CHAPTER 2

REVIEW OF LITERATURE
Review of Literature

Status and distribution of House Sparrow (passer domesticus)

• Summers-Smith J.D. (1979) studied the changes in House Sparrow population in

Britain. It was seen that the House Sparrow house sparrow is a colonial bird and
depends on its conspecifics to stimulate its breeding. It was thus limited to those urban
areas where there were both sufficient nesting opportunities and invertebrate food to
maintain threshold size of colony rather than just the odd pair.
• Dott H. E. M. and Brown A. W. (2000) carried out House Sparrow census in non-urban
plots in southern Britain. Survey showed that passer domesticus count has reduced by
10 times in central Edinburg over a recent 15 year period while other bird species have
not shown any significant change.
• Goyal M. and Uniyal V.P. (2005) carried out survey of House Sparrow (Passer
domesticus) in three different areas of Hardwar, Uttaranchal and they found that
agricultural areas had maximum count of birds and forested area the least. According to
the report decline has occured over the last decade. The reasons being lack of nesting
sites, unavailability of food, predatory pressure and environmental pollution.
• De Laet J. and Summers Smith J. D. (2007) reviewed the status of urban House sparrow
in North-western Europe. It was reviewed that the decline in the population of farmland
House sparrows began in second half of twentieth century, even though that was found
to stabilize later at a comparatively lower level. The causes for the decline were
reported to be intensified agricultural activities, and thus unavailability of food.
• Chamberlain D.E. et al., (2007) carried out studies on habitat use of the House Sparrow
(Passer domesticus) in urban landscapes. Multi- model inference was used to
investigate the habitat use of House Sparrows. After implementing the model
residential areas, allotments &farm buildings were the hotspots of House sparrow
density. On separate analysis of habitat use based on human population density, House
sparrow density showed a threefold increase, if private garden was present along.
• Bohner J. and Witt K. (2007) summed up the data on distribution, dynamics and
abundance of House Sparrow in Berlin. Data sources like Atlases & Grid net census
showed that the most preferred habitat were the built up areas. The House Sparrow
were present in about 88% of the city but were found very less in agricultural &
forested areas. The total count was found to be 1,35000 pairs in 2001 & 1,19000
 breeding pairs in 2006. The counts were done in breeding season .They concluded that
the change in number was normal fluctuation and not any significant decline.
• Rajashekar S. and Venkatesha M. G. (2008) carried out a survey to know the incidence
of passer domesticus in and around Bangalore city. They gave the abundance & status
of House sparrow in various habitat types. The sites were selected randomly on the
basis of vehicular traffic and density of human population. Counts for each site were
individually provided & comparison was made. Some urban areas had higher counts
and even some rural areas showed lesser counts
• Khera N. et al., (2010) carried out a study to assess the population of House sparrow in
Delhi,India. It was concluded that House sparrow population in urban areas has
declined to a significant level,while agricultural areas showed good population of the
bird. House Sparrow was found to be positively related with herb density & showed
negative relationship with common myna and Rock pigeon. The shanmnon weiner
index of forested area was found to be highest whereas the bird density and not the
species richness was found to be more in urban areas
• Dhanya R. and Azeez P. A. (2010) recorded House sparrow population of Arakku
Township. Total of 176 sparrows were recorded. Birds were more in cement -concrete
roofs, since they offer more protection than tiled or sheet type roofs. The abundance
was positively related to vegetation mainly shrubs and trees (ht <5m), probably for
roosting. The number of active nests was low inturn not a good indication for the
species survival.
• Murgui E. and Macias A. (2010) reviewed the population dynamics of House sparrow
in Spain from 1998 -2008. They concluded that House sparrow has shown an alarming
decline of about 70% in last 10 years in urban parks with about 2000 individuals in
1998 to about 500 individuals in 2008.During this period a significant decrease in
House sparrow number was also seen in urban landscape mostly in winter, They also
mentioned that the decrease in House sparrow population ,perhaps, indicates an overall
decline in the species number in Valencia. The decline is seen to coincide with the high
urbanization particularly increase in the building density & also in the decrease of
feeding places like wastelands etc.
