See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/260528738

Shorebird assemblages respond to anthropogenic stress by altering habitat

use in a wetland in India

Article in Biodiversity and Conservation · March 2014

DOI: 10.1007/s10531-014-0630-9

CITATIONS READS

50 2,534

4 authors:

Aarif K.M Sabir Bin Muzaffar

Czech University of Life Sciences Prague United Arab Emirates University
43 PUBLICATIONS 332 CITATIONS 132 PUBLICATIONS 1,877 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Babu Santhanakrishnan Prasadan P.K

Salim Ali Centre for Ornithology and Natural History Kannur University, Mananthavady Campus
79 PUBLICATIONS 290 CITATIONS 84 PUBLICATIONS 400 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Babu Santhanakrishnan on 10 March 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Biodivers Conserv
DOI 10.1007/s10531-014-0630-9

ORIGINAL PAPER

Shorebird assemblages respond to anthropogenic stress

by altering habitat use in a wetland in India

K. M. Aarif • S. B. Muzaffar • S. Babu • P. K. Prasadan

Received: 7 August 2013 / Revised: 9 January 2014 / Accepted: 15 January 2014

Ó Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Abstract Shorebirds are globally experiencing declines due to habitat loss and anthro-
pogenic disturbance. The Central Asian Flyway hosts significant shorebirds that winter in
the Indian subcontinent. The current study examined the shorebird assemblages of Ka-
dalundi-Vallikkunnu Community Reserve, an internationally important estuarine wetland
in southwestern India, to determine changes in their assemblages in relation to habitat
alterations. We conducted point counts from 2005 to 2012 in mudflats, mangroves, sandy
beaches and shallow water areas in Kadalundi-Vallikkunnu Community Reserve. This
study measured physicochemical variables as a proxy for anthropogenic change experi-
enced as a result of rapidly increasing human populations combined with development. We
examined rainfall data during the study period to determine associations with shorebird
abundance. Stepwise linear regression showed that total nitrogen and rainfall were sig-
nificantly related to shorebird abundance (bird count = 306 ? 213 NO3-—1.13 rainfall,
F = 31.20, p \ 0.001). High rainfall in a given year (one-way ANOVA F = 19.91,
p \ 0.001) and the previous year resulted in lower shorebird counts (one-way ANOVA

Communicated by Stephen Garnett.

K. M. Aarif  P. K. Prasadan
Research Department of Zoology, Mary Matha Arts and Science College, Mananthavady, Vemom PO,
Wayanad District, Kerala, India
e-mail: [email protected]
P. K. Prasadan
e-mail: [email protected]

S. B. Muzaffar (&)
Department of Biology, United Arab Emirates University, PO Box 15551, Al Ain, United Arab
Emirates
e-mail: [email protected]

S. Babu
Ornithology Division, Sálim Ali Centre for Ornithology and Natural History, Anaikatty (PO),
Coimbatore 641 108, Tamil Nadu, India
e-mail: [email protected]

123
 Biodivers Conserv

F = 16.01, p \ 0.001). Shorebirds declined during the study period and habitat use shifted
significantly from mangroves and mudflats to sandy beaches (one-way ANOVA, F = 2.18,
p = 0.034). Shorebirds also exhibited a gradual decline in diversity. We conclude that
altered nutrient content in this wetland resulted in changes in the prey base in the four
habitat types. Shorebirds responded to these changes by increasing the use of less preferred
habitat (sandy beaches). The anthropogenic influences on the wetland are large (waste
disposal, sand mining, disturbance due to development) and continued pressure may result
in further decline of shorebird assemblages. The results from this study indicate that certain
anthropogenic disturbances, such as waste disposal and sand mining, should be reduced to
maintain and improve the integrity of this wetland.

Keywords Shorebird decline  Community reserve  Habitat loss  India 

Anthropogenic pressure  Estuary

Introduction

The world is currently experiencing a rapid decline in species and ecosystems with many
species and populations facing imminent threats of endangerment or extinction (Butchart
et al. 2010; Dawson et al. 2011). The expansion and dominance of humans is likely to
competitively exclude many species (Dawson et al. 2011) with major changes anticipated
in the distribution and abundance of living biota. Anthropogenic climate change is pre-
dicted to exacerbate the situation, with the expansion of ranges of human-tolerant species
and contraction or disappearance of disturbance-intolerant species (Dawson et al. 2011).
Shorebirds can be regarded as global sentinels of such environmental change due to their
migratory ecology and habitat use patterns (Peirsma and Lindstrom 2004). Shorebirds
spend up to two-thirds of the year in migration and on wintering grounds (Burger 1984)
travelling as much as 30,000 km each year (Peirsma and Lindstrom 2004; Recher 1966),
using habitats connecting inland freshwaters and marine environments encompassing
highly variable biomes in widely differing latitudes (Newton 2008). Their life histories
involve taking advantage of seasonally abundant food resources at staging and stopover
areas to build up fat reserves for long distance migration (Recher 1966; Morrison and
Harrington 1979). Furthermore, their use of human-influenced landscapes (such as agri-
cultural land) may help track resilience of species assemblages to direct anthropogenic
disturbance (Peirsma and Lindstrom 2004; Newton 2008; Sundar and Subramanya 2010;
Long and Ralph 2001; Flynn et al. 2009).
Shorebirds are declining worldwide (International Wader Study Group 2003; Huett-
mann and Czech 2006; Stroud et al. 2006) with over 52 % of all assessed species expe-
riencing significant declines (Stroud et al. 2006). Shorebird habitats across the globe have
diminished, with significant portions of the natural habitat lost to agriculture, coastal
development or other anthropogenic modification (Huettmann and Czech 2006). The
Central Asian Flyway (CAF) is shortest of the world’s shorebird flyways, lying entirely in
the Northern Hemisphere. The southern limit of the CAF encompasses the Indian Sub-
continent which serves as wintering areas for many shorebird species (Stroud et al. 2006;
Balachandran 2006). The CAF is also one of the least known flyways, with 80 % of its
shorebird populations being unknown in either size or population trend (Balachandran
2006; Convention on Migratory Species 2005). On different flyways, between 33 and 68 %

