FINAL TECHNICAL REPORT FOR MINOR RESEARCH PROJECT
(for the Teachers of Government Arts and Science Colleges)
Project entitled
ABUNDANCE OF INDIAN PEAFOWL (PAVO CRISTATUS) IN THE OVELI
FOREST AREA, THE NILGIRIS, WESTERN GHATS OF SOUTH INDIA”
Submitted To
TAMIL NADU STATE COUNCIL FOR HIGHER EDUCATION CHENNAI (TANSCHE)
(Ref: D.O.Rc.No. 1418/2014 A, dt 25-8-2014)
Submitted By
Dr. C.SUBRAMANIAN, M.Sc.,(Z) M.Sc.(W),Ph.D.
ASSISTANT PROFESSOR OF WILDLIFE BIOLOGY
DEPT. OF ZOOLOGY & WILDLIFE BIOLOGY
GOVERNMENT ARTS COLLEGE, UDGAHAMANDALAM
THE NILGIRIS-643 002, TAMIL NADU
2
Project Title :
“ABUNDANCE OF INDIAN PEAFOWL (PAVO CRISTATUS) IN THE OVELI
FOREST AREA, THE NILGIRIS, WESTERN GHATS OF SOUTH INDIA”
Introduction
The Peacocks are large, colorful pheasants (typically blue and green) known for
their iridescent tails. These tail feathers, or coverts, spread out in a distinctive train that
is more than 60 percent of the bird’s total body length and boast colorful "eye" markings
of blue, gold, red, and other hues. The large train is used in mating rituals and courtship
displays. It can be arched into a magnificent fan that reaches across the bird's back and
touches the ground on either side. Females are believed to choose their mates
according to the size, color, and quality of these outrageous feather trains.
The pheasants are group of birds belong to the family Phasianidae of the Order
Galliformes that includes pheasants, partridges and quails, commonly known as ‘game
birds’ (Delacour, 1977). The Order Galliformes has small to large terrestrial birds, the
presence of the lateral foramen marked out by fused manubrial spines of sternum is the
only taxonomic character that this order is monophyletic and are related to Anseriformes
(Urban et al 1986).
The family Phasianidae is the largest and the most diverse
assemblage (Johnsgard, 1986) and comprises of 38 genera, 155 species and 399 taxa
distributed throughout the Old World.
Out of 51 species of world’s pheasants, 17
species occur in India with very little ecological information. McGowan and Garson
(1995) considered the pheasants as forest biodiversity indicators.
Birds are widely recognized as good bio-indicators of the quality of the
ecosystems and health of the environment (Gill, 1994). They are being used as tools
for conservation and environmental impact assessment. Galliformes species are useful
indicators of environmental quality and the assessment of their status is essential for
management purposes (Fuller and Garson, 2000). The Indian Peafowl (Pavo cristatus)
also known as the Blue Peafowl was declared as the national bird of India during 1963
due to its ‘flagship’ value found on its glorious position in mythology and its widespread
distribution and grandeur and comes in Schedule-I of the Indian Wildlife (Protection)
3
Act, 1972. This bird is listed as of (LC) by the International Union for Conservation of
Nature (IUCN).
The Indian Peafowl is more commonly known as the peacock (male) or the peahen
(female). The peacock is found to be an Indian origin where it is designated as National
Bird and now it is lives in wild of many parts of the country. These birds are commonly
known as game fowl or game birds, land fowl, gallinaceous birds or Galliformes. The
family Phasianidae, being of the largest families of Galliformes, including the largest
size peafowl’s (Hoya et al., 1994). The genus has its origins in Asia and can be found
in India, Burma, Java and the Malay Peninsula. The Peafowl is a resident breeder
across the Indian subcontinent and found mainly on the ground in dry, semi-desert
areas, grasslands, scrublands, open and deciduous forest, roost in trees or other high
places at night.
Peafowl are omnivorous and eat seeds, insects, fruits, small mammals and
reptiles. They feed on small snakes but keep their distance from larger ones (Johnsing,
1976). In Gir forest of Gujarat, a large percentage of their food is made up of the fallen
berries of zizipus (Trivedi and Johnsing, 1995). Around cultivated areas, peafowl feed
on wide range of crops such as groundnut, tomato, paddy, chilly and even bananas
(Johnsing and Murali, 1978). Around human habitations, they feed on variety of food
scraps and even human excreta (Ali and Repley, 1980).
In the countryside, it is
particularly partial to crops and garden plants. The male shows the characteristic colour
tail feathers or train during breeding season. Its train makes the male peafowl one of
the largest flying birds in the world.
The Indian Peafowl are terrestrial birds, their loud calls make them easy to detect,
and in forest birds, their loud calls make them easy to detect, and in forest areas often
indicate the presence of a predator such as tiger. The species of peafowl found in the
world are Pavo cristatus (blue peafowl), Pavo mudicus (Green peafowl) and Afropavo
cogenesis (Congo peafowl). Blue peafowl is a native breed of India, Pakistan,
Bangladesh and Srilanka, commonly called as Mayil in Tamil language. Peafowl breeds
from April through October to October (Mushtaq-ul-Hassan et al., 2012).
Indian
Peafowls are polygamous and generally has to three breeding peahens in its harem
4
(Roberts,1992). Clutch is usually 4 to 9 eggs in natural condition and the incubation
period is about 28-30 days (Anon, 2002).
Peacock are large in body size, brilliant ornamented plumage and long train
feather are surely attractive to public. When the length of the tail is included, female
Indian peafowl have a body length of about three feet, while males can attain length of
up 7 feet. Female Indian peafowl weigh about 7 Ibs. While males weigh about 11 Ibs.
Like other pheasants, peafowl are adopted to a life of walking and foraging on the
ground as they search for the seeds, plants, insects and reptiles for its diet. Peafowl fly
when pressed by a predator or when retreating to their evening roosts. The elaborate
train and its display of the male Indian peafowl (Pavo cristatus), which is a visual signal
directed at female, has long been a subject of fascination and debate in the scientific
world (Harikrishnan et al 2010). Peafowl roost in groups during the night on tall trees but
may sometimes make use of rocks, buildings or pylons. A 2013 study that tracked the
eye movements of peahens responding to male displays found that they looked in the
direction of the upper train of feathers only when at long distances and that they looked
only at the lower feathers when males displayed close to them.
Peacocks are polygamous, and the breeding season is spread out but appears to
be dependent on the rains. Peafowls usually reach sexual maturity at the age of 2 to 3
years old. Peafowl are omnivorous and eat seeds, insects, fruits, small mammals and
reptiles. They feed on small snakes but keep their distance from larger ones
(Johnsingh, 1976). Foraging in groups provides some safety as there are more eyes to
look out for predators.
Peafowl Male-Female Description
The term "peacock" is commonly used to refer to birds of both sexes.
Technically, only males are peacocks. Females are peahens, and together, they are
called peafowl. Suitable males may gather harems of several females, each of which
will lay three to five eggs. In fact, wild peafowl often roost in forest trees and gather in
groups called parties.
5
Peacocks are a larger sized bird with a length from bill to tail of 110 to 115 cm
and to the end of a fully grown train as much as 195 to 225 cm and weigh 4-6 kg. The
female or peahens are among the largest and heaviest representatives of the living
birds. Their size, colour and shape of crest make them unmistakable within their native
distribution range.
The male is metallic blue on the crown, the feathers of the head being short and
curled (Blanford, 1898). The fan-shaped crest on the head is made of feathers with
bare black shafts and tipped with bluish-green webbing. A white stripe above the eye
and a crescent white patch below the eye are formed by bare white skin. The sides of
the head have iridescent greenish blue feathers. The back has scaly bronze-feathers
with black and copper markings. The scapular and the wings are buff and barred in
black, the primaries are chestnut and the secondaries are black. The tail is dark brown
and the “train” is made up of elongated upper tail coverts (more than 200 feathers, the
actual tail has only 20 feathers) and nearly all of these feathers end with an elaborate
eye-spot. A few of the outer feathers lack the spot and end in a crescent shaped black
tip. The underside is dark glossy green shading into blackish under the tail. The thighs
are buff coloured. The male has a spur on the leg above the hind toe (Whistler and
Hugh, 1949; Blanford, 1898).