• Shaw L.M. et al., (2011) tried to find out ,how certain aspects of urban environment
correlated with the presence of House sparrow colonies .They found that houses with
attached kitchen gardens were most preferred by the bird. Compared to this, In Rural
 areas the more open green space and fields were seen as best alternative to attached
gardens. They suggested taking necessary measures to improve the urban gardens &
resources they possess, to prevent the threshold number of breeding House sparrow
colonies.
• Balakrishnan P. et al., (2011) carried out a survey on status, habitat preferences &nest
site characteristics of the House sparrow in the Manjeri Municipality from Dec 2010 to
Feb 2011. About 349 individuals were recorded from the road-transect & 181 in the
market. The bird number & nest abundance was found to be positively correlated with
concrete roofs, hotels rice godowns and grocery shops.
• Chopra G., Kumar A. and Kumar P. (2012) conducted a population census of House
sparrow Passer domesticus (Linnaeus, 1758) in different habitats of district
kurukshetra, Haryana .Maximum abundancve was observed in rural areas followed by
houses /godowns and then agricultural areas.The average population density was found
to be 6.47±1.11, 0.91±0.23, 0.55±0.22 and 0.00±0.00individuals/Km2 in rural areas,
godowns ,agricultural land &fallow lands respectively.
• Balkhande J.V. and Kulkarni A.N. (2013) studied the impact of habitat types on
distribution of House sparrow. Maximum count was found in residential areas & least
in grasslands. It was concluded that habitat plays a crucial role in abundance of House
sparrow at any place
• Kurhade S. et al., (2013) carried out a survey to assess the habitat wise distribution of
House sparrow in Parner district of Ahmednahrgar, Maharashtra. They concluded that
the population of House sparrow was more or less evenly distributed in all the habitat
types of the study area and the count does not depend statistically upon the type of area
• Manjula M., Devi P. and Mohanraj R. (2013) investigated the spatial & temporal
distribution of House sparrow along a gradient of urbanization. It was found that the
urban centre has lost the nesting sites & habitat attributes both being necessary for
House sparrow survival. The results showed that there was a decline of about 14.5%
from 2010-2012 in the study area. The decline was more in urban areas then in
suburban followed by rural areas. The relation between the Habitat variables and the
abundance of bird was also estimated. In urban habitat two factors significantly
contributed to the count i.e. shrub cover (r=0.65,p=0.02) & built up cover with tilled &
thached roofs(r=0.81,p=0.01).
• Vashisth S. and Sethi N. (2013) tried to assess the average population & status of Passe
 domesticus in Agra, Uttar Pradesh, India. House sparrow were well documented near
human habitations having attached vegetation of shrubs, herbs etc. Monthly variations
were also documented with least observed in winter(Jan & Feb) 109.5 and maximum in
(Aug )219.33
• Sudhira H.S. and Gururaja K.V. (2013) speculated the distribution of House Sparrows
in Bangalore. It was concluded the increased urbanization with intensification in
agricultural practices and excessive hygienic conditions are probably responsible for
their decline.Sudhira started a google Maps project on sparrow in Bangalore which
compiled data from personal field observation and mailing list of birdwatchers. The
survey resulted sparrow presence in 40 odd locations where residents notioned that the
sparrows are completely extinct.
• Balaji S. et al., (2014)gave the status & studied the consequences of habitat
fragmentation &disturbance on house sparrow abundance in urban areas of
virudhunagar ,Tamil Nadu, India the results showed that House sparrow was more in
Rural areas compared to urban areas ,where most of the habitat is modified ,
developed,& altered besides the intensification of agricultural activities was also
known to be the reason of decline of this little crteature
• Narayan B. L.et al., (2015) tried to access the population of house sparrow in winter
along Ramakrishna road, Andhra Pradesh. A notable population of 189 sparrows was
documented there.