123
Biodivers Conserv

of shorebird populations are in decline, compared with only 0–29 % increasing (Stroud
et al. 2006). The degradation of habitat has also led to the rapid collapse of populations to
below threshold levels (Stroud et al. 2006). In particular, human alteration of habitat has
been coupled with significant increase in pollution, especially in the form of nutrient
enrichment arising from agricultural lands (Balachandran 2006). Most of the wetlands and
rivers in India have high levels of nitrogen, phosphorus, and other nutrients making these
systems extremely eutrophic (see Nagarajan and Thiyagesan 1996; Prasad et al. 2002) and
unsuitable for shorebirds (Kannan and Pandiyan 2012).
Anthropogenic disturbance and nutrient input may influence shorebird distribution and
habitat use patterns. Shorebirds have been found to persist in habitat alongside disturbances
caused by humans (Lafferty 2001). Habitat use by shorebirds is strongly affected by tidal
influence, surrounding vegetation type and amount of standing water (Long and Ralph
2001). Furthermore, agricultural lands are often favored by some shorebird species over
their preferred, natural habitats, making it essential to better understand habitat use patterns
in relation to changes in habitat type (Sundar and Subramanya 2010; Acosta et al. 2010).
Data on habitat loss and shorebird population trends is limited mostly to North America,
Europe, Australia and selected parts of Asia, Africa or South America (Stroud et al. 2006).
The Asian Waterbird Census and other related monitoring works have attempted to reduce
the gap in knowledge of waterbird distributions in Asia (Li and Mundkur 2007); however,
the resolution of this data is limited to bird counts conducted in winter. Analyses of habitat
use patterns by shorebirds and habitat alteration are limited and generally do not incor-
porate long term datasets (Nagarajan and Thiyagesan 1996). Most population estimates are
over 10 years old and current knowledge of shorebird population trends in the CAF is
unknown. The best estimates suggest that a large portion of shorebird populations are
declining in the CAF (Stroud et al. 2006). The threats to shorebirds are poorly understood,
although wetland destruction and depletion of associated food resources are strongly
implied as major factors (Stroud et al. 2006). The main types of habitat destruction are sand
mining, mussel collection, waste disposal and chemical pollution, all of which have been
linked to a reduction in shorebird abundance throughout Asia (Balachandran 2006; Con-
vention on Migratory Species 2005).
To this end, we examined shorebird count data from a wetland in southwestern India
covering an eight-year period to determine changes in the shorebird assemblages in rela-
tion to (i) rainfall patterns; (ii) nutrient enrichment arising from rapid habitat changes
(including waste disposal and sand mining) and (iii) habitat use patterns to better under-
stand the responses of shorebird assemblages in relation to natural and anthropogenic
environmental change.

Methods and materials

Study area

The Kadalundi-Vallikkunnu Community Reserve (KVCR) is one of the four community

reserves in India. The KVCR (11°70 2800 –11°80 0100 N and 75°490 3600 –75°500 2000 E, Fig. 1) is
located at the mouth of the River Kadalundi that drains into the Arabian Sea on the west
coast of Kerala. Before entering the sea, the river divides into two channels encircling a
small island. The raised sandbars on the western and southern sides of the island separate
the lagoon from the sea (Uthaman and Namasivayan 1991). Apart from scattered patches
of mangroves, the estuary is bordered by coconut groves and human habitation. Around

123
 Biodivers Conserv

eight hectares of mudflat—exposed during low tides—offer potential foraging ground for
several hundreds of wintering and resident waterbirds, particularly shorebirds. The area
provides significant socio-economic and livelihood services (fishing, oyster farming and
sand mining) for the people living around the estuary. Waterbirds were previously
threatened by hunting in the area (Kurup 1991a, b; Aarif et al. 2011).

Fig. 1 Figure showing the Kadalundi-Vallikunnu Community Reserve (KVCR), Kerala, with distribution
of habitat types

123
Biodivers Conserv

The study area consists of four major habitat types: mudflats, mangroves, shallow water
on mangroves and mudflats and sandy beaches.

