Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | 26
November 2019 | 11(14): 14816–14826
Butterfly
diversity throughout Midnapore urban area in West Bengal, India
Surjyo Jyoti Biswas 1, Debarun Patra 2, Soumyajit Roy 3,
Santosh Kumar Giri 4, Suman Paul 5 & Asif Hossain 6
1,4,6
Department of Zoology, Sidho-Kanho-Birsha University
(SKBU), Ranchi Road, Purulia, West Bengal 723104, India.
2,3
Centre for Biomedical Engineering, IIT Ropar, Rupnagar, Punjab 140001, India.
5 Department
of Geography, Sidho-Kanho-Birsha University, Ranchi
Road, Purulia, West Bengal 723104, India.
1 surjyo@rediffmail.com,
2 patradebarun@gmail.com, 3 s20roy1994@gmail.com, 4 girisantoshkumar7@gmail.com,
5 suman.krish.2007@gmail.com,
6 asifhossain.bu@gmail.com (corresponding author)
doi: https://doi.org/10.11609/jott.4587.11.14.14816-14826
Editor: Jatishwor Singh Irungbam, Biology
Centre CAS, Branišovská, Czech Republic. Date
of publication: 26 November 2019 (online & print)
Manuscript details: #4587 | Received 25 September 2018 | Final received 16
October 2019 | Finally accepted 28 October 2019
Citation: Biswas, S.J., D. Patra, S. Roy, S.K. Giri, S. Paul & A. Hossain (2019). Butterfly
diversity throughout Midnapore urban area in West Bengal, India. Journal of Threatened Taxa 11(14): 14816–14826. https://doi.org/10.11609/jott.4587.11.14.14816-14826
Copyright: © Biswas et al.
2019. Creative Commons Attribution 4.0
International License. JoTT allows unrestricted use, reproduction, and
distribution of this article in any medium by adequate credit to the author(s)
and the source of publication.
Funding: None.
Competing interests: The authors
declare no competing interests.
Author
details: Surjyo Jyoti
Biswas is currently working in
Department of Zoology as Professor, SKBU and works in the area of ethnobotany, Debarun Patra and Soumyajit Roy are PhD fellow and works at IIT Ropar, Santosh Kumar Giri
currently works as Assistant Teacher, Govt of West Bengal, Suman Paul is a Professor in Department
of Geography at SKBU and works in the area of urban Geography, Asif Hossain is working as Assistant
Professor in Zoology, SKBU and works in the field of Bioremediation and
Biodiversity.
Author
contributions: DP, SR, SKG collected the field
data, SP prepared the map of study area, SJB and AH participated in planning
and guiding the study, evaluation of results and performed statistical analysis. All authors participated in preparing the
final version of the manuscript.
Acknowledgements:
SJB and AH thankfully acknowledge
Head, Department of Zoology, SKB university for providing necessary facilities
and DBT-BOOST, Government of West Bengal for infrastructural support.
Abstract: Butterflies have always attracted attention due to
their unique colourations. As most
butterflies are highly specific in their niche utilisation, abundance of the
species in a locality may advocate status of ecosystem functioning and
environmental health. In recent times,
different anthropogenic activities and unscientific management of nature have
resulted in a decline of butterfly communities at a rapid rate. The objective of the present study is to
study butterfly diversity in and around Midnapore Town, West Bengal,
India. A total of 82 butterfly species
belonging to six families were recorded during the two years of the study
period. Of the six families Nymphalidae is the most abundant family comprising 42.54%
of the total population followed by Lycaenidae
(22.5%), Pieridae (19.03%), Papilionidae
(8.58%), Hesperiidae (7.24%), and Riodinidae
(0.11%). Different diversity indices,
Lorenz curve, Whittaker plot, and Gini index show high diversity in the
butterfly community structure. As
Midnapore Town is the connecting area between the plains of Bengal and Chota Nagpur Plateau, the present study may be the baseline
for further ecological, environmental, and conservation studies.
Keywords: Chota
Nagpur Plateau, diversity indices, Lepidoptera, Lorenz curve, Nymphalidae, plains of Bengal.
INTRODUCTION
Butterflies play a pivotal roles for stability in food
webs as: herbivores (Rusman et al. 2016), pollinators
(Atmowidi et al. 2007; Mukherjee et al. 2015), host
of parasitoids (van Nouhuys
& Hanski 2002), and prey of predators (Hammond
& Miller 1998; Rusman et al. 2016). Numerous butterfly species act as biological
indicators of environmental health and ecological changes (Hill 1999; Kocher
& Williams 2000; Koh & Sodhi 2004; Thomas
2005; Posha & Sodhi
2006; Koh 2007) as they can be very sensitive to habitat fragmentation and
climate change (Kunte 2000). Butterflies contribute to a large extent in
maintaining the community structure of flora in the tropical regions (Bonebrake et al. 2010; Samanta et
al. 2017).
