Pressures
in Southern Ridge of Delhi. Advances in Bioresearch, 4(2), 135-144.
Slabbekoorn, H., & Smith, T. B. (2002). Bird song, ecology and speciation.
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B:Biological
Sciences, 357(1420), 493-503.

44
Sol, D., Bartomeus, I., & Griffin, A. S. (2012). The Paradox of Invasion in Birds:
Competitive Superiority or Ecological Opportunism? Oecologia, 169(2), 553–
564.
Staniforth, R. J. (2002). Effects of Urbanization on Bird Populations in the Canadian
Central Arctic. Arctic, 55(1), 87-93.
Steinmann, K., Eggenberg, S., Wohlgemuth, T., Linder, H. P., & Zimmermann, N. E.
(2011). Niches and noise-Disentangling habitat diversity and area effect on
species diversity. Ecological Complexity, 8(4), 313-319.
Stephens, S. E., Koons, D. N., Rotella, J. J., & Willey, D. W. (2004). Effects of habitat
fragmentation on avian nesting success: a review of the evidence at multiple
spatial scales. Biological Conservation, 115(1), 101-110.
Stillman, R. A., West, A. D., Caldow, R. W., & Dit Durell, S. E. A. (2007). Predicting
the effect of disturbance on coastal birds. Ibis, 149, 73-81.
Strohbach, M. W., Lerman, S. B., & Warren, P. S. (2013). Are small greening areas
enhancing bird diversity? Insights from community-driven greening projects in
Boston. Landscape and Urban Planning, 114, 69-79.
Suarez-Rubio, M., & Thomlinson, J. R. (2009). Landscape and patch-level factors
influence bird communities in an urbanized tropical island. Biological
Conservation, 142(7), 1311-1321.
Thapa, R. B., & Murayama, Y. (2009). Examining Spatiotemporal Urbanization
Patterns in Kathmandu Valley, Nepal: Remote Sensing and Spatial Metrics
Approaches. Remote Sens, 1, 534-556.
Thapa, S., Paudel, S., & B.K, D. (2008). An Assessment on Bird’s Diversity in
Bagmati River Corridor. The Initiation, 2(1), 34-40.
Tilman, D. (1993). Species Richness of Experimental Productivity Gradients: How
Important is Colonization Limitations? Ecology, 74(8), 543-555.
Vitousek, P. M., Mooney, H. A., Lubchenco, J., & Melillo, J. M. (1997). Human
domination of Earth's ecosystems. Science, 277(5325), 494-499.
Waide, R. B., Willig, M. R., Steiner, C. F., Mittelbach, G., Gough, L., Dodson, S. I.
(1999). The Relationship Between Productivity and Species Richness. Annual
review of Ecology and Systematics, 30, 257-300.
West, A. D., Goss-Custard, J. D., Stillman, R. A., Caldow, R. W., le V dit Durell, S. E.,
McGrorty, S. (2002). Predicting the impacts of disturbance on shorebird

45
 mortality using a behaviour-based model. Biological Conservation, 106(3), 319-
328.
Wilson, J. B. (1994). The'intermediate disturbance hypothesis' of species coexistence is
based on patch dynamics. New Zealand Journal of Ecology 18(2), 176-181.
Wimalasekara, C., & Wickramasinghe, S. (2014). Species diversity and conservation of
avifauna in three different habitat types within the Mihintale Sanctu-ary, Sri
Lank. Journal of Threatened Taxa, 6(5), 5718-5725.
Yahner, R. H. (1988). Changes in wildlife communities near edges. Conservation
biology, 2(4), 333-339.
Yahner, R. H., & Scott, D. P. (1988). Effects of forest fragmentation on depredation of
artificial nests. The Journal of Wildlife Management, 52(1), 158-161.
Yu, T., & Guo, Y. (2013). Effects of Urbanization on Bird Species Richness and
Community Composition. Pakistan J. Zool, 45(1), 59-69.

46
 APPENDICES
Appendix 1: The list of the birds and their respective family

S. N Common name Scientific name Family

1 Shikra Accipiter badius Accipitridae
2 Black kite Milvus migrans Accipitridae
3 Common buzzard Buteo buteo Accipitridae
4 Crested serpent eagle Spilornis cheela Accipitridae
5 House swift Apus nipalensis Apodidae
6 Cattle egret Bubulcus ibis Ardeidae
7 Long tailed minivet Pericrocotus ethologus Campephagidae
8 Barwing flycatcher shrike Hemipus picatus Campephagidae
9 Scarlet minivet Pericrocotus speciosus Campephagidae
10 Large cuckooshrike Coracina macei Campephagidae
11 Common tailorbird Orthotomus sutorius Cisticolidae
12 Spotted dove Spilopelia chinensis Columbidae
13 Common rock pigeon Columba livia Columbidae
14 Ashy wood pigeon Columba pulchricollis Columbidae
15 Eurasian collared dove Streptopelia decaocto Columbidae
16 Oriental turtle dove Streptopelia orientalis Columbidae
17 Large billed crow Corvus macrorhynchos Corvidae
18 House crow Corvus splendens Corvidae
19 Rufous treepie Dendrocitta vagabunda Corvidae
20 Red bellied blue magpie Urocissa erythrorhyncha Corvidae
21 Asian koel Eudynamys scolopaceus Cuculidae
22 Eurasian cuckoo Cuculus canorus Cuculidae
23 Indian cuckoo Cuculus micropterus Cuculidae
24 Fire breasted flowerpeaker Dicaeum ignipectus Dicaeidae
25 Plain flowerpecker Dicaeum minullum Dicaeidae
26 Ashy drongo Dicrurus leucophaeus Dicruridae
27 Black drongo Dicrurus macrocercus Dicruridae
28 Bronzed drongo Dicrurus aeneus Dicruridae
29 Common kestrel Falco tinnunculus Falconidae

I
30 White throated kingfisher Halcyon smyrnensis Halcyonidae
31 Barn swallow Hirundo rustica Hirundinidae
32 Red rumped swallow Cecropis daurica Hirundinidae
33 Long tailed shrike Lanius schach Laniidae
34 Great barbet Megalaima virens Megalaimidae
35 Blue throated barbet Megalaima asiatica Megalaimidae
36 Coppersmith barbet Megalaima haemacephala Megalaimidae
37 Asian paradise flycatcher Terpsiphone paradisi Monarchidae
38 Grey wagtail Motacilla cinerea Motacillidae
39 Slaty backed flycatcher Ficedula hodgsonii Muscicapidae

40 Blue throated flycatcher Cyornis rubeculoides Muscicapidae

41 Blue whistling thrush Myophonus caeruleus Muscicapidae
42 Spotted forktail Enicurus maculatus Muscicapidae
43 Verditer flycatcher Eumyias thalassinus Muscicapidae
44 Oriental magpie robin Copsychus saularis Muscicapidae
45 Rufous bellied niltava Niltava sundara Muscicapidae
46 Crimson sunbird Aethopyga siparaja Nectariniidae
47 Eurasian golden oriole Oriolus oriolus Oriole
48 Great tit Parus major Paridae
49 Black lored tit Parus xanthogenys Paridae
50 Green backed tit Parus monticolus Paridae
51 House sparrow Passer domesticus Passeridae
52 Eurasian tree sparrow Passer montanus Passeridae
53 Nepal fulvetta Alcippe nipalensis Pellorneidae
54 Kalij phesant Lophura leucomelanos Phasianidae
Phylloscopus Phylloscopidae
55 Grey hooded warbler xanthoschistos
56 Grey headed woodpeaker Picus canus Picidae
57 Speckled piculet Picumnus innominatus Picidae
58 Fulvous brested woodpecker Dendrocopos macei Picidae
59 Rufous woodpeaker Micropternus brachyurus Picidae
60 Rose ringed parakeet Psittacula krameri Psittaculidae
61 Alexandrine parakeet Psittacula eupatria Psittaculidae

II
62 Slaty headed parakeet Psittacula himalayana Psittaculidae
63 Red vented bulbul Pycnonotus cafer Pycnonotidae
64 Black bulbul Hypsipetes leucocephalus Pycnonotidae
65 Himalayan bulbul Pycnonotus leucogenys Pycnonotidae
66 White throated fantail Rhipidura albicollis Rhipiduridae
67 Chestnut bellied nuthatch Sitta cinnamoventris Sittidae
68 Velvet fronted nuthatch Sitta frontalis Sittidae
69 Grey headed canary flycatcher Culicicapa ceylonensis Stenostiridae
70 Spotted owlet Athene brama Strigidae
71 Jungle myna Acridotheres fuscus Sturnidae
72 Common myna Acridotheres tristis Sturnidae
73 Chestnut tailed starling Sturnia malabarica Sturnidae
74 Rusty cheeked scimitar babbler Pomatorhinus erythrogenys Timaliidae
75 Oriental white eye Zosterops palpebrosus Zosteropidae

III
Appendix 2: Patch wise Species Richness and Abundance for Pre Monsoon and Post
Monsoon
Forest
patch Pre Monsoon Species Number Post Monsoon Species Number
Ranibari Ashy drongo 4 Asian koel 11
Asian koel 22 Black drongo 2
Barn swallow 21 Black kite 7
Black kite 5 Blue throated barbet 10
Blue throated barbet 17 Chestnut bellied nuthach 3
Blue throated flycatcher 3 Common myna 9
Cattle egret 3 Common rock pigeon 1
Chestnut Bellied Nuthach 6 Common tailorbird 20
Common buzzard 1 Fire breasted flowerpeaker 4
Common myna 4 Great barbet 2
Common tailorbird 14 Grey headed canary flycatcher 7
Coppersmith barbet 3 Grey headed woodpeaker 2
Eurasian cuckoo 5 Grey hooded warbler 2
Fire breasted flowerpeaker 2 House crow 37
Grey hooded warbler 3 Large billed crow 6
House crow 108 Oriental magpie robin 6
House swift 1 Oriental turtle dove 2
Jungle myna 13 Oriental white eye 11
Large billed crow 18 Red bellied blue magpie 3
Long tailed minivet 1 Red vented bulbul 1
Oriental magpie robin 5 Rose ringed parakeet 14
Oriental white eye 1 Rufous treepie 3
Red vented bulbul 1 Slaty headed parakeet 15
Rose ringed parakeet 9 White throated kingfisher 3
Rufous treepie 3
Shikra 1
Spotted dove 1
Spotted owlet 2
Verditer flycatcher 1
White throated kingfisher 2

IV
Forest
patch Pre Monsoon Species Number Post Monsoon Species Number
Gokarna Ashy drongo 2 Barn swallow 20
Asian koel 3 Barwing flycatcher shrike 23
Barwing flycatcher shrike 13 Black kite 13
Black bulbul 7 Black lored tit 4
Black kite 21 Blue throated barbet 15
Black lored tit 8 Blue throated flycatcher 1
Blue throated barbet 24 Cattle egret 21
Blue throated flycatcher 12 Chestnut bellied nuthach 7
Chestnut bellied nuthach 5 Common rock pigeon 1
Common myna 1 Common tailorbird 8
Common tailorbird 6 Fire breasted flowerpeaker 4
Crested serpent eagle 1 Great barbet 21
Eurasian collared dove 1 Grey headed canary flycatcher 24
Eurasian cuckoo 3 Grey headed woodpeaker 8
Fire breasted flowerpeaker 7 Grey hooded warbler 85
Great barbet 14 Grey wagtail 1
Grey headed canary
flycatcher 29 House crow 3
Grey headed woodpeaker 10 Kalij phesant 4
Grey hooded warbler 26 Large billed crow 4
House crow 12 Long tailed minivet 4
Jungle myna 29 Oriental magpie robin 1
Kalij phesant 10 Oriental turtle dove 9
Large billed crow 70 Oriental white eye 40
Long tailed minivet 6 Plain flowerpecker 33
Oriental magpie robin 3 Red bellied blue magpie 2
Oriental turtle dove 6 Red rumped swallow 1
Oriental white eye 31 Red vented bulbul 3
Plain flowerpecker 59 Rose ringed parakeet 11
Red vented bulbul 8 Rufous woodpeaker 1
Rose ringed parakeet 21 Shikra 2
Scarlet minivet 1 Spotted dove 8
Spotted dove 26 Verditer flycatcher 1
Velvet fronted nuthatch 1
Verditer flycatcher 7
White throated kingfisher 2

V
Forest patch Name of species Number Name of species Number
Pashupati Asian koel 5 Alexandrine parakeet 9
Barn swallow 2 Black kite 4
Black kite 8 Blue throated barbet 6
Black lored tit 1 Cattle egret 1
Blue throated barbet 12 Chestnut bellied nuthach 2
Blue throated flycatcher 2 Common myna 12
Blue whistling thrush 1 Common rock pigeon 11
Chestnut bellied nuthach 3 Common tailorbird 10
Common myna 19 Grey headed canary flycatcher 4
Common rock pigeon 11 Grey hooded warbler 7
Common tailorbird 11 House crow 66
Eurasian cuckoo 4 Jungle myna 8
Fulvous Woodpecker 2 Large billed crow 9
Grey headed canary 4 Oriental magpie robin 1
flycatcher
Grey headed woodpeaker 1 Oriental white eye 5
Grey hooded warbler 4 Plain flowerpecker 4
House crow 32 Rose ringed parakeet 15
Jungle myna 18 Rufous treepie 1
Large billed crow 5 Shikra 2
Oriental magpie robin 5 Spotted dove 2
Oriental white eye 5 Spotted owlet 2
Red vented bulbul 5
Rose ringed parakeet 22
Rufous treepie 2
Speckled piculet 1
Spotted dove 1
Spotted owlet 1
Tree Sparrow 1
Velvet fronted nuthatch 1
Verditer flycatcher 1
White throated kingfisher 2

VI
Forest patch Name of species Number Name of species Number
Hattiban Alexandrine parakeet 2 Barn swallow 1
Ashy drongo 10 Cattle egret 3
Asian koel 3 Common rock pigeon 6
Asian paradise flycatcher 1 Common tailorbird 11
Black drongo 4 Eurasian golden oriole 2
Blue throated barbet 1 Grey hooded warbler 2
Blue whistling thrush 1 House crow 19
Chestnut tailed starling 8 Oriental magpie robin 2
Common rock pigeon 4 Oriental turtle dove 1
Common tailorbird 5 Red vented bulbul 2
Grey hooded warbler 1 Rose ringed parakeet 3
House crow 41 Rufous treepie 1
House sparrow 1
Oriental magpie robin 2
Red vented bulbul 23
Spotted dove 3
Tree Sparrow 2

Forest patch Name of species Number Name of species Number

Mhepi Asian koel 2 Black kite 10
Black kite 4 Blue throated barbet 2
Blue throated barbet 1 Chestnut bellied nuthach 3
Cattle egret 1 Common myna 2
Common rock pigeon 23 Common rock pigeon 7
Common tailorbird 6 Common tailorbird 6
Grey hooded warbler 1 Fire breasted flowerpeaker 1
House crow 31 Grey headed canary flycatcher 1
House sparrow 21 Grey hooded warbler 5
Oriental magpie robin 6 House crow 68
Oriental white eye 2 House sparrow 2
Red vented bulbul 10 Oriental magpie robin 2
Rose ringed parakeet 4 Oriental white eye 1
Red vented bulbul 2
Rose ringed parakeet 6
White throated kingfisher 1

VII
Forest patch Name of species Number Name of species Number
Nilbarahi Alexandrine parakeet 1 Ashy drongo 2
Asian koel 11 Asian koel 2
Black kite 2 Barn swallow 3
Blue throated barbet 7 Black kite 2
Blue whistling thrush 6 Blue throated barbet 2
Cattle egret 2 Cattle egret 1
Common myna 1 Chestnut bellied nuthach 2
Common rock pigeon 2 Common rock pigeon 1
Common tailorbird 4 Common tailorbird 7
Eurasian cuckoo 2 Fire breasted flowerpeaker 1
Great barbet 8 Great barbet 1
Great tit 1 Great tit 2
Grey headed woodpeaker 2 Grey headed canary flycatcher 8
House crow 11 Grey headed woodpeaker 2
Jungle myna 1 Grey hooded warbler 4
Large billed crow 12 House crow 7
Plain flowerpecker 1 Large billed crow 5
Red bellied blue magpie 2 Long tailed shrike 4
Rose ringed parakeet 4 Plain flowerpecker 1
Rufous treepie 1 Red vented bulbul 1
Spotted dove 2 Rose ringed parakeet 14
Spotted owlet 2 Rufous treepie 1
White throated kingfisher 3 Rusty cheeked scimitar 2
babbler
Shikra 1
White throated kingfisher 2

Forest patch Name of species Number Name of species Number

Bhandarkhal Black kite 4 Blue throated barbet 8
Blue throated barbet 6 Common myna 1
Common rock pigeon 3 Common rock pigeon 4
Common tailorbird 5 Common tailorbird 2
Grey headed canary 1 Green backed tit 2
flycatcher
House crow 23 Grey headed canary flycatcher 8
Jungle myna 1 Grey hooded warbler 5
Large billed crow 1 House crow 12
Oriental white eye 1 Large billed crow 9
Plain flowerpecker 1 Oriental magpie robin 1
Red vented bulbul 1 Oriental white eye 4
Spotted owlet 1 Spotted dove 12
Verditer flycatcher 4 White throated kingfisher 1

VIII
Forest patch Name of species Number Name of species Number
Swyambhu Asian koel 27 Ashy drongo 1
Barn swallow 5 Asian koel 2
Black kite 35 Black bulbul 18
Black lored tit 4 Black kite 25
Blue throated barbet 27 Black lored tit 1
Common kestrel 1 Blue throated barbet 10
Common rock pigeon 41 Chestnut bellied nuthach 4
Common tailorbird 19 Common myna 4
Crimson sunbird 2 Common rock pigeon 23
Eurasian cuckoo 6 Common tailorbird 30
Fire breasted flowerpeaker 3 Crested serpent eagle 1
Great barbet 6 Fire breasted flowerpeaker 2
Great tit 5 Great barbet 1
Grey headed canary 12 Great tit 12
flycatcher
Grey hooded warbler 25 Grey headed canary flycatcher 46
House crow 54 Grey hooded warbler 53
House sparrow 1 Himalayan bulbul 1
Jungle myna 1 House crow 56
Large billed crow 4 Large billed crow 17
Long tailed minivet 3 Oriental magpie robin 5
Nepal fulvetta 1 Oriental white eye 28
Oriental magpie robin 12 Plain flowerpecker 1
Oriental white eye 48 Rose ringed parakeet 9
Red vented bulbul 3 Scarlet minivet 3
Rose ringed parakeet 8 Spotted dove 2
Shikra 3 Spotted owlet 1
Speckled piculet 1 Verditer flycatcher 4
Spotted dove 1
Spotted owlet 3

