CHAPTER 4

Considerable information is available on the

feeding habits of kingfishers (White, 1936, Milstein, 1962,

Tjomlid, 1973, Douthwaite, 1971 a, 1976, &?tts and Fbtts 1977,

Greig-Smith 1978 a, 1979 b). However, studies on the fccd and

feeding habits of kingfishers in India are scanty (Mason and

Lefroy , 1912, Baker, 1927 as cited by Mukherjee, 1975). The fccd

preferences of the Whitebreasted Kingfisher have been reported by

Mukherjee (1975) through the analysis of the stomach contents.

Though the Whitebreasted K i r ~ f i s l ~ e r is probably the most 'comn

and wide spread bird in Kerala, no thorough investigation of the

fccd and foraging n~thods of this bird has been d e . This

chapter covers a study on the food and feeding habits of the

Whitbreasted Kingfisher Halcyvx~ sqyzllensis fusca in Kuttanad where

no such study was done before.

Materials and Methods

The feeding behaviour of adult birds was observed

with 7 x 50 prism binoculars: The study was conducted at

Perumthurutb and surrounding areas during the year 1990-1991.

, The food of adult birds was determined from the gut analysis of

the birds collected for studying the plumage, moult, gonad and

thyroid cycle and also by field observations. The birds shot in

the Kuttanad area were brought inmediately t~ the laboratory and

the gut was removed and weighed. The birds were examined soon

after the collection in the field. When this was not possible,

the birds were put in a deep freezer until they could be examined.

The digestive stage of the prey could be influenced to a certain

degree by an interval of time bctween collection and analysis.

The stomach contents were separated, sorted out and

preserved in lm formalin. Individual prey animals within the

stomach were removed and classified as far as possible. The

monthly occurrence of terrestraial as well as aquatic animals was

assessed using the fornula % 0 = (Nl/n) x leXZI, where 0' is the

percentage occurrence, 'Nl. is the number of terrestrial or aquatic

animals and 'n' is the total number of animals in the dict. To

determine the food of nestlings and fledgelings, three different

methods were used: 1) Young birds of different stages were

collected and their gut contents were separated and identified, 2)

prey animals in the nesting sites were collected by sweep netting

for a few days consecutively to ascertain the predominant insect

groups and 3) food fragmnts seen inside and outside the nest were

collected and identified. The data obtained were statistically

analysed .

The data on gut contents expressed as percentage of

body weight with respect to sex in different months are presented

in Table 11. The male and female birds c o n s d almost equal

amount of food as the gut samples of both showed similar

quantities of food. Females showed higher percentage of

consumption in the month of March, April and May, which is the egg

laying period.The higher percentage of consumption in females

from July to December (except September) based on stomach contents

may be because of the greater energy requirements during the

moulting period. Large quantities of food were eaten by males in

February, May, June and July which may be attrituted to the

availability of more food. Variations in percentage consumption,

if any, in different months may be due to the time of collection

of the birds in the field. Those birds which were collected early

in the morning and from the roosting trees had less food in their

stomachs or empty stomachs.

Monthly food spectrum of the Whitebreasted

Kingfisher is given in Table 12. The percentage occurrence of

terrestrial and aquatic animals ranged between 57.14 and 98.31 and

1.69 and 42.86 respectively. The percentage of aquatic animals

showed lower values in the s-r months of April to May.

The food of the Whitebreasted Kingfisher ranged from annelids to

reptiles (Table 13). The dominant item of food in the stomach

constituted insects (Fig. 4) Among the annelids, earthworm

belonging to genus Megascola f o d food of this bird. O f the

insects, hymenopterans, coleopterans and orthcpterans were found

in considerable numbers in the diet. (Fig.5) Members of

Coleoptera and Orthoptera were noted in the gut contents almst

throughout the year. The high frequency mmce of exoskeletal

parts of Coleoptera found in the gut of this bird in almst all

the months may be because they were digested c:omparatively slowly;

this does not suggest that they are the favoured food items. The

larvae and caterpillars of grasshoppers were also noticed in the

food contents of this kingfisher.