Empirical studies show that the Indian subcontinent
hosts about 1,318 species of butterflies (Varshney & Smetacek
2015). Over the last few decades,
however, various anthropogenic activities and sudden climatic change conditions
have led to modification of the habitat structure and function which in turn
negatively influenced butterfly diversity (Clark et al. 2007; Di Mauro et al.
2007). Therefore, the diversity studies
of butterflies are critical to determine the effects of urbanization on
butterfly communities and other aspects of biodiversity conservation (Blair
1999; Singh & Pandey 2004; Clark et al. 2007; Di Mauro et al. 2007; Saikia et al. 2009; Mukherjee et al. 2015). Butterfly diversity indirectly also reflects
the diversity of various plant communities (Murugesan et al. 2013; Mukherjee et
al. 2016). Pollard (1988) reported that
biotic and abiotic factors also influence butterfly populations, indicating the
bio-indication potential of the group.
There are numerous reports by various investigators on butterfly
diversity from different parts of India (Bhaskaran
& Eswaran 2005; Eswaran & Pramod 2005; Tiple
& Khurad 2009; Nimbalkar
et al. 2011; Tiple 2011; Kunte
et al. 2012; Majumder et al. 2012; Tiple 2012; Harsh
2014).
Midnapore is
the headquarters of the district West Midnapore of the state of West Bengal in
India. It is in the junction of the
plains of Bengal and Chota Nagpur Plateau. The plains of Bengal are enriched mostly with
agricultural fields where as the Chota Nagpur Plateau
is mostly tropical deciduous forestland.
Since no systematic study of diversity of butterfly fauna was ever
conducted in and around Midnapore Municipality area there is no documentation,
the present investigation was carried out to explore the status of butterfly
fauna in Midnapore Municipal area.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Study Area
The study was conducted in and around Midnapore
Municipality area of West Midnapore District of West Bengal, India. The study area (22.2620N &
87.6540E; elevation about 1,035m) is situated on the banks of river Kangasabati on one side and the other side consists of
sparse to highly dense forest, chiefly of Shorea
robusta, which connects with Dalma
Hills and is the entry point of Bengal-Jharkhand hill range of Chota Nagpur Plateau.
This range is often used as an elephant corridor, though the town is not
affected by elephants. Several adjacent
areas like Gopegarh Heritage Park, Banks of Kasai
River adjacent to the railway track, Vidyasagar Park, Khudiram
Park, area adjacent to Aniket Bandh, Pakhibagan,
Vidyasagar University Campus, area adjacent to government Silkworm Centre,
Police Line field, and Ramakrishna Ashram field were the main points of study
area (Figure 1).
Methods
The survey of butterflies was done using Pollard walk
method (Pollard et al. 1975; Pollard 1977).
The surveys of butterflies were carried out in most of the designated
areas during day time mostly on sunny days (07.00 to 10.00 h). Occasional surveys were also undertaken
during early morning and even after 16.00h in search of the butterflies that
love shadows during summer months. The
study areas were mainly divided into 12 sites and conducted on regular basis
through random visit and photographs of most of the species were taken all over
the year. The line transect method was
used principally for assessing the butterfly communities (Hossain & Aditya
2016). We refrained from collection of
live specimens or use of nets so as not to put these insects under stress or
harm them accidentally during the investigation. Most of the species were identified through
photographs taken from different angle so as to make a positive
identification. Photographs were taken
using Canon 600D +(55-250) mm f/4-5.6 lens and a Nikon L820 point & shoot
camera. Identification of specimen was
done following the keys of Evans (1932), Wynter-Blyth (1957), Kehimkar (2008), and Kunte
(2012). Further, help was also taken
from www.ifoundbutterflies.org.
Biodiversity indices
Different dominance indices and information statistic
indices were analysed with the help of Microsoft Excel 2010 software to
understand the community structure of the butterflies in the study area. Species richness was analysed through Shanon index (Shannon & Weaver 1963) whereas, species
abundance was analysed through Simpson index (Simpson 1964) and evenness was
studied through Pielou index (Mulder et al.
2004). A rank abundance curve or
Whittaker plot was used to show relative abundance of different species. The plot simultaneously represents species
richness and species evenness. Lorenz
curve was used to show inequality in the population distribution of different
species in the community (Damgaard & Weiner
2000).
Species Richness
Shanon index is an important information-statistic index,
used in measuring species richness in a community. Rare species with very few
individuals can contribute some value to this biodiversity index. The index is calculated through the following
equation:
HS = -Ʃ pi ln pi
where, Hs is the value of Shanon index and pi is the proportion of ith species in the community.
Species Abundance
Simpson’s index
is the measures of probability that two individuals randomly selected from a community will belong to the
same species. Simpson’s index was calculated using the protocol given by Simpson 1964 (Simpson 1964):
λ = Ʃ pi2
where, λ is
the value of Simpson index and pi is the proportion of ith
species in the community.
