Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | 26 May
2020 | 12(8): 15804–15816
ISSN 0974-7907 (Online) | ISSN 0974-7893 (Print)
doi: https://doi.org/10.11609/jott.5136.12.8.15804-15816
#5136 | Received 31 May 2019 | Final received 02 May 2020 |
Finally accepted 10 May 2020
Butterfly diversity in heterogeneous habitat of Bankura, West Bengal,
India
Kalyan Mukherjee 1 &
Ayan Mondal 2
1 State Animal Health Centre, P.O. Amta, Howrah District, West Bengal 711401, India.
2 Ecology and Environmental Modelling
Laboratory, Department of Environmental Science, The University of Burdwan,
Burdwan, West Bengal 713104, India mondalayan.zoo@gmail.com
2 Department of Zoology, G.G.D.C, Sialsai, Srirampur, Mohanpur,
West Bengal 721436, India
1 kalyan.govt2009@gmail.com, 2 mondalayan.zoo@gmail.com
(corresponding author)
Abstract: Butterfly diversity was observed in different
habitats of Bankura District, West Bengal, India. This district is located at the junction of Chotanagpur plateau and Gangetic plain; it contains a
variety of transitional habitats. We
found 117 butterfly species from our covered survey area. The highest species recorded in the present
study belonged to family Lycaenidae (30.76%) and Nymphalidae (29.91%) followed by Hesperiidae
(16.23%), Pieridae (13.67%), Papilionidae
(8.54%), and Riodinidae (0.85%), respectively. Based on sighting we found that 12.82% of all
the butterflies recorded were abundant in nature while 21.36% were very common,
41.88% were frequent, and 23.93% were rare. Cluster analysis and other
diversity indices gives us an overall idea about environmental health. The pattern of diversity change from plain to
plateau gradient gives important insight about ecological edge effect. High species number in relation with low
individual numbers were found in forest habitat. This preliminary study showed that
heterogeneous habitats could harbour many butterflies and need proper
conservation efforts to sustain it.
Keywords: Chotanagpur
plateau, diversity, heterogenous habitat, Lepidoptera, transitional habitats.
Editor: Jatishwor Irungbam, Institute of
Entomology, Biology Centre CAS, Czech Republic. Date
of publication: 26 May 2020 (online & print)
Citation:
Mukherjee, K. & A. Mondal (2020). Butterfly diversity in heterogeneous habitat of
Bankura, West Bengal, India. Journal of Threatened Taxa 12(8): 15804–15816. https://doi.org/10.11609/jott.5136.12.8.15804-15816
Copyright: © Mukherjee & Mondal 2020. Creative
Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
JoTT allows unrestricted use, reproduction,
and distribution of this article in any medium by providing adequate credit to
the author(s) and the source of publication.
Funding: Self funding.
Competing interests: The authors declare no competing interests.
Author details: Kalyan Mukherjee is a Veterinary Pharmacist under Department of Animal
Resources Development, Government of West Bengal by profession and associated
with Green Plateau (NGO). He is also a content reviewer of butterflies of India
website. His particular interest are on butterfly early stage and host plant
interaction. Ayan Mondal is an Assistant Professor of Zoology, Department of
Higher Education, Government of West Bengal. Currently he is working on
ecological modelling of non-linear dynamics and stability analysis of
ecosystem. Apart from this he is interested on spider taxonomy and systematics.
Author contribuion: KM collected all the field data and photographs. He
also wrote primary draft of the manuscript. AM analysed
the data and helped in manuscript improvement.
Acknowledgements: The authors acknowledge the entire team of Green
Plateau (NGO) for their kind and continuous help during study period. We are
grateful to Krushnamegh Kunte,
Purnendu Roy, Paresh Churi,
Peter Smetacek, Isaac Kehimker
Haneesh KM, Arjan Basu Roy,
Dipanjan Ghosh, Souvick
Mukherjee, Sayan Sanyal, Tarun Karmakar and Amar Kumar
Nayak from the very first day for important discussions regarding butterfly
fauna. We extend our thanks to Keya Mukherjee and Sanchita Sarkar for their help during manuscript
preparation. AM acknowledge Dr. Sudipto Mandal of Department
of Environmental Science, University of Burdwan and the Director of Public
Instruction, Department of Higher Education, Government of West Bengal for
their kind the cooperation.
Introduction
Butterflies are one of most important pollinators and
herbivores in nature (Kunte 2000; Tiple
et al. 2006) and they also have coevolved with plants (Ehrlich & Raven
1964). Mostly they live on nectar and in
larval condition leaves of host plant.
