Comparison of bird diversity in protected and non-protected wetlands of western lowland of Nepal

Jagan Nath Adhikari,Deepak Rijal,Janak Raj Khatiwada,Suman Sapkota,Dipendra Adhikari,Bishnu Prasad Bhattarai,Lila Nath Sharma

doi:10.11609/jott.7452.14.1.20371-20386

Abstract

Protected areas are considered important for biodiversity conservation, however, studies have shown that habitats outside protected areas can also support high diversity and are important for biodiversity conservation. In this context, we compared the bird diversity between protected (Rani Taal in Shuklaphanta National Park) and non-protected (Sati Karnali Taal) wetlands in western Nepal. Bird surveys were conducted from February to August 2019, using open width point count method in 100 m intervals along transects. A total of 122 species belonging to 18 orders and 44 families were recorded from the protected wetland, and 107 species belonging to 16 orders and 41 families from the non-protected wetland area. Insectivores had high abundance in both wetlands (43% and 47% in protected and non-protected wetlands, respectively). Forest-dependent birds were more abundant in protected wetland compared to non-protected wetland. Our study showed that both protected and non-protected wetlands along with agricultural landscapes, support a richness of birds. Hence priority should be given to both wetlands for the conservation of birds.

Highlights

Protected area (PA) is a key strategy for in situ conservation of biodiversity
Protected areas are considered important for biodiversity conservation, studies have shown that habitats outside protected areas can support high diversity and are important for biodiversity conservation
This study demonstrates that both protected and non-protected wetlands have comparable richness, though the composition of birds slightly differed

Summary

Introduction

Protected area (PA) is a key strategy for in situ conservation of biodiversity. Evidence has shown PAs that are crucial in conserving forests, natural environments, biodiversity, and ecosystem services (Rodrigues et al 2004; Dahal et al 2014; Watson et al 2016). PAs surged globally, and Nepal has made notable progress in increasing PA coverage (UNEP-WCMC et al 2018; DNPWC 2020). In spite of increase in PAs, their efficacy in protecting overall biodiversity is contested (Rodrigues et al 2004; Chape et al 2005). Several important species remain outside the jurisdiction of PAs (Chakravarty et al 2012), and some geographical areas are under-represented (Shrestha et al 2010), incuding some global biodiversity hotspots and agro-ecosystems that support rich biodiversity (Sharma & Vetaas 2015). Researchers have argued and demonstrated that areas outside formal PAs are worth conserving, as they provide alternative habitats and refuges for maintaining viable populations of residential and migratory bird species (Shrestha et al 2010; Cox & Underwood 2011; Dudley et al 2014; DNPWC 2020) and complement PAs in achieving biodiversity goals

Methods

Results

Discussion

Conclusion