Among the vertebrates, fishes belonging to the

order Cyprinidae were present throughout the year in a low

percentage. The amphibians in the food spectrum were represented

by Raia limocImis, R. cyanoph.Lyctis and R. hexadactyla

Ht?miciactylus sp. was the only reptile recorded in the diet.

The economic importance of som of the food items

is shown in Table 14. It is evident that the Whitebreasted

Kingfisher acted as a natural enew of several agricultural pests

found in its habitat. This bird fed mainly on paddy and other

crop pests. Many of the paddy pests belonging to Gryllotalpidae,

Acrididae and Tetigonidae were present in the food items.

Likewise, coconut pests like O~yctes r l r i n m m mid RIu.?,c'0pI]017rs

fezluge111 us formed the food of thus bird. Pests of sugar cane

(Caraboidae) and cashew (Ariomila sp . ) were a l so recovered i n the

gut contents. Some of the useful animals such a s earthworms and

frogs were included i n the fccd spxtrun but t hk i r number was very

low when compared to other harmful organisams consumed by this

bird.

Table 11. Stomach contents expressed as percentage body weight with respect to sex and m n t h i n the Whitebreasted Kingfisher, Hal cyai w n e n s i s fisca

Month Male Female

January

February

March

April

May

June

July

August

September 2.35

October 2.59

November 3.57

December 2.67

Table 12. Food spectrum of the Whitebreasted Kingfisher, Halcyon sqvrnensis fusca

M o n t h s

J F M A M J J A S 0 N D

No.of birds

examined 8 8 10 8 10 9 10 10 9 10 10 10

Total no. of prey eaten . 15 21 15 61 59 10 19 21 18 14 26 21

Mean no .of prey eaten byabird 1.9 2.6 1 . 5 7 . 6 2 5.9 1 . 1 1 . 9 2.1 2.0 1.4 2.6 2.1

Empty stomachs 2 1 2 1 2 2 2 0 0 2 2 2

Aquatic animals 33.3 42.86 6.56 1.69 10 26.32 28.57 16.66 35.71 23.08 14.29

Land Animals (%) 66.7 57.14 80 93.44 98.31 90 73.68 71.43 83.34 64.29 76.92 85.71

Tablc 13. F d i t e m s recovered from the gut of Whitebreasted

K i d i s h e r , Halcyon s~rnensis fisca

Months F d i t e m J F M A M J J A S O N D T o t a l

Annelida class Oligochaeta order Opisthopora Fami1y:Megascolidae

Megascolex spp.

C l a s s Insecta order Odonata sub order Anisoptera f i ~ d u l i g ~ s t e r Spp. 1 3

Gomp11us spp. 2 1 L i h l l u l a Spp. Others 1 1 1

Sub order Zygoptera &gia Spp. 1

order Orthoptera family Gryllotal- pidae Geyllotal&e~ spp 1 1 2 3 2 1 4 3 1 8 26

Family Gryllidae Gx y l l u s spp. 1

Family Tetigonidae 1 1 1 1 1 2 7

Family Belostomidae 1 4 2 2 9

Order Lepidoptera Ncctuid larva 1 2 Spingidae larva 5 Cat te rp i l la r

Order Bla t te r ia Family Blatt idae

Feripl ma ta spp . Bl s t t-3 spi?.

Order Diptera Family Tebanidae Tebanid larva

Order Coleoptera Family Caraimidae 2 1 1 1 5 Family Dytiscidae 1 1 1 2 1 6

" Scarabicidae 1 2 1 4 anomila spp. 1 1 Heliocorpis 1 1 1 1 4

Others 5 6 3 3 2 19

Family Dynastidae o1yctes rhit1aXxvs 1 ~ l C i l o p i 1 0 ~ ~ r s spp.