Larva of the member of Family Lycaenidae
sometimes may associated with ants (Nimbalkar et al.
2011). They are also considered as good
indicators of ecosystem health due to their sensitivity to environmental
parameters (New 1991; Pollard et al. 1994; Kunte
2000; Thomas 2005; Bonebrake et al. 2010). Anthropogenic effects on habitat quality are
well reflected by these organisms (Kocher & Williams 2000; Kunte 2000; Summerville & Crist
2001; Koh 2007). In general, species
diversity and richness indices with special references to bioindicator group
helps in better ecosystem management (Wilson et al. 2004).
In the present investigation we studied butterfly
diversity of Bankura District of West Bengal, India, that contains some
completely different types of habitat having unique geomorphological
variations. Being a part of Chotanagpur plateau the
present study sites contained undulating landscape, some hills as well alluvial
plain, and the probability of harbouring many new species too (Mirza &
Mondal 2018). So, this less explored
area might shed light upon how butterfly diversity could have changed across
the geomorphological gradient in relation to ecosystem health. Major outcome of this study might help in
conservation of this least explored area of West Bengal, India.
Materials and Methods
Study site
Bankura District is situated in the western part of
southern West Bengal (Figure 1). It
contains both plains of Bengal and plateau of Chotanagpur. Eastern to north-eastern site of this land
are low-lying alluvial plains while on other side western zone gradually rises
altitude, and fringed region of plateau starts; characterized by rocky
undulating landscape. Numerous small
monadnocks are interspersed in this area which are locally known as ‘Tila’ along with two major hills, namely: Susunia
(448m) and Biharinath (451m). They are mainly made up of igneous rocks of
the Archaean era as well as coal-bearing mudstone and quartzite rocks of
Carboniferous period. The district also
contains several rivers like Damodar, Dwarakeswar, Shilabati, Kangsabati, Sali, Gandheswari, Kukhra, Birai, Jaypanda and Bhairabbanki. Climatic
condition of the characterized by an overbearingly hot summer, high humidity
nearly all the year around and well distributed rainfall (1,303.7mm) during the
monsoon months. The cold
weather starts from about middle of November and lasts till the end of
February. Summer months extends from
March to May. We had chosen six area
(Image 1) to conduct our survey along the geomorphological and altitudinal
gradient to cover almost every type landscape and habitat of this district
(Table 1).
Site A
Deciduous Sal forest and red, laterite soil covers a major portion of this
district. Taldangra,
Simlapal, Onda, Joypur, Bishnupur, Beliator represents this region. Average altitudinal variation ranges 75–150
m. Moisture content of soil is
relatively low compared to Vindhya alluvial soil and also vegetation type
majorly differs from it.
Site B
Raipur, Sarenga, Pali are
situated beside Kangasabati River. Numerous ‘tila’ can be found dispersed throughout the region which
are locally called “Masaker Pahar”. Poor ferruginous soil and hard bed laterite
are the characteristic soil types.
Vegetation is mainly characterized by scrub jungles. Actually, this is
located at the fringed region of Chotanagpur plateau.
Site C The rarh region in this district is represented by the region
between Damodar and Dwarakeswar
rivers, especially areas like Raibaghini, Kotulpur, Indas, and Patrasayer. Average
altitudinal variation is 5–100 m and soil profile is characterized by Vindhya
alluvial soil type. Actualy,
almost 37% of this district contain this type of soil.
Site D This
study site was mostly associated with dry agricultural land. Kadamdeuli and its
surroundings constituted an excellent wetland as well as riparian ecosystem
that harboured a rich butterfly diversity.
Kadamdeuli reservoir is situated on Silabati River near Hatirampur.
Site E Susunia one of two hill situated in this district. This arid
region contains a special type of island like habitat in the midst of
agricultural land. Tropical dry
deciduous type forest dominated by Sal tree (Shorea
robusta Roth.).
The hill is very rich in its plant resources including medicinal plants.
Highest peak of this region is 442m.
Site F Jhilimili, Ranibandh, Sutan represents a dense dry deciduous forest mainly
dominated by sal, nim, kendu tree. Average
altitudinal variation is around 200m.
Humus rich, friable gravelly soil with undulating perfect plateau
landscape.
