Next Article in Journal
Taxonomy, Biodiversity, and Ecology of Parasites of Aquatic Organisms: A Special Issue
Previous Article in Journal
Aliinostoc bakau sp. nov. (Cyanobacteria, Nostocaceae), a New Microcystin Producer from Mangroves in Malaysia
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Diversity
Volume 16
Issue 1
10.3390/d16010023
diversity-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Transitioning Wintering Shorebirds to Agroecosystem: A Thorough Evaluation of Habitat Selection and Conservation Concern

by
H. Byju
1,†,
K. A. Rubeena
2,†,
C. T. Shifa
3,
T. R. Athira
3,
K. Jishnu
4,
Jagdeep Singh
5,
Asha Sohil
6,
Sonika Kushwah
7,
Akhilesh Kumar
7,
Jasmine Anand
8,
K. M. Rajaneesh
9,†,
Seerangan Manokaran
9,†,
Durga Rao Gijjappu
10,
Omer R. Reshi
9,
Orus Ilyas
11,
Neeraj Sharma
12,
K. K. Junaina
13,
N. Raveendran
14,
T. M. V. Mumthaz
15,
M. Nasser
4,
Sabir Bin Muzaffar
16,17,*,†,
Aymen Nefla
18,
Syed Masiur Rahman
9 and
K. M. Aarif
9,*,†add Show full author list remove Hide full author list
1
Centre for Advanced Study in Marine Biology, Annamalai University, Parangipettai 608502, India
2
Department of Biosciences, MES College Marampally, Mahatma Gandhi University, Aluva 683105, India
3
Department of Zoology, Govt College Madappally, University of Calicut, Kozhikode 673102, India
4
Department of Zoology, University of Calicut, Malappuram 673635, India
5
Department of Zoology and Environmental Sciences, Punjabi University, Patiala 147002, India
6
PG Department of Environmental Sciences, University of Jammu, Jammu 180006, India
7
Indian Biodiversity Conservation Society, Jhansi 284129, India
8
Department of Zoology, T.K. Madhava Memorial College, Alappuzha 690513, India
9
Terrestrial Ecology, Centre for Environment and Marine Studies, Research & Innovation, King Fahd University of Petroleum & Minerals, Dhahran 31261, Saudi Arabia
10
Ereztech Labs LLC, Sheboygan, WI 53085, USA
11
Biodiversity and Environmental Studies, Department of Wildlife Sciences, Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh 202002, India
12
Institute of Mountain Environment, Bhaderwah Campus, University of Jammu, Jammu 182222, India
13
Sullamussalam College of Teacher Education, Affiliated to University of Calicut, Malappuram 673102, India
14
Iragukal Amritha Nature Trust, 61, Ramachandra Thadaga Street, Madurai 625706, India
15
Department of Zoology, Sir Syed College, Taliparamba, Affiliated to Kannur University, Kannur 670142, India
16
Department of Biology, United Arab Emirates University, Al Ain P.O. Box 15551, United Arab Emirates
17
Department of Science, The Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, South Kensington, London SW7 5BD, UK
18
Department of Biology, Faculty of Sciences of Tunis, University of Tunis El Manar, El Manar II, Tunis 2092, Tunisia
 
add Show full affiliation list
 
remove Hide full affiliation list
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
†
These authors contributed equally to this work.
Diversity 2024, 16(1), 23; https://doi.org/10.3390/d16010023
Submission received: 20 November 2023 / Revised: 22 December 2023 / Accepted: 26 December 2023 / Published: 29 December 2023
(This article belongs to the Section Biodiversity Conservation)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Habitat fragmentation and degradation in natural wetlands has resulted in declines in the populations of shorebirds in the Indian subcontinent. Shorebirds rely on these wetlands as wintering or stop-over sites along the southern extent of the Central Asian Flyway. Shorebirds are known to utilize agroecosystems as alternate foraging habitats. The suitability of agroecosystems as foraging areas for overwintering migratory shorebirds has not been well studied in the Indian subcontinent. We conducted a comprehensive assessment of published literature and compiled field observations to investigate the importance of inland and coastal agroecosystems for shorebirds in India. We assessed the shorebird populations at natural wetlands: mudflats and mangroves of Kadalundi Vallikkunnu Community Reserve (KVCR) and Puthuvypu sand beach, as well as adjacent agroecosystems on the west coast of India, including Sanketham Wetlands, Manthalakkadavu, Vazhakkad, Elamaram, Kodinhi, and Kooriyad. On the east coast, we assessed the natural wetland habitats of Valinokkam, Point Calimere, and Pichavaram and evaluated inland agroecosystems in regions, such as Jammu and Kashmir, Punjab, Rajasthan, Gujarat, Uttar Pradesh, Tamil Nadu, and Kerala. Fifty-three shorebird species utilize diverse agroecosystems from various parts of India. While studies on the use of agroecosystems by shorebirds are limited on the east coast, evidence suggests that major wintering sites are adjacent to paddy fields, fostering substantial shorebird diversity. In Pichavaram, Point Calimere, and Gulf of Mannar regions, 22 shorebird species utilize agroecosystems, including the notable near-threatened Eurasian Curlew. Seventeen of these species are winter arrivals, highlighting the crucial role agroecosystems play as stopover areas. On the west coast, 19 shorebird species appear to utilize agroecosystems in Kooriyad, Manthalakkadavu, Vazhakkad, Sanketham Wetlands, Elamaram, and Kodinhi. Few species use agricultural fields in the north (Jammu and Kashmir). Paddy fields, that are flooded as part of the cropping cycle, support diverse prey species, such as macroinvertebrates, amphibians, and small fish, that could attract and support migratory shorebirds. Agricultural practices like fallowing, flooding, and ploughing could further increase the abundance and accessibility of prey for shorebirds, drawing them in greater numbers. It is crucial to recognize that unsustainable and unethical agricultural methods could detrimentally affect shorebird numbers. The accumulation of pesticide residues and the contamination from heavy metals could also threaten shorebirds. As a result, there is an urgent need for detailed research to better evaluate the importance of agroecosystems in supporting resident or migratory shorebirds. Systematic studies that explain the population dynamics, habitat selection trends, habitat utilization, and the over-summering behavior of the migratory birds at agroecosystems are needed. Implementing sustainable conservation strategies and adopting environmentally friendly agricultural practices are essential to support the rich biodiversity of the region.