Order Hmno~tera Family formicidae Me.gdc11illa spp. 2 Family Vespidae 1 38 4121

Order Isoptera Family termitidae

Class Crustacea Order Decapoda P z a tep11us.3 spp . 2

Class Myriapoda Family Scolopendri- dae, Otos t im l s SIT.

Class Pisces Family Cyprinidae

f i1tius spp. EklgZus sw.

Other cyprinids 2

Class Amphibia Order Anura Family Ranidae

fiA~i,u,a limiociiaris 1 2 2 1 2 2 2 3 1 16 R a ~ a c y a ~ o p h l ~ tis 1 1 2 Rana hexadactyla 1 1

Class Reptilia Order Squamata Family Jeckonidae IhnidL~cWl us sw. Total 15 22 15 61 59 10 19 21 18 14 26 21 301

Fig.4 Frequency occurrence of varloua animal foods In the stomach of the

Whltebreaated Kingfisher

Fig.6 Monthly variation in the major

insect groupa in the stomach of the

Whltebreaated Kingflaher

Table 14. List of economically important insects eaten by the White- breasted Kingfisher Halcyon sqvrnensis h a .

Name of the pest/family Description

1. Megascolexspp. useful ;

2. Anisoptera

3. Gryllus spp.

useful; predator of various pests

Harmful: Destroy clothes, paper and fruit

4. Gryllotalpa spp. paddy pest (root pest)

5. Acrididae Harmful paddy pest

6. Tetigonidae " paddy pest

7. Ncctuid larva

8. . Sphingidae larva

9. Catterpillar leaf pest

10. Periplanata americana

11. Tebanid larva

12. Garaboidae

household pest

blood sucking insect

pest of sugar cane

13. Scarabicidae (anomila spp.) pest of cashew

14. Oryctes rtwnoceros pest of coconut

15. Rhynchophonts ferrugenius

16. Megachilla spp. pest of roses (leaf cutter bee)

17. Vespidae useful predator

18. Tennitidae soil pest

19. Paratel phusa spp. Hannful - excavate burrows in fields

20. m a limocharis useful

21. Rana cyanophlyctis

22. pans hexadactyla

The stomachs of the birds examid in the present

study were almost invariably either full of undigested food or

containing only the traces of the last meal. The birds with

stomachs having intermediate stages of digestion were rare in mv

collection. This may be due to the rapid digestion in this bird.

The Whitebreasted Kingfisher fed in the open

grasslands, paddy fields, garden lands, compound of houses and

banks of ponds, rivers, streams, small canals and channels. Like

all H a l c y o n species, this Wngfisher foraged by a 'sit-and-wait'

strategv, choosing elevated perchs from which it psued prey on

the ground or in water. This bird used various perches for

foraging which included electric/telephone wires, branches of

trees, elevated poles fixed on the ground and top of buildings,

walls or fence. The frequent perch was electric/telephone wire

running across the open lands or paddy fields (Table 15)

Table 15. Frequency of foraging perches used by the Whitebreasted Kingfishers, H a l c y o n sqnnensis fffica

Perch Frequency Percentage

Electric/ telephone wire 51 49.04

Trees 41

Poles/fences/walls/others 12

Total 104

The t im spent by the birds on . a foraging perch

ranged from 1 to 90 minutes (Table 16) . The high frequency of

t i m e spent by the birds on a feeding perch was between 31-60

minuks (56.75%) while the lowest frequency of t i m e spent between

61-90 minutes (5.41%) . Table 17 shows the height of the feeding

perch selected by the Whitebreasted Kingfisher. The height of the

perch varied from 1 ti, l(d m. Most of the birds perzhed a t a

height between 4 and 7 m (47.12%) and very few birds used the

perch of 8-10 m height (14.42%). A perch below 3 m was also

selected by several birds (38.46%). The Whitebreasted Kingfisher

showed the habi t of changing the feeding perch a f t e r a few catches

o r even before any attempt of feeding w a s made.