Mudflats

Mudflats are fully exposed during low tide. The vertical soil stratum is arranged with mud
at the top 5 cm, then mud with very fine sand and mud with large sand grains at the second
and third 5 cm.

Mangroves

Mangrove forests border the western side of the mudflat. Six species (Avicennia officinalis,
A. marina, Rhizophora mucronata, Kandelia candel, Brugeria cylindrica, Acanthus ili-
cifolius, Exocecaria agalloch) dominate in KVCR (Radhakrishnan et al. 2006).

Shallow water on mudflats and mangroves

Tidal activity creates pools in certain distinct areas of mudflats and mangroves, and these
were defined as shallow water areas.

Sandy beaches

The sandy beaches are located approximately 1.5 km away from the KVCR. A 1.2 km transect
of sandy beach was selected for bird sampling. The adjacent area consists of settlements
occupied by local fishermen. The northern end of the sandy beach contains a boat landing site.

Bird counts

We observed birds from January 2005 to December 2012. Birds were observed at three
scanning points (Mudflats, Mangroves and sandy beaches). The study area was visited once a
week (morning 6–11 am). Observations were made using direct count method and block count
method (Hoves and Bakewell 1989) using binoculars (10 9 50 Nikon) at low tide. Species
were identified using Grimmett et al. (1999), Message and Taylor (2005), Kumar et al. (2005).

Physicochemical variables and rainfall

A water sample (1 L) was taken once a month during low tide from each of the four habitat
types in the study area. Nitrate (NO3-), Phosphate (PO42-), Calcium (Ca2?), Potassium
(K?) and Magnesium (Mg?) were quantified using protocols in the American Public
Health Association Manual (APHA 2005). Potassium was quantified by flame emission
photometry while Ca2? and Mg? by complexometric titration. We used Cadmium
reduction technique followed by Spectrophotometer to estimate NO3-, and Molybdate-
Spectrophotometer for PO42-. Rainfall data were collected from a nearby substation
(Centre for Water Resources Development and Management, Kozhikode, Government of
Kerala, India). We assumed that the changes in physicochemical variables were due to
large changes in the human population resulting in waste deposition, chemical pollution
and disturbance, since all of the above variables are typically enhanced in water bodies in
response to anthropogenic pollution (Muzaffar and Ahmed 2007).

123
 Biodivers Conserv

Quantification and statistical analyses

The count data were summarized and categorized by month and year. Count data were
log10-transformed to normalize residuals (Sokal and Rohlf 2012). Monthly measurements
of NO3-, PO42-, Ca2?, K?, and Mg? were compared across years to evaluate trends in
chemical composition of the wetland using regression methods (Sokal and Rohlf 2012).
Trends in each of the variables including count data were compared between years using
one-way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA). We used stepwise regression to examine tem-
poral variation in shorebird counts in relation to all environmental variables using the
forward selection procedure with a p \ 0.05 to add variables and p [ 0.10 to remove
variables (Sokal and Rohlf 2012). Total monthly shorebird count was used as the response
variable and annual monthly rainfall, NO3-, PO42-, Ca2?, K?, and Mg? as explanatory
variables. Once the most suitable model was determined, the variables for the best model
were retained. We performed one-way ANOVA to determine the relationship between the
previous year’s rainfall and total shorebird counts. Shannon Weiner Index of diversity (H),
species richness, relative abundance (individual species represented as a proportion of the
total number of individuals) and Gini-Simpson’s index were calculated for each year to
evaluate changes in diversity and abundance of shorebirds (Krebs 1989) using PAST
version 2.17 (Hammer et al. 2001). Confidence limits were calculated and pairwise
comparisons between years for each diversity index were carried out using bootstrap
methods with replacement (PAST version 2.17, Hammer et al. 2001). All species that
represented more than 0.5 % of the total number of birds were further analyzed to
determine trends in abundance using linear regression. Total number of shorebirds as well
as relative abundance was calculated for each of the four habitat types (mudflat, mangrove,
sandy beach and shallow). The differences in total counts in each of these habitats were
compared between and within habitats using one-way ANOVAs. Significance (a) for all
statistical tests was set at 0.05. Unless otherwise stated, all tests were performed using
Minitab 14.1 registered to UAE University.

Results

Chemical analyses and rainfall

Regression analysis showed that PO42-, Ca2?, K? and Mg? increased significantly over
the study period whereas NO3- declined (Table 1). The decrease in NO3- and the increase
in PO42-and Mg? have been gradual, whereas the increase in Ca2? and K? was substantial
and was limited to 2012 (Fig. 2). Only NO3- (one-way ANOVA, F = 8.55, p \ 0.001)
and PO42- (one-way ANOVA, F = 169.49, p \ 0.001) showed a significant declining
trend during the study period. Stepwise regression analysis showed that shorebird numbers
were significantly related to rainfall and NO3- (bird count = 306 ? 213 NO3-—1.13
rainfall, F = 31.20, p \ 0.001). Additionally, rainfall of the previous year resulted in
significantly lower shorebird counts (one-way ANOVA F = 16.01, p \ 0.001).