1. Introduction

On a global scale, shorebird populations are declining in all migratory flyways [1,2,3]. The shortest flyway, the Central Asian Flyway (CAF), of which India is a major country, is no exception from this massive declining trend [2,3,4,5,6]. This declining trend can be attributed to the loss and degradation of foraging and roosting habitat for shorebirds in recent years as a result of unsustainable human interventions [7,8,9]. This had a significant impact on the survival [10] and breeding success [11] of birds. The primary causes are unethical use and exploitation of natural resources and unscientific management strategies [12,13] that resulted in the destruction and disappearance of natural wetlands. This corresponded with major environmental changes influencing nutrient cycling and mobilization, which had impacts across many trophic levels, causing declines in many aquatic species [13,14,15,16].
The alterations in sediment and hydrological variables, global climatic change, unethical and unsustainable human developmental activities, etc., have accelerated habitat fragmentation and degradation in natural wetlands [17]. This has resulted in the decline in population and abundance of shorebirds including migrants that rely on these wetlands as wintering or stop-over sites [3,17,18]. The adverse conditions in their wintering sites have led the shorebirds to find alternative foraging and roosting habitats during difficult times. A few studies have highlighted the role of the rice field ecosystem as an alternative for avian conservation in North America and Europe [19,20]. Even though many shorebirds forage on the exposed intertidal zones during their wintering period [21] (Supplementary Table S1), some use nearby agroecosystems for foraging and roosting [22]. The utility of these alternate sites as potential foraging grounds is yet to be fully understood in temperate zones [23]. The loss of foraging habitats, in addition to the declining survival rate of the shorebirds, could also lead to competition on alternate grounds [24].
Though 90% of global rice production is from Asia [25,26], studies on shorebirds that use agroecosystems in this area are limited [19,27,28,29]. In recognition of the importance of this ecosystem, the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands of International Importance [30] addressed the significance of rice fields in conservation. Agroecosystems have been designated as “Important Bird Areas” under Birdlife International’s global program which recognizes them as sites of high conservation value [31]. All these designations by the international agencies highlight the potential importance of agroecosystems as alternate roosting and feeding habitats for shorebirds.
One of the prime examples of habitat loss is the conversion of natural wetlands into shrimp farms in several Asian countries including India, over the past three decades driven by increasing demands of population growth and economic development [32,33]. This conversion was so widespread that massive areas, such as mangroves and adjoining mudflats, were converted into shrimp farms, thereby affecting migratory waterbirds that were wintering in the areas [13,34]. Furthermore, habitat degradation of the natural wetlands due to anthropogenic developmental activities forced the shorebirds to shift their foraging grounds to nearby agricultural fields as these sites have the potential to meet the nutritional requirements of the shorebirds [16,35]. Waterlogged agricultural fields are flooded or inundated as part of the cropping cycle [36] or occur when excess water accumulates due to heavy rainfall, poor drainage, or other factors. This provides suitable habitats for macroinvertebrates (especially polychaetes, crabs, crayfish, and shrimps), small fish, and larval amphibians, which serve as important prey for waterbirds including shorebirds [37]. The area of rice cultivation is generally vast compared to the area of natural wetland habitats; thus, these flooded rice fields help birds survive temporarily by providing suitable habitats with food and shelter for them [38,39,40]. These temporary wetland-like conditions can have various ecological implications and attract different species, including breeding shorebirds [41]. Shorebirds find alternative feeding and roosting grounds during the winter, including artificial wetlands [42], agricultural ponds [43], salt pans [44], and paddy fields [25,45,46]. These alternate agroecosystems can potentially become buffers for natural habitat loss [46,47,48,49]. Only a few reports of these alternative foraging locations are available worldwide, such as those from the Italian Po Valley [50], Extremadura in Spain [49], and the rice fields of West Africa, where 1.7 million and 730,000 wetland-related birds are reported to harbor at coastal rice fields and inland rice fields, respectively [40].
In waterbird surveys that are typically limited to large wetlands, small wetlands close to agricultural land that support waterbird populations are either ignored or inadequately studied [51]. Similarly, the alternative feeding and roosting sites of shorebirds, such as agroecosystems, are ignored during regular surveys and censuses of shorebirds. Hence, the published literature on the intensive investigations on alternative habitats for shorebirds is limited in CAF, in general, and from Indian coasts, in particular. The aim of this review is to address this research gap of intensive studies, by compiling available data and literature on shorebird status and distribution in Indian agroecosystems with an emphasis on the peninsular region, to help identify areas of future research. To this end, we analyzed published literature on the natural wetlands, mudflats and mangroves of KVCR and Puthuvypu sand beach (west coast of India), and adjacent agroecosystems, Sanketham Wetlands, Manthalakkadavu, Vazhakkad, Elamaram, Kodinhi, and Kooriyad, which are intensively studied on the west coast. On the east coast, only Valinokkam mudflats, Point Calimere, and Pichavaram mangroves are the intensively studied natural wetland habitats. Also, selected inland agroecosystems where shorebirds are spotted and are potential sites for the wintering shorebirds in Jammu and Kashmir, Punjab, Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh, Tamil Nadu, and Kerala were also included (Figure 1). The objective of our study was to investigate the utilization of agroecosystems by shorebirds in India. This research underpins the importance of and need for more comprehensive systematic surveys to facilitate accurate evaluations of shorebird species and their populations utilizing diverse agroecosystems as alternate foraging and roosting grounds for winter migrants and resident species.

2. Methodology

2.1. Literature Search Strategy

We defined the scope of our article by outlining the specific aspects of shorebird abundance in coastal habitats and their occurrence in agricultural fields in the Indian Peninsula. We compiled a list of keywords related to our concept for the ease of literature search. Databases including PubMed and Web of Science were utilized to find relevant articles, reviews, and studies. The most recent articles were prioritized. Abstracts of potential articles were reviewed to determine their relevance to our research. Additional sources identified in examining the citations of the selected papers helped us to build a comprehensive understanding of the topic. We organized key findings from each study including the limitations. Data collected on personal field observations were also considered to substantiate our concept. The gathered information was analyzed and synthesized, which helped us in formulating our own research questions [52].

2.2. Shorebird Abundance

Shorebird abundance was assessed monthly at KVCR mudflats, mangroves (data from 2010 to 2019 are published by Aarif et al. [3] and the data of 2020 are unpublished, Aarif), and Puthuvypu sand beach (Jasmine, Unpublished data) on the west coast and the Valinokkam mudflats (Byju, Unpublished data) on the east coast of India between 2010 and 2020, once a month at 7:00 to 11:00 during low tide by direct observation method in a fixed scanning point using 10 × 50 binocular and DSLR Nikon D500 camera with 200–500 mm telephoto lens to document the shorebirds that prefer agroecosystem. The standard error in the figure was calculated from the mean and standard deviation of yearly abundance.

2.3. Species Diversity

Species diversity was assessed during January, October, November, and December, from 2018 to 2022 at Vazhakkad, Manthalakkadavu, Kooriyad, Elamaram, Kodinhi and Sanketham Wetlands on the west coast of India. The survey was carried out from 7:00 to 11:00 by direct observation method in a fixed scanning point using 10 × 50 binocular and DSLR Nikon D500 camera with 200–500 mm telephoto lens to document the shorebirds that prefer agroecosystem. The diversity of shorebirds is expressed as the Shannon–Weiner index using Statistica 12.0 software [53]. Shannon–Weiner index of shorebird diversity was calculated for each month for preparing the figure.

2.4. Nighttime Light Data

Freely accessible data in ArcMap were employed for the mapping process. We utilized VIIRS nighttime light annual band composites integrated into the Google Earth Engine platform, which was made available by the Earth Observation Group. The resolution of the data is 463.83 m and was employed for the evaluation of night-time light patterns.

3. Declining Trends of Shorebirds Species Abundance and Diversity at Mudflats, Mangroves, Sand Beaches, and Salt Pans, on the East and West Coast of India

The Indian east coast has diverse habitats such as coral islands, sandy beaches, intertidal zones, mangroves, saltpans, mudflats, and lagoons near the shoreline and has a rich shorebird diversity and abundance facilitated by peculiar features, including the availability of invertebrate prey, favorable moisture levels, and vegetative structure [54,55,56]. Shorebirds have been found to be more diverse and abundant in tidal flats, particularly exposed mudflats [2,3,57,58].
The east coast of India hosts up to 48 species of shorebirds [6]. The main wintering site of migratory shorebirds is Sundarbans, the largest tidal mangrove track and mudflats, from where 17 shorebird species were recorded; while from other parts of West Bengal, a total of 37 species were recorded [59]. Then Chilika Lake, a brackish-water wetland with marshes and mudflats, provided a wintering area for various migratory shorebirds, such as Kentish Plover (Charadrius alexandrinus), Black-tailed Godwit (Limosa limosa), and Asian Dowitcher (Limnodromus semipalmatus) [60,61]. The marine biosphere reserve of the Gulf of Mannar hosted sandflat preferring shorebirds species like the near-threatened Eurasian Oystercatcher (Haematopus ostralegus), Bar-tailed Godwit (Limosa lapponica), Eurasian Curlew (Numenius arquata) and species of Least Concern Grey Plover (Pluvialis squatorola), Lesser Sand Plover (Charadius mongolus), and Crab Plover (Dromas ardeola) [62,63]. The Valinokkam Lagoon and Karangadu mangroves near the Gulf of Mannar regions were recently documented as significant wintering sites for 47 species of shorebirds on the south-east coast [64], with a significant congregation of shorebirds. Point Calimere, also known as the Great Vedaranyam Swamp, hosted 47 shorebird species [65], while in Pichavaram, 27 shorebird species were reported, with Little Stint (Calidris minuta) being the dominant and Bar-tailed Godwit being the smallest population [65,66]. In Pulicat Lake, a brackish to saline lagoon on India’s east coast, Kannan and Pandiyan [67] recorded 34 shorebird species.
In contrast, the west coast of India hosts relatively fewer species of shorebirds, despite having numerous significant wintering grounds [2,4,6,18,58,68]. Gujarat’s Byet Dwaraka Island [69], Thane Creek [70] and Sindhudurg coast of Maharashtra [58], Goa [71,72], and Kadalundi Vallikkunnu Community Reserve (KVCR) [2,3,18] are major vital wintering and stopover grounds along the west coast of India. The migratory shorebirds reported from Sindhudurg, Maharashtra [58] and KVCR [2,3,18] include the endangered Great Knot (Calidris tenuirostris) and near-threatened species including Eurasian Oystercatcher, Eurasian Curlew, Curlew Sandpiper (Calidris ferruginea), Black-tailed Godwit, and Bar-tailed Godwit, while those from Goa include Great Knot, Great Thick-knee (Esacus recurvirostris), Eurasian Oystercatcher, Eurasian Curlew, etc. [71,72].
Shorebirds serve as ecological indicators in wetland ecosystems [73,74]. Despite having several natural wetlands that provide diverse habitats on the east and west coasts of India, shorebird abundance is declining on both coasts (Figure 2), and this can be attributed to habitat degradation and loss due to increasing human population, climatic changes, and other regional causes, such as frequent cyclones, floods, and tsunamis [6]. According to recent observations in the Gulf of Mannar [75] on the east coast, shorebird congregation is only found at the tip of the Dhanushkodi Lagoon [6]. Recent prey shortages at KVCR and adjoining areas, a significant wintering site on the west coast, have had an impact on the abundance of shorebirds [3]. The abundance of shorebirds using mangroves and mudflats habitats in KVCR decreased over the past two decades with major shifts in habitat use patterns [2,3]. Predation pressure caused shorebirds to alternate between mudflats, mangroves, and sandy beaches, which were less profitable with respect to benthic prey availability [3]. Switching between habitat types could also be energetically expensive to shorebirds that actively build up fat reserves for their post-winter endurance flight to the northern breeding grounds [76].