Table 16. Time spent by the Whitebreasted Kingfisher, Halcyon wrneRsis fiscd i n d i f fe rent perches

h a t i o n (minutes) Frequency Percentage

Total 111

Table 17. Height of the feeding perches used by the Whiteb-ted

Kingfisher, Halcyon snlyrnensis fusca

Height Frequency Percentage

Total 104

The birds exhibited sudden alert movements such as

head turn, shiftsof stance etc. before diving to the ground or

water in pursuit of prey. Soon after catching the prey, the king-

fisher returned to the same perch or a nearby perch to handle the

victim. Small larvae, beetle and grasshoppers were not hocked,

tut were swallowed after making a few adjustments in the bill.

Large insects and other animals were battered against the perch or

ground, probably to imnobilise them. In the Whitebreasted

Kingfisher, hocking of the prey was always on the right side of

the bird. Each knocking was intersped with attempts of

swallowing like adjustments in the bill and mcular activity

leading to swallowing. The number of hits/ strikes was more in

the case of large animal- preys. The longest time noted for

swallowing the prey (calotes) by a bird was 12 minutes. Most of

the preys were swallowed upside down. When the prey was caught on

the ground, it was consumed idiately by the bird and then flew

to a nearby tree or perch. I have made some observations on the

development of handling the prey in two captive fledelings. The

battering behaviour was found to be innate, since it was exhibited

by both.the fledgelings. They were seen to be battering the prey

at a higher rate when fed with fishes of 1 to 1.5 inches long.

Mew of foraging

There are different methods of foraging exhibited

by the Whitebreasted Kingfisher. They are as follows:

1. Sallying and diving. The birds were found to dive to the ground

or water from a perch of 1 t'o 10 m height. When the bird spotted

a nonflying insect or motionless fish, it quickly descended from

the perch and tried to catch the prey in the bill. Then the prey

was carried to the perch, killed and swallowed by the bird. The

dives were often diagonal than vertical. From the field

observations, it was evident that the numbar of dives to the

ground was mre (76.32%) than that to the water (11.34%; Table 7).

The birds rarely cam back to the s m perch after a feeding dive.

Of the 398 dives, only in 12 cases the bird cam back to the same

perch and in 14 cases to same position. The percentage of success

in collecting the prey from the ground was 72.28 while it was

68.79 in the water (Table 18).

2. Grumd feeding. This is the second method of hunting the prey;

it formed 9.07% of a l l methods. The bird sat on the g m l d

constantly searching the area f o r food. When the prey was

located, the bird took the prey i n its b i l l s and swallowed with o r

without ki l l ing it. The percentage of success i n catching the

prey by s i t t i n g on the ground was 91.67, which was always higher

than tha t of other methods of foraging (Table 18). To mve about

on the ground, the birds were always found to f l y instead of

walking o r hopping.

3. A e r i a l feeding. The Whitebreasted Kingfisher captured insects

l i k e dragon f l i e s , winged termites and mtlls i n f l i g h t and

swallowed the prey a f t e r perching and never i n flight;. The

frequency of occurrence of such a method was 3.02% and the success

was 80X (Table 18) . This method was evidently r a r e ly used by this

bird.

4. Hovering over watftr. This method was extremely ra re i n

occurrence (0.25%; Table 18). a l l y on one occasion I saw a bird

f l y horizontally from a perch and hovered br ief ly over water

before diving, resembling the foraging method of Pied Kingfisher,

h y l e zudis over open water. .

Table 18. Frequency occurrence of different techniques of foraging i n the Whitebreasted Kingfisher, Halcyon swrnensis fused fo r a period of.98 hours.

Foraging No. of % No. of % Returned to method observation successful

attempts same same near perch position by

perch

Ground dive 303 76.32 219 72.28 9 8 202

Water dive 43 11.34 27 68.79 3 6 18

Aerial feeding 15 3.02 12 80.00

Ground feeding 36 9.07 33 91.67

Hovering over water 1 0.25 1 leW.@l

Total 398 292 12 14 220

Food of yamg. The food of young included animal matter mainly insects

(Table 19). The analysis of stomach contents of the nestl ings as

well as fcod f ragmnts collected from the vic in i ty of nests showed

tha t grasshoppers and Rana spp. formed the s tap le food items.