Total shorebird count trends and habitat use

Total annual shorebird counts decreased significantly between 2005 and 2012 (one-way
ANOVA, F = 3.63, p = 0.001, Fig. 3a). Mudflats were the most used habitat, with the
percentage of shorebirds counted in mudflats ranging from 37.5 to 67.2 % between 2005

123
Biodivers Conserv

Table 1 Trends in the physicochemical variables over the duration of the study at Kadalundi-Vallikunnu
Community Reserve, Kerala (F and p values from regression analyses are reported)
Trend F p

Nitrate Declining 59.09 \0.001

Phosphate Increasing 11.41 0.001
Potassium Increasing 7.57 0.007
Calcium Increasing 30.58 \0.001
Magnesium Increasing 60.12 \0.001

Fig. 2 Variation in the levels of the five physicochemcical variables (NO3-, PO42-, K?, Ca2- and Mg?) in
the Kadalundi-Vallikunnu Community Reserve, Kerala

and 2012. During the same period, the percentage of shorebirds counted in mangroves
ranged from 16.1 to 50.1 %. The declining trends in the percentage of birds using mudflats,
mangroves and shallow water areas showed significant declines (one-way ANOVA,
p \ 0.05 in all cases). In comparison, a significant increase in shorebird numbers was
noted in sandy areas (one-way ANOVA, F = 2.18, p = 0.034, Fig. 3b).

123
 Biodivers Conserv

Fig. 3 a Total number of

shorebirds using each of the four
habitat types in Kadalundi-
Vallikunnu Community Reserve,
Kerala; and b relative abundance
of shorebirds (%) in different
habitat types in relation to year

Diversity, relative abundance and species trends

Shannon Weiner index values ranged between 0.78 and 1.83 with significant variation
between the years with a generally declining trend (Table 2, Bootstrap, p \ 0.05 in all
pairwise comparisons between years). Richness varied between 17 and 26 species with
significant decline in richness in 2012 compared to all other years (Table 2). Gini-Simp-
son’s index values ranged between 0.47 and 0.52 with significant fluctuations occurring
between years with a declining trend. Six species represented 1 % or more of the total
shorebird population, namely, Lesser Sand Plover (Charadrius mongolus), Greater Sand
Plover (Charadrius leschenaultii), Kentish Plover (Charadrius alexandrinus), Pacific
Golden Plover (Pluvialis fulva), Common Greenshank (Tringa nebularia) and Common
Redshank (Tringa totanus) (Table 3). Lesser Sand Plover was the most dominant species
(67.0–84.6 % of total shorebirds) throughout the duration of the study (Table 3). Of all the
species assessed for trends, eight species (44 %) exhibited significant declining trends
(Table 3). Among the abundant species ([1 % of all shorebirds counted), Lesser Sand

123
Biodivers Conserv

Table 2 Comparison of the changes in Shannon’s index, Gini-Simpson’s Index and richness in relation to
year (2005–2012) in Kadalundi-Vallikunnu Community Reserve, Kerala
Year Shannon’s index Gini-Simpson’s index Richness

2005 1.20 (1.18–1.21) 0.47 (0.47–0.48) 26 (26–26)

2006 1.27 (1.25–1.29) 0.53 (0.52–0.54) 21 (19–21)
2007 1.14 (1.12–1.15) 0.48 (0.47–0.49) 24 (21–24)
2008 1.04 (1.03–1.06) 0.42 (0.41–0.43) 27 (24–27)
2009 1.09 (1.07–1.11) 0.46 (0.45–0.47) 26 (25–26)
2010 1.08 (1.06–1.09) 0.45 (0.44–0.46) 25 (23–25)
2011 0.79 (0.77–0.80) 0.28 (0.27–0.29) 24 (22–24)
2012 1.15 (1.11–1.18) 0.46 (0.44–0.47) 17 (16–17)

95 % Confidence intervals (derived by bootstrap methods) are shown in parentheses

Plovers, Greater Sand Plovers and Pacific Golden Plovers showed declining trends
(p \ 0.05 in all cases). Additionally, Common Sandpipers (Actitis hypoleucos), Curlew
Sandpipers (Calidris ferruginea), Wood Sandpipers (Tringa glareola), Sanderlings (Cal-
idris alba) and Little Stints (Calidris minuta) showed significant declining trends and were
among the less abundant species (\0.05 % of all shorebirds counted, Table 3).

Discussion

The Kadalundi-Vallikkunnu Community Reserve is an important wintering and stopover

site for birds migrating through the south-western coast of India (Uthaman and Namasi-
vayan 1991; Aarif 2009). The wintering shorebird assemblages in KVCR showed signif-
icant changes in abundance and diversity, which are likely to be linked to natural and
anthropogenic perturbations. Overall, shorebird abundance experienced fluctuations char-
acteristic of migratory waterbirds dependent on water bodies affected by monsoons
(Kannan and Pandiyan 2012; Aarif 2009). Shorebird abundance and diversity declined over
the duration of the study. Abundance was directly linked to rainfall patterns and aquatic
total NO3-. Long-term changes in habitat use patterns were evident in both diversity and
abundance data.