Data Collection
The selected sites were surveyed from December 2012 to
January 2019 to assess the diversity of butterflies. Yearly survey was categorized into three
different seasons, viz., the Summer (March, April, May, and June), Winter
(October, November, December, January, and February), Monsoon (July, August,
and September). Pollard Walk Method (Pollard 1977) was followed for recording
the butterflies while walking along surveyed paths along the areas. The observation width was limited to about 3m
and at a stretch 150m on an average path covered. Flight periods, seasonality and abundance of
butterfly species in different habitats were also recorded. Butterfly species were identified directly in
the field or, in difficult cases, following capture or photography. As conservation policy, over collection was
avoided and in fact specimens were collected only if doubts persisted in their
specific identity. Rainfall and calm
wind data were taken from India Meteorological Department and temperature,
humidity data were taken by using a portable digital KTJ thermometer with humidity
sensor.
Identification of the butterflies were primarily made
directly in the field. In critical condition, specimens were collected only
with handheld aerial sweep nets. Each
specimen was placed in plastic bottles and was carried to the laboratory for
further identification with the help field guide (Wynther-Blyth
1957; Kunte 2000) and butterfly taxonomist. The observed butterflies were grouped in five
categories based on number of sighting in the field. The butterflies were
categorized as Abundant (A>30%), Very Common (VC=10–30%), Frequent
(F=5–10%), and Rare (R=1–5%) (Rajasekhar 1995).
Data Interpretation
Single factor ANOVA were done separately among sites
and different season. Dominance_D, Simpson_1-D, Shannon_H,
Evenness_e^H/S, Brillouin, Menhinick,
Margalef, Equitability_J,
indices were calculated. Individual rarefaction analysis was done among
sites. Hierarchical classical clustering
was performed using single linkage algorithm with Bray-Curtis similarity index
and 10,000 bootstraps among sites. All
the analysis was done in statistical software PAST Version 3.26 developed by Øyvind Hammer, Natural History Museum, University of Oslo.
Results
During the course of study 117 species of butterflies,
belonging to six families (Figure 2) were recorded. The highest number of butterflies was
recorded belonging to the families Lycaenidae (36
species; Image 3), and Nymphalidae (35 species; Image
2), followed by Hesperiidae (19 species; Image 4), Pieridae (16 species; Image 5), Papilionidae
(10 species; Image 6), and Riodinidae (1 Species;
Image 7). Among them 15 were abundant, 25 were very common, 49 were frequent,
and 28 were rare (Table 2).
Ascending order of altitudinal heights of our sites
are C < A < B < D < F < E (Table 1). Average individual number per species were
highest in Site-B followed by C, A, D, E, and F (Figure 3). Single factor ANOVA among sites on the basis
of individual number of different species showed significant difference
(p<0.001). Number of butterfly
species was highest in Site-C (91) followed by F (78), A (76), B (73), D (67),
and E (65). Dominance index of all six
sites ranges from 0.037 to 0.065 also Simpson 1-D index of all sites remains
very close to 1. Berger-Parker index
indicating single taxa dominance is relatively high in Site-D and E followed by
F than A, B, C. But overall evenness and
equitability show very little difference among sites. Shannon, Brillouin, Menhinick
and Margalef index are also calculated (Table
3). There are significant differences
(p<0.05) of butterfly diversity among different seasons. Individual rarefaction analysis of data when
plotted in respect to 95 percent confidence of taxa in a conditional way showed
probability of finding highest specimen in Site-B, followed by C, A, D, E, and F
(Figure 4). Site-B and C are closely associated
in terms of associated species composition after then D and F, these
two-cluster associated with each other 73 percent similarity. Conjugated cluster of Site-B, C, D, and F are
linked with A and E shows low level of similarity with rest of the cluster
(Figure 5).
Discussion
Butterfly diversity in different sites of this
district helps to visualize the habitat heterogeneity; that indicates spatial
distribution of host plant and nectaring plant along
the landscape (Harrington & Stork 1995; Öckinger
& Smith 2006; Öckinger et al. 2006, 2009;
Mukherjee & Ghosh 2018). Being a
good indicator of the health of an ecosystem (Stefanescu
et al. 2004), richness of data of some distinct species found in different
geographical area will help us to get an overview about the habitat of
concerned locality. Generally, we can
say among six studied sites, equitability index shows a similar pattern while
Simpson 1-D and dominance index state that very few dominant species were
present. Besides that, Shannon, Brillouin, and Menhinnick
indices show little variability in those sites.
