Journal of Threatened Taxa |
www.threatenedtaxa.org | 26 March 2020 | 12(4): 15443–15459
ISSN 0974-7907 (Online) | ISSN 0974-7893
(Print)
doi: https://doi.org/10.11609/jott.5588.12.4.15443-15459
#5588 | Received 26 November 2019 | Final
received 23 January 2020 | Finally accepted 24 February 2020
The insect fauna of Tenompok Forest Reserve in Sabah, Malaysia
Arthur Y.C. Chung 1, Viviannye Paul 2
& Steven Bosuang 3
1,2 Forest
Research Centre, Sabah Forestry Department, P.O. Box 1407, 90715 Sandakan,
Sabah, Malaysia.
3 P.O. Box
88831, Kota Kinabalu, Sabah, East Malaysia.
1 aycchung@gmail.com
(corresponding author), 2 viviannye.paul@sabah.gov.my, 3 chewichewlucanus@gmail.com
Editor: Anonymity requested. Date
of publication: 26 March 2020 (online & print)
Citation:
Chung, A.Y.C., V. Paul & S. Bosuang (2020).The insect
fauna of Tenompok Forest Reserve in Sabah, Malaysia.
Journal of Threatened Taxa 12(4): 15443–15459. https://doi.org/10.11609/jott.5588.12.4.15443-15459
Copyright: © Chung et al. 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: Sabah
Forestry Department through the Federal Ministry of Energy & Natural
Resources, Malaysia (formerly Ministry of Water, Land & Natural Resources).
Competing interests: The authors declare no competing interests.
Author details: Arthur Y.C. Chung and Steven Bosuang
are entomologists based in Sabah. Arthur
Y.C. Chung is a senior researcher while Viviannye
Paul is a researcher at the Sabah Forestry Department.
Author contribution: AYCC and VP participated in the survey. SB is an
expert on beetles and other montane insects. He contributed significantly in
identification.
Acknowledgements: The Chief Conservator of Forests, Datuk Mashor Mohd. Jaini
and his deputies, Frederick Kugan and Dr Robert Ong
are acknowledged for their support. This scientific expedition was an activity
under the Heart of Borneo (HoB) Initiative with
funding from the 11th Malaysia Plan through the Ministry of Water, Land &
Natural Resources (formerly Ministry of Natural Resources & Environment).
John Sugau, Dr Reuben Nilus
and Mohd. Aminur Faiz facilitated the arrangement for the fieldtrip. Mohd. Jumri provided the maps. We
thank the DFO of Ranau and his staff for logistics
and field support. Dr Homathevi Rahman, Momin Binti,
John L. Yukang, Saudi Bintang and N. Aqidah Ibrahim assisted in this study. We thank two
anonymous reviewers for their constructive comments on an earlier manuscript.
Abstract:
The insect fauna in Tenompok Forest Reserve, adjacent
to Mount Kinabalu in Sabah was surveyed. Nocturnal insect diversity was moderately
high, compared to other forest reserves surveyed earlier. Species richness, however, was moderate, with
an average of 73 species from 84 individuals recorded from a 1m2
area of the light-trapping cloth. At
least 20 Bornean endemic insect species were recorded from this rapid
biodiversity assessment, which include 19 moth species and one beetle species. The endemics and other insects of
conservation interest recorded during the survey provide salient information to
enhance the conservation effort of this forest which connects Kinabalu Park and the Crocker Range Park. Such information provides inputs towards
recommendations on high conservation value (HCV) of the area that would be
incorporated in the formulation of the forest management plan. Issues affecting the insect fauna and
recommendations on insect diversity enhancement and conservation are
highlighted in this paper.
Keywords: Biodiversity
conservation, diversity, Heart of Borneo, insect fauna, Tenompok
Forest Reserve.
Malay abstract: Satu tinjauan fauna serangga telah dijalankan di Hutan
Simpan Tenompok, berhampiran dengan Gunung Kinabalu di Sabah. Kepelbagaian
serangga malam adalah sederhana tinggi berbanding dengan hutan-hutan simpan lain yang telah dikaji sebelum
ini. Walau bagaimanapun, kekayaan spesies adalah sederhana, dengan purata 73 spesies dari 84 individu yang telah direkodkan dari 1m2 kain putih
perangkap cahaya. Sekurang-kurangnya 20 spesies serangga endemik kepada Borneo telah
direkodkan dari penilaian kepelbagaian pantas ini, yang merangkumi 19 spesies rama-rama dan satu
spesies kumbang. Spesies endemik serta serangga berkepentingan konservasi yang lain memberikan maklumat yang boleh membantu dalam mempertingkatkan usaha konservasi hutan ini, yang menghubungkan Taman Kinabalu dan Taman Banjaran
Crocker. Maklumat sebegini membekalkan input terhadap rekomendasi untuk kawasan konservasi
bernilai tinggi dalam penyediaan pelan pengurusan hutan. Isu-isu berkaitan dengan fauna serangga serta rekomendasi untuk konservasi dan peningkatan kepelbagaian serangga turut diketengahkan dalam penerbitan ini.