A s grasshoppers and Raja spp. were the predominant animals f m d i n

the breeding site, the parent birds collected and fed them to

t h e i r fledgelings. The parent birds preferred large sized animals

a s food to the young which appeared to help them to reduce the

number of v i s i t s to the nest .

Table 19. Food of young (nestling/fledgling).of the Whitebreasted Kingfisher, Halcyon sqvrnensis fusca

Nmbr in Number in the animals collected I t e m the stomach nest as food from the field by

content fragments netting

F'untius

Applochelus

Others

R z spp.

Calotes

Megaswlex

Damsel fly

Mosquito

Dragon fly

Dragon fly nymph

Grasshopper

Cricket

Gryllotalpa

Forficula

Coleoptera

Blatta

Noctuid larva

Belostoma

Dyctiscid larva

Spider

Catterpillar

Campanotes

Megachilla

Mantis

Moth

Crab

Observations on the young birds reared in captivity

showed that the nestlings could digest all the bones and hard

parts of insects till the developrent of flight feathers (about a

mnth old). When they became fully fledged, they began to

disgorge bones and other harder parts in the diet as in adults.

Discussion

The Whitebreasted Kingfisher is strictly a diurnal

bird. It is an early bird becoming active in the early light

before sunrise and retire with the advent of twilight in the

evening. Peaks of feeding activity occur in the morning,

afternoon and evening. This kingfisher uses a 'sit-and wait'

strategy for foraging in the open grasslands, paddy fields and

open waters. Similar foraging strategy has been reported in the

Pied Kingfisher, Ceryle zr~dis (Tjomlid, 1973; Douthwaite 1976),

Stripped Kingfisher, H.cklicuti(Greig-smith, 1978a) and Senegal

Kingfisher, H.senegalmsis (Greig-Smith, 1979). The advantage of

'sit-and wait' strategy in the kingfishers is to get a long period

of inactivity for searching food. In this method the foraging

bird is waiting for prey to becow visible unlike the active

searcher which mves about to locate the prey. Birds luve to

i l lvesL a lot of time and energy in capturing prey. A sit-and-wait

predator probably uses less energy in feeding than does an active

searcher, and its relative energy requirement may be lower.

The Whitebreasted Kingfisher was observed to use

different types of perches for foraging. The main attribute in

the selection of feeding site as well as perch is the availability

and abundance of focd. Miller (1937) and Greig-Smith (1979)

suggested Lhat the Halcuo~ spp. selected a perch in a point of

vantage from which they could watch their preys. Similar

selection of feeding perch in the Great Horned Owl was reported by

Marti (1974). In the Whitebreasted Kingfisher, the selection of

open-grasslands or paddy fields as a favourite feeding site and of

perches like electric wire or telephone wire emphasizes the reason

to provide the bird with a better view of the surroundings and a

larger attack radius.

The height of the perch is always varied in

different cases. The method of hunting depends on the type of

vegetation below. The selection of elevated perches for

spotting prey is determined by the type of prey available. The

Whitebreasted Kimisher rarely returned to the perch from which

the dive or sally was made. The reasons for this are: 1) greater

encumbrance to flight with a large struggling prey in the bill and

2) vertical flight back to the original perch after each dive is

tiresome. Change of perch after capture of prey was most w m n .

Greig-Smith (1979) related it with allowing the birds to maximise

the rate of capture by leaving the food patches when these became

critically unprofitable through depletion. Marti (1974) suggested

that the number and availability of prey were probably the chief

determinants of the duration of hunting.

The handling of prey is in typical kingfisher

fashion. Hitting the prey to one side of the perch is observed in

the Whitebreasted Kingfisher. The number of battering on the

perch is usually msre in case of larger animals than in smaller

ones. Similar behaviour was reported in the Pied Kingfisher

(Douthwaite, 1976) and Senegal Kingfisher (Greig-Smith, 1979).