High diversity of nymphalids and lycaenids in
our data is consistent with other study on butterfly diversity (Dronamraju 1960; Roy et al 2012; Harsh 2014; Mukherjee et
al 2015). Number of species and average
individual number shows most ambiguous result in case of Site F. But this could be easily explained by the
habitat characteristics of that site.
This site mostly covered by dense forest. Probably we found lowest number of individuals
per species here due to visual barrier in dense forest; but comparatively
species number were higher due to presence of various types of host plant in
forested area. Among 28 rare species Red
Helen Papilio helenus
and Chocolate Albatross Appias lyncida were just seen for couple of times.
Result of individual rarefaction analysis indicates
that highest number of taxa could be found in Site C that contains a mixed
habitat and landscape (Table 1). In
contrast site B required more specimen than other sites to cover all the found
taxa. Significant seasonal and site wise
variation in species assemblage number were seen during the study period. Cluster analysis result shows hill region
Site E is much distinct than other sites. Site-D and F were in plateau region,
also clustered with 63% similarity; this is due to differences in habitat
quality and type. It is indicating that
altitude and landscape are not only determines species assemblage similarity,
but habitat type and quality also effect on it.
Site-B and C are representative of fringe region of plateau and makes a
cluster with highest level of similarity.
These two-cluster linked with each other with 72% similarity and the
joined cluster linked with Site A, that is plains with totally different types
of habitat. Family Nymphalidae,
Papilionidae, and Lycaenidae
negatively correlated with humidity. No
noteworthy correlation found with temperature and clam wind; families Nymphalidae and Papilionidae
shows moderately correlated with rainfall.
Conclusion
Butterfly diversity significantly changes throughout
habitat and landscape type change. The
rich diversity of butterflies, especially the nymphalids
and lycaenids in the study area indicates a varied assemblage of floral
species. Many rare species also
indicating that some preferred habitat is in peril. Probability of getting high individual in
fringe region of plateau as well as junction of two different landscape plain
and plateau ecologically that can be stated as ecotone clearly shows the edge effect
that is consistent with robust ecological theoretical concept. Plain, fringe region, plateau and hill region
showing sharp differences among species richness and habitat quality through
cluster analysis. Forested habitat shows
high species with low number of individual, so it may harbour much more
unexplored species. Being potential
pollinating agents of their nectar plants as well as indicators of the health
and quality of their host plants and the ecosystem as a whole, exploration of
butterfly fauna thus becomes important in identifying and preserving various
habitats under threat.
Table 1. A brief description of the selected sites
with habitat types (as per Champion & Seth 1968).
|
Site name |
Habitat and forest type |
Dominant larval host plants |
Region (Latitude, Longitude), altitude |
|
Site A |
Tropical dry deciduous forest; Agricultural lands |
Soria robusta, Citrus limon,
Citrus grandis, Citrus medica,
Murraya koenigii,
Sida rhombifolia,