The adult peahen has a rufous-brown head with a crest as in the male but the tips
are chestnut edged with green. The upper body is brownish with pale mottling. The
primaries, secondaries and tail are dark brown. The lower neck is metallic green and
the breast feathers are dark brown glossed with green. The remaining under parts are
whitish (Whistler and Hugh, 1949). Downy young are pale buff with a brown mark on
the nape that connects with the eyes (Baker,1928). Young males look like females but
the wings are chestnut coloured (Baker,1928; Ali and Ripley, 1980). The most common
calls are a loud pia-ow or may-awe. The frequency of calling increases before the
season and may be delivered in alarm or when disturbed by loud noises. In forests,
their calls often indicate the presence of predators such as the tiger (Whistler and Hugh,
1949; Ali and Repley, 1980). They also make many other calls such as a rapid series of
ka-aan...ka-aan or rapid Kok-kok (Ali and Repley, 1980; Johnsingh and Murali, 1978).
6
Population Ecology
Peacocks are ground-feeders that eat insects, plants, and small creatures.
There are two familiar peacock species. The blue peacock lives in India and Sri Lanka,
while the green peacock is found in Java and Myanmar (Burma). A more distinct and
little-known species, the Congo peacock, inhabits African rain forests.
Peafowl such as the blue peacock have been admired by humans and kept as pets for
thousands of years. Selective breeding has created some unusual color combinations,
but wild birds are themselves bursting with vibrant hues. They can be testy and do not
mix well with other domestic birds.
The peacock (also known as peafowl) is a medium sized bird most closely
related to the pheasant. Unlike it's common pheasant cousin that inhabits areas of the
Northern Hemisphere, the peacock is found in warmer climate of the Southern
Hemisphere, with the peacock being most commonly found in India.
There are three main types of peacock, the African Congo peacock, the Indian peacock
and the Green peacock all of which are thought to have originated in Asia but are today
found in Africa and parts of Australia. All of the three different species of peacock are
known for their elaborate male peacocks and dull, brown female peacocks (in
comparison to the males).
The male peacock is most well known for it's enormous tail feathers that fan out
behind the peacock and can be nearly two meters in length. This colourful display of the
peacock is thought to be used for both mating and defence purposes. The male
peacock attracts a female to mate with by showing off his array of elaborate feathers,
and when the male peacock feels threatened, he will fan his tail out in order to make
himself look bigger and therefore try to intimidate approaching predators.
The peacock is an omnivorous bird and feeds on insects, plants, seeds, and
flower heads. Peacocks have also been known to munch on small mammals and
reptiles in order to supplement their diet, which ensures that they are getting the right
nutrients. Peacocks have a number of natural predators in the wild that include wild
7
dogs and cats, medium sized mammals such as raccoons and even tigers have been
known to hunt peacocks.
Peacocks commonly get to about 20 years old, although some peacock
individuals have been known to get to older ages particularly those peacock individuals
that are in captivity. Generally, the peacock populations are not under great threat
although the green peacock, is listed as being vulnerable to extinction mainly due to
hunting and habitat loss.
Male peacocks are known as peacocks and female peacocks are known as
peahens (in a similar way to chickens and pheasants). The male is peacock is generally
about twice the size of the female peahen, and even larger when the male peacock is
displaying his plumage (feathers). When the male peacock does not have his brightly
coloured and very elaborate tail feathers on display, they drag behind him. This is
known as a tail or a train. During the mating season, the male peacock may mate with
up to six different female peahens. The female peahen lays between 4 and 8 brown
coloured eggs. The female peahen incubates her eggs by sitting on them, and the
peacock chicks hatch after an incubation period of about a month. The female peacock,
looks after and rears her peacock chicks on her own without any help from the male
peacock.
Peacocks are most commonly found in deserts and dry savanna areas.
Peacocks are also found in forests and dense foliage particularly during the breeding
season when the female peacocks are trying to incubate their eggs and rear their chicks
without any unwelcome predators spotting them.
Conservation status of peafowl in India
Indian peafowl are widely distributed in the wild across the south Asia and
protected both culturally in any areas and by law in India. Conservative estimates of the
population put them at more than 100,000 (Modge and McGowan, 2002).
Illegal
poaching for meat however continues and declines have been noted in parts of India
(Ramesh and McGowan, 2009).
Peafowls breeds readily in captivity an as free-ranging ornamental fowl. Zoos,
parks, bird-fanciers and dealers across the world maintain breeding populations that do
not need to be augmented by the capture of the wild birds. Poaching of peacocks for
8
their meat and feathers and accidental poisoning by feeding on pesticide treated seeds
are known threats to wild birds (Alexander,1983). Methods to identify if feathers have
been plucked or shed naturally have been developed as Indian law allows only the
collection of fathers that shed (Sahajpal and Goyal, 2008).
In parts of India, the birds can be a nuisance to agriculture as they damage crops
(Ali and Ripley,1980). Its adverse effects on crops, however, seem to be offset by the
beneficial role it plays by consuming prodigious quantities of pests such as
grasshoppers. They can also be a problem in garden and homes where they damage
plants, attack their reflections breaking glass and mirrors, perch and scratch scars or
leave their droppings. Many cities where they have been introduced and gone feral
have peafowl management programmers. These include educating citizens on how to
prevent the birds from causing damage while treating the birds humanely.
In Tamil Nadu the peafowls can be seen in many parts both in wild and semi-wild
condition. The present investigation is indent to study on Peafowl with the following
objectives in the Oveli Forest Areas, in Western Ghats of Nilgiris, South India.
OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY (As per Proposal)
 To describe the habitat of the Indian peafowl (Pavo cristatus) in the Oveli Forest
area, Nilgiris, Western Ghats
 To document the abundance, distribution and habitat use of Indian peafowl in
different seasons in the study area and;
 To study the threats to the population of Indian peafowl in the study area.
COMPLETED OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY
1. Preliminary studies (Pilot study) carried out, Direct and indirect evidences
(Primary and secondary information) collected. Different habitats were identified.
2. Peafowl Distribution spots were identified, Transects laid in different direction and
different habitats.
3. A total of twenty Line transects were laid and peafowls abundance recorded.
4. The Data collected for peafowl abundance and documented.
5. The data on peafowl distribution, habitat use, in different seasons were obtained.
6. The data on the threats to the population of Indian Peafowl were collected.
9
STUDY AREA
The Western Ghats is a mountain chain parallel to the western coast, about
1,600 km long. It is separated into three zoogeographic zones (a) northern (southern
Gujarat up to Kali river in northern Karnataka), (b) central (south of Kali river to Palghat
Gap) and (c) southern (Palghat Gap southward). The Western Ghats, also known as the
Sahyadri Hill, are well known for their rich and unique assemblage of floraand fauna.
Norman Myers included the Western Ghats amongst the 25 biodiversity hot-spots
identified in the world. The area is one of the world's ten "Hottest biodiversity hotspots"
and has over 7,402 species of flowering plants, 1814 species of non-flowering plants,
139 mammal species, 508 bird species, 179 amphibian species, 6000 insects species
and 290 freshwater fish species; it is likely that many undiscovered species live in the
Western Ghats. At least 325 globally threatened species occur in the Western Ghats
(Plate 1 & 2).
The Nilgiri (11°22′30″N 76°45′30″E), are a range of mountains forming a part of
the Western Ghats situated in the western part of Tamil Nadu state at the junction of
Karnataka and Kerala states in Southern India. The present intensive study was carried
out at O’valley Forest Range (500 sqm) located (11º 27’17 ’’N, 76º 28’43’’ E) in southern
Western Ghats of Gudalur Forest Division (11600 sq(ft)), Nilgiri district, Tamilnadu,
south India.
The Gudalur Forest Division is located 51 Km west of Udhagamandalam City and
is on the boundary of Tamilnadu, Kerala and Karnataka State. It comprises of O’valley
ranges. Gudalur Forest Division was formed in 1969. Topography of the area is mostly
flat except for a few knolls. The open forest patches were summer cattle camps in the
past. The altitude ranges from 200 to 1,117 m (3,517 ft) above mean sea level (msl) and
density is 200/km/2 in the forest. Some perennial and seasonal rivers and seasonal
streams drain the O’valley Range.
Location of Study Area
The present study was carried out at O’valley Range (500 km²). It is a protected
Area under (Section 17) 1976. These forest blocks were further demarked as different
beats. The O’valley Range includes 20 beats viz., Kamaraj Nagar, Mullai nagar,
10
Barham-1, Barham-2, Anna Nagar-1, Anna Nagar-2, Periya Choondi, Chinna choondi,
Aathur, Guind, Gandhi Nagar, Darmagiri, bharwood, Yellan, Kilanvance, Mulakkadau,
Pulikuntha, periyasolai, Bharathinager and Arottubarai (Plate 1 to 3).
During summer,
the graziers deliberately burn the understorey to get fresh grass during monsoon.
Occasionally, poachers and villagers also burn grasslands in the higher altitudes. Hence
these areas are frequently facing forest fires.
Climate and Rainfall
O’valley Range experienced extreme climatic conditions during the study period.
The temperature ranged from 29.0º C to 35.0º C in summer and 14º C to 19º C in
winter. The temperature showed seasonal fluctuation during the study period. The
rainfall varied between 1300 mm and 1700 mm during 2014 and 2015.
Hydrology
The Emerald Dam, Avalanchee Dam, Kamaraj Dam, Singara Dam, Moyar Dam
and river, Ooty lake and Pykara lake are the important water reservoirs in the Nilgiris. In
which, the parts of Chinnampu palam River, Mulakadu River, Aathur River and etc.
were covered for the present study.
Flora
The O’valley Forest Area consisting of four different habitat types viz., Southern
Dry Deciduous Forest (SDDF), Evergreen Forest (EF), Grassland Forest (GF) and
Plantation (PL) (Tea, Coffee, Cardamom, Arecanut, Cocount, Clove). The vegetation
types in surrounding of the study area as, Southern Tropical Moist Deciduous Forest,
Sholas Forest, Dry Deciduous Forest and Grassland Forest. However, the O’valley
Range do not comes under this category and this area is pleasant always except during
summer in foot hills. The dominant tree species viz., Cassia fisluta, Grevillea robusta,
Mangifera
olifera,
Moringferan
indica
Tectona
grandis,
Tamarindus
indica,
Salmaliamalabarica, Bauhinia racemosa, memecylon malabaricum, and ficus sp the
shrub species such as Lantana camara,Abutilon indicum and Cytisus scoparius were
recorded. In addition to these natural forests there are plantations of Tea – Camellia
sinensis,Cardamom – Elettai cardamomum, Coffee – cofeeia india, Clove - Syzgium
11
aromaticum, Cocount – Cocos nucifera and Arecanut – Areca catechu
in different
blocks and beats. The O’valley Area almost situated of the Reserve Forest.
Fauna
In the O’valley Range the mammals were represented by Common langur
(Trachypithecus entellus), Nilgiri langur (T.johnii), Leopard (Panthera pardus), Sloth
bear (Melursus ursinus), Asian elephant (Elephas maximus), Gaur (Bos gaurus) and
Tiger (Panthera tigeris) were also encountered. Sambar deer (Cervus unicolor), Barking
deer (Muntiacusmuntjak), Mouse deer (Tragulus meminna) and Indian wild boar (Sus
scrofa) were frequently sighted. Some of the interesting birds seen during the study
were the, Malabar Grey Hornbill (Tockus griseus), Red spurfowl (Galloperdix spadicea),
Indian
Peafowl
(Gallus
sonneratii),Greater
Racket-
Tailed
Drongo
(Dicrurus
paradiseus), Nigliri Laughingthrush (Garrulax cachinnans), Nigliri Flycatcher (Eumyias
albicaudata), Asian fairy-blue bird (Irena puella), Oriental white-eye (Zossterops
palpebrosus), Great Tit (Parus major) (Annexure). Important reptiles such as Indian
Southern Green Calotes (C. calotes), Fan-throated lizard (Sitana ponticeriana),
Chameleon (Chamaeleo zeylanicus), Common Indian Monitor lizard (Varanus
bengalensis), and Indian cobra (Naja naja) and King cobra (Ophiphagus Hannah) were
distributed in the O’valley Area. These habitats supported a rich diversity of insects also
many Butterfly and Moths.
Anthropogenic pressures
In this Study Area, the total human population is around 21.500. In this O’valley
forest area there are approximately cattle 800 to 1000 and 1000 to 1400 goats. A
temple situated in the culture of the O’valley forest area. It is called ‘Santhanamalai
Murukan Temple’ at the hill top (1,050 m) in the area. It attracts several hundreds of
pilgrims per year on the day of full moon of April. There are 70 families of kurumbas
and 65 families of paniyas tribals residing their huts.
These people defends forest for day by day live hood and cattle grazing, fire
wood collection, and Non Timber Forest Produces (NTFP) collection ect.
The
cultivation and livestock rearing are the main occupation of the villagers who use the
forests area for grazing.
12
MATERIALS AND METHODS
The study for abundance and population of Indian Peafowl was carried out in and
around the O’valley Forest Area in the Nilgiris. To study the abundance and population
of Indian Peafowl the following methods were adopted and describe below.
Systematic Position of Indian Blue Peafowl (Pavo cristatus)
Kingdom: Animalia
Phylum: Chordata
Class: Aves
Order: Galliformes
Family: Phasianidae
Sub Family: Phasianinae
Genes: Pavo
Species: cristatus
Encounter Rates of Indian Peafowl
The population of the Indian Peafowl were estimated by the line transect method
using Distance Sampling (Burnham et al 1980; Buckland et al 1993 and 2001).The Field
sampling was carried out from March 2015 to February 2016. During this period the
population of Indian Peafowl was monitored in five different habitat viz., Southern Dry
Deciduous Forest (SDDF), Evergreen Forest (EF), Grassland Forest (GF) and
Plantation of Tea, Coffee, Cardamom, Clove (Agricultural). The abundance of Indian
Peafowl was estimated by adopting Line Transect Sampling method. The abundance
was expressed in terms of Encounter Rate.
The transects were positioned randomly with respect to the available habitat
(Buckland et al 2001). The total number (n = 20) and length of transects (each transect
= 1 km) was a compromise between the area of available habitat (e.g. number and size
of habitat patches), journey time between transects (i.e. sampling effort) and the
13
number of transects necessary to obtain a sufficient sample of records for estimating
the Indian Peafowl abundance (Plate 2 & 3).
Methods for Indian Peafowl Abundance and Population
The line transects that were laid in different direction in the study areas. In which,
the data on Indian Peafowl sightings and individuals were collected while sighting on the
transects. The line transects were also laid in the different altitudinal gradient, available
habitats and directions.
A total number of transect was Twenty. The samplings were done monthly once.
Each transect was measured and sampled for 1km length. The intensive study was
conducted in 20 location from March 2015 to February 2016 (12 months). During the
walk of a transect the data were collected based on the visual Encounter Rate on a
Indian Peafowl sighting.
The counting unit for Indian Peafowl was the group of individuals. For each bird
group the date, time of day, number of individuals, and where possible, the age and sex
of the individuals were recorded. The perpendicular distance also measured between
the geometric centre of the bird group contact and the line transect. Among the 20
transect walks the habitat such as SDDF, EF, GL and PL were carried out equally. The
seasons were categorized as follows:
The Winter season (November-February), Summer season (March-January), and Rainy
season (July-October).
The data obtained was extrapolated to estimate as encounter rates (birds / km
walk) by using DISTANCE 5.0 beta version (Thomas et al 1998) software programme.
The Indian Peafowl abundance estimates along with co-efficient of variation (CV) lower
confidence interval and upper confidence interval were obtained.
Extensive Study Areas: (Spots)
The preliminary study was conducted in the beginning of intensive filed work for
identify the study areas. During the preliminary study, the following locations along with
the intensive study spots were (26 spots) surveyed. The following areas were not
studied due to the rejection or not suitable for intensive field work. The following spots
were not included in the intensive areas (Plate 3).
14
Based on the pilot survey, the following intensive (20) study spots were selected
as intensive study areas and discussed below.
Methods of vegetation Analysis
The method for vegetation quantification the standard quadrate was adopted. At
every 100m along the transect the permanent plots (10m × 10m) were laid and marked.
In these plots, all the trees (>25cm gbh), shrub and grass species were identified. The
availability of microhabitat variables viz., Canopy Cover (%), Shrub Cover (%), Grass
Cover (%), Litter Cover (%), Litter Depth (cm), and Tree number (N) were also recorded
in all these plots. In the Sub plots (5 × 5) were marked to quantity Shrub Cover (%),
followed by laying of smaller quadrates (1m × 1m) to estimate the Grass Cover (%),
Litter Cover (%) and Litter Depth (cm). In all the plots the percentage of Canopy Cover,
Shrub Cover, Grass Cover and Litter cover were visually estimate. The tree numbers in
these plots were quantified by counting the individual trees. The average Litter Depth
was measured by using a measuring scale.
The repeated surveys was carried out in all the line transects in different Forest
types such as Southern Dry Deciduous Forest (SDDF), Evergreen Forest (EF),
Grassland Forest (GF) and Plantation (PL Tea, Coffee, Cardamom and clove).
STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

To estimate the population (ER) of Indian Peafowls, the DISTANCE
(Version 5.0) software was used.

The mean and standard deviation were calculated for the abundance of
Indian Peafowls in the study area.

The different seasons and habitats were estimated by correlation analysis.
15
RESULTS
Habitat availability Peafowl:
There are four different habitats are available in the Oveli forest area. The habitats
Southern Deciduous Dry Forest (SDDF), Evergreen forest, Grassland Habitat (GF) and
Agricultural Habitat (AH) which includes the crops such Tea, coffee, Cardamom and
Clove). These habitats provide the shelter, feeding, protections from predators for the
Peafowl population in the study area.
Population of Indian Peafowl (Encounter Rate/km walked):
The Indian Peafowl population was obtained and expressed in the unit of
Encounter Rate (ER/km walked). The overall population of Indian Peafowl in the study
area was obtained a total of 159 individuals throughout the study period. The sex ratio
in the study area was 0.73 Peahen:1 Peacock (male = 78 and Female = 57). The
Encounter Rate was 13.25/km walked (n=159). The abundance of Indian Peafowl were
studied sex wise and represented below (Table 4 to 5 & Fig1-5).
Sex-wise abundance of Peafowls
The Peacock
The overall population of Cock individuals (Cock) in the study area was 78 and
the Encounter Rate (Table 4 & 5) was 6.5 /km walked (n=78).
The Peahen
The overall population of Hen individuals (Hen) in the study area was 57 and the
Encounter Rate (Table 4 & 5: Fig: 1-5) was 4.75/km walked (n=57).
The Chick
The population of Chick in the study area was 55 individuals only and the
Encounter Rate (Table 4 & 5) was 2/km walked (n=24).
Abundance of Peafowls in different Seasons (Seasonal Variation)
The seasonal variations for Indian Peafowl population were studied in different
seasons such as winter, summer and rainy season (Table 6). In general, the Indian
Peafowl population was high (n=64; ER 16/km walked) in the Summer season when
compared to other seasons (Winter n=49 ; ER 12.25/km walked and Rainy=46 ; ER
0.75/km walked).
16
Abundance of Peafowl in the Winter Season
The seasons were categorized as follows: The Winter season (November-February),
Summer season (March-January), and Rainy season (July-October).
In the winter season, there were observed 49 individuals Indian Peafowl were
recorded (ER=12.25/km walked). In the winter season (Table 6), the Cock population
was 26 (8/Km walked) and the Hen population 16 (4.75/Km walked) and the Chick
population was observed 7 (3.25/Km walked).
Abundance of Peafowl in the Summer Season
During the summer season, a total of 64 individuals of Indian Peafowl were
recorded (Table 6) and the Encounter Rate was 16/km walked during the study period.
In summer season, the Cock population was 32 (5/km walked)) and the Hen population
19 (5.5/Km walked). The Chick population observed 13 (1/km walked).
Abundance of Peafowl in the Rainy Season
A total of 46 individuals of Indian Peafowl were recorded and the Encounter Rate
was 0.75/Km walked during the rainy season. The Indian Peafowl Cock population was
20 (0.38/km walked) and the Hen population 22 (0.31/ km walked).
The Chick
population observed was 4 (0.06/ km walked) in the rainy season (Table 6).
Peafowl Abundance versus Seasons
The correlation analyses were done for various seasons in the study area. The
population of Indian Peafowl between winter and summer shows (γ =0.17) very low
degree of correlation. Similarly, winter and rainy season (γ =0.06); and the summer and
rainy season also (γ =0.23) showed low degree of correlation.
Abundance of Peafowl in different months (Monthly variations)
The Indian Peafowl population was high (n=17) in the month of February 2015.
The lowest sightings was in the month of November (n=6). The other months were
moderately obtained (Table 5).
The Cock population was high (n=9) in the month of March, May, and January.
The lowest sightings (n=3) was obtained in September. The hen population was
maximum (n=8) in August and the minimum sighting was obtained (n=2) in the
December. The chick population was high in the March (n=5) and low in the July,
17
September and December (n=1) and no sightings were recorded in the month of
October and November (Table 5).
Peafowl Abundance in different Habitats (Habitat- wise variations)
There were observed the differences in the seasons for peafowl sightings. The highest
sightings were obtained (Table 7) in SDDF habitat (n=49; ER=12.25/Km walked) and
the lowest sightings was recorded in the EF habitat (n=34; n=34; ER=8.5/Km walked).
The Peacock was high in the SDDF (n=25; ER=6.25/Km walked) and low in EF and GF
habitats (n=17;ER=4.25/Km walked).
The Peahen was maximum in SDDF habitat
(n=16;ER=4/Km walked) and the minimum in the EF and Agricultural habitats
(n=13;ER=3.25/Km walked). The Chick sightings were observed (Table 7) in the habitat
of EF (n=4; ER=1/Km walked).
Peafowl Abundance versus Habitats
The habitats between Tea plantation and Dry deciduous Forest showed (0.61)
fairly high degree of correlation. The habitat of grassland and the Dry Deciduous forest
reveals (γ =0.35) low degree of correlation while other habitats such as Tea Plantation
and Grassland (γ =0.07); Tea Plantation and Coffee plantation (γ = 0.18); Coffee
plantation and Dry Deciduous Forest (γ =0.21) habitats are correlated as very low
degree of correlation.
The threats to the Indian Peafowl
Based on the data (direct and indirect) there was no major threats in the study
area. Poaching not observed but the egg depredation (collection of peafowl’s eggs)
occasionally recorded. The sightings of peafowls were low in Agricultural habitat. This
includes Tea, Coffee, cardamom and clove plantation. Due to agricultural practices in
the study sites, there may be anthropogenic pressures and leads lower encounter was
occurred.
18
DISCUSSION
The Indian Peafowl Pavo cristatus also known as the Blue Peafowl was declared
as the National bird of India during 1963 due to its ‘flagship’ value found on its glorious
position in mythology and its widespread distribution and grandeur and comes in
Schedule-I of the Indian Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972. Poaching of peacocks for their
meat and feathers and accidental poisoning by feeding on pesticide treated seeds are
known threats to wild birds.
In Tamil Nadu the peafowls can be seen in many parts both in wild and semi-wild
condition. The present investigation is indent to study on Indian Peafowl abundance in
the Oveli forest and its adjoining areas of Tamil Nadu. The study was carried out from
March 2015 to February 2016 in several spots in Oveli forest areas, the Nilgiris district
of Tamil Nadu state.
Details on abundance estimation, seasonal variations, Monthly variations, habitat
availability, habitat-wise variations were studied in the study area. The habitat use is a
critical facet in the management of wildlife species. Habitat provides food and cover
essential for the population to survive. Central to the study of animal ecology is the
usage an animal makes of its environment: specifically, the kinds of food it consumes
and the varieties of habitats it occupies. Many analytic procedures have been devised
to treat data on the usage of such resources, particularly in relation to information on
their availability to the animal, for the purpose of determining “preference”. Attempts
always go beyond simple documentation of habitat use to determine if specific habitats
are selected; i.e., used more or less than availability. The importance of knowing the
detailed habitat requirements if want to develop an effective conservation strategy for
protecting a wild game bird species.
A total of 159 Peafowl sightings were obtained in the study area. A total of 78
adult male (Peacock) and 57 adult female (Peahen) was recorded in all the twenty spots
wich includes four different habitats. The peafowl density estimated for Chilla Range of
Rajaji National Park during the study was 88.24 birds per sq.km (Veeramani, 1990)
sighted in Mudumalai Wildlife Sanctuary with the density of 2.86 birds per sq.km in
scrub jungle forests where as it was 20.64 birds per sq.km. in dry deciduous habitat.
19
The present investigation In Oveli forest reports the Encounter Rate was
13.25/km walked (n=159). The population of Cock individuals was 78 and the Hen
individuals in the study area were 57. The Chick in the study area was 55 individuals
only.
The present study in Oveli shows that the sex ratio was 0.73 Peahen:1 Peacock.
Das and Sivakumar, (2009) estimated the male to female sex ratio of peafowl was
estimated at 1: 1.44, which is not similar sex ratio. The other works showed the sex
ratio reported from other parts of Northern India 1: 1.24 (Sharma, 1978).
In the
polygynous peafowl harem-mating system was noticed as reported by Ali and Repley
(1989) but not by all adult males. Johnsingh and Murali (1980) noted a sex ratio
favouring apparent females, but admitted that, they may have mistaken immature
females as males, which probably affected their estimates. Rajadurai (1988) reported
the sex ratio of Adult male and adult female peafowls in Viralimalai areas of Tamil Nadu
is 1: 1.4.
In general, the Indian Peafowl population was high in the Summer season when
compared to other seasons such winter, and Rainy.
In the winter season, there were observed 49 individuals Indian Peafowl were
recorded (ER=12.25/km walked). In the winter season (Table 6), the Cock population
was 26 (8/Km walked) and the Hen population 16 (4.75/Km walked) and the Chick
population was observed 7 (3.25/Km walked).
The population of Indian Peafowl between winter and summer shows very low
degree of correlation. Similarly, winter and rainy season and the summer and rainy
season also showed low degree of correlation in the current study in Oveli Forest area.
The present works reveals that the Indian Peafowl population was high (n=17) in
the month of February. The lowest sightings was in the month of November (n=6). The
other months were moderately obtained in the Oveli study area .
According to Dalson (2015), in Annur and Avinasi areas with semi wild condition
in Tiruppur district of Tamil Nadu, the roosting tree species selection by the peafowls
mostly prefer Coconut tree (Cocos nusifer) (67.74%) for roosting and it was rarely roost
in other trees such as Borasus fabelliformes
20
(12.9%) followed by Acacia nilotica,
Tamarindus indica and Azadiracta indica (6.45%). Ward and Zahavi (1973), Dodia
(2011) has reported that among 14 trees species (Azadiracta indica, Ficus bengalensis,
Eucalyptus, Cocos nucifera, Prosopsis juliflora, Mangifera indica, Ziziphus mauritina,
Syzium cumini, Ficus teseila, Manikara haexandra, Terminalia catappa, Casuariana
equisetafolia, Samanaea saman, Adansonnia digitate) the peafowl roosted mainly on
Azadiracta indica, Ficus bengalensis, Eucalyptus and Cocos nucifera in Gujarat state of
India. In Mudumala Wildlife Sanctuary peafowls preferred eight types of tree species for
roosting such as Acacia sundra, Cordia oblique, Bombax malabaricum, Zizyphus jujube,
Eleodendron glaucum, Odina wodier, Tamarindus indica and Dalbergia latifolia.
Dalson (2016) reported the roosting tree selection by peafowl shows that most of
the birds select Cocos nucsifer tree followed by Borasus fabelliformes , Acacia nilotica,
Tamarindus indica and Azadiracta indica. Ali and Ripley (1983) have reported that large
birds need tall trees and small birds need small trees for roosting. In the present study,
peafowl, being the large bird, was found to prefer large trees for roosting. According to
Bergmann (1980) and Johansgaurd (1986), blue peafowl (Pavo cristatus) has been
observed on the tall trees for roosting, and nesting under dense bushes with open areas
having feeding grounds. In the present study also, peafowls were observed on most
dominant species of the trees in all the three selected study areas. Roosting of the
peafowls was very closely related with the sunset but temperature had no relation with
roosting (Navaneethakannan 1984).
Normally Pavo cristatus are both communal and solitary roosters (Trivedi, 1993).
The present study also showed the same result.
One probable reason for the
communal roosting habit of peacocks at may be their vulnerability for predation by feral
dogs in that area. Communal roosting facilitate the birds to detect the predators easily.
On trees with dense foliage, they preferred to roost on the highest branches. These
observations resemble the findings of Yasmin (1994). Hence, it could be attributed that
the selection of roosting branch by peafowl depends on the clarity of vision it provides of
the surroundings. Johnsingh and Murali (1978) opined that some of the roost trees were
21
traditional sites to which peafowl return every night. This coincided with the present
findings, where in one adult peacock was observed to roost regularly on a coconut and
palmyra tree throughout the study period.
Similar observation were made in the
Viralimalai region by Rathinasabapathy (1987) and Rajadurai (1988). Dalson (2015)
studied the preliminary survey on the species in Annur area,Tiruppur Dt and Indira
(2016) conducted the survey work Indian peafowl in selected spots in urban area of
Coimbatore. The Greyjunglefowl showed a preference for areas with a mix of slopes,
hilly, plains as well as the less forested areas and open grassland patches
(Subramanian et al 2008).
The activity budget of peafowl of the present study shows that the peafowls
mostly spent their time for feeding followed by Resting, Walking, Preening and Display
and call. The behavior of Indian peafowl was strongly influenced by age and sex. Adult
males spent only about half as much time as females in feeding. This could be
attributed to greater amount of time spent standing, displaying and preening by adult
males than by females. Adult males spent significantly more time in preening than subadult males and females suggesting they incurred a ‘high maintenance handicap’
because of the elaborate ornamentation (Walther and Clayto, 2005). Sub adult males,
which lack the long train but possess the iridescent plumage similar to that of the adult
males, were
observed to spend about half the time spent by the adult
males in
preening (Galusha and Redd, 1992). Galliformes are diverse groups of Birds which is
often considered among the more threatened of avian orders and globally 300 species
are red listed. Birds are widely recognized as good bioindicators of the quality of the
ecosystems and the health of the environment (Gill 1994). They are responsive to
change; their diversity and abundance can reflect ecological trends in other
biodiversities. Because of their highly specific habitat requirements, birds are
increasingly intolerant of even slight ecosystem disturbances (Schwartz 1951). The
work forest bird communities have been done in other parts of the country from time to
time (Johnsingh et al 1987 and 1994).
22
The people living in the study sites, does not have much impact due to peafowl in
the area. They are not doing any harm to the peafowl because they are worshipping the
peacock as vehicle of Lord Subramania. Only very few incidents of poisoning happened
in the recent past otherwise the peafowls are the pet of the people living around.
23
OUTCOME AND SUMMARY OF THE PROJECT
COMPLETED OBJECTIVES OF THE PROJECT:
 Preliminary studies (Pilot study) carried out, Direct and indirect evidences
(Primary and secondary information) collected. Different habitats were identified.
 Peafowl Distribution spots were identified, Transects laid in different direction and
different habitats.
 A total of twenty Line transects were laid and peafowls abundance recorded.
 The Data collected for peafowl abundance and documented.
 The data on peafowl distribution, habitat use, in different seasons were obtained.
 The data on the threats to the population of Indian Peafowl were collected.
There are four different habitats are available in the Oveli forest area.
The
habitats Southern Deciduous Dry Forest (SDDF), Evergreen forest, Grassland Habitat
(GF) and Agricultural Habitat (AH) which includes the crops such Tea, coffee,
Cardamom and Clove). These habitats provide the shelter, feeding, protections from
predators for the Peafowl population in the study area.
The Indian Peafowl population was obtained and expressed in the unit of
Encounter Rate (ER/km walked). The overall population of Indian Peafowl in the study
area was obtained a total of 159 individuals throughout the study period. The sex ratio
in the study area was 0.73 Peahen:1 Peacock (male = 78 and Female = 57). The
Encounter Rate was 13.25/km walked (n=159). The abundance of Indian Peafowl were
studied sex wise and represented below.
The overall population of Cock individuals (Cock) in the study area was 78 and
the Encounter Rate was 6.5 /km walked (n=78).
The overall population of Hen
individuals (Hen) in the study area was 57 and the Encounter Rate was 4.75/km walked
(n=57). The population of Chick in the study area was 55 individuals only and the
Encounter Rate was 2/km walked (n=24).
24
The seasonal variations for Indian Peafowl population were studied in different
seasons such as winter, summer and rainy season. In general, the Indian Peafowl
population was high (n=64; ER 16/km walked) in the Summer season when compared
to other seasons (Winter n=49 ; ER 12.25/km walked and Rainy=46 ; ER 0.75/km
walked). The seasons were categorized as follows: The Winter season (NovemberFebruary), Summer season (March-January), and Rainy season (July-October).
In the winter season, there were observed 49 individuals Indian Peafowl were
recorded (ER=12.25/km walked). In the winter season, the Cock population was 26
(8/Km walked) and the Hen population 16 (4.75/Km walked) and the Chick population
was observed 7 (3.25/Km walked).
During the summer season, a total of 64 individuals of Indian Peafowl were
recorded and the Encounter Rate was 16/km walked during the study period.
In
summer season, the Cock population was 32 (5/km walked)) and the Hen population 19
(5.5/Km walked). The Chick population observed 13 (1/km walked).
A total of 46 individuals of Indian Peafowl were recorded and the Encounter Rate
was 0.75/Km walked during the rainy season. The Indian Peafowl Cock population was
20 (0.38/km walked) and the Hen population 22 (0.31/ km walked).
The Chick
population observed was 4 (0.06/ km walked) in the rainy season.
The correlation analyses were done for various seasons in the study area. The
population of Indian Peafowl between winter and summer shows (γ =0.17) very low
degree of correlation. Similarly, winter and rainy season (γ =0.06); and the summer and
rainy season also (γ =0.23) showed low degree of correlation.
The Indian Peafowl population was high (n=17) in the month of February 2015.
The lowest sightings was in the month of November (n=6). The other months were
moderately obtained. The Cock population was high (n=9) in the month of March, May,
and January. The lowest sightings (n=3) was obtained in September. The hen
population was maximum (n=8) in August and the minimum sighting was obtained (n=2)
in the December. The chick population was high in the March (n=5) and low in the July,
September and December (n=1) and no sightings were recorded in the month of
October and November.
25
There were observed the differences in the seasons for peafowl sightings. The
highest sightings were obtained in SDDF habitat (n=49; ER=12.25/Km walked) and the
lowest sightings was recorded in the EF habitat (n=34; n=34; ER=8.5/Km walked).
The Peacock was high in the SDDF (n=25; ER=6.25/Km walked) and low in EF and GF
habitats (n=17;ER=4.25/Km walked).
The Peahen was maximum in SDDF habitat
(n=16;ER=4/Km walked) and the minimum in the EF and Agricultural habitats
(n=13;ER=3.25/Km walked). The Chick sightings were observed in the habitat of EF
(n=4; ER=1/Km walked).
The habitats between Tea plantation and Dry deciduous Forest showed (0.61)
fairly high degree of correlation. The habitat of grassland and the Dry Deciduous forest
reveals (γ =0.35) low degree of correlation while other habitats such as Tea Plantation
and Grassland (γ =0.07); Tea Plantation and Coffee plantation (γ = 0.18); Coffee
plantation and Dry Deciduous Forest (γ =0.21) habitats are correlated as very low
degree of correlation.
Based on the data there was no major threats in the study area. Poaching not
observed but the egg depredation occasionally recorded. The sightings of peafowls
were low in Agricultural habitat.
This includes Tea, Coffee, cardamom and clove
plantation. Due to agricultural practices in the study sites, there may be anthropogenic
pressures and leads lower encounter was occurred. The people living in the study
sites, does not have much impact due to peafowl in the area. They are not doing any
harm to the peafowl because they are worshipping the peacock as vehicle of Lord
Subramania. Only very few incidents of poisoning happened in the recent past
otherwise the peafowls are the pet of the people living around.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I thankful to the Tamil Nadu State Council For Higher Education Chennai
(TANSCHE-Ref:
Research Project.
D.O.Rc.No. 1418/2014 A, dt 25-8-2014) for awarded this Minor
I greatly indebted to the Member Secretary, Tamil Nadu State
Council For Higher Education Chennai to do the Research work with his constant
encouragements. I Express my sincere thanks to the Director, Collegiate Education,
Chennai, the Principal, Government Arts College, Udhagamandalam- 643 002,
26
the
Head of the Department of Zoology & Wildlife Biology, for their constant
encouragements and facilities to carry out the Research work successfully. I express
my thanks to the Field Assistant and to the Tamil Nadu Forest Department (Principal
Chief Conservator of Forest, District Forest Officer-The Nillgiris Forest Division for the
permission and supports in the field to carry out the work to do successfully.
27
REFERENCES
Alexander
JP
(1983).
"Probable
diazinon
poisoning
in
peafowl:
a
clinical
description". Vet Rec. 113 (20): 470.
Ali, S. & S. D. Ripley (1980). Handbook of The Birds of Magapodes to Crob Plover.
Oxford University Press, New Delhi, 347pp.
Ali, S. and Ripley, S.D. (1983). Handbook of the birds of India and Pakisthan. Compact
Edition, Oxford University Press, Mumbai.
Ali, S and S.D. Ripley. (1989). The compact handbook of the birds of India and
Pakisthan. Oxford University Press,Bombay.
Anon. (2002). Wildlife of the Punjab. Punjab Wildlife and Parks Department. PP: 13-14,
25.
Baker, ECS (1928). The Fauna of British Indian, Including Ceylon and Burma, Birds.
Volume 5 (2 ed.). Taylor and Francis, London. pp. 282–284.
Bergmann, J. (1980). The peafowl of the world, Saiga Publ. Co.Ltd.
Blanford, WT (1898). The Fauna of British Indian, Including Ceylon and Burma. Birds 4.
Taylor and Francis, London.
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, U.K.
Burnham, K.P., Anderson, D.R. and J.L. Laake. 1980. Estimation of density from line
transects sampling of biological populations. Wildl. Monograph. 72 : 1 – 292.
Delacour, J. 1977. The Pheasants of the World. Spur Publications. Pp 395.
Dolson, J. (2015). A Preliminary survey Peafowl in Annur area, Tiruppur District, M.Sc.,
Unpublished Dissertation submitted to Bharathiar University-Coimbatore.
Hoyo, J., A. Elliot & J. Sargatal. (1994). Handbook of the Birds. Of the The world. New
World Vultures to Guineafowl- Volume 2 Lynx Edicions, Barelona, pp 434552.
Johnsgard, P.A. (1986). The Pheasants of The World. Oxford Publication.
28
Indira.S (2016). A survey Peafowl in the selected area of Coimbatore, M.Sc.,
Unpublished Dissertation submitted to Bharathiar University-Coimbatore.
Dodia, P.P. (2011). Roost tree selection by the common Peafowl (Pavo cristatus) at
Bhavnagar District, Gujarat (India), Life Science Leaflets. 11: 346-354.
Galusha JG, Redd JM. (1992). Population structure and daytime behavior of indian
peafowl (Pavo cristatus) on protection island, Jefferson County, Washington.
Pavo 1992; 30: 75-86.
Gill, F.B. (1994).Ornithology—2nd Edition. Oxford University Press, New York, 117pp
Harikrishnan, S.; Vasudevan, K.; Sivakumar, K. (2010). "Behavior of Indian
Peafowl Pavo cristatus Linn. 1758 During the Mating Period in a Natural
Population". The Open Ornithology Journal 3: 13–19.
Johnsgard, P.A. (1986). The Pheasants of The World. Oxford Publication.
Johnsingh, AJT (1976). "Peacocks and cobra". J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc. 73 (1): 214.
Johnsingh, AJT; Murali, S (1978). "The ecology and behaviour of the Indian Peafowl
(Pavo cristatus) Linn. of Injar". J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc. 75 (4): 1069–1079.
Madge , S. & P. McGowan (2002). Pheasants, Partridges and Grouse, Including
Buttonquails, and Allies. Helm Identification Guides, Christopher Helm,
London, 488pp.
Mushtaq-ul-Hassan, M. Ali, Z, Arshad, M.I, Mahmood, S and Mahmood-ul-Hassan, M.
2012. Effect of matting sex ratios in Indian peafowl (Pavo cristatus) on
production performance at Wildlife Research Institute, Faisalabad (Pakistan).
Iranian J. Vet. Res. Vol. 13(2): 143-146.
Navaneethakanana, K. (1984). Activity patterns in a colony of peafowls (Pavo cristatus)
in nature. J. BNHS. 81: 387-393.
Rajadurai. T. (1988). Present distribution and status of Indian Peafowl (Pavo cristatus)
in Viralimalai area, Tamil Nadu, South India. M.Sc., dissertation.
Ramesh, K. & Mcgowan, P. (2009) On the current status of Indian Peafowl Pavo
cristatus Aves: Galliformes: Phasianidae): keeping the common species
common. Journal of Threatened Taxa, 1, 106-108.
29
Rathinasabapathy. B. (1987). Activity pattern with special reference to food and feeding
habits of the Indian Peafowl (Pavo cristatus) in Viralimalai area, Tamil Nadu.
South India. M.Sc., dissertation.
Roberts, TJ (1992). The birds of Pakistan. Vol. 1, Nonpasseri formes. Karachi, Pakistan,
Oxford University Press. Elite Publications limited. P: 617.
Sahajpal, V., Goyal, S.P. (2008). "Identification of shed or plucked origin of Indian
Peafowl (Pavo cristatus) tail feathers: Preliminary findings". Science and
Justice 48 (2): 76–78.
Sharma, I.K. (1979).Ecological aspects of the peafowl Pavo cristatus at Jothpur. J.
Eco.Pavo Vol 17(1&2): 50-53.
Subramanian, C. Ramesh Kumar, C. and Sathyanarayana, M. C. 2008. Microhabitat
use by Grey Junglefowl (Gallus sonneratii) at Theni Forest Division, Westren
Ghats of Tamilnadu, Sonth India. Applied Ecology and Environmental Research
6(4): 61-68.
Trivedi, P. (1993). Habitat selection by Indian peafowl in Gir Forest.M. Sc., Dissertation,
Saurashtra University (Unpublished) pp.36.
Trivedi, P and Johnsingh, AJT (1996). "Diet of Indian Peafowl Pavo cristatus Linn. in Gir
Forest, Gujarat". J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc. 92 (2): 262–263.
Veeramani. A. (1990). Studies on ecological and behavioural aspects of Indian Peafowl
Pavo cristatus in Mudumalai Wildlife Sanctuary, Tamil Nadu, South India.
M.Sc., Dissertation submitted to Bharathidasan University, Tamil Nadu.
Ward, P. and Zahavi, A. (1973). The importance of certain assemblages of birds as
:information centers” for food findings. Ibis. 115:517-534.
Walther B., and Clayto, A.2005. Do peacocks devote maintenance time to their
ornamental plumage? time budgets of male blue peafowl. Pavo cristatus
Lundiana 2003; 4: 149-54.
Whistler, Hugh (1949).Popular handbook of Indian birds (4 ed.). Gurney and Jackson,
London. pp. 401–410.
Yasmin, S. (1994). Characteristics of trees used for roosting by blue peafowl in Aligarh
district, India. Annual Review of the World Pheasant Association 49: 57-63.
30
STUDY AREA MAP
Plate: 1.
Map showing the Nilgiri District
Map showing study sites in Nilgiri
31
Plate: 2.
Map showing the location of study spots in O’valley Forest Area
The Labeled Study spots
1.Kamaraj Nagar Area
2.MullaiNagar Area
3.Barham-1 Area
4.Barham-2 Area
5.Anna nagar-1 Area
6.Anna Nagar-2 Area
7.Periya Choondi Area
8.Chinna Choondi Area
9.Aathur Area
10.Guind Area
11.Gandhi Nagar Area
12.Dagmagiri Area
13.Bharwood Area
14.Yellan Area
15.Killanvance Area
16.Mulakkadu Area
17.Pulikuntha Area
18.Periyasola Area
19.Bharathi Nagar Area
20.Arottubarai Area
32
Plate: 3 .
The study spot (1)- Dharmagiri
Study Spot (2) - Mulakkadu
33
Plate: 4.
Study spot (3) - Periya Choondi
Study spot (4)- Aathur
34
Plate: 5.
Study spot (5)- Yellan
Study spot (6)- Arattubarai
35
Plate: 6.
Study spot (7)- Ghandhi nagar
Study spot (8)- Pulikuntha
36
The Extensive study spots in the study area
The Extensive study Spots
1. Salivayal Area
2. Chinna Choondi Area
3. Larasdan Area
4. Aathur Area
5. Ampulimala Area
6. Guind Area
7. Marapalam Area
8. Gandhi Nagar Area
9. Balvadi Area
10. Dagmagiri Area
11. Kamaraj Nagar Area
12. Bharwood Area
13. Mullai Nagar Area
14. Yellan Area
15. Barham-1 Area
16. Killanvance Area
17. Barham-2 Area
18. Mulakkadu Area
19. Anna nagar-1 Area
20. Pulikuntha Area
21. Anna Nagar-2 Area
22. Periyasola Area
23. Periya Choondi Area
24. Bharathi Nagar Area
………………
25. Arottubarai Area
37
Table : 3.Overall sightings of Indian Peafowl in the Oveli Forest Areas
during the study period
Transect Name of Areas
Number (Pilot study conducted)
Altitude
(ft)
T1
Kamaraj Nagar Area
Presence
Presence of Presence
of
Cock Hen(N)
Chick(N)
(N)
4
3
1
T2
Mullai Nagar Area
1
0
0
2045
T3
Baram Area
2
3
3
2421
T4
Annanagar Area
0
1
0
3057
T5
Aathur Area
4
4
3
3153
T6
Guind Area
2
4
0
3221
T7
Ghhandhi nagar Area
4
3
3
2940
T8
Periya choondi Area
6
5
0
2940
T9
Chinna choondi Area
3
2
4
2343
T10
Bharoad Area
5
1
3
3149
T11
Sandes Area
6
2
1
3349
T12
Neehope Area
4
2
0
2345
T13
Kelanvace Area
5
4
0
3325
T14
Mullakkad Area
5
4
0
3345
T15
Ampulimula Area
4
3
1
3306
T16
Pulikuntha Area
4
3
1
3442
T17
Periya solai Area
3
2
0
3595
T18
Cheppuram Area
3
4
1
3387
T19
Yellamalai Area
7
3
2
2940
38
2035
Aarolluparai Area
T20
6
4
Total
2470
1
78
57 24
Table: 5. Seasonal variations in the Peafowl sightings in the Study Area
(ER/km Walked)
Sl.No
Sex
WINTER
(n)
ER/Km
walked
SUMMER
(n)
ER/Km
walked
RAINY
(n)
ER/km
Walked
1
Male
26
8
32
5
20
0.38
2
Female
16
4.75
19
5.5
22
0.31
3
Chick
7
3.25
13
1
4
0.06
4
Overall
49
12.25
64
16
46
0.75
Table: 6. Habitat –wise variations in the Peafowl sightings in the Study Area
(ER/km Walked)
Sl.No
Sex/Habitats SDDF
(n)
ER/Km EF
walked (n)
ER/Km GF
walked (n)
ER/Km AGRI
walked (n)
ER/Km
walked
1
Male
25
6.25
17
4.25
17
4.25
19
4.75
2
Female
16
4
13
3.25
15
3.75
13
3.25
3
Chick
8
2
4
1
5
1.25
7
1.75
4
Overall
49 12.25
34 8.5
39
37 9.25
39 9.75
Table :7. Tree species recorded in the study area
SL.NO.
SCIENTIFIC NAME
COMMON NAME
LOCAL NAME
1
Albizia lebbeck
Walnut tree
Vagai
2
Albizia amara
Usil tree
Oosilai
3
Acacia nilotica
Babul tree
Karuvelam
4
Erythrina variegate
Indian coral tree
Mul murungai
5
Ficus religiosa
Peepul tree
Arasu
6
Azadiracta indica
Neem
Vembu
7
Moringa pterygosperma
Drumstick
Murungai
8
Melia dubia
Hill neem
Malai vembu
9
Mangifera indica
Mango
Mamaram
10
Salamalia malabarica
Sponge Tree
Ilavam
11
Syzygium cumini
Roseberry
Naval
12
Tectona grandis
Teak
Thekku
13
Tamarindus indica
Tamarind tree
Puliyamaram
14
Aropcarpus heerophylus
Jack fruit tree
Palamaram
15
Ziziphus jujube
Jujube tree
Ilanthai
40
Table :8. Tree species recorded in the study area
SL.NO.
SCIENTIFIC NAME
COMMON NAME
LOCAL NAME
1
Albizia lebbeck
Walnut tree
Vagai
2
Albizia amara
Usil tree
Oosilai
3
Acacia nilotica
Babul tree
Karuvelam
4
Erythrina variegate
Indian coral tree
Mul murungai
5
Ficus religiosa
Peepul tree
Arasu
6
Azadiracta indica
Neem
Vembu
7
Moringa pterygosperma
Drumstick
Murungai
8
Melia dubia
Hill neem
Malai vembu
9
Mangifera indica
Mango
Mamaram
10
Salamalia malabarica
Sponge Tree
Ilavam
11
Syzygium cumini
Roseberry
Naval
12
Tectona grandis
Teak
Thekku
13
Tamarindus indica
Tamarind tree
Puliyamaram
14
Aropcarpus heerophylus
Jack fruit tree
Palamaram
15
Ziziphus jujube
Jujube tree
Ilanthai
16
Dalbergia latifotia
Rose wood
Eati
17
Choroxylon swietenia
Satin wood
Sathinmaram
18
Acacia Sp
Wattle Sp
Wattle
41
ANNEXURE- I
The Checklist of other avifauna in the O’valley Forest Area
during the study period.
S.No
ORDER
FAMILY
COMMON NAME
SPECIES NAME
1. Grey junglefowl
Gallus sonneratii
1
Galliformes
PHASIANIDAE
2. Red spurfowl
Galloperdix
spadicea
2
Piciformes
PICIDAE
3. Rufous woodpecker
Celeus brachyurus
3
Bucerotiformes
4. Common GlodenBacked woodpecker
Dinopium
javanense
5. White-cheeked
barbed
Megalaima viridis
LYBIIDAE
4
Coraciiformes
7
Psittaciformes
BUCEROTIDAE
6.
Malabar
hornlbill
DACELONIDAE
7.
White
kingfisher
9
10
ringed
Psittacula krameri
9. Indian haning-parrot
Columbiformes
10.Spotted dove
Streptopelia
chinensis
COLUMBIDAE
11. Pompadour greenTreron pompadora
pigeon
RALLIDAE
12. White
Water hen
Gruiformes
Ciconiiformes
ARDEIDAE
11
breasted Halcyon
smyrnensis
8.
Rose
parakeet
PSITTACIDAE
8
grey Anthracoceros
albirostris
breasted Amaurornis
phoenicurus
13. Indian pond Heron
Ardeola grayii
14.Little egret
Egretta garzetta
15. Black drongo
Dicrurus
macrocercus
Passeriformes
DICRURIDAE
42
ORDER
FAMILY
COMMON NAME
16.
Greater
drongo
CORVIDAE
LANIDAE
PARIDAE
SPECIES NAME
racket-tailed Dicrurus
paradiseus
17. Jungle crow
Corvas
marorhynchis
18. Common crow
Corval splendens
19. Long tailed shrike
Lanius schach
20. Great tit
Parus major
21. Black-lored yellow tit
Parus xanthogenys
PYCNONOTIDAE 22. Red whiskered bulbul
Pyconotus jocosus
23. Red vented bulbul
Pyconptus cafer
24. Indian rufous Babbler
Turdoides subrufus
25. Oriental white eye
Zosterops
palpehrosus
26. Ashy prinia
Prinia socialis
27. Common tailorbired
Orthotomus
sutorius
28. Pied bush chat
Saxicola capratos
29. Magpie robin
Copsychus saularis
30. Blue-throated flycatcher
Cyornis
rubeculoides
31. Asian paradise- flycatcher
Terpisphonne
paradise
MUSCICAPIDAE
32. Nilgiri flycatcher
Eumyias
albicaudata
STURNIDAE
33. Common myna
Acridotheres juscus
NECTARINIDAE
34. Purple sunbird
Nectarinia asiatica
PLOCEIDAE
35. Loten’s sunbird
Nectarinia lotenia
SYILVIIDAE
ZOSTEROPIDAE
CISTICOLIDAE
43
PASSERIDAE
MOTTACILLIDAE
36. Black throated munia
Lonchura kelaarica
37. House sparrow
Passer domesticus
38. Grey wagtail
Motacilla cinerea
39. Large pied wagtail
Motacilla
maderespatensis
40. Yellow wagtail
Motacilla flava
44
Annexure-II
Vegetation surveyed in the Study Area during the study period
Abundance of Tree Species
S.
No
1
2
3
4
5
Common Name
Bamboo
Rose wood
Satin wood
Teak
Wattle Sp
Scientific Name
Bambusa dendrocalmus
Dalbergia latifotia
Choroxylon swietenia
Tectona grandis
Acacia Sp
Family
Graminae
Papilionaceae
Rutaceae
Verbenaceae
Mimosoidaeae
Abundance of Shrubs
S.
No
1
2
3
4
Common Name
Karikatta
Unnichedi
Tea chedi
Naaiyuruvi
Scientific Name
Eupotorium Sp
Lantana camera
Camellia sinensis
Achyrathus aspera
Family
Astracea
Evobenaceae
Teaceae
Amasanthaceae
Abundance of Grass
S.
No
Common Name
1 Kikyu grass
2 Singal Grass
3 Arugam pillu
Scientific Name
Pennisctum
andensdinum
Brachiaria villosa
Cynodon dactlyon
45
Family
Poaceae
Poaceae
Poaceae
46
47
48
Photo:1. The Peacock in the Grass land Habitat
Photo:2. The Peacock Near Village Area
49
Photo:3. The Peacock in the Plantation Habitat
Photo:4. The Peacock at the Protection Cover
50
Photo:5. The Peacock at Roosting Tree
Photo: 6.The Peacock in the Deciduous Ground
51
Photo:7. The Peacock in the Grass Land Habitat
Photo:8 The Peacock party at Resting
52
Photo:9. The Peacock near Human settlement Area
Photo:10. The Shola forest as Peafowl Habitat
53
Photo:11. The Evergreen Forest as Peafowl Habitat
Photo:12. The Abandoned Tea plantation as Peafowl Habitat
54