Of the four types of foraging methods observed in

the Whitebreasted Kingfisher, sallying and diving was the most

comn. Other types of foraging methods were rarer. This

kingfisher forages by perching motionless on an elevated branch

until the prey is sighted. Then the bird sallies to capture it on

or near the ground and returns to a tree or perch to imbilise it

by hamring on the branch. From the perches birds mve rapidly

and directly towards the prey. Similar methods of foraging have

been reported in various species of kingfishers (Milstein, 1962;

Salyer and Lagler, 1946; Tjomlid, 1973; Douthwaite, 1976; Betts

and Betts, 1977, Greig-smith, 1978a, 1978b. 1979). The method of

foraging on the ground appeared highly profitable (91.67%) as

there were limited chances of missing the prey. Such a method of

foraging has not been reported by any workers in other species of

kingfishers. Hence, i n the Whitebreasted Kingfisher t h i s mthod

might have evolved recently.

Optimal foraging theory predicts e i the r a posi t ive

relationship between the use n$de of vantage points and the rate

a t which prey a re captured from them, o r a preference fo r the m s t

prof i t ab le over the others. These predictions might be d i f ied

i f the costs of foraging varied between v a n w e points, o r if the

birds continually mnitored the prof i tab i l i ty of al l vantage

points (Royama, 1970; Krebs e t al., 1977). In the present study,

there is no posit ive evidence f o r optimal foraging i n the sense of

maximising the r a t e of food intake. However, several features of

the ecology of the Whitebreasted Kingfisher suggest t h a t the

m i m i s a t i o n of food intake may not be as high a p r io r i ty as fo r

act ive searchers of temperate regions considered i n other studies.

A sit-and-wait predator probably u t i l i z e s less energy i n feeding

compared to an ac t ive searcher, and its re la t ive energy

requirements may be lower. Secondly, l o s s of heat appears to be

less i n a t ropica l environment i n comparison to a temperate

climate. Thirdly, the r i s k of f a i l u r e to find food within

c r i t i c a l interval might less serious consequences f o r

survival i n the t ropics .

The food spectrum obtained i n the present study

i n d k a t e s that arthropods form the main d i e t of the Whitebreasted

Kingfisher. limong (.he arthropods, insects apwar to be mst

favoured food of this bird. Tlm g~,sznc-.a of c~leo&ran parts in X the gut does not mean that they were the mjdt frequent food i t e 1 8 .

as ttmy were digested very slowly in the gut due to the hard

exoskeleton (Tmr and Saini, 1966). The grasshoppers and frogs

were predominant groups in the gut content because they were the

type of prey readily available in all seasons among grasses due to

the wet condition of the soil throughout the year in Kuttanad.

The study of gut content did not show rmch

variation in the weight of stomach content expressed as percentage

body weight in both males and females. Higher values recorded

during the egg laying period in female bird m y be for the purpose

of meating the ir~ureased protein demand during egg laying.

Similar observations were made in water fowl by Krapu (1974 a) and

Kaul et al. (1980). The increased percenta* of fccd consumption

in birds during mlting period is perhaps an adaptation to

increased physiological needs. Changing nutritional requirerents

and adaptive feeding behaviour were reported by Pandit 1982 .

The present study reveals that the Whitebreasted

Kingfisher has mch potentiality f or controlling various insect

pests especially serious crop pests. This kingfisher may be

considered as a useful bird for the control of pests and other

harmful insects, and thus it plays a very important role in the

economy of nature.

The number of prey ani,,ds recovered from the

stomacls of the Whitebreasted Kingfisher appeared to be very low

as shown in the data. This can be attributed to the rapid

digestion of food items in the stolMch of this bird. Similar

condition has been reported in other species of kingfishers

(White, 1939; Salyer and Lagler, 1946). The kingfisher is also

feeding on useful aninrals, but their number is comparatively low

in the gut contents.