Portulaca oleracea, Cleome viscosa, Aristlochia
indica, Aegle marme,
Psidium guava, Glycosmis
pentaphylla, Hygrophilia auriculata, Mangifera
indica, Butea monosperma,
Costus speciosus |
Taldangra (23.036°N, 87.126°E) 107m; Simlapal
(22.946°N, 87.069°E) 96m; Onda (23.139°N, 87.208°E)
77m; Joypur (23.058°N, 87.429°E) 75m; Beliatore (23.314° N, 87.195°E) 106m; Bishnupur
(23.039°N, 87.319°E) 94m |
|
Site B |
Tropical throny/scrub
forests; Open grassland |
Aristlochia indica, Citrus grandis,
Sida rhombifolia,
Soria robusta, Tragia
involucrate, Barleria cristata, Hygrophilia
auriculata, Mangifera
indica, Butea monosperma,
Phoenix acaulis |
Raipur (22.805°N, 86.923°E) 104m; Sarenga (22.779°N, 87.041°E) 112m; Pali
(22.780°N, 86.827°E) 131m |
|
Site C |
Agricultural lands and remnant of dry deciduous
forest |
Citrus limon, Aristlochia
indica, Mangifera
indica, Phoenix acaulis,
Ixora coccinea, Zingiber officinale, Laportea
interrupta, Abrus
precatorius, Polyalthia
longifolia, Tamarindus
indica, Bombax sp., Bauhinia
acuminate, Flacourtia indica, Passiflora
indica, Neolamarckia
cadamba, Turnera
ulmifolia, Ziziphus
jujube, Glycosmis pentaphylla |
Raibaghini (23.029°N, 87.557°E) 37m; Indas (23.141°N, 87.614°E) 36m; Patrasayer
(23.184°N, 87.540°E) 48m |
|
Site D |
Wetland and open grasslands |
Aristlochia indica, Mangifera
indica, Phoenix acaulis,
Tamarindus indica,
Abrus precatorius, Hybanthus enneaspermus,
Flacourtia indica,
Cocos nucifera, Soria robusta, Butea
monosperma |
Kadamdeuli (23.108°N, 86.867°E) 128m |
|
Site E |
Tropical dry deciduous forest |
Phoenix acaulis, Tamarindus
indica, Soria robusta,
Butea monosperma, Ziziphus
jujuba, Ziziphus
rugosa, Hygrophilia auriculata, Aristlochia
indica |
Susunia (23.396°N, 86.988°E) 410m |
|
Site F |
Tropical Moist deciduous forest |
Aristlochia indica, Mangifera
indica, Butea monosperma,
Flacourtia indica,
Terminalia elliptica, Ficus
benghalensis, Terminalia bellirica,
Abrus precatorius,
Psidium guava, Glycosmis
pentaphylla, Soria robusta |
Jhilimili (22.818°N, 86.633°E) 194m; Sutan
(22.405°N, 86.739°E) 214m; Ranibandh (22.854°N,
86.779°E) 204m |
Table 2. List of butterflies with their local
occurrence status: A—abundant (A>30%) | VC—very common (VC— 10–30%) |
F—frequent (F —5–10%) | R—rare (R—1–5%) (Rajasekhar 1995)). Observed flight
period (January—1 | February—2, March—3 | April—4 | May—5 | June—6 | July—7 |
August—8 | September—9 | October—10 | November—11 | December—12).
|
Common name |
Scientific name |
Index of abundance |
Flying period |
|
Lycaenidae |
|||
|
Common Pierrot |
Castalius rosimon |
A |
1–12 |
|
Striped/Rounded Pierrot |
Tarucus nara |
VC |
1–12 |
|
Lime Blue |
Chilades lajus |
VC |
1–12 |
|
Tiny Grass Blue |
Zizula hylax |
F |
3–7 |
|
Pale Grass Blue |
Pseudozizeeria maha |
VC |
2–9 |
|
Dark Grass Blue |
Zizeeria karsandra |
A |
1–12 |
|
Lesser Grass Blue |
Zizina otis sangra |
VC |
1–12 |
|
Zebra Blue |
Leptotes plinius |
F |
2–10 |
|
Gram Blue |
Euchrysops cnejus |
F |
3–11 |
|
Common Line Blue |
Prosotas nora |
F |
3–7 |
|
Large Oak Blue |
Arhopala amantes |
F |
1–5,7–10 |
|
Indian Oak Blue |
Arhopala atrax |
F |
2–7 |
|
Common Guava Blue |
Virachola Isocrates |
F |
1–12 |
|
Pea Blue |
Lampides boeticus |
F |
1–6 |
|
Leaf Blue |
Amblypodia anita |
F |
4–7 |
|
Forget Me not |
Catochrysops strabo strabo |
VC |
1–12 |
|
Common Cerulean |
Jamides celeno aelianus |
F |
4–10 |
|
Dark Cerulean |
Jamides bochus |
F |
10–7 |
|
Plains Blue Royal |