4. Slow Switching Trends of Shorebird Species to Agroecosystems on the East and West Coast

The west coast of India, which is highly productive in terms of nutritional resources, suitable cover, and favorable environmental conditions, provides multiple wintering grounds for shorebirds. In contrast, the east coast of India, which has lower nutritional resources, a high number of natural calamities, and erratic climatic variations, suggests that environmental conditions are unfavorable for shorebirds. Contrary to expectation, evidence suggests that there is a paradox in shorebird distribution, with the east coast hosting more diverse and abundant shorebirds than the west [6]. Anthropogenic pressure, especially development activities, has caused catastrophic declines in shorebird populations on both coasts [6,77] (Figure 2). For example, predation pressure and waste dumping at the mangroves [78] and sediment hardening and mangrove extension towards the mudflats [17,75] had caused habitat use shifts (from mangroves and mudflats to sand beaches) and reduced shorebird populations on the west coast [2,3,6]. Subsequent wall construction, waste dumping, and other adverse conditions [18,79] have resulted in dwindling beach areas, causing a gradual switching of foraging/roosting grounds to nearby agroecosystems [80,81,82]. There appears to be an increasing trend of shorebird diversity at agricultural lands (Figure 3) pointing towards the suitability of these as alternate habitats [83].
Studies on the use of agroecosystems by shorebirds on the east coast of India are limited to a few sites. Most of the major wintering sites on the east coast have vast areas of paddy fields adjacent to them. One example is the paddy fields near Pichavaram mangroves, which reported a higher density of shorebirds along with other waterbirds [84]. Sandilyan [85] recorded 25 waterbird species, of which 15 were shorebirds, in the agricultural land near Pichavaram wetlands during the monsoon as well as post-monsoon seasons. Other wintering sites on the east coast, like Chilika Lake, the Great Vedaranyam Swamp of Point Calimere, and the Gulf of Mannar, also have vast agroecosystems near the shorebird wintering sites. The shorebird population in the Gulf of Mannar region has been adversely affected by recent infrastructure developments in the Dhanushkodi Lagoon [6], leading to changes in the mudflat substratum, which might have compelled the shorebirds to slowly shift their foraging activities to adjacent agricultural lands. In Point Calimere, the extent of Prosopis juliflora, a wide-ranging hyperaccumulator plant species from various locales, caused the shrinkage of the edges of mudflats as well as the dried salt pans, and marked siltation phenomenon at the Pulicat Lake ecosystem has jeopardized the ecological homeostasis endangering shorebird populations [67]. This led to the slow switching of some shorebird species to the nearest agroecosystem (Table 1).
Our personal field observations in Point Calimere and the Gulf of Mannar divulged the presence of over-summering shorebirds, including Common Sandpiper (Actitis hypoleucos), Marsh Sandpiper (Tringa stagnatilis), Eurasian Curlew, and Black-tailed Godwit, utilizing adjacent agroecosystems, mainly paddy fields, indicating that these agroecosystems can serve as over-summering sites for selected migratory shorebirds. We have recorded 19 species of shorebirds, out of which, 14 were winter visitors, that used agroecosystems in these regions along the east coast. This included near-threatened species, Eurasian Curlews, which highlighted the conservation significance of these agroecosystems. The diversity of these shorebird species could be indicative of the availability of suitable resources such as food, water, and nesting sites in these areas and valuable ecosystem services [86]. The predominance of Least Concern species among the recorded shorebirds is a positive sign in terms of the overall health, stability, and adaptability of the avian community in these agroecosystems.
KVCR plays a significant role as a critical stopover and wintering habitat for shorebirds along the western coast. However, a concerning trend of diminishing shorebird diversity has been observed over the years [2,3]. This decline can be attributed to several pivotal factors that have altered the ecological dynamics of the area. Multiple factors such as alterations in sediment and water quality [17], depletion of primary and secondary productivity [15], sediment hardening [17], depletion of key prey items such as polychaetes and crabs [3], habitat fragmentation [18], incursion of mangroves [74], changes in shorebirds’ intake rate due to predation pressures (Aarif, unpublished data), biomagnification of heavy metals in trophic transfer [87], microplastic contamination [88], and possible artificial light intensity from development activities (Supplementary Figure S1) may be linked with shorebird declines at natural wetlands. Meanwhile, their population exhibited an increasing trend in the agroecosystem, which is an artificial wetland (Figure 3).
Field surveys conducted at six distinct agroecosystems near KVCR on the periphery of the west coast—Sanketham Wetlands, Manthalakkadavu, Vazhakkad, Elamaram, Kodinhi, and Kooriyad—reported 21 shorebird species including migrants, and the species diversity exhibited an increasing trend over years [89] (Figure 3). This distinct assemblage still differs from that of the east coast. Among these, 14 were winter migrants (Table 1).
Table 1. List of shorebirds documented from agroecosystems of the east and west coast of peninsular India.
Table 1. List of shorebirds documented from agroecosystems of the east and west coast of peninsular India.
S.NoCommon NameScientific NameIUCN StatusMigration StatusGujarat
[29]		VazhakkadElamaramManthalakkadavuSanketham WetlandsKodinhiKooriyadPichavaram
[34,84,90]		Gulf of Mannar
(Byju 2017–2022)		Point Calimere
(Raveendran 2018–2019)
West CoastEast Coast
1Greater Sand PloverCharadrius leschenaultiiLCWVYes---------
2Lesser Sand PloverCharadius mongolusLCWV-------Yes--
3Kentish PloverCharadrius alexandrinusLCWVYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYes
4Little Ringed PloverCharadrius dubiusLCR/LMYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYes
5Common Ringed PloverCalidris hiaticulaLCWVYesYesYesYesYesYesYes---
6Pacific Golden PloverPluvialis fulvaLCWVYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYes-Yes
7Grey PloverPluvialis squatarolaLCWVYesYesYesYesYesYesYes---
8Caspian PloverCharadrius asiaticusLCWVYes---------
9Grey headed LapwingVanellus cinereusLCWVYesYesYesYesYesYesYes---
10Red-wattled LapwingVanellus indicusLCRYesYes-YesYes--YesYesYes
11Yellow-wattled LapwingVanellus malabaricusLCRYes-------YesYes
12Northern LapwingVanellus vanellusNTWVYes---------
13River LapwingVanellus duvauceliiNTRYes---------
14White-tailed LapwingVanellus leucurusLCRYes---------
15Black-winged StiltHimantopus himantopusLCRYesYes-Yes---YesYesYes
16Pied AvocetRecurvirostra avosettaLCWVYes---------
17Common SandpiperActitis hypoleucosLCWVYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYes
18Wood SandpiperTringa glareolaLCWVYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYes
19Marsh SandpiperTringa stagnatilisLCWVYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYes
20Green SandpiperTringa ochropusLCWVYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYes
21Curlew SandpiperCalidris ferrugineaNTWVYes-----YesYes-Yes
22Broad-billed SandpiperLimicola falcinellusLCWVYes-----Yes---
23Terek SandpiperXenus cinereusLCWVYes------Yes--
24Little StintCalidris minutaLCWVYes-----YesYes-Yes
25Temminck’s StintCalidris temminckiiLCWVYes---------
26Long-toed StintCalidris subminutaLCWVYes---------
27DunlinCalidris alpinaLCWVYesYesYesYesYesYesYes---
28SanderlingCalidris albaLCWVYes------Yes--
29Common RedshankTringa totanusLCWVYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYes
30Spotted RedshankTringa erythropusLCWVYes---------
31Common GreenshankTringa nebulariaLCWVYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYes
32Nordmann’s GreenshankTringa guttiferENWVYes---------
33Common SnipeGallinago gallinagoLCWVYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYes
34Greater Painted SnipeRostratula benghalensisLCWVYesYesYesYesYesYesYes---
35Pin-tailed SnipeGallinago stenuraLCWVYes---------
36Solitary SnipeGallinago solitariaLCWVYes---------
37Swinhoe’s SnipeGallinago megalaLCWVYes---------
38Jack SnipeLymnocryptes minimusLCWVYes---------
39Eurasian CurlewNumenius arquataNTWVYes------YesYesYes
40Eastern curlewNumenius madagascariensisENWVYes---------
41Black-tailed GodwitLimosa limosaNTWVYes------YesYesYes
42Bar-tailed GodwitLimosa lapponicaNTWVYes---------
43WhimbrelNumenius phaeopusLCWVYes------YesYesYes
44Great KnotCalidris tenuirostrisENWVYes---------
45RuffPhilomachus pugnaxLCWVYes-----Yes---
46Collared PratincoleGlareola pratincolaLCWVYes---------
47Oriental PratincoleGlareola maldivarumLCR/WVYes---- ----
48Small PratincoleGlareola lacteaLCRYes- -- ---Yes
LC, least concern; NT, near threatened; WV, winter visitor; LM/R, locally migrant or resident; R, resident.
In a previous study, Aarif and Basheer [91] recorded nine different shorebird species in the Mavoor wetland, which included Manthalakkadvu, one of the agroecosystems under investigation in the present study. We recorded 17 species of shorebirds from both Manthalakkadavu and Vazhakkad agroecosystems. Paddy fields at Elamaram and Kodinhi supported 15 species each; while Sanketham Wetlands upheld 16 shorebird species. Nineteen species of shorebirds including Ruff (Calidris pugnax), an uncommon visitor to South India, were documented from the paddy fields at Kooriyad, west coast of Kerala (Figure 4) (Table 1). Furthermore, 20 shorebird species were reported from the Kole wetlands in Kerala [92], which serve as important wintering and stopover sites for long-distance migrants. The paddy cultivation here provided ideal foraging habitats for many shorebird populations to reach their peak counts and survive after low rainfall periods [2]. Thirty-eight shorebird species, including 33 migrant species, were documented from the Changaram wetland on the west coast of Kerala [68], where the pokkali farming system is employed. Pokkali farming involves paddy cultivation from May to October and shrimp and fish culture from November to April alternately in the same wetlands. We speculate that this type of farming increases the invertebrate, amphibian, and small fish diversity of this agroecosystem [93], possibly making it attractive for shorebirds.