Species Evenness
Species evenness denotes how close the species are in a community numerically. Statistically it is well-defined as a degree of species diversity which quantifies how equal the
community is. Evenness
of species in a community can be
represented by Pielou’s index (Pielou 1969), as follows:
E = Hs / Hmax
where, E is the evenness, Hs is the value of Shanon index and Hmax is equal to ln(s)
(Where, S=number of species
in the community)
Whittaker plot and Lorenz curve
Whittaker plot or
rank-abundance curve is a graphical
representation used in ecology to display relative species abundance. In the rank abundance curve, the X-axis is denoted as abundance rank and Y-axis is denoted as relative abundance. Further, it is used to
visualize species richness and evenness simultaneously
(Whittaker 1965).
Lorenz curves were used
to demonstrate phenomena such as disproportionate distribution of
species abundance in a community. This curve was also used to
demonstrate degree of inequality in abundance in a
community. Quantitative
comparison of rank abundance
curves of different families of butterflies can demonstrate the unequal distribution
of species.
SHE analysis
SHE analysis scrutinizes the relationship between species richness (S), diversity as measured by Shanon index or the information (H) and evenness (E) in the samples. The most obvious
advantage of this analysis is that
it allows to interpret variations
in the diversity (Magurran 1988). SHE
analysis fundamentally can shed light on the species abundance and distribution
(Buzas & Hayek 1998). The SHE analysis (McAleece
et al. 1997) provides the variations in the species richness, abundance and evenness in the sample size (N) or throughout the months (N, over time) abundance for an area (Mukherjee
et al. 2015) in a nutshell. The analysis
for SHE was conducted using PAST software (Hammer et al. 2001).
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
During the present study period overall 82 species of
butterflies were recorded in the field with a total of 5,107 individuals
belonging to six families. The list of
the butterflies along with their occurrence and time of appearance has been
listed in Table 1. Of the butterfly
species recorded, most are ‘common’ and ‘generalist’ species (Sarma et al. 2012), and not a single species is threatened
globally as per the IUCN Red List 2018, however, there are many species which
were declared legally protected, viz., Gram Blue Euchrysops
cnejus, Pointed Ciliate Blue Anthene
lycaenina, Common Gull Cepora
nerissa under Schedule II, and Striped Albatross Appias libythea
under Schedule IV of the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972. The study shows higher species richness when
compared with other empirical studies (Jana et al. 2013; Samanta
et al. 2017; Pahari et al. 2018) on butterfly diversity in the nearby urban and
forested areas except Kolkata’s suburban areas which shows 91 species
(Mukherjee et al. 2015).
Satellite overview of the marked study area have been
represented in Figure 1. During the
study period we found that family Nymphalidae is
the dominant species comprising 2,173 number of individuals which constitutes
42.54% of the total population followed by Lycaenidae
comprising 1,153 numbers of individuals and 22.5%, followed by Pieridae (971 individuals and 19.03%), Papilionidae
(438 and 8.58%), Hesperiidae (370 and 7.24%), and
Riodinidae (2 and 0.11%) (Figure 2). Previous study support Nymphalidae
as the most dominant family in the semi-urban areas of Howrah and Haldia
(Pahari et al. 2018) whereas, Lycaenidae as the most
dominant family in the suburban areas of Kolkata, West Bengal (Mukherjee et al.
2015).
Papilio polytes which belongs to family Papilionidae
was found to be the most abundant while Papilio
crino was the least. In the family Pieridae,
Catopsilia pomona
was more predominant than other species but we found only a single species of Ixias
marianne.
In the family Nymphalidae we found that Danais chrysippus
was the most common species while Lethe europa
was the least.
The Shanon-Weaver index for
the studied community with a value of 4.01 shows that the community is a
natural one with high species richness.
As the value of Simpson index increases, the species abundance
decreases. The value of Simpson’s index
ranges between 0 and 1 and the more the index value inclined to 0 the more the
species abundance in the community. The
value of Simpsonʼs index in this study is 0.021 that
shows an intuitive high proportion to species abundance. As we know the value of Pielou’s
index ranges between 0 and 1 and the more the index value reaches 1 the more
the evenness in the community. The
species evenness (E=0.91) calculated for the studied community shows high
evenness (Table 2).
The rank abundance curve for the community has a
relatively low steep inclination in Whittaker plot showing high evenness as the
high-ranking species have much lower abundances than the low-ranking
species. A low gradient dictates high
evenness among the different species (Figure 3 A). The rank-abundance curve when compared family
wise (Figure 3 B) shows that family Nymphalidae has
the highest species evenness, whereas family Papilionidae
has the lowest species evenness. In Lorenz
curve (Figure 4) a perfectly equal species abundance would be one in which
every species has the same population size.