Pratapa deva deva |
R |
4 |
|
The Quaker |
Neopithecops zalmora |
A |
1–12 |
|
Common Red Flash |
Rapala airbus |
F |
11–4 |
|
Indigo Flash |
Rapala varuna |
F |
2–9 |
|
Slate Falsh |
Rapala manea |
F |
12–7 |
|
Apefly |
Spalgis epeus |
F |
11–3 |
|
Grass Jewel |
Freyeria trochylus |
F |
10–4 |
|
Silver Streak Blue |
Iraota timoleon |
F |
12–6 |
|
Monkey Puzzle |
Rathinda amor |
F |
1–12 |
|
Yamfly |
Loxura atymnus |
F |
3–11 |
|
Common Silverline |
Spindasis vulcanus |
F |
1–12 |
|
Scarce Shot Silverline |
Spindasis elima |
R |
6 |
|
Common Shot Silverline |
Spindasis ictis |
R |
3–6 |
|
Tailless Lineblue |
Prosotas dubiosa |
R |
3–8 |
|
Pointed Ciliate Blue |
Anthene lycaenina |
F |
1–12 |
|
Indian Sunbeam |
Curetis thetis |
VC |
8–1 |
|
Angled Sunbeam |
Curetis acuta |
R |
12 |
|
Bright Babul Blue |
Azanus ubaldus |
R |
6–7 |
|
Riodinidae |
|||
|
Double Banded Judy |
Abisara bifasciata |
F |
10–3 |
|
Nymphalidae |
|||
|
Tawny Coster |
Acraea violae |
A |
1–12 |
|
Angled Castor |
Ariadne ariadne |
A |
1–12 |
|
Common Castor |
Ariadne merione |
VC |
1–12 |
|
Great Eggfly |
Hypolimnas bolina |
VC |
1–12 |
|
Danied Eggfly |
Hypolimnas misippus |
F |
8–3 |
|
Common Leopard |
Phalanta phalantha |
A |
1–12 |
|
Chocolate Pansy |
Junonia iphita |
F |
1–12 |
|
Yellow Pansy |
Junonia hierta |
VC |
5–9 |
|
Grey Pansy |
Junonia atlites |
VC |
1–12 |
|
Blue Pansy |
Junonia orithiya |
VC |
12–6 |
|
Lemon Pansy |
Junonia lemonias |
VC |
1–12 |
|
Peacock Pansy |
Junonia almana |
VC |
1–12 |
|
Baronet |
Euthalia nais |
VC |
6–1 |
|
Gaudy Baron |
Euthalia lubentina indica |
R |
4–6 |
|
Common Baron |
Euthalia aconthea |
A |
1–12 |
|
Chestnut Streaked Sailer |
Neptis jumbah jumbah |
F |
12–4 |
|
Common Sailer |
Neptis hylas |
F |
12–4 |
|
Common Bushbrown |
Mycalesis perseus |
VC |
1–12 |
|
Common Evening Brown |
Melanitis leda |
VC |
1–12 |
|
Common Palmfly |
Elymnias hypermenstra |
VC |
1–12 |
|
Plain Tiger |
Danaus chrysippus |
A |
1–12 |
|
Striped/Common Tiger |
Danaus genutia |
F |
9–2 |
|
Blue Tiger |
Tirumala limniace |
F |
2–11 |
|
Common Crow |
Euploea core core |
A |
1–12 |
|
Bamboo Tree Brown |
Lethe europa |
F |
4–11 |
|
Commander |
Moduza procris |
F |
2–11 |
|
Painted Lady |
Vanessa cardui |
R |
3–6 |
|
Common Four Ring |
Ypthima huebneri |
F |
1–12 |
|
Double Branded Crow |
Euploea sylvester |
R |
1–12 |
|
Common Five Ring |
Ypthima baldus |
R |
1–12 |
|
Black Rajah |
Charaxes solon |
R |
3–9 |
|
Brown King Crow |
Euploea klugii |
F |
1–12 |
|
Dark Branded Bushbrown |
Mycalesis mineus |
R |
8–12 |
|
Common Nawab |
Charaxes athamas |
R |
10–1 |
|
Tawny Rajah |
Charaxes bernardus |
R |
4–10 |
|
Papilionidae |
|||
|
Common Mormon |
Papilio polytes |
A |
1–12 |
|
Blue Mormon |
Papilio polymnestor |
F |
1–12 |
|
Common Rose |
Pachliopta aristolochiae |
VC |
1–12 |
|
Tailed Jay |
Graphium agamemnon |
F |
1–12 |
|
Common Jay |
Graphium doson |
F |
1–12 |
|
The Lime |
Papilio demoleus |
A |
1–12 |
|
Common Mime |
Papilio clytia |
F |
1–12 |
|
Red Helen |
Papilio helenus |
R |
8 |
|
Spot Swordtail |
Graphium nomius |
F |
4–6 |
|
Common Banded Peacock |
Papilio crino |
R |
2–11 |
|
Pieridae |
|||
|
Common Jezebel |
Delias eucharis |
F |
1–12 |
|
Psyche |
Leptosia nina nina |
A |
1–12 |
|
Pioneer or Cape White |
Belenois aurota aurota |
F |
1–12 |
|
Striped Albatross |
Appias olferna |
VC |
1–12 |
|
Yellow Orange Tip |
Ixias pyrene |
VC |
9–2 |
|
White Orange Tip |
Ixais marianne |
VC |
9–2 |
|
Common Gull |