5. Agroecosystems and Shorebirds: An Indian Perspective

In India, apart from the agroecosystems adjacent to the natural wetlands on the east and west coasts, there are diverse inland agricultural fields that form wintering grounds, stop-over sites, and breeding grounds for the shorebirds. Shorebirds find northern subcontinental regions as transient stop-overs during the wintering period, while those embarking on a southern migration encounter rice fields as a consistent nutritional source throughout the duration of their stay [29]. The post-harvest remnants in the rice fields and the subsequent processes of fallowing, flooding, ploughing, etc., before the next cycle of cultivation, improve the nutritional quality of the field and facilitate the occurrence and availability of invertebrates and other prey species for the wintering and resident shorebird species [94].
Red-wattled Lapwings (Vanellus indicus) and the Black-winged Stilts (Himantopus himantopus) are resident shorebirds that are the most frequently encountered species in fields throughout Punjab year-round. Their nesting (see Figure 5) has been observed in paddy fields from April to July in waterlogged agricultural fields and in post-harvested wheat fields from April to July in dry beds of agricultural land, respectively (Figure 5). Common Greenshank (Tringa nebularia), Spotted Redshank (Tringa erythropus), Wood Sandpiper (Tringa glareola), Marsh Sandpiper (Tringa stagnatilis), Green Sandpiper (Tringa ochropus), Common Sandpiper (Actitis hypoleucos), Black-tailed Godwit (Limosa limosa), Pied Avocet (Recurvirostra avosetta), and Ruff (Calidris pugnax) are more frequently seen during the early migratory months of October and November in barren, waterlogged agricultural fields and during the reverse migration in the months of April and May. Shorebirds stay for a few days at each site and are observed to be foraging in the waterlogged fields preceding the planting of crops. This could be because waterlogged fields support more invertebrates, including shrimps, and small fishes [95].
At least 53 shorebird species are utilizing the agroecosystem in various parts of India including Uttar Pradesh. Among the species listed, seven are near threatened—Black-tailed Godwit (Limosa limosa), Bar-tailed Godwit (Limosa lapponica), Eurasian Curlew (Numenius arquata), Northern Lapwing (Vanellus vanellus), River Lapwing (Vanellus duvaucelii), and Great Thick-knee (Esacus recurvirostris)—and three were endangered—Eastern Curlew (Numenius madagascariensis), Normann’s Greenshank (Tringa guttifer), and Great Knot (Calidris tenuirostris). From the personal observations in Uttar Pradesh, we documented 22 shorebird species, with the addition of the Great Thick-knee (Esacus recurvirostris), which was not reported in any of the published literature for the Indian list. Further north, in Jammu and Kashmir, 4 shorebird species, Ruff, Pacific Golden Plover, Greater Painted Snipe and Black-winged Stilt, were recorded from 14 different agricultural fields. In Tamil Nadu, South India, 35 shorebirds, including Little Stint, Whimbrel (Numenius phaeopus), Red-wattled Lapwing, Yellow-wattled Lapwing, and Marsh Sandpiper, were reported from eight different agroecosystems (Table 2).
Many shorebirds were reported to congregate in good numbers in unvegetated fields adjacent to the west coast of India [96]. This provides an unobstructed view of the approaching predators [97] and kleptoparasites [98]. The waterlogged agriculture fields near wetlands attract breeding waterbirds and migratory shorebirds [84,99]. This is because the flooded paddy fields in winter support invertebrate prey species and thus offer a suitable foraging ground for a large number of shorebirds, positively influencing shorebird diversity and species richness [100,101]. The abundance of aquatic insects, worms, snails, and tadpoles in the agricultural field ensures the availability of food for these shorebirds [102] and hence serves as potential foraging grounds when intertidal habitats are under the threat of fragmentation, degradation, and modification [103]. In the Indian subcontinent, it is reported that 27% of shorebirds, including 23 species of global conservation concern [29], are using agricultural fields as their foraging sites. From the site-specific study on peninsular India, we also documented 22 shorebird species on the east coast and 47 on the west coast that utilize agroecosystems (Table 1). Lesser Sand Plover was exclusive to the east coast, whereas the Greater Sand Plover, Common Ringed Plover, Grey Plover, Greater Painted Snipe, Temminck’s Stint, Dunlin, Grey-headed Lapwing, Spotted Redshank, Pin-tailed Snipe, Solitary Snipe, Swinhoe’s Snipe, Jack Snipe, Bar-tailed Godwit, Eastern Curlew, Nordmann’s Greenshank, Great Knot, Long-toed stint, Broad-billed Sandpiper, Ruff, Pied Avocet, Collared Pratincole, Oriental Pratincole, Caspian Plover, Northern Lapwing, River Lapwing, and White-tailed Lapwing were unique to the west coast.
Agroecosystems near shorebird wintering sites influence the foraging of individual species [31,40,104,105,106] as birds move back and forth between habitats regularly [107]. The nycthemeral movement of shorebirds between natural habitats (the mangroves, mudflats, and adjoining sand beaches) in response to predation pressure and tides [18] is an energetically expensive behavior, which is not desirable for the migrants that are gathering energy reserves for their northward endurance flight at the end of winter [108]. In addition to better prey availability, predator visibility could provide a benefit that counters the effects of declining natural environments, such as mudflats and wetlands.
Limited attention has been directed toward evaluating the utility and significance of field edges, irrigation canals, and other associated water features that form integral components of rice cultivation systems [38,107,109]. Assessing the factors that attract these shorebirds to agroecosystems, such as food availability, water resources, and vegetation structure, can help to determine the nutritional quality of these habitats as compared to other natural and artificial wetlands. Furthermore, the factors that adversely affect the quality of habitat at the rice fields must be checked extensively, including pesticide and heavy metal contamination [87]. Additionally, sustainable agricultural practices like using biopesticides and carefully planning the timing of agricultural methods like water-logging to coincide with the visiting time of migrants must be encouraged [110]. Balancing conservation efforts with agricultural practices is crucial to ensuring the long-term sustainability of both shorebird populations and local livelihoods.

6. Conclusions

Declining environmental quality and shortage of adequate prey in the natural habitats combined with other anthropogenic pressures make it difficult for shorebirds to find adequate food and habitats along the west and east coasts of India. Hence, shorebirds appear to exhibit an adaptive behavior by switching their foraging grounds to less desirable habitats or to artificial habitats, such as agroecosystems (Figure 6). Agricultural activities like fallowing, flooding, and ploughing have supported the abundance and accessibility of prey for shorebirds, with the plentiful resources drawing them in increased numbers. Our findings indicate that while several shorebird locations are documented, only a handful have been studied in depth. Though limited, these studies indicate that agroecosystems, particularly paddy fields, may be of high value to wintering shorebirds across the Indian subcontinent. Systematic intensive studies on the distribution, population dynamics, habitat preferences, prey availability, food range, and nutritional resources that sustain shorebirds in these alternative habitats are of paramount importance.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/d16010023/s1, Figure S1: Nighttime light data between 2013 and 2020 in Indian perspectives, showing that consumption of light has been increasing year after year. The unit of the DNB radiance value is nanoWatts/sr/cm2; Table S1: Classification of shorebirds according to habitat specialization and foraging guild [18,111].

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, methodology, and formal analysis, K.M.A.; software, O.R.R., S.B.M., A.N. and K.M.A.; investigation, K.M.R., S.M., D.R.G. and N.R.; resources, K.M.R., O.I., T.M.V.M., M.N. and S.M.R.; data curation, H.B., C.T.S., T.R.A., K.J., J.S., A.S., S.K., A.K., J.A., N.S. and K.K.J.; writing—original draft preparation, H.B.; writing—review and editing, K.A.R. and K.M.A.; supervision, K.M.A. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Data available on request due to restrictions eg privacy or ethical. The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author. The data are not publicly available due to privacy.