• Jeffrey L. et al., (2016) assessed the House sparrow abundance & density taking into
consideration five conditions in the urban/agricultural landscape of three different cities
including Barcelona (Spain) to which House sparrow is native & two other included
Los Angeles(United States), & Mexico city (Mexico) to which the bird is non-native or
was rather introduced. They took different Habitat aspects like vegetation cover, human
disturbance level &other parameters related to urban structure. The results showed
highest number in Mexico City & lowest in Los Angeles. In both of these cities
maximum density was documented at highly urbanized landscape, while in Barcelona
to which House sparrow is native density or abundance did not differ in different
conditions i.e. in native place vegetation cover seemed the most prominent predictor of
House sparrow density. They concluded that House sparrow as an exotic invasive was
not equally successful at all the places rather depended on habitat traits which differed
from the ones found to shape their number in their native distribution.
Factors affecting population of House sparrow
• Summer-Smith D. J. (1979) analyzed the changes in Passer domesticus population in
Britain .The population had already vanished by about 60% by this time. The main
causes for this decline as reported by summer were unavailability of food, due to
intensified agricultural activities. This decline was not taken serious till 1990 when in
large towns the decrease took place at an alarming rate, leading to complete extinction
at some places. Even though the main cause was reduction in food availability
supplemented by unavailability of nesting sites besides predatory pressure by Hawks &
cats.
• Churcher P.B. and Lawton J.H. (1987) analyzed the prey material bought by the cats in
Felmersham, Bedfordshire for one year. They estimated that about 297 birds were
preyed by the cats, during this period, among which House sparrow was the major
species to be preyed comprising of 16% of total content being preyed. On comparing
the population of House sparrow at the start of breeding season & after the survey
period, it was n to this predation by cats. Hence this predatory pressure was given to be
the major cause of decline of House sparrow there.
• Romanowski J. et al., (1991) during an analysis found that the concentration of heavy
metals like Zn,Cd,Pd was found to be much lower in the house & tree sparrows than the
concentrations, that would be considered sub lethal & could affect development &
survival chances of the nestlings.
• Weddle C.B. (2000) tried to find out the correlation between nestling body mass &
ectoparasite load in the House sparrow.Pellonyssusr eedi was found to be the most
common parasite as a haematophagous mite. The body mass of chick & parasitic load
were found to be negatively correlated,so it can be concluded that ectoparasite reduces
the efficiency of host offspring. However no correlation was found between mite
population & brood size.
• David G. H. et al., (2002) gathered data from genetic analysis, demographic analysis &
field observation & experimentation to expplain that the reduction & unavailability of
food especially in winter due to intensification of agricultural activities was the main
cause of extinction of rural house- sparrow abundance in England.
• British Trust for Ornithology (BTO) Report No 290 (2002) estimated the population of
House sparrow in Britain during breeding season and they documented 13 million
House sparrows in 1990s.the decline in their number were due to decrease in survival
 rates, probably due to decline in number of breeding attempts per year. Other potential
factors responsible were suggested to be predatory pressure by domestic cats &
sparrow hawks, loss of waste ground, air pollution, unavailability of nest sites etc.
• Robinson R.A., Crick H.Q.P. and Siriwardena G.M. (2002) investigated reasons of
decline of House sparrows and starlings in Great Britain. The causes for the decline
were given as decrease in first year servival rate, suplimented by decline in adults and
fledging survival besides poor breeding performance was responsible for decline in sub
urban regions. The other causes of decline were reported as unavailability of food in
autumn on farm land.
• Pennycott T.W. (2005) carried out a study on bacterial diseases and found that
salmonellosis was the most frequent bacterial disease in winter months. He studied 50
carcasses of house sparrow from 1998 to 2003 from which 30 out of 33 in Oct to Mar, 2
in 17 (apr to sep), had salmonilases.
• Vincent K.E. (2005) studied the breeding success and habitat utilization along an urban
rular gradient. The condition of nestling and survival was dependent on many
parameters such as aphidensity in the vicinity of nest, vegetable diet, a relative
proportion of vegetative cover and the no2 concentration in the atmosphere. It was
concluded that shortage of soft insect food for nestling was majorly responsible for this
demographic decline.