Cepora nerissa |
A |
1–12 |
|
Common Emigrant |
Catopsilia pomona |
A |
1–12 |
|
Mottled Emigrant |
Catopsilia pyranthe |
A |
1–12 |
|
Common Grass Yellow |
Eurema hecabe |
VC |
1–12 |
|
Three Spot Grass Yellow |
Eurema blanda |
F |
1–12 |
|
Spotless Grass Yellow |
Eurema laeta |
R |
1–12 |
|
Common Albatross |
Appias alpina |
R |
2–6 |
|
One Spot Grass Yellow |
Eurema brigitta |
F |
1–12 |
|
Indian Cabbage White |
Pieris canidia |
R |
1 |
|
Chocolate Albatross |
Appias lyncida |
R |
6–7 |
|
Hesperiidae |
|||
|
Indian Skipper |
Spialia galba |
VC |
1–12 |
|
Chestnut Bob |
Iambrix salsala |
F |
3–11 |
|
Indian Palm Bob |
Suastus gremius |
F |
1–12 |
|
Common Redeye |
Gangara thyrsis |
VC |
1–12 |
|
Dark Palm Dart |
Telicota bambusae |
F |
2–8 |
|
Rice Swift |
Borbo cinnara |
F |
1–12 |
|
Brown Awl |
Badamia exclamationis |
F |
2–11 |
|
Grass Demon |
Udaspes folus |
VC |
5–10 |
|
Common Small Flat |
Sarangesa dasahara |
R |
8–10 |
|
Common Grass Dart |
Taractrocera maevius |
R |
6 |
|
Complete Paint-brush Swift |
Baoris farri |
F |
3–8 |
|
Common Banded Awl |
Hasora chromus |
R |
12–4 |
|
Tree Flitter |
Hyarotis adrastus |
R |
10 |
|
Golden Angle |
Caprona ransonnettii |
R |
10 |
|
Small-banded Swift |
Pelopidas mathias |
F |
8–10 |
|
Obscure Branded Swift |
Pelopidas agna |
F |
7–11 |
|
Water Snow Flat |
Tagiades litigiosa |
R |
6 |
|
Tricolor Pied Flat |
Coladenia indrani |
R |
7–8 |
|
Bush Hopper |
Ampittia dioscorides |
R |
3–10 |
Table 3. Site-wise diversity and evenness indices.
|
|
Site A |
Site B |
Site C |
Site D |
Site E |
Site F |
|
Taxa_S |
91 |
76 |
73 |
65 |
78 |
67 |
|
Individuals |
3256 |
3078 |
3413 |
1146 |
867 |
1937 |
|
Dominance_D |
0.03756 |
0.0485 |
0.04168 |
0.06532 |
0.04768 |
0.06198 |
|
Simpson_1-D |
0.9624 |
0.9515 |
0.9583 |
0.9347 |
0.9523 |
0.938 |
|
Shannon_H |
3.698 |
3.419 |
3.479 |
3.217 |
3.595 |
3.303 |
|
Evenness_e^H/S |
0.4435 |
0.4018 |
0.4442 |
0.384 |
0.4671 |
0.4059 |
|
Brillouin |
3.638 |
3.367 |
3.432 |
3.118 |
3.441 |
3.234 |
|
Menhinick |
1.595 |
1.37 |
1.25 |
1.92 |
2.649 |
1.522 |
|
Margalef |
11.13 |
9.338 |
8.85 |
9.086 |
11.38 |
8.72 |
|
Equitability_J |
0.8198 |
0.7894 |
0.8109 |
0.7707 |
0.8253 |
0.7856 |
|
Berger-Parker |
0.09214 |
0.09942 |
0.07559 |
0.1745 |
0.1153 |
0.1719 |
Table 4. Correlation matrix among butterfly families
and environmental factors.
|
|
Nyphalidae |
Papilionidae |
Lycaenidae |
Pieridae |
Hesperiidae |
Temp. |
Humidity |
Clam Wind |
Rainfall |
|
Nyphalidae |
1.00 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Papilionidae |
0.85 |
1.00 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lycaenidae |
0.88 |
0.83 |
1.00 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pieridae |
0.62 |
0.61 |
0.79 |
1.00 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hesperiidae |
0.69 |
0.59 |
0.83 |
0.80 |
1.00 |
|
|
|
|
|
Temparature |
0.01 |
-0.03 |
0.13 |
-0.02 |
0.08 |
1.00 |
|
|
|
|
Humidity |
-0.84 |
-0.72 |
-0.66 |
-0.35 |
-0.43 |
0.05 |
1.00 |
|
|
|
Clam Wind |
-0.23 |
-0.01 |
-0.15 |
0.11 |
-0.08 |
-0.65 |
0.24 |
1.00 |
|
|
Rainfall |
-0.55 |
-0.54 |
-0.49 |
-0.32 |
-0.38 |
0.43 |
0.68 |
-0.32 |
1.00 |
For
figures & images - - click here
References
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): 1831–1841. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2010.04.044
Champion, H.S. & S.K. Seth (1968). A Revised Survey of Forest Types of India. Manager of Publications, Delhi, Dehradun, 404pp.