Acknowledgments

We are grateful for all the field staff from NGOs and the forest department who accompanied us during several visits to the field on both the east and west coasts, especially Tamil Nadu and Kerala.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Delany, S.; Scott, D.; Dodman, T.; Stroud, D. An atlas of wader populations in Africa and Western Eurasia. Br. Birds 2009, 102, 639–642. [Google Scholar]
  2. Aarif, K.M.; Muzaffar, S.B.; Babu, S.; Prasadan, P.K. Shorebird assemblages respond to anthropogenic stress by altering habitat use in a wetland in India. Biodivers. Conserv. 2014, 23, 727–740. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Aarif, K.M.; Nefla, A.; Nasser, M.; Prasadan, P.K.; Athira, T.R.; Muzaffar, S.B. Multiple environmental factors and prey depletion determine declines in abundance and timing of departure in migratory shorebirds in the west coast of India. Glob. Ecol. Conserv. 2021, 26, e01518. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Aarif, K.M.; Kaiser, S.A.; Nefla, A.; Almaroofi, S. Over-summering abundance, species composition, and habitat use patterns at a globally important site for migratory shorebirds. Wilson J. Ornithol. 2020, 132, 165–172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Balachandran, S.; Tuhina, K.; Ranjith, M. Indian Bird Migration Atlas; Bombay Natural History Society: Mumbai, India; Oxford University Press: New Delhi, India, 2018; pp. 1–216. [Google Scholar]
  6. Rashiba, A.P.; Jishnu, K.; Byju, H.; Shifa, C.T.; Anand, J.; Vichithra, K.; Xu, Y.; Nefla, A.; Muzaffar, S.B.; Aarif, K.M.; et al. The paradox of shorebird diversity and abundance in the west coast and east coast of India: A comparative analysis. Diversity 2022, 14, 885. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Myers, J.P.; Morrison, R.I.G.; Antas, P.Z.; Harrington, B.A.; Lovejoy, T.E.; Sallaberry, M.; Senner, S.E.; Tarak, A. Conservation strategy for migratory species. Am. Sci. 1987, 75, 19–26. [Google Scholar]
  8. Heng, N.N.; Niu, J.Y.; Zhang, B.; Wang, T.H. Habitat selection of shorebirds in the intertidal mudflat of Nanhui coasts. J. Fudan Univ. Nat. Sci. 2011, 50, 276–310. [Google Scholar]
  9. Koleček, J.; Reif, J.; Šálek, M.; Hanzelka, J.; Sottas, C.; Kubelka, V. Global population trends in shorebirds: Migratory behaviour makes species at risk. Sci. Nat. 2021, 108, 9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Fernández, G.; Lank, D. Effects of habitat loss on shorebirds during the non-breeding season: Current knowledge and suggestions for action. Ornitol. Neotrop. 2008, 19, 633–640. [Google Scholar]
  11. Gill, J.A.; Norris, K.; Potts, P.M.; Gunnarsson, T.G.; Atkinson, P.W.; Sutherland, W.J. The buffer effect and large-scale population regulation in migratory birds. Nature 2001, 412, 436–438. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. International Wader Study Group. Waders are declining worldwide: Conclusions from the 2003 Cadiz International Wader Study Group Conference, Cadiz. Wader Study Group Bull. 2003, 101, 8–12. [Google Scholar]
  13. Sandilyan, S.; Thiyagesan, K.; Nagarajan, R. Major decline in species-richness of waterbirds in the Pichavaram mangrove wetlands, southern India. Wader Study Group Bull. 2010, 117, 91–98. [Google Scholar]
  14. Morrison, R.I.G.; Aubry, Y.; Butler, R.W.; Beyersbergen, G.W.; Doanldson, G.M.; Gratto-Trevor, C.L.; Hicklin, P.W.; Johnston, V.H.; Ross, R.K. Declines in North American shorebird populations. Wader Study Group Bull. 2001, 94, 34–38. [Google Scholar]
  15. Athira, T.R.; Nefla, A.; Shifa, C.T.; Shamna, H.; Aarif, K.M.; AlMaarofi, S.S.; Rashiba, A.P.; Reshi, O.R.; Jobiraj, T.; Thejass, P.; et al. The impact of long-term environmental change on zooplankton along the southwestern coast of India. Environ. Monit. Assess. 2022, 194, 316. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Reid, A.J.; Carlson, A.K.; Creed, I.F.; Eliason, E.J.; Gell, P.A.; Johnson, P.T.; Kidd, K.A.; MacCormack, T.J.; Olden, J.D.; Ormerod, S.J.; et al. Emerging threats and persistent conservation challenges for freshwater biodiversity. Biol. Rev. 2019, 94, 849–873. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Rubeena, K.A.; Nefla, A.; Aarif, K.M.; AlMaarofi, S.S.; Gijjappu, D.R.; Reshi, O.R. Alterations in hydrological variables and substrate qualities and its impacts on a critical conservation reserve in the southwest coast of India. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2023, 186, 114463. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Aarif, K.M.; Prasadan, P.K.; Babu, S. Conservation significance of the Kadalundi-Vallikkunnu community reserve. Curr. Sci. 2011, 101, 717–718. [Google Scholar]
  19. Amano, T. Conserving bird species in Japanese farmland: Past achievements and future challenges. Biol. Conserv. 2009, 142, 1913–1921. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Rob, L. Rice Fields. In Farmland Birds Across the World; Van der Weijden, W., Terwan, P., Guldemond, A., Eds.; Lynx Editions: Barcelona, Spain, 2010; pp. 63–81. [Google Scholar]
  21. Van de Kam, J.; Ens, B.; Piersma, T.; Zwarts, L. Shorebirds: An Illustrated Behavioural Ecology; Brill: Leiden, The Netherlands, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  22. Evans-Ogden, L.J.; Bittman, S.; Lank, D.B. A review of agricultural land use by shorebirds with special reference to habitat conservation in the Fraser River Delta, British Columbia. Can. J. Plant Sci. 2008, 88, 71–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Skagen, S.K. Migration stopovers and the conservation of arctic-breeding calidridine sandpipers. Auk 2006, 123, 313–322. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Vahl, W.K.; Van der Meer, J.; Weissing, F.J.; Van Dullemen, D.; Piersma, T. The mechanisms of interference competition: Two experiments on foraging waders. Behav. Ecol. 2005, 16, 845–855. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Lawler, S.P. Rice fields as temporary wetlands: A review. Isr. J. Zool. 2001, 47, 513–528. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Czech, H.A.; Parsons, K.C. Agricultural wetlands and waterbirds: A review. Waterbirds 2002, 25, 56–65. [Google Scholar]
  27. Duckworth, J.W. The Oriental Skylark Alauda gulgula in Laos: An overlooked and threatened farmland bird. Rev. D'ecologie Terre Vie 2007, 62, 59–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Fujioka, M.; Lee, S.D.; Kurechi, M.; Yoshida, H. Bird use of rice fields in Korea and Japan. Waterbirds 2010, 33, 8–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Sundar, K.G.; Subramanya, S. Bird use of rice fields in the Indian subcontinent. Waterbirds 2010, 33, 44–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Ramsar, P. The Ramsar Convention Manual: A guide to the Convention on Wetlands (Ramsar, Iran, 1971); Ramsar Convention Secretariat: Gland, Switzerland, 2013; Available online: https://aquadocs.org/handle/1834/330 (accessed on 17 September 2023).
  31. Acosta, M.; Mugica, L.; Blanco, D.; López-Lanús, B.; Dias, R.A.; Doodnath, L.W.; Hurtado, J. Birds of rice fields in the Americas. Waterbirds 2010, 33, 105–122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Visuthismajarn, P.; Vitayavirasuk, B.; Leeraphante, N.; Kietpawpan, M. Ecological risk assessment of abandoned shrimp ponds in Southern Thailand. Environ. Monit. Assess. 2005, 104, 409–418. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Nagarajan, R.; Thiyagesan, K. The effect of coastal shrimp farming on birds in Indian mangrove forests and tidal flats. Acta Zool. Sin. 2006, 52, 541–548. [Google Scholar]
  34. Newton, A.; Icely, J.; Cristina, S.; Perillo, G.M.; Turner, R.E.; Ashan, D.; Simon, C.; Yongming, L.; Chen, T.; Yuan, L.; et al. Anthropogenic, direct pressures on coastal wetlands. Front. Ecol. Evol. 2020, 8, 144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Blount, J.D.; Horns, J.J.; Kittelberger, K.D.; Neate-Clegg, M.H.; Şekercioğlu, Ç.H. Avian use of agricultural areas as migration stopover sites: A review of crop management practices and ecological correlates. Front. Ecol. Evol. 2021, 9, 650641. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Jamal, M.R.; Kristiansen, P.; Kabir, M.J.; Lobry de Bruyn, L. Challenges and Adaptations for Resilient Rice Production under Changing Environments in Bangladesh. Land 2023, 12, 1217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Choi, S.H.; Choi, G.; Nam, H.K. Impact of rice paddy agriculture on habitat usage of migratory shorebirds at the rice paddy scale in Korea. Sci. Rep. 2022, 12, 5762. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. Longoni, V. Rice fields and waterbirds in the Mediterranean region and the Middle East. Waterbirds 2010, 33, 83–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Wood, C.; Qiao, Y.; Li, P.; Ding, P.; Lu, B.; Xi, Y. Implications of rice agriculture for wild birds in China. Waterbirds 2010, 33, 30–43. [Google Scholar]
  40. Wymenga, E.; Zwarts, L. Use of rice fields by birds in West Africa. Waterbirds 2010, 33, 97–104. [Google Scholar]
  41. Gray, M.J.; Hagy, H.M.; Nyman, J.A.; Stafford, J.D. Management of wetlands for wildlife. In Wetland Techniques: Volume 3: Applications and Management; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2013; pp. 121–180. [Google Scholar]
  42. Murray, C.G.; Hamilton, A.J. Perspectives on wastewater treatment wetlands and waterbird conservation. J. Appl. Ecol. 2010, 47, 976–985. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Yasué, M.; Dearden, P. The importance of supratidal habitats for wintering shorebirds and the potential impacts of shrimp aquaculture. Environ. Manag. 2009, 43, 1108–1121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Masero, J.A.; Pérez-Hurtado, A. Importance of the supratidal habitats for maintaining overwintering shorebird populations: How redshanks use tidal mudflats and adjacent saltworks in southern Europe. Condor 2001, 103, 21–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Sebastián-González, E.; Green, A.J. Habitat use by waterbirds in relation to pond size, water depth, and isolation: Lessons from a restoration in southern Spain. Restor. Ecol. 2014, 22, 311–318. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Toral, G.M.; Figuerola, J. Unraveling the importance of rice fields for waterbird populations in Europe. Biodivers. Conserv. 2010, 19, 3459–3469. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Elphick, C.S. Functional equivalency between rice fields and seminatural wetland habitats. Conserv. Biol. 2000, 14, 181–191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Masero, J.A. Assessing alternative anthropogenic habitats for conserving waterbirds: Salinas as buffer areas against the impact of natural habitat loss for shorebirds. Biodivers. Conserv. 2003, 12, 1157–1173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Sánchez-Guzmán, J.M.; Morán, R.; Masero, J.A.; Corbacho, C.; Costillo, E.; Villegas, A.; Santiago-Quesada, F. Identifying new buffer areas for conserving waterbirds in the Mediterranean basin: The importance of the rice fields in Extremadura, Spain. Biodivers. Conserv. 2007, 16, 3333–3344. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Fasola, M.; Ruiz, X. Rice farming and water birds: Integrated management in an artificial landscape. In Farming and Birds in Europe; Pain, D., Pienkowski, M.W., Eds.; Academic Press: London, UK, 1997; pp. 210–235. [Google Scholar]