The Gini coefficient is the ratio of the area between the line of
equality and Lorenz curve. It ranges
between 0 and 1. The higher the Gini
coefficient, the more unequal the population distribution (Gini 1936). In the present study (Table 2) the Gini
coefficient value is 0.269 that supports the species richness and species
abundance demonstrated through the Shanon and Simpson
index.
Observations on SHE graphs of monthly variations in
richness and abundance of butterfly species clearly indicate log series pattern
of distribution, where S will increase, H will remain constant and E will
decrease (Figure 5) (Hayek & Buzas 1997; Buzas & Hayek 2005; Magurran
2004). It seems that the butterfly
abundance increased in winter and post monsoon and decreased in summer and
monsoon. This may be due to the changes
in the temperature in this lateritic soil area and high precipitation in the
monsoon may cause destruction of the habitats as well as food supply of most of
the species concerned.
CONCLUSION
The present report on the butterflies in and around
Midnapore Municipality area is the first of its kind. There are no such records on the studies of
butterflies earlier from the region.
Butterflies are susceptible to subtle changes in landscape, land use
patterns and vegetation loss, therefore, utmost care should be taken to
preserve not only butterflies but also the species that support them. Percentage-wise distribution of the family Riodinidae was the lowest so it might be that the habitat
of the study areas and climate of the region was not suitable for the family in
the present investigation which warrants independent investigations. During our study we encountered that
butterflies were abundant during post monsoon and monsoon while at other times
(winter and summer) their population dwindled which may be due to less rainfall
in winter, scorching heat and long dry spells during summer. The Shanon-Weaver
index for the studied community shows high species richness. Simpsonʼs index
shows an intuitive high proportion to species abundance. The species evenness (E=0.91) calculated
through Pielou’s index shows high evenness. A low gradient in rank-abundance curve
dictates high evenness among the different species. Gini coefficient (0.269) in the present study
supports well about the species richness and species abundance demonstrated
through the Shanon and Simpson index. SHE analysis indicate log series distribution
of the butterfly species throughout the year in the studied area. Such studies can generate or inculcate
interest among students, locals and authorities to save or conserve these
pollinators and their habitat, also its conservation is essential for
sustainable development.
Table1. Butterfly species, their abundance and season
of occurrence in the study area.
|
Common
name |
Scientific
name |
Total
number of species found during study period (2013–2015) |
Season |
Observed
time (M/N/A) |
Family:
Papilionidae |
|||||
1 |
Common Rose |
Atrophaneura aristolochiae (Fabricius) |
78 |
Feb–Nov |
M, N |
2 |
Common
Mormon |
Papilio polytes (Linnaeus) |
126 |
Jan-Dec |
M, N |
3 |
Blue Mormon |
Papilio polymnestor (Cramer) |
12 |
Aug-Nov |
M, N |
4 |
Common Jay |
Graphium doson (Felder) |
63 |
Jan-Dec |
N |
5 |
Tailed Jay |
Graphium agamemnon (Linnaeus) |
44 |
May-Nov |
N |
6 |
Lime
Butterfly or Common Lime |
Papilio demoleus (Linnaeus) |
81 |
Jan-Dec |
M, N, A |
7 |
Common Mime |
Chilasa clytia (Linnaeus) |
19 |
Aug-Oct |
N, A |
9 |
Common-banded
Peacock |
Papilio crino (Fabricius) |
4 |
Jul-Aug |
A |
10 |
Spot bar
Swordtail |
Graphium nomius (Esper) |
11 |
Jun-Oct |
M, A |
Family:
Pieridae |
|||||
11 |
Common
Albatross |
Appias
albino (Boisduval) |