• Wilkinson N. (2006) carried a survey to analyze the factors affecting the distribution of
House sparrows in sub urban environment to know the factors that affect this
distribution among sub urban gardens of the surveyed areas. It was reported that house
sparrows preferred gardens with higher bush density; however insecticide usage and
house age hardly mattered. He suggested that plantation of short bushes in gardens may
benefit House sparrows as they have the insect food required by the developing chicks
• Balmori A. and Hallberg O. (2007) correlated sparrow number & electric field
strength from 2002-2006.The correlation was found to be negative with significant
decline (P=0.0037) in mean bird density during this time period. The regression log of
the field strength vs. mean bird density was found to be (P=0.0001) & (R = -0.87).
Hence supported the formulated hypothesis that the decline in sparrow number was
associated with the electromagnetic radiations.
• Everaert J. and Bauwens D. (2007) studied the effect of electromagnetic radiations
from base stations on the number of House sparrow and it was seen in fifty different
 locations located around six residential areas in Gent-Sint(Belgium).
• Shaw L.M. et al., (2008) surveyed the different causes responsible for the decline of
House sparrow and it was concluded that the areas with low socio economic status were
found to provide more nestling opportunities and food sources and the opposite was
found true for affluent areas or the areas with comparatively high socio economic status
• Aslan A. and Yavuz M. (2008) studied the effect of different abiotic factors like
humidity, rainfall, temperature, on clutch size, egg size, survival and productivity of
House sparrow.The result showed that total of 2016 eggs were laid in about 393
clutches. The variation in clutch size was about 1-11 with the most common no. being
5-6 eggs. The effect of different parameters on breeding were documented as:
TEMPERATURE(r=0.97,P<0.0001),RAINFALL(r=-0.84,P<0.001),HUMIDITY(P<0
.044, r=0.59.
• Dongre S. D. and Verma R. G. (2009) studied the effect of electromagnetic radiations
on Passer domesticus. It was concluded that the population of House sparrow are
declining due to increasing electromagnetic radiation coming out of enormous number
of mobile phone towers to Nagpur, Bhopal, Indore etc.
• Laet J. D., Summers-Smith D. and Mallord J. (2009) found that on a mean point 4-7
sparrows are seen in 10 minutes which indicates a good dense population of House
sparrow in Newcastle. On comparing the relative density, upper sectors of Paris to west
show a very low density, while as popular belt of the east of the town, a much higher
density. It indicated a negative correlation between social level and density of House
sparrow. Mean annual decrease of 5.4% was observed for Paris but this decrease
showed 2 different trends, a relatively stable in 18 out of 20", "arrondessements" and a
dramatic decline 2 "arrondessements".
• Ghosh S., Kim K.H. and Bhattacharya R. (2010) carried out a survey on population
assessment at Bandle, West Bengal, from (Sep 2008 to May 2009).Despite
unavailability of nestling sites, a dense population of Sparrow was found in buzzy areas
of railway station and market around. Thus it was reported that noise population and
unavailability were not the causes responsible for the decline there.
• MOEF (2010) financially aided a study for environment studies of Punjab University.
Which showed that the embryos of about 50 eggs got damaged when exposed to
electromagnetic radiation from towers for 5 to 30 minutes? The embryo had
developmental and coordination problems
• Bell C.P. et al., (2010) through a model, studied the incidence of Sparrow hawk related
to decline of House sparrow. They used an index that showed a negative effect of
sparrow hawk incidence on House sparrow population. The modelling carried out also
showed that the sparrow abundance and trends in rural and urban regions could be
explain by variation in Sparrow hawk incidence in these areas.
• Valerie A.O.B. et al., (2010) examined the nestling for Buggy Creek Virus
(Togaviridae) to study the pathology of nestlings affected by this virus .For the study
they collected some nestlings (6-12 days), that were ill or dead. These nestlings were
collected from 5 different sites. After pathological study the nestling had ataxia,
lethargy, and paresis. Histological examination showed that pathology was much
variable among various samples with most common being encephalitis.