Rainfall and physicochemical variables

The southwest monsoons arising in the Indian Ocean brings substantial rainfall during the
summer months (June–September) across the southern half of India and other parts of
South Asia (Gopal and Chauhan 2001). Additionally, the state Kerala also receives the
north-east monsoon from October to December, although the extent of precipitation may
be limited during this period (Gopal and Chauhan 2001). Expansion of rivers during
monsoon periods causes surrounding river systems to become flooded. Nutrients released
from soil are dispersed over large areas allowing widespread growth of vegetation and
phytoplankton (Gopal and Chauhan 2001; Muzaffar and Ahmed 2007). Resident species of
shorebirds and waterfowl benefit from this abundance of food (Kannan and Pandiyan 2012;
Gopal and Chauhan 2001). Nutrient levels released during the monsoon season decline as
the season progresses (Gopal and Chauhan 2001; Muzaffar and Ahmed 2007). The end of

123
 Biodivers Conserv

Table 3 Comparison of population trends in shorebirds in Kadalundi-Vallikunnu Community Reserve,

Kerala
Species Scientific name Relative Trend F p
abundance (%)

Lesser Sand Plover Charadrius mongolus 67.0–84.6 Declining 6.75 0.041

Greater Sand Plover Charadrius leschenaultii 1.5–9.9 Declining 6.22 0.047
Kentish Plover Charadrius alexandrinus 3.4–7.8 Not declining 4.45 0.079
Pacific Golden Plover Pluvialis fulva 0.3–6.8 Declining 6.64 0.042
Common Redshank Tringa totanus 2.0–9.5 Not declining 5.94 0.051
Common Greenshank Tringa nebularia 0.05–5.6 Not declining 0.00 0.961
Whimbrel Numenius phaeopus \1 % Not declining 0.10 0.765
Eurasian Curlew Numenius arquata \1 % Not declining 0.02 0.880
Common Sandpiper Actitis hypoleucos \1 % Declining 35.08 0.001
Dunlin Calidris alpina \1 % Not declining 4.61 0.075
Curlew Sandpiper Calidris ferruginea \1 % Declining 28.46 0.002
Wood Sandpiper Tringa glareola \1 % Declining 7.62 0.033
Terek Sandpiper Xenus cinereus \1 % Not declining 0.34 0.58
Sanderling Calidris alba \1 % Declining 11.9 0.014
Little Stint Calidris minuta \1 % Declining 27.76 0.002
Great Knot Calidris tenuirostris \1 % Not declining 5.28 0.061
Bar-tailed Godwit Limosa lapponica \1 % Not declining 1.73 0.236
Black-tailed Godwit Limosa limosa \1 % Not declining 0.44 0.532

F and p values are from regression analyses for individual species. Bold p values indicate significance

the monsoon results in shrinkage of water bodies and lowering of water levels, constraining
nutrient-rich waters into smaller areas (Gopal and Chauhan 2001).The post-monsoon
periods are marked by gradually increasing shorebird numbers, peaking in winter in South
Asia (between December and January) (Kannan and Pandiyan 2012). Extended monsoon
delays the cycle of nutrient release and consolidation of water bodies (Gopal and Chauhan
2001), causing a delay in the arrival of shorebirds in winter as well as an overall reduction
in their numbers (Kannan and Pandiyan 2012). Subsequently, shorebirds begin migration
before the onset of the monsoon (Kannan and Pandiyan 2012; Li and Mundkur 2007)
presumably due to depletion of resources and environmental and biological cues prompting
migration (Recher 1966).
The current study observed high shorebird counts linked to low rainfall in the same year
and in the previous year. This may be due to changes in food resources associated with
alteration to the habitats and increased nutrients in the environment. Shorebirds tend to
migrate in waves, with loosely aggregated assemblages migrating through given areas
(Recher 1966). Total counts may obscure some of the variation in the timing of different
species flying through, to avoid competition for and depletion of food resources (Recher
1966). Additionally, the over abundance of selected nutrients could favor the growth of
certain biota and preclude others (Heip 1995; Muzaffar and Ahmed 2007). For instance,
nutrients released in the early part of the season could cause algal blooms (Muzaffar and
Ahmed 2007), which in turn could influence invertebrate abundance (Gopal and Chauhan
2001; Heip 1995). However, the interaction between nutrient enrichment and benthic
invertebrate abundance is complex and not readily predictable (Heip 1995; Manikannan
et al. 2012). Nutrient enrichment alters benthic invertebrates through an increase in benthic

123
Biodivers Conserv

infaunal biomass (due to an explosion of opportunistic species), followed by a decrease and

disappearance of species (Heip 1995). The nature and extent of such benthic dynamics
remain difficult to quantify and predict (Heip 1995; Gopal and Chauhan 2001; Manikannan
et al. 2012), although a long term decline in benthic or epibenthic species abundance and
diversity may occur in response to enrichment from anthropogenic sources (Heip 1995;
Pardal et al. 2000). High NO3- was correlated with lower shorebird counts, suggesting that
nutrients from surrounding areas could be affecting invertebrate distributions in our study.
One study in the Great Vedaranyam Swamp, a wetland on the east coast of southern India,
showed declines in the abundance of shorebirds associated with many physicochemical
variables (Manikannan et al. 2012). They also suggested that these changes were linked
with changes in benthic faunal abundance. Another study conducted in Panchivaram
mangroves, also along the east coast of southern India documented similar declines in
relation to human activity linked with changes in physicochemical variables (Sandilyan
et al. 2010). Thus, it is likely that changes in the abundance of food resources are linked to
rainfall and selected nutrients.