59 |
Mar-Nov |
M |
12 |
Common
Emigrant |
Catopsilia pomona (Fabricius) |
196 |
Jan-Dec |
M, N, A |
13 |
Mottled
Emigrant |
Catopsilia pyranthe (Linnaeus) |
171 |
Jan-Dec |
M, A |
14 |
Common
Grass Yellow |
Eurema hecabe (Linnaeus) |
124 |
Jan-Dec |
M, N, A |
15 |
Small Grass
Yellow |
Eurema brigitta (Cramer) |
49 |
Jun-Oct |
|
16 |
Pioneer |
Belenois aurota (Fabricius) |
6 |
Jul-Aug |
A |
17 |
Common Gull |
Cepora nerissa (Fabricius) |
63 |
Mar-Dec |
M, N |
18 |
Common
Jezebel |
Delias
eucharis (Drury) |
97 |
Jan-Dec |
M, A |
19 |
White
Orange tip |
Ixias
marianne
(Cramer) |
1 |
Sept |
M,A |
20 |
Yellow
Orange tip |
Ixias
pyrene (Linnaeus) |
15 |
Apr-Oct |
M, A |
21 |
Psyche |
Leptosia nina (Fabricius) |
104 |
Jan-Dec |
M, N, A |
22 |
Common
Wanderer |
Pareronia valeria (Cramer) |
86 |
Jun-Dec |
N |
Family:
Nymphalidae |
|||||
23 |
Common
Castor |
Ariadne
merione (Cramer) |
43 |
Mar-Oct |
M, A |
24 |
Angled
Castor |
Ariadne
ariadne (Moore) |
119 |
Jan-Dec |
M, N, A |
25 |
Tawny Coster |
Acraea
violae (Fabricius) |
143 |
Feb-Nov |
M, A |
26 |
Plain Tiger |
Danais chrysippus (Linnaeus) |
211 |
Jan-Dec |
M, N, A |
27 |
Stripped
Tiger |
Danais genutia (Cramer) |
82 |
Feb-Nov |
M, N, A |
28 |
Common Crow |
Euploea
core (Cramer) |
131 |
Jan-Dec |
M, N, A |
29 |
Blue Tiger |
Tirumala
limniace (Cramer) |
64 |
Mar-Nov |
M, A |
30 |
Common
Leopard |
Phalanta phalantha (Drury) |
37 |
Mar-Dec |
N |
31 |
Baronet |
Symphaedra nais (Forster) |
34 |
Mar-Sept |
M, A |
32 |
Common
Baron |
Euthalia aconthea (Cramer) |
27 |
Mar-Oct |
A |
33 |
Common
Sailor |
Neptis hylas (Linnaeus) |
18 |
Feb-Nov |
M, N |
34 |
Chestnut-streaked
Sailor |
Neptis jumbah (Moore) |
19 |
Feb-Nov |
M, N, A |
35 |
Great Eggfly |
Hypolimnas bolina (Linnaeus) |
49 |
Jan-Dec |
N, A |
36 |
Peacock
Pansy |
Junonia
almanac (Linnaeus) |
94 |
Jan-Dec |
N, A |
37 |
Blue Pansy |
Junonia orithya (Linnaeus) |
66 |
Mar-Oct |
M, N, A |
38 |
Yellow
Pansy |
Junonia hierta (Fabricius) |
47 |
Jan-May |
M, A |
39 |
Lemon Pansy |
Junonia lemonias (Linnaeus) |
138 |
Jan-Dec |
N, A |
40 |
Grey Pansy |
Junonia atlites (Linnaeus) |
161 |
Jan-Dec |
N, A |
41 |
Chocolate
Pansy |
Junonia iphita (Cramer) |
39 |
Apr, Oct |
N |
42 |
Common Palmfly |
Elymnias hypermnestra (Linnaeus) |
50 |
Dec- May |
N, A |
43 |
Common
Evening brown |
Melanitis leda (Linnaeus) |
182 |
Jan-Dec |
M, A |
44 |
Common Bush
Brown |
Mycalesis perseus (Fabricus) |
163 |
Jan-Dec |
A |
45 |
Dark
Branded Bushbrown |
Mycalesis mineus (Linnaeus) |
43 |
Oct-Mar |
N, A |
46 |
Common Fourring |
Ypthima huebneri (Kirby) |
121 |
Jan-Deb |
M, A |
47 |
Common Fivering |
Ypthima baldus (Fabricus) |
33 |
May-Oct |
N |
48 |
Bamboo Tree
brown |
Lethe
europa (Fabricus) |
3 |
Mar |
M |
49 |
Commander |
Moduza procris (Cramer) |
56 |
Jun-Nov |
M, N |
Family: Riodinidae |
|||||
50 |
Double-banded
Judy |
Abisara bifasciata (Moore) |
2 |
Dec-Mar |
N |
Family:
Lycaenidae |
|||||
51 |
Ape Fly |
Spalgis epius (Westwood) |
9 |
Mar-Nov |
M, N |
52 |
Common
Pierrot |
Castalius rosimon (Fabricius) |
144 |
Jan-Dec |
M, N |
53 |
Common
Cerulean |
Jamides celens (Cramer) |
49 |
Jul-Oct |
M, N |
54 |
Common Lineblue |
Prosotas nora (Felder) |
33 |
Jan-Oct |
M, N |
55 |
Common Quacker |
Neopithecops zalmora (Butler) |
31 |
Jul-Nov |
N, A |
56 |
Common
Silverline |
Spindasis vulcanus (Fabricius) |
67 |
Jun-Nov |
M, N |
57 |
Dark
Cerulean |
Jamides bochus (Stoll) |
5 |
Mar-Apr |
A |
58 |
Dark Grassblue |
Zizeeria karsandra (Moore) |
167 |
Jan-Dec |
M, N, A |
59 |
Falcate Oakblue |
Mahathala ameria (Hewitson) |
8 |
Apr-Nov |
M, N |
60 |
Gram Blue |
Euchrysops cnejus (Fabricius) |
96 |
Jan-Dec |
M, N, A |
61 |
Indian oakblue |
Arhopala atrax (Hewitson) |
12 |
Jun-Jul |