  51. Jackson, S.F.; Austin, G.E.; Armitage, M.J. Surveying waterbirds away from major waterbodies: Implications for waterbird population estimates in Great Britain. Bird Study 2006, 53, 105–111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Templier, M.; Pare, G. Transparency in literature reviews: An assessment of reporting practices across review types and genres in top IS journals. Eur. J. Inf. Syst. 2018, 27, 503–550. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Stat Soft Inc. Electronic Statistics Textbook; Stat Soft Inc.: Tulsa, OK, USA, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  54. Taft, O.W.; Haig, S.M. Importance of wetland landscape structure to shorebirds wintering in an agricultural valley. Landsc. Ecol. 2006, 21, 169–184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Cunningham, J.A.; Kesler, D.C.; Lanctot, R.B. Habitat and social factors influence nest-site selection in Arctic-breeding shorebirds. Auk Ornithol. Adv. 2016, 133, 364–377. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Saalfeld, D.T.; Matz, A.C.; McCaffery, B.J.; Johnson, O.W.; Bruner, P.; Lanctot, R.B. Inorganic and organic contaminants in Alaskan shorebird eggs. Environ. Monit. Assess. 2016, 188, 276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Pandiyan, J.; Asokan, S. Habitat use pattern of tidal mud and sand flats by shorebirds (charadriiformes) wintering in southern India. J. Coast. Conserv. 2016, 20, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Rao, G.B.; Babu, S.; Quadros, G. Spatial and temporal patterns of shorebird assemblages in select estuaries along the India’s west coast. Ornithol. Sci. 2022, 21, 199–213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Payra, A. Avifauna of adjoining coastal areas of Purba Medinipur district, southern West Bengal, India: Additional records and updated list. Cuad. Biodivers. 2020, 59, 1–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Balachandran, S.; Selvam, S.P.; Sudarasan, P. Bird Atlas of Chilika; Bombay Natural History Society: Mumbai, India; Chilika Development Authority: Bhubaneswar, India, 2009; 325p. [Google Scholar]
  61. Hussain, S.A.; Mohapatra, K.K.; Ali, S. Avifauna Profile of Chilika Lake: A Case of Conservation; Technical Report 4; Bombay Natural History Society: Bombay, India, 1984. [Google Scholar]
  62. Balachandran, S. Shorebirds of the Gulf of Mannar Marine National Park, Tamil Nadu. J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc. 1995, 92, 303–313. [Google Scholar]
  63. Balachandran, S. Bird Migration Studies in India (1980–1992); Final Report, Phase I & II; Bombay Natural History Society: Mumbai, India, 1998; Volume 142. [Google Scholar]
  64. Byju, H.; Raveendran, N.; Ravichandran, S.; Kishore, R. An annotated checklist of the avifauna of Karangadu mangrove forest, Ramanathapuram, Tamil Nadu, with notes on the site’s importance for waterbird conservation. J. Threat. Taxa 2023, 15, 22813–22822. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Sampath, K.; Krishnamurthy, K. Shorebirds (Charadriiformes) of the Pichavaram mangroves, Tamil Nadu, India. Wader Study Group Bull. 1990, 58, 24–27. [Google Scholar]
  66. Jagadheesan, R.; Pandiyan, J. Seasonal Variations of Small Wading Birds in the Pichavaram Mangrove Forest, India. Curr. World Environ. 2021, 16, 399. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Kannan, V.; Pandiyan, J. Shorebirds (Charadriidae) of Pulicat Lake, India with special reference to conservation. World J. Zool. 2012, 7, 178–191. [Google Scholar]
  68. Anand, J.; Byju, H.; Nefla, A.; Abhijith, S.; Reshi, O.R.; Aarif, K.M. Conservation significance of Changaram wetlands-a key wintering site for migratory shorebirds and other waterbirds in the western coast of Kerala, India. J. Threat. Taxa 2023, 15, 22410–22418. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Urfi, A.J. Waders and other wetland birds on Byet Dwarka Island, Gulf of Kutch, western India. Bull. Wader Study Group 2002, 99, 31–34. [Google Scholar]
  70. Chaudhari-Pachpande, S.; Pejaver, M.K. A preliminary study on the birds of Thane Creek, Maharashtra, India. J. Threat. Taxa 2016, 8, 8797–8803. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Abdulali, H. The birds of Goa. J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc. 1980, 76, 507–510. [Google Scholar]
  72. Baidya, P.; Bhagat, M. A checklist of the birds of Goa, India. Indian Birds 2018, 14, 1–31. [Google Scholar]
  73. Balachandran, S. Avian Diversity in Coastal Wetlands of India and Their Conservation Needs; Uttar Pradesh State Biodiversity Board: Lucknow, India, 2012; pp. 155–163. [Google Scholar]
  74. Aarif, K.M.; Musammilu, K.K. Pivotal reasons for the decline of the shorebirds in Kadalundi-Vallikkunnu Community Reserve, a key stop-over site in the west coast of India. Asian J. Conserv. Biol. 2018, 7, 46–50. [Google Scholar]
  75. Byju, H.; Raveendran, N.; Ravichandran, S. Distribution of avifauna on twenty-one islands of the Gulf of Mannar Biosphere Reserve, India. J. Threat. Taxa 2023, 15, 22574–22585. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Jenni-Eiermann, S.; Jenni, L.; Kvist, A.; Lindstrom, A.; Piersma, T.; Visser, G.H. Fuel use and metabolic response to endurance exercise: A wind tunnel study of a long-distance migrant shorebird. J. Exp. Biol. 2002, 205, 2453–2460. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  77. Jeelani, N.; Yang, W.; Xia, L.; Zhu, H.L.; An, S. Ecosystem threats and management strategies for wetlands in China. Mar. Freshw. Res. 2020, 71, 1557–1563. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Aarif, K.M. Some Aspects of Feeding Ecology of Lesser Sand Plover in Three Different Zones in the Kadalundi Estuary, Kerala and South India. Podoces 2009, 4, 100–107. [Google Scholar]
  79. Mousavi, S.H.; Kavianpour, M.R.; Alcaraz, J.L.G. The impacts of dumping sites on the marine environment: A system dynamics approach. Appl. Water Sci. 2023, 13, 109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Brown, A.C.; McLachlan, A. Sandy shore ecosystems and the threats facing them: Some predictions for the year 2025. Environ. Conserv. 2002, 29, 62–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Dugan, J.E.; Hubbard, D.M. Ecological responses to coastal armoring on exposed sandy beaches. Shore Beach 2006, 74, 10–16. [Google Scholar]
  82. Donnelly, J.P.; King, S.L.; Knetter, J.; Gammonley, J.H.; Dreitz, V.J.; Grisham, B.A.; Nowak, M.C.; Collins, D.P. Migration efficiency sustains connectivity across agroecological networks supporting sandhill crane migration. Ecosphere 2021, 12, e03543. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Hou, J.; Li, L.; Wang, Y.; Wang, W.; Zhan, H.; Dai, N.; Lu, P. Influences of submerged plant collapse on diet composition, breadth, and overlap among four crane species at Poyang Lake, China. Front. Zool. 2021, 18, 24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  84. Nagarajan, R.; Thiyagesan, K. Significance of Adjacent Croplands in Attracting Waterbirds to the Pichavaram Mangrove Forests. In Birds in Agriculture Ecosystem; Society for Applied Ornithology: Hyderabad, India, 1998; pp. 172–181. [Google Scholar]
  85. Sandilyan, S. A preliminary assessment on the role of abandoned shrimp farms on supporting waterbirds in Pichavaram mangrove, Tamilnadu, Southern India. J. Coast. Conserv. 2017, 21, 255–263. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Manikannan, R.; Asokan, S.; Ali, A.M.S. Abundance and Factors Affecting Population Characteristics of Waders (Charadriiformes) in the Great Vedaranyam Swamp of Point Calimere Wildlife Sanctuary, South-east Coast of India. Int. J. Ecosyst. 2012, 2, 6–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Aarif, K.M.; Rubeena, K.A.; Nefla, A.; Musilova, Z.; Musil, P.; Shaju, S.S.; Joseph, J.; Nayeem, M.; Muzaffar, S.B. Heavy metals in wetlands of Southwestern India: From sediments through invertebrates to migratory shorebirds. Chemosphere 2023, 345, 140445. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Athira, T.R.; Aarif, K.M.; Thomas, J.A.; Alatawi, A.; Muzaffar, S.B.; Nefla, A.; Reshi, O.R.; Jobiraj, T.; Thejass, P. The threat of microplastics: Exploring pollution in coastal ecosystems and migratory shorebirds along the west coast of India. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2024, 198, 115912. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  89. Bobika, V.K.; Khemis, M.D.E.H.; Renila, R.; Manjusha, K.; Aarif, K.M. Does substrate quality influence diversity and habitat use of waterbirds? A case study from wetlands in Southern India. Ekológia 2021, 40, 70–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Nagarajan, R.; Thiyagesan, K. Waterbirds and Substrate Quality of the Pichavaram Wetlands, Southern India. IBIS 1996, 138, 710–721. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Aarif, K.M.; Basheer, M. The Water Birds of Mavoor Wetland, Kerala, South India. World J. Zool. 2012, 7, 98–101. [Google Scholar]
  92. Jayson, E.A. Ecology of Wetland Birds in the Kole Lands of Kerala; Kerala Forest Research Institute Research Report No. 244; Kerala Forest Research Institute: Peechi, India, 2002; 102p. [Google Scholar]