Changes in diversity and habitat use

The diversity patterns of shorebirds showed an overall declining trend during the study
period. Shannon-Weiner Index and Gini-Simpson’s index values showed significant dif-
ferences in relative abundance of species throughout the period, indicating that the pop-
ulations were highly variable in numbers between years. The sharp decline in diversity
between years 2011 and 2012 was reflected in the richness value only and not in the
Shannon-Weiner or Gini-Simpson’s values. We interpret this as a true decline in species
diversity since both indices used in this analysis may give similar scores based on the
relative proportion of species in spite of a decline in richness. The results from this study
suggest that a threshold level of disturbance and nutrient enrichment was exceeded and
shorebirds responded by decreasing in diversity. Such changes are often influenced by
bottom-up effects, with prey availability being central determinants of predator (shorebird)
abundance (Aarif 2009; Connors et al. 1981; Burger et al. 1997; Drake et al. 2001; Ribeiro
et al. 2004).
Habitat use patterns changed over time in our study. Total shorebird counts indicated a
gradual and significant shift from the use of mostly mudflats and mangroves to the use of
sandy beaches (Fig. 2). As Lesser Sand Plover was the most abundant species throughout
the study, it may be concluded that the species changed habitat use with a shift to the less
preferred sandy beach habitat (Aarif 2009). Habitat use patterns are reflective of ecological
and behavioral differences in species (Aarif 2009; Connors et al. 1981; Burger et al. 1997;
Drake et al. 2001; Ribeiro et al. 2004). The variation in the diversity and abundance could
be linked with ecological variables associated with the prey base. Aarif (2009) showed that
the prey species of Lesser Sand Plovers were different between mudflats, mangroves and
sandy beaches in the same study site. In this study, polychaete worms appeared to be the
preferred prey for Lesser Sand Plovers. Polychaete worms were most abundant in mudflats,
followed by mangroves and were absent from sandy beaches. This abundance was sig-
nificantly related to the mean number of pecks recorded in these same habitats (Aarif
2009). In comparison, crabs were present in all three habitats (mudflats, mangroves and
sandy beaches) and the corresponding number of pecks declined from mudflats, mangroves
to sandy beaches. Many studies document that shorebirds are spatially distributed in
relation to the prey base (Connors et al. 1981; Burger et al. 1997; Drake et al. 2001; Ribeiro
et al. 2004). Shorebird distribution has been correlated against abundance of prey species

123
 Biodivers Conserv

according to habitat type (Ribeiro et al. 2004). Shorebirds that fed on polychaetes (e.g.
White-rumped Sandpipers, Calidris fuscicollis) were abundant in areas with the highest
densities of prey (Ribeiro et al. 2004); similarly, shorebird species that fed primarily of
crabs were most abundant in habitats with high crab densities. Thus, the change in habitat
use of shorebirds (reported for Lesser Sand Plovers) in the present study could be related to
a decline in the overall abundance of polychaetes (Aarif, unpublished data), which could be
associated with nutrient enrichment (e.g., Heip 1995; Pardal et al. 2000).We suggest that
high levels of nutrient input and disturbance has altered the benthic communities of the
intertidal areas in Kadalundi estuary. A reduction in polychaetes creates poorer quality
habitat for shorebird species, forcing them to more productive areas (Burger et al. 1997;
Drake et al. 2001; Ribeiro et al. 2004; Warnock and Takekawa 1995).
The observed change in habitat use could be regarded as resilience (Krebs 1989) of
shorebird assemblages in the Kadalundi estuary. In the face of extreme levels of distur-
bance and anthropogenic nutrient input, the overall shorebird counts have not declined
catastrophically (80.3 %) over the course of the study. Decline in specialist species, such as
Curlew Sandpipers or Dunlins is expected since these species are unable to withstand large
changes in habitat quality and food availability (Huettmann and Czech 2006). Declines in
more abundant, generalist species such as Lesser Sand Plovers, Greater Sand Plovers and
Pacific Golden Plovers suggest drastic changes in the habitat quality and quantity. This
phenomenon is already recorded worldwide for shorebirds and regarded as a significant
long-term problem that needs to be addressed (International Wader Study Group 2003;
Huettmann and Czech 2006, Manikannan et al. 2012). Thus, a steady decline in abundance
and diversity, coupled with changes in habitat use indicates that the system is on the verge
of catastrophic declines and may not be able to host large numbers of shorebirds in the
long-term.