|
62 |
Lesser Grassblue |
Zizina otis (Fabricius) |
17 |
Jul-Oct |
M, N |
63 |
Lime Blue |
Chilades lajus (Stoll) |
121 |
Feb-Nov |
M, N, A |
64 |
Tailless Lineblue |
Prosotas dubiosa indica
(Evans) |
5 |
Jul |
N |
65 |
Oriental
Grass Jewel |
Freyeria putli (Stoll) |
4 |
Mar-Aug |
|
66 |
Pale Grass
Blue |
Pseudozizeeria maha (Kollar) |
109 |
Mar-Oct |
|
67 |
Plains
Cupid |
Chilades pandava (Horsfield) |
38 |
May-Sep |
M, N, A |
68 |
Rounded
Pierrot |
Tarucus nara (Kollar) |
146 |
Mar-Oct |
N, A |
69 |
Slate Flash |
Rapala manea (Hewitson) |
64 |
Mar-Dec |
M |
70 |
Zebra Blue |
Leptotes plinius (Fabricius) |
17 |
May-Jul |
M, A |
71 |
Pea Blue |
Lampides boeticus (Linnaeus) |
11 |
Oct-Nov |
N |
Family: Hesperiidae |
|||||
72 |
Brown Awl |
Badamia exclamationis (Fabricius) |
14 |
Jun-Aug |
N, A |
73 |
Chestnut
Bob |
Lambrix salsala (Moore) |
78 |
Jan-Dec |
M, N |
74 |
Common
branded Awl |
Hasora chromus (Cramer) |
2 |
Aug |
M |
75 |
Common snow
Flat |
Tagiades japetus (Stoll) |
13 |
Nov-Jan |
M |
76 |
Forest
Hopper |
Astictopterus jama (Felder and Felder) |
1 |
Oct |
M |
77 |
Indian
Grizzle Skipper |
Spialia galba (Fabricius) |
29 |
May-Jul |
M, A |
78 |
Moore Ace |
Halpe porus (Mabille) |
2 |
Jul-Aug |
N |
79 |
Indian Palm
Bob |
Suastus gremius (Fabricius) |
74 |
Jan-Dec |
M, N |
80 |
Tree
Flitter |
Hyarotis adrastus (Stoll) |
52 |
Sep-Feb |
M |
81 |
Common
Redeye |
Matapa
aria (Moore) |
82 |
Feb-Nov |
M, N, A |
82 |
Grass Demon |
Udaspes tolus (Cramer) |
23 |
Aug-Dec |
M, N, A |
M—morning (05.00–10.59) | N—noon (11.00–15.59) |
A—afternoon: (16.00–19.00).
For
figures & images – click here
REFERENCES
Atmowidi, T., D. Buchori, S. Manuwoto, B. Suryobroto & P. Hidayat (2007). Diversity of pollinator insects in relation of seed
set of Mustard (Brassica rapa L.: Cruciferae). HAYATI Journal of Bioscience 14:
155–161. https://doi.org/10.4308/hjb.14.4.155
Blair, R.B. (1999). Birds and butterflies along an urban gradient:
surrogate taxa for assessing biodiversity? Ecological Applications 9(1):
164–70. https://doi.org/10.1890/1051-0761(1999)009[0164:BABAAU]2.0.CO;2
Bonebrake, T.C., L.C. Ponisio, C.L.
Boggs & P.R. Ehrlich (2010). More
than just indicators: a review of tropical butterfly ecology and conservation. Biological
conservation 143(8): 1831–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2010.04.044
Bhaskaran, S. & R. Eswaran (2005). Status and distribution of butterfly species in Sivakasi Taluk, Tamilnadu. Journal
of Insect science 18(1): 134–136.
Buzas, M.A., & L.A.C. Hayek (1998). SHE analysis for biofacies
identification. Journal of Foraminiferal Research 28: 233–239.
Buzas, M.A., & L.A.C Hayek (2005). On richness and evenness within and between
communities. Paleobiology 31: 199–220. https://doi.org/10.1666/0094-8373(2005)031[0199:ORAEWA]2.0.CO;2
Clark, P.J., J.M. Reed & F.S.
Chew (2007). Effects of urbanization on
butterfly species richness, guild structure, and rarity. Urban Ecosystems
10(3): 321–37. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11252-007-0029-4
Damgaard, C., & J. Weiner (2000). Describing inequality in plant size or fecundity. Ecology
81(4):1139–1142. https://doi.org/10.1890/0012-9658(2000)081[1139:DIIPSO]2.0.CO;2
Di Mauro, D., T. Dietz & L.
Rockwood (2007). Determining the effect of
urbanization on generalist butterfly species diversity in butterfly gardens. Urban
ecosystems 10(4): 427–39. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11252-007-0039-2
Eswaran, R. & P. Pramod
(2005). Structure of butterfly community
of Anaikaty Hills, Western Ghats. Zoos’ Print
Journal 20(8): 1939–1942. https://doi.org/10.11609/JoTT.ZPJ.1330.1939-42
Evans, W.H. (1932). The Identification of Indian Butterflies.
Bombay Natural History Society, Bombay, 464pp.
Gini, C. (1936). On the measure of concentration with special reference
to income and statistics. Colorado College Publication, General Series No.
208: 73–79.
Hammer, Ø., D.A.T. Harper &
P.D. Ryan (2001). PAST:
Paleontological Statistics Software Package for Education and Data Analysis. Paleontologia Electronica 4(1): 9.
Hammond, P.C. & J.C. Miller
(1998). Comparison of the biodiversity of
Lepidoptera within three forested ecosystems. Annals of the Entomological
Society of America 91: 323–328. https://doi.org/10.1093/aesa/91.3.323
Harsh, S. (2014). Butterfly Diversity of Indian Institute of Forest
Management, Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh, India. Journal of Insects 2014. 1–4.
https://doi.org/10.1155/2014/254972
Hayek, L.A.C. & M.A. Buzas (1997). Surveying
Natural Populations. Columbia University Press, New York, 347–389.
Hill, J.K. (1999). Butterfly spatial distribution and habitat
requirements in a tropical forest: impacts of selective logging. Journal of
Applied Ecology 36: 564–572. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2664.1999.00424.x
Hossain, A. & G. Aditya
(2016). Avian Diversity in Agricultural
Landscape: Records from Burdwan, West Bengal, India. Proceedings of the
Zoological Society 69(1): 38–51. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12595-014-0118-3
Jana, D., S. Giri,
D.K. Tamili & S.K. Chakraborty (2013). Diversity of lepidopteran insects in the coastal
regions of Midnapur (East), West Bengal, India. Indian Journal of Biological
Sciences 19: 32–41.
Kehimkar, I. (2008). The Book of Indian Butterflies. Bombay
natural History Society and Oxford University Press, Mumbai, 497pp.
Kocher, S.D., & E.H. Williams
(2000). The diversity and abundance of
North American butterflies vary with habitat disturbance and geography. Journal
of Biogeography 27(4): 785–94. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2699.2000.00454.x
Koh, L.P. (2007). Impacts of land use change on Southeast Asian forest
butterflies: a review. Journal of Applied Ecology 44: 703–213. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2664.2007.01324.x
Koh, L.P. & N.S. Sodhi (2004).
Importance of reserves, fragments, and parks for butterfly conservation in a
tropical urban landscape. Ecological Applications 14(6): 1695–708. https://doi.org/10.1890/03-5269
Kunte, K. (2000). Butterflies of Peninsular India. Universities
Press (India) Limited, Hyderabad, 254pp.
Kunte, K., S. Sondhi, B.M. Sangma, R. Lovalekar, K. Tokekar & G. Agavekar (2012). Butterflies of the Garo Hills of Meghalaya, northeastern India: their diversity and conservation. Journal
of Threatened Taxa 4(10): 2933–2992. https://doi.org/10.11609/JoTT.o2945.2933-92
Magurran, A.E. (1988). Ecological Diversity and its Measurement.
Chapman & Hall, London, 192pp.
Magurran, A.E. (2004). Measuring Biological Diversity. Blackwell
Publishing, Oxford, 256pp.
Majumder, J., R. Lodh & B.K. Agarwala (2012). Variation in butterfly diversity and unique species
richness along different habitats in Trishna Wildlife
Sanctuary, Tripura, northeast India. Check List 8(3): 432–436. https://doi.org/10.15560/8.3.432
McAleece, N., P.J.D. Lambshead, G.L.J. Paterson & J.D.
Gage (1997). “Biodiversity Pro: free
statistics software for ecology.” The Natural History Museum and the
Scottish Association for Marine Science, UK.
https://www.sams.ac.uk/research/software, accessed October 24, 2018
Mukherjee, S., S. Banerjee, G.K. Saha, P. Basu & G. Aditya
(2015). Butterfly diversity in Kolkata,
India: An appraisal for conservation management. Journal of Asia-Pacific
Biodiversity 8(3): 210–221. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.japb.2015.08.001
Mukherjee, S., G. Aditya, P. Basu & G.K. Saha (2016). Butterfly diversity in Kolkata metropolis: a synoptic
check list. Check List 12(2): 1858. https://doi.org/10.15560/12.2.1858
Mulder, C.P.H., E. Bazeley-White, P.G. Dimitrakopoulos,
A. Hector, M. Scherer-Lorenzen & B. Schmid (2004). Species evenness and productivity in experimental
plant communities. Oikos 107: 50–63. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0030-1299.2004.13110.x
Murugesan, M., P.R. Arun & B.A.K. Prusty (2013). The butterfly community of an urban wetland system -
a case study of Oussudu Bird Sanctuary, Puducherry,
India. Journal of Threatened Taxa 5(12): 4672–4678. https://doi.org/10.11609/JoTT.o3056.4672-8
Nimbalkar, R.K., S.K. Chandekar &
S.P. Khunte (2011). Butterfly diversity in relation to nectar food plants
from Bhor Tahsil, Pune District, Maharashtra, India.