  93. Mohan, A.; Prasanna, C.K. Indigenous Pokkali Farming in Kerala: A Sustainable Social-Ecological Model. In Sustainable Agriculture and Food Security; Leal Filho, W., Kovaleva, M., Popkova, E., Eds.; World Sustainability Series; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Pernollet, C.A.; Guelmami, A.; Green, A.J.; Masip, A.C.; Dies, B.; Bogliani, G.; Tesio, F.; Brogi, A.; Clerc, M.G.; Guillemain, M. A comparison of wintering duck numbers among European rice production areas with contrasting flooding regimes. Biol. Conserv. 2015, 186, 214–224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Venkataraman, K. Biodiversity and its conservation. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. India Sect. B Biol. Sci. 2012, 82, 271–282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Nagarajan, V.M.; Yuvan, M.; Srinivasan, R.; Satagopan, N.R.; Asokan, A.; Anooja, A. Status of important coastal habitats of North Tamil Nadu: Diversity, current threats and approaches for conservation. Reg. Stud. Mar. Sci. 2022, 49, 102106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Colwell, M.A. Shorebird Ecology, Conservation, and Management; University of California Press: Los Angeles, CA, USA, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  98. Wood, K.A.; Stillman, R.A.; Goss-Custard, J.D. The effect of kleptoparasite and host numbers on the risk of food-stealing in an avian assemblage. J. Avian Biol. 2015, 46, 589–596. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Kahlert, J.; Clausen, P.; Hounisen, J.P.; Petersen, I.K. Response of breeding waders to agri-environmental schemes may be obscured by effects of existing hydrology and farming history. J. Ornithol. 2007, 148, 287–293. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Brouder, S.; Hill, J. Conjunctive use of farmland adds value: Winter flooding of ricelands provides waterfowl habitat. Calif. Agric. 1995, 49, 58–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Stafford, J.D.; Kaminski, R.M.; Reinecke, K.J. Avian foods, foraging and habitat conservation in world rice fields. Waterbirds 2010, 33, 133–150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Wood, K.A.; Hilton, G.M.; Newth, J.L.; Rees, E.C. Seasonal variation in energy gain explains patterns of resource use by avian herbivores in an agricultural landscape: Insights from a mechanistic model. Ecol. Model. 2019, 409, 108762. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Chan, S.F.; Severinghaus, L.L.; Lee, C.K. The effect of rice field fragmentation on wintering waterbirds at the landscape level. J. Ornithol. 2007, 148, 333–342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Elphick, C.S. Landscape effects on waterbird densities in California rice fields: Taxonomic differences, scale-dependence, and conservation implications. Waterbirds 2008, 31, 62–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Lourenco, P.M.; Piersma, T. Waterbird densities in South European rice fields as a function of rice management. IBIS 2009, 151, 196–199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Taylor, I.R.; Schultz, M.C. Waterbird use of rice fields in Australia. Waterbirds 2010, 33, 71–82. [Google Scholar]
  107. King, S.; Elphick, C.S.; Guadagnin, D.; Taft, O.; Amano, T. Effects of landscape features on waterbird use of rice fields. Waterbirds 2010, 33, 151–159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. Jourdan, C.; Fort, J.; Pinaud, D.; Delaporte, P.; Gernigon, J.; Lachaussée, N.; Lemesle, J.C.; Mussaud, C.P.; Pineau, P.; Robin, F.; et al. Nycthemeral movements of wintering shorebirds reveal important differences in habitat uses of feeding areas and roosts. Estuaries Coasts 2021, 44, 1454–1468. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Elphick, C.S.; Taft, O.; Lourenço, P.M. Management of rice fields for birds during the non-growing season. Waterbirds 2010, 33, 181–192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. Singh, A.K. Coastal agriculture and future challenges. In Development in Coastal Zones and Disaster Management; Palgrave Macmillan: Singapore, 2020; pp. 61–86. [Google Scholar]
  111. Lei, W.; Masero, J.; Dingle, C.; Yang, L.; Chai, Z.; Zhu, B.; Peng, H.-B.; Zhang, Z.-W.; Piersma, T. The value of coastal saltpans for migratory shorebirds: Conservation insights from a stable isotope approach based on feeding guild and body size. Anim. Conserv. 2021, 24, 1071–1083. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Diversity 16 00023 g001
Figure 1. Map showing case studies, intensive studies, and observations at various regions in the Indian Peninsula.
Figure 1. Map showing case studies, intensive studies, and observations at various regions in the Indian Peninsula.
Diversity 16 00023 g001
Diversity 16 00023 g002
Figure 2. Declining shorebird abundance on east and west coast comparative trends, a case study performed at Kadalundi Vallikkunnu Community Reserve mudflats and mangroves, Puthuvypu Sand beach, west coast of India, and Valinokkam, Gulf of Mannar, east coast of India.
Figure 2. Declining shorebird abundance on east and west coast comparative trends, a case study performed at Kadalundi Vallikkunnu Community Reserve mudflats and mangroves, Puthuvypu Sand beach, west coast of India, and Valinokkam, Gulf of Mannar, east coast of India.
Diversity 16 00023 g002
Diversity 16 00023 g003
Figure 3. Increasing trends of shorebird diversity (measured as a total number of species) in six agricultural lands at Sanketham Wetlands, Elamaram, Vazhakkad, Kooriyad, Manthalakkadavu, and Kodinhi, west coast of India.
Figure 3. Increasing trends of shorebird diversity (measured as a total number of species) in six agricultural lands at Sanketham Wetlands, Elamaram, Vazhakkad, Kooriyad, Manthalakkadavu, and Kodinhi, west coast of India.
Diversity 16 00023 g003
Diversity 16 00023 g004
Figure 4. Habitat use of shorebirds in various agricultural lands on east and west coast of India: (A) mixed flocks of Wood Sandpiper (Tringa glareola) and Common Sandpiper (Actitis hypoleucos) at Vazhakkad agricultural lands (Photo credit: Shifa), (B) Black-winged Stilt (Himantopus himantopus) at Manthalakkadavu (Photo credit: Shifa), (C) Ruff (Calidris pugnax) at Kooriyad (Photo credit: Jishnu), (D) Common Sandpiper at Point Calimere (Photo credit: Byju), (E) Whimbrel (Numenius phaeopus) at Gulf of Mannar (Photo credit: Gajanmohanraj), and (F) Yellow-wattled Lapwing (Vanellus malabaricus) at Gulf of Mannar (Photo credit: Raveendran).
Figure 4. Habitat use of shorebirds in various agricultural lands on east and west coast of India: (A) mixed flocks of Wood Sandpiper (Tringa glareola) and Common Sandpiper (Actitis hypoleucos) at Vazhakkad agricultural lands (Photo credit: Shifa), (B) Black-winged Stilt (Himantopus himantopus) at Manthalakkadavu (Photo credit: Shifa), (C) Ruff (Calidris pugnax) at Kooriyad (Photo credit: Jishnu), (D) Common Sandpiper at Point Calimere (Photo credit: Byju), (E) Whimbrel (Numenius phaeopus) at Gulf of Mannar (Photo credit: Gajanmohanraj), and (F) Yellow-wattled Lapwing (Vanellus malabaricus) at Gulf of Mannar (Photo credit: Raveendran).
Diversity 16 00023 g004
Diversity 16 00023 g005
Figure 5. (A) Mixed flock of Common Greenshank (Tringa nebularia), Spotted Redshank (T. erythropus), Wood Sandpiper (T. glareola), Marsh Sandpiper (T. stagnatilis), Green Sandpiper (T. ochropus), Common Sandpiper (Actitis hypoleucos), Black-tailed Godwit (Limosa limosa), Pied Avocet (Recurvirostra avosetta), Ruff (Calidris pugnax) at Patiala, Punjab (Photo credit: Jagdeep Singh); (B) breeding Black-winged Stilt (Himantopus himantopus) at Ludhiana (Photo credit: Jagdeep Singh); and (C) Marsh Sandpiper (T. stagnatilis) (Photo credit: Jagdeep Singh).
Figure 5. (A) Mixed flock of Common Greenshank (Tringa nebularia), Spotted Redshank (T. erythropus), Wood Sandpiper (T. glareola), Marsh Sandpiper (T. stagnatilis), Green Sandpiper (T. ochropus), Common Sandpiper (Actitis hypoleucos), Black-tailed Godwit (Limosa limosa), Pied Avocet (Recurvirostra avosetta), Ruff (Calidris pugnax) at Patiala, Punjab (Photo credit: Jagdeep Singh); (B) breeding Black-winged Stilt (Himantopus himantopus) at Ludhiana (Photo credit: Jagdeep Singh); and (C) Marsh Sandpiper (T. stagnatilis) (Photo credit: Jagdeep Singh).
Diversity 16 00023 g005
Diversity 16 00023 g006
Figure 6. Pictorial representation of gradual switching of shorebirds from natural habitats to agroecosystems.
Figure 6. Pictorial representation of gradual switching of shorebirds from natural habitats to agroecosystems.
Diversity 16 00023 g006
Table 2. List of shorebirds documented from other inland agroecosystems of India.
Table 2. List of shorebirds documented from other inland agroecosystems of India.
S.NoCommon NameScientific NameIUCN StatusMigration StatusUttar PradeshPunjabJammu and KashmirInland Areas of Tamil Nadu
1Greater Sand PloverCharadrius leschenaultiiLCWV---Yes
2Lesser Sand PloverCharadius mongolusLCWV---Yes
3Kentish PloverCharadrius alexandrinusLCWV/R---Yes
4Little Ringed PloverCharadrius dubiusLCWV/RYes--Yes
5Common Ringed PloverCharadrius hiaticulaLCWVYes--Yes
6Pacific Golden PloverPluvialis fulvaLCWV--YesYes
7Grey PloverPluvialis squatarolaLCWV---Yes
8Hanuman PloverCharadrius seebohmiNER---Yes
9Grey-headed LapwingVanellus cinereusLCRYes---
10Red-wattled LapwingVanellus indicusLCRYes--Yes
11Yellow-wattled LapwingVanellus malabaricusLCRYes--Yes
12Northern LapwingVanellus vanellusNTWVYes---
13River LapwingVanellus duvauceliiNTRYes---
14White-tailed LapwingVanellus leucurusLCRYes---
15Black-winged StiltHimantopus himantopusLCRYesYesYesYes
16Pied AvocetRecurvirostra avosettaLCWV-Yes--
17Common SandpiperActitis hypoleucosLCWVYesYes-Yes
18Wood SandpiperTringa glareolaLCWVYesYes-Yes
19Marsh SandpiperTringa stagnatilisLCWVYesYes Yes
20Green SandpiperTringa ochropusLCWVYesYes-Yes
21Curlew SandpiperCalidris ferrugineaNTWV---Yes
22Terek SandpiperXenus cinereusLCWV---Yes
23Little StintCalidris minutaLCWVYes--Yes
24Temminck’s StintCalidris temminckiiLCWVYes--Yes
25SanderlingCalidris albaLCWV---Yes
26Common RedshankTringa totanusLCWVYes--Yes
27Spotted RedshankTringa erythropusLCWVYesYes--
28Common GreenshankTringa nebulariaLCWVYesYes-Yes
29Common SnipeGallinago gallinagoLCWVYes--Yes
30Greater Painted SnipeRostratula benghalensisLCR--YesYes
31Pin-tailed SnipeGallinago stenuraLCWV---Yes
32Eurasian CurlewNumenius arquataNTWV---Yes
33Black-tailed GodwitLimosa limosaNTWVYesYes-Yes
34Bar-tailed GodwitLimosa lapponicaNTWV---Yes
35WhimbrelNumenius phaeopusLCWV---Yes
36Ruddy TurnstoneArenaria interpresLCWV---Yes
37RuffPhilomachus pugnaxLCWVYesYesYesYes
38Oriental PratincoleGlareola maldivarumLCR/WV---Yes
39Small PratincoleGlareola lacteaLCR---Yes
40Great Thick-kneeEsacus recurvirostrisNTRYes---
41Indian Stone CurlewBurhinus indicusLCR---Yes
42Indian CourserCursorius coromandelicusLCR---Yes
LC, least concern; NT, near threatened; WV, winter visitor; LM/R, locally migrant or resident; R, resident; NE, not evaluated.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Byju, H.; Rubeena, K.A.; Shifa, C.T.; Athira, T.R.; Jishnu, K.; Singh, J.; Sohil, A.; Kushwah, S.; Kumar, A.; Anand, J.; et al. Transitioning Wintering Shorebirds to Agroecosystem: A Thorough Evaluation of Habitat Selection and Conservation Concern. Diversity 2024, 16, 23. https://doi.org/10.3390/d16010023