• Kumar G. (2010) reported that electromagnetic radiation from mobile towers affect
the health and population of birds in Delhi like Rock dove, House sparrow, pigeons,
kestrel etc.these radiation were known to affect the locomotery ability, navigation,
breeding and these birds could not stay for long at lower parts of trees. They also
observed some nests and found that some eggs never hatched and dead bodies of birds
were found in vicinity of towers.
• Dandapat A., Banerjee D. and Chakravorty D. (2010) reviewed the issue of declining
House sparrow. It was concluded that House sparrow population has declined in
Andhra Pradesh by 80% and in other states like Kerala Rajasthan by 20%.The decline
in coastal areas was reported to be as sharp as 80%.They reported that the spread of
deadly diseases is an outcome of decline of creatures like House sparrow. The causes
for the decline were reported to be unleaded petrol, insecticides, electromagnetic
radiations, over sophastication etc.
• Dhananjayan V., Murlidharan S. and Ranapratap S. (2011) carried out a study from
2001-2006 to know the contamination quantity of arganochlorine pesticides (OCPS) in
House sparrow tissues and eggs in Tamil nadu, india.Following resukts were obtained:
Mean concentration opf hexachlorocyclohexine(HCH) was from 0.01 to 1.81 mewg/g
while as dichloro-diphenyltrichloroethane(DDT) in eggs was ranged from 0.02 to 1.29
mewg/g.
• Schroeder J. et al., (2012) conducted a study to know the effect of noise pollution on
passerines breeding.They found that the area which had noise from large generators,
the females their produced few young ones and also the young ones were poorly
 developing ones with lesser body mass. Females also provided lesser food to their to
young one in noisy areas compare to when same females bred somewhere else. It was
concluded that noise may be a cause of reduce reproductive output.
• Vilela S.M.O. et al., (2012) carried out a study on salmonella spp. and try to evaluate
the cytotoxicity and pathogenicity of Escherchia coli extracted from carpasses or ill
sparrows.The sample of 208 sparrow was taken.They confirmed the presence of
microbe in 13.2% of the total sample. While the salmonella was actually isolated from
only 1 sample and the spp. identified was entericus.
• Pipoly I. et al., (2013) examined the effect of extreme weather conditions on breeding
success and other reproductive aspects in House sparrow for a period of over 6 years in
Europe. They found that the hatching success improves considerably with increased
temperature that is during hot days (temp more than 31 C) & decreases with the number
of very cold days. Thus it was concluded that that meteorological conditions affect the
breeding success to a great extent.
• Bhattacharya 2013 reviewed the effect of towers on birds. They discussed the impact of
electromagnetic radiations on different birds besides the effect of these radiations on
House sparrow in various locations of India was also highlighted.
• Balaji 2014 studied the effect of habitat fragmentation and alteration on House sparrow
in different areas of Virudhunagar district, Tamil Nadu, India. It was concluded that
House sparrow density was found higher in rural areas compared to urban areas and the
reason for this decreased number was given as habitat fragmentation & alteration in
urban areas.
• Kamath (2014) tried to explain the reason of dramatic decline in House sparrow
through system Dynamics. They tried to represent it via Causal loop diagrams. It also
used the structural characteristics of House sparrow population, emphasizing on
breeding & feeding. They also studied the measures that can be implemented like the
use of bio-fertilizers.
• Liam (2016) explained the changes in House sparrow population in North America and
hypothesized the factors responsible for these worldwide changes in population of
House sparrow. Using Data of project Feeder Watch from 1994-2014,they analysed
declines in mean flock size of House sparrow from early 1990's.Comparatively larger
flocks were seen in Western North America, whereas, no correlation was seen between
Flock size &latitude. They also reported that the Flock size was seen to be larger in
count stations, where Accipiter Hawk (House sparrow predator) was seen, thus,
demonstrating changes in various behavioural attributes of House sparrow in response
to predation risk.