Journal of Threatened Taxa 3(3): 1601–1609. https://doi.org/10.11609/JoTT.o2612.1601-9
Pahari, P.R., N.P. Mishra, A.
Sahoo & T. Bhattacharya (2018). A study on the butterfly diversity of Haldia
industrial belt and adjacent rural area in Purba Medinipur District, West Bengal, India. World Scientific
News 97: 207–224.
Pielou, E.C. (1969). An Introduction to Mathematical Ecology, John
Wiley, New York, NY, USA, viii+286pp.
Pollard, E. (1977). A method for assessing changes in the abundance of
butterflies. Biological Conservation 12(2): 115–134. https://doi.org/10.1016/0006-3207(77)90065-9
Pollard, E. (1988). Temperature, rainfall and butterfly numbers. Journal
of Applied Ecology 1: 819–828. https://doi.org/10.2307/2403748
Pollard, E., D.O. Elias, M.J.
Skelton & J.A. Thomas (1975). A
Method of Assessing the Abundance of Butterflies in Monk’s Wood National Nature
Research in 1973. Entomologist’s Gazette 26: 79–87.
Posa, R.M.C. & N.S. Sodhi
(2006). Effects of anthropogenic land use
on forest birds and butterflies in Subic Bay, Philippines. Biological
Conservation 129: 256–270. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2005.10.041
Rusman, R., T. Atmowidi & D.
Peggie (2016). Butterflies (Lepidoptera:
Papilionoidea) of Mount Sago, West Sumatra: Diversity and Flower Preference. HAYATI
Journal of Biosciences 23(3): 132–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hjb.2016.12.001
Saikia, M.K., J. Kalita & P.K.
Saikia (2009). Ecology and conservation needs of nymphalid
butterflies in disturbed tropical forest of eastern Himalayan biodiversity
hotspot, Assam, India. International Journal of Biodiversity Conservation
1(8): 231–250.
Samanta, S., D. Das & S. Mandal (2017). Butterfly fauna of Baghmundi,
Purulia, West Bengal, India: a preliminary checklist. Journal of Threatened
Taxa 9(5): 10198–10207. https://doi.org/10.11609/jott.2841.9.5.10198-10207
Shannon, C.E. & W. Weaver
(1963). The Mathematical Theory of
Communication. The University of Illinois Press, Urbana, 117pp.
Sarma, K., A. Kumar, A. Devi, K. Mazumdar, M. Krishna, P. Mudoi & N. Das (2012). Diversity and habitat association of butterfly
species in foothills of Itanagar, Arunachal Pradesh,
India. Cibtech Journal of Zoology 1(2):
67–77.
Simpson, G.G. (1964). Species density in North American recent mammals. Systemetic Zoology 13: 57–73.
Singh, A.P. & R. Pandey
(2004). A model for estimating
butterfly species richness
of areas across
the Indian subcontinent: species proportion of family Papilionidae as an indicator. Journal of the Bombay
Natural History Society 101: 79–89.
Thomas, J.A. (2005). Monitoring change in the abundance and distribution
of insects using butterflies and other indicator groups. Philosophical
Transactions of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences
360(1454): 339–57. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2004.1585
Tiple, A.D. (2011). Butterflies of Vidarbha region, Maharashtra State,
central India. Journal of Threatened Taxa 3(1): 1469–1477. https://doi.org/10.11609/JoTT.o2397.1469-77
Tiple, A.D. (2012). Butterfly species diversity, relative abundance and
status in Tropical Forest Research Institute, Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh, central
India. Journal of Threatened Taxa 4(7): 2713–2717.
Tiple, A.D. & A.M. Khurad
(2009). Butterfly species diversity,
habitats and seasonal distribution in and around Nagpur City, central India. World
Journal of Zoology 4(3): 153–62. https://doi.org/10.11609/JoTT.o2656.2713-7
Van Nouhuys,
S. & I. Hanski (2002). Colonization rates and distances of a host butterfly
and two specific parasitoids in a fragmented
landscape. Journal of Animal Ecology 71(4): 639–50. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2656.2002.00627.x
Varshney, R.K. & P. Smetacek (eds.) (2015). A Synoptic Catalogue of the Butterflies of India. Indinov Publishing, NewDelhi, 261pp.
Whittaker, R.H. (1965). Dominance and diversity in land plant communities:
numerical relations of species express the importance of competition in
community function and evolution. Science. 147(3655): 250–60. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.147.3655.250
Wynter-Blyth, M.A. (1957). Butterflies of the Indian Region. Bombay
Natural History Society, xx+523pp+72pl.