AMA Style

Byju H, Rubeena KA, Shifa CT, Athira TR, Jishnu K, Singh J, Sohil A, Kushwah S, Kumar A, Anand J, et al. Transitioning Wintering Shorebirds to Agroecosystem: A Thorough Evaluation of Habitat Selection and Conservation Concern. Diversity. 2024; 16(1):23. https://doi.org/10.3390/d16010023

Chicago/Turabian Style

Byju, H., K. A. Rubeena, C. T. Shifa, T. R. Athira, K. Jishnu, Jagdeep Singh, Asha Sohil, Sonika Kushwah, Akhilesh Kumar, Jasmine Anand, and et al. 2024. "Transitioning Wintering Shorebirds to Agroecosystem: A Thorough Evaluation of Habitat Selection and Conservation Concern" Diversity 16, no. 1: 23. https://doi.org/10.3390/d16010023

APA Style

Byju, H., Rubeena, K. A., Shifa, C. T., Athira, T. R., Jishnu, K., Singh, J., Sohil, A., Kushwah, S., Kumar, A., Anand, J., Rajaneesh, K. M., Manokaran, S., Gijjappu, D. R., Reshi, O. R., Ilyas, O., Sharma, N., Junaina, K. K., Raveendran, N., Mumthaz, T. M. V., ... Aarif, K. M. (2024). Transitioning Wintering Shorebirds to Agroecosystem: A Thorough Evaluation of Habitat Selection and Conservation Concern. Diversity, 16(1), 23. https://doi.org/10.3390/d16010023

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop