Agricultural Science Digest

  • Chief EditorArvind kumar

  • Print ISSN 0253-150X

  • Online ISSN 0976-0547

  • NAAS Rating 5.52

  • SJR 0.156

Frequency :
Bi-monthly (February, April, June, August, October and December)
Indexing Services :
BIOSIS Preview, Biological Abstracts, Elsevier (Scopus and Embase), AGRICOLA, Google Scholar, CrossRef, CAB Abstracting Journals, Chemical Abstracts, Indian Science Abstracts, EBSCO Indexing Services, Index Copernicus
Submit

Agricultural Science Digest, volume 33 issue 3 (september 2013) : 230-233

IMPACT OF MODERN AGRICULTURAL PRACTICES ON POPULATION DENSITY OF INDIAN PEAFOWL (Pavo cristatus) IN HARYANA, INDIA

Sarita Rana*, Divya Jain
1Department of Zoology and Botany, Sanatan Dharma College, Ambala Cantt.- 134 003, India
Cite article:- Rana* Sarita, Jain Divya (2024). IMPACT OF MODERN AGRICULTURAL PRACTICES ON POPULATION DENSITY OF INDIAN PEAFOWL (Pavo cristatus) IN HARYANA, INDIA. Agricultural Science Digest. 33(3): 230-233. doi: 10.5958/j.0976-0547.33.3.015.

ABSTRACT

Impact of changing cropping pattern, increased pesticide usage and mechanized farming on the population density of Indian peafowl was studied in Ambala, Kurukshetra, Karnal and Yamuna Nagar districts of Haryana. The study area selected is dominated by agricultural lands under the cultivation of rice, wheat and sugarcane.   Density of Indian peafowl was quite low in wheat and paddy fields but was high in orchards.  Peafowl in orchards was found in microhabitat Cyonodon whereas in sugarcane it preferred Cenchrus. Pesticides used in orchards had less effect on the population density while those used in wheat and paddy decreased the population density immensely. In mango orchards where harvesting was done manually both eggs and fledglings were found while in wheat fields where combine harvesters were used occurrence of eggs and fledglings was nil. Maximum covey size of Indian peafowl was observed in orchards whereas, no coveys were found in paddy or wheat. Habitat loss due to rapid urbanization, decreasing number of orchards as well as use of pesticides and mechanized farming pose serious threat to peafowl in the study area.

REFERENCES

  1. Ali,S. and Ripley,S.D. (1989). The Compact Handbook of the Birds of India and Pakistan. Oxford University Press, Bombay.
  2. Bibby,C.J.; Hill,N.D.; Burgess,N.D. and Mustoe,S.(2000). Bird Census Techniques, Academic Press, London.
  3. Buckland, S.T. Anderson, D.R. Burnham,K.P. Laake, J.L. Borchers, D.L. and Thomas, L.(2001). Introduction to Distance Sampling: Estimating Abundance of Biological populations. Oxford University Press, Oxford
  4. Bright, J. A. Morris, A.J and Winspear,R (2008). A review of Indirect Effects of Pesticides on Birds and mitigating land- management practices. Published in: RSPB Research Report. Available on line-http://www.rspb.org.uk‘
  5. Budgey, H.V. (1994). Parental strategies of Indian Peafowl. Thesis submitted to Dept. of Biology, Open University, California (Unpublished).
  6. Chamberlain, D. E., Fuller, R. J., Bunce, R. G. H., Duckworth, J. C. and Shrubb, M.(2000) Changes in abundance of farmland birds in relation to the timing of agricultural intensification in England and Wales. J. Applied Ecol. 37: 771-788
  7. Choudhury, B. and S. Sathyakumar (2007). An assessment of the current status of Indian Peafowl (Pavo cristatus) in India based on questionnaire survey. In Galliformes of India, ENVIS Bulletin, Wildlife and Protected Areas,10: 53-60
  8. Conroy,M.J. and Carroll,J.P. (2001). Estimating abundance of Galliformes: Tools and Applications. In:Proceedings of the seventh International Galliformes symposium (eds. M.Woodburn, P.McGowan, J.Carroll, A.Masavi & D.Z.Zang),pp 204-215
  9. Fuller, R. J., Gregory, R. D., Gibbons, D. W., Marchant, J. H., Wilson, J. D., Baillie, S.R. and Carter, N. (1995) Population declines and range contractions among lowland famland birds in Britain. Conserv. Biol. 9: 1425-1441.
  10. Imam, E. (2005). Population status and conservation of Indian Peafowl Pavo cristatus in Aligarh, northern India. In: Proceedings of the 3rd International Galliformes Symposium. World Pheasant Association, Fordingbridge, United Kingdom. (eds. Fuller, R.A. & S.J. Browne). pp.191-193
  11. Jaglan,MS.(2005). Pulse cultivation in Sustainable Agricultural Development of Haryana, India. Sustainable Agriculture, Northern Book Centre. pp 171-188.
  12. Kaphalia,BS; Husain,MM;Seth,TD; Kumar,A and Murti,CR(1981). Organochlorine pesticide residues in some Indian wild birds. Pest. Monit. J. 15(1):9-13
  13. Madge, S. and McGowan P. (2002). Pheasants, Partridges and Grouse, Including Buttonquails, Sandgrouse and Allies. Helm Identification Guides, Christopher Helm, London, 488pp.
  14. Mangala, R and Trivedi, T.P. (2009). Handbok of Agriculture. ICAR, New Delhi.
  15. Mitra, A. Chatterjee,C. & Mandal, Fatik. B. (2011). Synthetic Chemical Pesticides and their effects of Birds. Res. J. Env. Toxil. 5 (2) : 81-96
  16. Ramesh,K. and McGowan,P. (2009). On the current status of Indian Peafowl (Pavo cristatus) (Aves: Galliformes: Phasianidae): Keeping the common species common. J. Threatened Taxa 1 (2):106-10
  17. Shahabuddin,G. and Kumar,R (2007). Effects of extractive disturbance on bird assemblages, vegetation structure and floristics in tropical scrub forest, Sariska Tiger Reserve, India. Forest Ecology and Manag. 246 :175–185.
  18. Yasmin, S. (2011).Ecology and Biology of the Indian Peafowl, Pavo cristatus. A field study in the Aligarh region. LAP LAMBERT Academic Publishing.pp 68.
Reviewed By

Download Article
In this Article
    Contact us
    Follow us

    Editorial Board

    View all (0)