Conservation implications

The Kadalundi-Vallikkunnu Community Reserve is an important stopover area for

migratory shorebirds, and much can be done to protect and support the system. Anthro-
pogenic disturbance, in the form of sand mining, mussel collection and recreational visits
near Kadalundi, are regarded as major threats to foraging shorebirds in the area (Aarif
2009). The larger human population in the surrounding areas have also increased waste
disposal, causing high levels of plastic and other pollution in the estuary. The Kadalundi
River has also been experiencing low flow rates, which may have influenced the nutrient
content of Kadalundi estuary. Additionally, nearby poultry slaughter houses that dump
offals in open dumping areas, have increased the density of raptors (such as Brahminy
Kites, Haliastur indus) and feral predators (such as cats, domestic dogs), which frequently
prey on shorebirds and alter foraging patterns by increasing predator vigilance. Thus a
combination of anthropogenic factors threatens foraging shorebirds in the Kadalundi.
Threats such as these have been widely documented in shorebird habitats and are regarded
as a serious concern in shorebird conservation (International Wader Study Group 2003;
Huettmann and Czech 2006, Sandilyan et al. 2010). Management options must incorporate
plans to reduce and eliminate some of these threats by protecting key shorebird foraging
and roosting areas in Kadalundi. Additionally, illegal activities such as sand mining must
also be prohibited and regulated to reduce detrimental effects on shorebird habitat.

Acknowledgments Authors are thankful to Kerala State Forest Department for Granting research per-
mission for our study. Financial support for the study was obtained from Moulana Azad National fellowship

123
Biodivers Conserv

from University Grant Commission, New Delhi, India. SB acknowledges director Salim Ali Centre for
Ornithology and Natural History for the logistic support. We are also thankful to local authorities of
Kadalundi for their support in the field.

References

Aarif KM (2009) Some aspects of feeding ecology of the Lesser Sand Plover Charadriusmongolusin three
different zones in the Kadalundi Estuary, Kerala, South India. Podoces 4(2):100–107
Aarif KM, Prasadan PK, Babu S (2011) Conservation significance of the Kadalundi-Vallikkunnu Com-
munity Reserve. Curr Sci 101(6):717–718
Acosta M, Mugica L, Blanco D, Lopez-Lanus B, Antunes Dias R, Doodnath LW, Hurtado J (2010) Birds of
rice fields in the Americas. Waterbirds 33(suppl):105–122
APHA (2005) Standard methods for the examination of water and waste water, 21st edn. American Public
Health Association, Washington, p 125
Balachandran S (2006) The decline in wader populations along the east coast of India with special reference
to Point Calimere, south-east India. In: Boere GC, Galbraith CA, Stroud DA (eds) Waterbirds around
the world. The Stationery Office, Edinburgh, pp 296–301
Burger J (1984) Behavior of marine animals: shorebirds: breeding behavior and populations. In: Burger J,
Olla BL (eds) Shorebirds as marine animals, vol 5. Plenum Press, New York
Burger J, Niles L, Clark KE (1997) Importance of beach mudflat and marsh habitats to migrant shorebirds on
Delaware Bay. Biol Cons 79:283–292
Butchart SHM, Walpole M, Collen B, Van Strien A, Jörn PW et al (2010) Global biodiversity indicators of
recent declines. Science 328:1164–1168
Connors PG, Myers JP, Connors CSW, Pitelka FA (1981) Interhabitat movements by Sanderlings in relation
to foraging profitability and the tidal cycle. Auk 98:49–64
Convention on Migratory Species (2005) Central Asian flyway action plan for the conservation of migratory
waterbirds and their habitats. United Nations Environmental Program, New Delhi
Dawson TP, Jackson ST, House JI, Prentice IC, Mace GM (2011) Beyond predictions biodiversity con-
servation in a changing climate. Science 332:53–59
Drake KR, Thompson JE, Drake KL, Zonick C (2001) Movements, habitat use and survival of nonbreeding
piping plovers. Condor 103:259–267
Flynn DFB, Gogol-Prokurat M, Nogeire T, Molinari N, Richers BT, Lin BB, Simpson N, Mayfield MM,
DeClerck F (2009) Loss of functional diversity under land use intensification across multiple taxa. Ecol
Let 12:22–33
Gopal B, Chauhan M (2001) South Asian wetlands and their biodiversity: the role of monsoons. In: Gopal B,
Junk WJ, Davis JA (eds) Biodiversity in wetlands: assessment, function and conservation, vol 2.
Backhuys Publishers, Leiden, pp 257–276
Grimmett R, Inskipp C, Inskipp T (1999) Birds of Indian subcontinent. Oxford University Press, New Delhi,
p 384
Hammer Ø, Harper DAT, Ryan PD (2001) PAST: paleontological statistics software package for education
and data analysis. Palaeontol Electron 4(1):9
Heip C (1995) Eutrophication and zoobenthos dynamics. Ophelia 41:113–136
Hoves, Bakewell JG (1989) Shorebird studies manual. AWB Publication, Kuala Lumpur, p 362
Huettmann F, Czech B (2006) The steady state economy for global shorebird and habitat conservation. End
Spec Res 2:89–92
International Wader Study Group (2003) Waders are declining worldwide, Conclusions from the 2003
International Wader Study Group Conference, Cádiz, Spain
Kannan V, Pandiyan J (2012) Shorebirds (Charadriidae) of Pulicat Lake, India with special reference to
conservation. World J Zool 7(3):178–191
Krebs CJ (1989) Ecological methodology. Harper and Row Publishers, New York, p 654
Kumar A, Sati JP, Tak PC, Alfred JRB (2005) Handbook of Indian wetland birds and their conservation.
Zoological Survey of India, Kolkata, p 468
Kurup DN (1991a) Ecology of the birds of Malabar Coast and Lakshadweep. Ph.D. Dissertation, University
of Calicut, Calicut, p 262
Kurup DN (1991b) Migrant shorebirds in estuarine habitats with reference to Kadalundi-Bhar-
athapuzhaestuaries. In: Proceedings of the third Kerala science congress, Kozhikode, pp 31–32
Lafferty KD (2001) Birds at a Southern California beach: seasonality, habitat use and disturbance by human
activity. Biod Cons 10:1949–1962