IX
Forest patch Name of species Number Name of species Number
Bajrabarahi Alexandrine parakeet 1 Alexandrine parakeet 11
Ashy drongo 2 Ashy drongo 14
Ashy wood pigeon 5 Ashy wood pigeon 1
Asian koel 14 Black lored tit 5
Black lored tit 5 Blue throated barbet 8
Blue throated barbet 15 Blue throated flycatcher 8
Blue throated flycatcher 6 Blue whistling thrush 1
Blue whistling thrush 1 Bronzed.Drongo 1
Chestnut bellied nuthach 3 Chestnut bellied nuthach 5
Common rock pigeon 1 Common rock pigeon 1
Common tailorbird 1 Common tailorbird 5
Eurasian cuckoo 3 Crimson sunbird 1
Fire breasted flowerpeaker 10 Fire breasted flowerpeaker 8
Great barbet 15 Fulvous Woodpecker 1
Great tit 5 Great barbet 7
Grey headed canary 9 Great tit 10
flycatcher
Grey headed woodpeaker 3 Grey headed canary flycatcher 20
Grey hooded warbler 6 Grey headed woodpeaker 3
House crow 6 Grey hooded warbler 40
Indian.Cuckoo 2 House crow 25
Jungle myna 39 Large billed crow 30
Large billed crow 28 Large cuckooshrike 2
Oriental white eye 2 Long tailed minivet 1
Rose ringed parakeet 51 Oriental turtle dove 1
Speckled piculet 1 Oriental white eye 7
Spotted dove 5 Plain flowerpecker 3
Spotted.Forktail 1 Red bellied blue magpie 3
Verditer flycatcher 1 Red vented bulbul 2
Rose ringed parakeet 68
Rufous bellied niltava 2
Scarlet minivet 2
Slaty backed flycatcher 1
Spotted dove 3
Velvet fronted nuthatch 2
Verditer flycatcher 2
White throated fantail 1

X
Appendix 3: Studied forest patches of valley name wise with vegetation and bird points

XI
XII
Appendix 4: Bird Abundance in pre and post monsoon season
Abundance
Species Name Pre Monsoon Post Monsoon
Large billed crow 138 80
Jungle myna 102 8
Asian koel 90 15
Great barbet 43 32
Blue throated barbet 110 61
Fire breasted flowerpeaker 22 20
House crow 318 293
Rose ringed parakeet 119 140
Spotted dove 39 27
Grey headed canary flycatcher 55 118
Common rock pigeon 85 55
Eurasian cuckoo 23 0
Grey hooded warbler 66 203
Oriental white eye 90 96
Blue throated flycatcher 23 9
Black lored tit 18 10
Indian cuckoo 2 0
Alexandrine parakeet 4 20
Grey headed woodpeaker 16 15
Blue whistling thrush 9 1
Great tit 11 24
Common tailorbird 71 99
Ashy wood pigeon 5 1
Ashy drongo 18 17
Spotted forktail 1 0
Speckled piculet 3 0
Verditer flycatcher 14 7
Chestnut Bellied Nuthach 17 26
Black kite 79 61
Red vented bulbul 51 11
Oriental magpie robin 33 18
House sparrow 23 2
Cattle egret 6 26
Barn swallow 28 24

XIII
White throated kingfisher 9 7
Rufous treepie 6 6
Coppersmith barbet 3 0
Common myna 25 28
Spotted owlet 9 3
Common buzzard 1 0
Long tailed minivet 10 5
Shikra 4 5
House swift 1 0
Chestnut tailed starling 8 0
Black drongo 4 2
Asian paradise flycatcher 1 0
Eurasian tree sparrow 3 0
Fulvous brested woodpecker 2 1
Velvet fronted nuthatch 2 2
Plain flowerpecker 61 42
Red bellied blue magpie 2 8
Eurasian collared dove 1 0
Barwing flycatcher shrike 13 23
Scarlet minivet 1 5
Crested serpent eagle 1 1
Black bulbul 7 18
Kalij phesant 10 4
Oriental turtle dove 6 13
Common kestrel 1 0
Crimson sunbird 2 1
Nepal fulvetta 1 0
Rufous bellied niltava 0 2
Large cuckooshrike 0 2
White throated fantail 0 1
Bronzed drongo 0 1
Slaty backed flycatcher 0 1
Grey wagtail 0 1
Rufous woodpeaker 0 1
Slaty headed parakeet 0 15
Eurasian golden oriole 0 2

XIV
Green backed tit 0 2
Long tailed shrike 0 4
Rusty cheeked scimitar babbler 0 2
Himalayan bulbul 0 1
Red rumped swallow 0 1
Total 1926 1729

XV
XVI