Dronamraju, K.R. (1960). Selective visits of butterflies to flowers: a
possible factor in sympatric speciation. Nature 186(4719):
178. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2010.04.044
Ehrlich, P.R. & P.H. Raven (1964). Butterflies and plants: a study in coevolution. Evolution
18(4): 586–608. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1558-5646.1964.tb01674.x
Harrington, R. & N. Stork (1995). Insects in a Changing Environment. Academic
Press, London, 535pp.
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
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): 785–794. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2699.2000.00454.x
Koh, L.P. (2007). Impacts of land use change on South-east Asian forest
butterflies: a review. Journal of Applied Ecology 44(4):
703–713. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2664.2007.01324.x
Kunte, K. (2000). Butterflies of Peninsular India. Universities
Press (Hyderabad) and Indian Academy of Sciences (Bangalore), 147pp.
Mirza, Z.A. & A. Mondal (2018). A new genus Gravelyia
with two species of the family Nemesiidae (Araneae: Mygalomorphae) from
India. Acta Arachnologica 67(1):
43–48. https://doi.org/10.2476/asjaa.67.43
Mukherjee, K. & D. Ghosh (2018). Common Banded Peacock: Record of new larval host
plant of Papilio crino from
Bankura, West Bengal. Zoo’s Print 33(12): 11–14.
Mukherjee, K. (2019). Red Helen of the evergreen forests found for the
first time in western West Bengal. Zoo’s Print 34(5): 23–24.
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
New, T.R. (1991). Butterfly conservation. Oxford University
Press. 1–224pp.
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
Öckinger, E. & H.G. Smith (2006). Landscape composition and habitat area affects
butterfly species richness in semi-natural grasslands. Oecologia 149(3):
526–534. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00442-006-0464-6
Öckinger, E., Å. Dannestam &
H.G. Smith (2009). The
importance of fragmentation and habitat quality of urban grasslands for
butterfly diversity. Landscape and Urban Planning 93(1):
31–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2009.05.021
Öckinger, E., A.K. Eriksson & H.G. Smith (2006). Effects of grassland abandonment, restoration and
management on butterflies and vascular plants. Biological Conservation 133(3):
291–300. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2006.06.009
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
Rajasekhar, B. (1995). A study on butterfly populations at Guindy national
park, Madras. Journal of Bombay Natural History Society 92(2): 275–278.
Roy, U.S., M. Mukherjee & S.K. Mukhopadhyay (2012). Butterfly
diversity and abundance with reference to habitat heterogeneity in and around Neora Valley National Park, West Bengal, India. Our
Nature 10(1): 53–60. https://doi.org/10.3126/on.v10i1.7751
Stefanescu, C., S. Herrando & F. Páramo (2004).
Butterfly species richness in the north-west Mediterranean Basin: the role of
natural and human-induced factors. Journal of Biogeography 31(6):
905–915. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2699.2004.01088.x
Summerville, K.S. & T.O. Crist
(2001). Effects of experimental habitat
fragmentation on patch use by butterflies and skippers (Lepidoptera). Ecology 82(5):
1360–1370. https://doi.org/10.1890/0012-9658(2001)082[1360:EOEHFO]2.0.CO;2
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 B: Biological Sciences 360(1454):
339–357. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2004.1585
Tiple, A.D., V.P. Deshmukh & R.L.H. Dennis (2006). Factors influencing nectar plant resource visits by butterflies
on a university campus: implications for conservation. Nota Lepidoptera
28: 213–224.
Wilson, R.J., C.D. Thomas, R. Fox, D.B. Roy & W.E.
Kunin (2004). Spatial patterns in species distributions reveal
biodiversity change. Nature 432(7015): 393. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature03031
Wynter-Blyth M.A. (1957). Butterflies of the Indian region. Bombay
Natural History Society. Bombay, 523pp.