123
 Biodivers Conserv

Li WD, Mundkur T (2007) Numbers and distribution of waterbirds and wetlands in the Asia-Pacific region:
results of the Asian waterbird census 2002–2004. Wetlands International, Kuala Lumpur
Long LL, Ralph CJ (2001) Dynamics of habitat use by shorebirds in estuarine and agricultural habitats in
northwestern California. Wilson Bull 113:41–52
Manikannan R, Asokan S, Samsoor Ali AM (2012) Abundance and factors affecting population charac-
teristics of waders (Charadriiformes) in great vedaranyam swamp of point calimere wildlife sanctuary,
south-east coast of India. Int J Ecosyst 2(1):6–14
Message S, Taylor D (2005) Waders of Europe, Asia and North America. A&C Black Publishers, London,
p 224
Morrison IG, Harrington BA (1979) Critical shorebird resources in James Bay and eastern North America.
Trans N Am Wildl Conf 44:498–507
Muzaffar SB, Ahmed FA (2007) The effects of the flood cycle on the diversity and composition of the
phytoplankton community of a seasonally flooded Ramsar wetland in Bangladesh. Wetl Ecol Manag
15:81–93
Nagarajan R, Thiyagesan K (1996) Waterbirds and substrate quality of Pichavaram wetlands, Southern
India. Ibis 138:710–721
Newton I (2008) The migration ecology of birds. Academic Press, London
Pardal MA, Marques JC, Metelo I, Lillebo AI, Flindt MR (2000) Impact of eutrophication on the life cycle,
population dynamics and production of Ampithoevalida (Amphipoda) along an estuarine spatial gra-
dient (Mondego estuary, Portugal). Mar Ecol Prog Ser 196:207–219
Peirsma T, Lindstrom A (2004) Migrating shorebirds as integrative sentinels of global environmental
change. Ibis 146((suppl)):61–69
Prasad SN, Ramachandra TV, Ahalya N, Sengupta T, Kumar A, Tiwari AK, Vijayan VS, Vijayan L (2002)
Conservation of wetlands of India: a review. Trop Ecol 43:173–186
Radhakrishnan C, Gopi KC, Palot MJ (2006) Occasional paper No 246 Records of Zoological Survey of
India. Mangroves and their faunal associates in Kerala. Zoological Survey of India, Calicut, Kerala,
pp 81
Recher H (1966) Some aspects of the ecology of migrant shorebirds. Ecology 47:393–407
Ribeiro PD, Iribarne OO, Navarro D, Juareguy L (2004) Environmental heterogeneity, spatial segregation of
prey, and the utilization of southwest Atlantic mudflats by migratory shorebirds. Ibis 146:672–682
Sandilyan S, Thiyagesan K, Nagarajan R (2010) Major decline in species-richness of waterbirds in the
Pichavaram mangrove wetlands, southern India. Wader Study Group Bull 117(2):91–98
Sokal RR, Rohlf FJ (2012) Biometry. W. H. Freeman, New York
Stroud DA, Baker A, Blanco DE, Davidson NC (2006) The conservation and population status of the
world’s waders at the turn of the millennium. In: Boere GC, Galbraith CA, Stroud DA et al (eds)
Waterbirds around the world. The Stationery Office, Edinburgh, pp 643–648
Sundar KSG, Subramanya SS (2010) Bird use of rice fields in the Indian subcontinent. Waterbirds
33(Suppl):44–70
Uthaman PK, Namasivayan L (1991) The birdlife of Kadalundi sanctuary and its conservation. Proceeding
of Kerala science congress, Kozhikode, pp 37–39
Warnock SE, Takekawa JY (1995) Habitat preferences of wintering shorebirds in a temporally changing
environment: western sandpipers in the SFB estuary. Auk 112:920–930

123
View publication stats