INTRODUCTION
The Malaysian state of Sabah in Borneo is known for
its remarkable biodiversity and iconic wildlife species (Oldfield 2014),
including insects (Chung et al. 2015).
These are the natural treasures that need to be protected and conserved,
as stipulated in the Sabah Biodiversity Strategy 2012–2022 (Anon. 2012). This strategy is in line with the National
Policy on Biological Diversity (Anon. 2016) that seeks to conserve Malaysia’s
biodiversity and to ensure that its components are utilised in a sustainable
manner for continued progress and socio-economic development. In line with this strategy, the Sabah
Forestry Department has been in the forefront in implementing biodiversity
conservation programmes under the Heart of Borneo (HoB)
Initiative. The HoB initiative is a ‘three countries
– one vision’ responsibility, which is to protect and conserve the rich
biodiversity within this area. It is a
voluntary transboundary cooperation aimed at conserving and managing the
ecologically inter-connected highlands of Borneo and parts of the adjacent
foothills and lowland rainforests, which straddle the borders of three ASEAN
countries, covering an area of approximately 2,00,000km2 (Anon.
2013).
Insect numbers are declining globally (Basset &
Lamarre 2019). Hence, much attention
should be given to this group of living organisms. Within the HoB
initiative, biodiversity documentation has been extensively carried out in
Sabah, encompassing insect diversity as well, e.g., Chung et al. (2013,
2016a,b), since much is still unknown about the insect fauna compared to the
large and more charismatic animals (Anon. 2012). Despite their small size in comparison with
other wildlife, they are ecologically important in the functioning of the
tropical ecosystems because of their high species richness and abundance (Hill
& Abang 2005).
This scientific survey was carried out on 5–9
September 2016, with the base camp located at Kg. Kilimu
in Ranau. The
objectives of this study were to document the insect fauna of Tenompok Forest Reserve (FR) under the HoB
Initiative, and to investigate issues affecting insect diversity, as well as to
provide recommendations that would contribute towards biodiversity conservation
of the study area. Research findings
from this study would enhance this area as a Class I FR to promote the
connectivity between Kinabalu Park (KP) and Crocker
Range Park (CRP) under the Ecolinc Kinabalu project.
This project is a connectivity conservation effort initiated by Sabah
Parks to improve ecological connectivity between KP and CRP. Although KP and CRP reside on the same range,
the parks are physically separated from each other; their boundaries are
separated by a distance of approximately 10km at the closest point. Forest fragmentation that occurs within these
two protected areas due to uncontrolled deforestation and expansion of
agriculture and human activities has been an issue.
MATERIALS & METHODS
Study area
Tenompok FR (Figure 1 and Image 1) is a Class I Protection FR
and is situated adjacent to Mount Kinabalu (4,095m)
(Image 2), the tallest mountain in Malaysia.
It is located beside the Kota Kinabalu-Ranau
highway, approximately 92km east of Kota Kinabalu and
19km west of Ranau.
With an area of 1,984ha the forest reserve is under the jurisdiction of
the Ranau District Forestry Officer. It is surrounded by villages (‘kampung’ in
Malay and often used as ‘Kg.’ before the name of the village), namely Kg. Bundu Tuhan in the east, Kg. Torolobou and Kg. Toboh in the
south, Kg. Kiau in the north, and Kg. Tiong in the
west.
The forest is mountainous, (1,040–1,650 m), with slope
amplitudes in excess of 300m and normally greater than 25o. The soil associations in this reserve are
mainly Croker and Trusmadi, based on the soil
classification in Sabah (Acres et al. 1975).
The reserve is a water catchment area for Kg. Bundu
Tuhan and many other villages. Several rivers flow from this reserve, namely
Liodan, Kenipir, Terleboh, Luminanap, Kuriau, Kipalapok and Tomis. The
vegetation type of the reserve is largely lower montane forest.
Insect sampling methods
Light trap was used to sample nocturnal insects while
sweep nets and forceps were used to sample diurnal insects.
Light trap
The trap consists of a vertical white sheet (2 X 2 m)
illuminated by a 250W mercury-lithium bulb.
It was powered by a portable Yamaha generator. The trap was set up in an open area facing
the forest reserve, from 19.00 to 21.00 h.
A GPS (Model: Garmin GPSMAP 60CSx) was used to determine the coordinates
of each sampling site. Temperature and
relative humidity were taken with a digital hygrometer from Extech
Instruments (model no. 445702). The
details of each trapping position are given in Table 1.
To evaluate diversity of the sampling area, insect
species and individuals (≥ 5mm) within the 1 X 1 m2 at the centre of
the white cloth were enumerated from 20.30 to 21.00 h. This is a rapid biodiversity assessment
method because by the end of the sampling time, morphospecies
and individual numbers can be obtained.
The data was used to calculate diversity indices. This method is simple, fast and can be carried
out by non-insect specialists. To avoid
compounding human error, the same staff was assigned to count the species and
individual numbers throughout the sampling period. Light trapping was conducted within the
compound of the Tenompok nursery (approximately 0.5
acre) but facing different positions of the forest on different nights. The term ‘position’ is used here rather than
site because of the limited space within the nursery and the authors
acknowledge that these positions may not be independent of one another. There were no other suitable sites for
setting up the light trap in other parts of the forest due to logistical
difficulties and safety reasons at night.
Sweep net and manual collection
Sweep nets were used to collect flying insects while
other insects were sampled using fine forceps.
Butterflies were put in triangle papers while other specimens were put
in vials with 75% ethanol solution.
Sampling was conducted along the trails established previously and also
old skid trails. Details of the daytime
sampling sites are listed in Table 2.
Insect specimens and identification
In this survey, focus was given to certain insect
groups, i.e., butterflies, moths, and beetles.
Other insects were recorded when encountered but without any concerted
effort. Only insects with conservation interest and potential indicator insect
species were sampled, so as to minimize the workload at the laboratory in
preparing the specimens for identification.
This is also one of the best practices adopted to minimize stress and
disturbance to biodiversity, as pointed out by Costello et al. (2016) and Didham et al. (2019) on field work ethics in biological
research. Photographs were taken with
DSLR Nikon D800E and Nikon Coolpix cameras to facilitate identification. Common insects were not sampled but
photographs were taken for record purposes.
Some insect photos were not taken on the white sheet (on purpose) after
the enumeration was conducted.
Selected specimens were dry-mounted and sorted to
family and some to the genus and species level.
The specimens sampled from this survey are deposited at the Forest
Research Centre, Sepilok, Sabah. Dry-mounted specimens were identified based
on the FRC Entomology Collection and various reference materials, e.g., Otsuka
(1988, 2001) and Kirton (2014) for butterflies; Holloway (1983, 1985, 1986,
1987, 1988, 1989, 1993, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2001, 2003, 2005, 2008, 2009,
2011), Robinson et al. (1994), and Sutton et al. (2015) for moths; Fujita
(2010), Makihara (1999), and Tung (1983) for beetles;
Orr (2003) and Tang et al. (2010) for dragonflies. Some other insects were identified based on
Hill & Abang (2005).
Diversity indices
The diversity indices, namely Shannon Wiener, Simpson,
and Fisher Alpha were calculated through a diversity analysis software by Seaby & Henderson (2007), based on Magurran
(2004) and Southwood & Henderson (2000).
Merits and limitations of diversity measurements are provided by Beck
& Schwanghart (2010). Knowing that biodiversity is a multifaceted
phenomenon and the existence of various methods in diversity measurements, we
used the same few indices that were also applied in the past insect surveys
throughout Sabah, for comparison purposes.
Shannon Wiener Index (H’)
This index is calculated in the following way:
H’ = -∑pi ln pi
where pi is the proportion of individuals
found in species i.
For a well-sampled community, we can estimate this proportion as pi
= ni/N, where ni
is the number of individuals in species i and N is
the total number of individuals in the community. Since by definition the pis
will all be between zero and one, the natural log makes all of the terms of the
summation negative, which is why we take the inverse of the sum. Typical values are generally between 1.5 and
3.5 in most ecological studies. The
Shannon index increases as both the richness and the evenness of the community
increase.
Simpson Index (D)
This index is based on the probability of any two
individuals drawn at random from an infinitely large community belonging to the
same species:
Ds = ∑ pi2
where again pi is the proportion of
individuals found in species i. For a finite
community, this is
D = ∑ ni(ni
– 1)/N(N – 1)
D is a measure of dominance, so as D increases,
diversity (in the sense of evenness) decreases.
Thus, Simpsonʼs index is usually reported as
its complement 1-D (or sometimes 1/D or –lnD). In Seaby &
Henderson (2007), it is reported as 1/D, which is also known as Simpson’s
reciprocal index. It is heavily weighted
towards the most abundant species in the sample while less sensitive to species
richness (Magurran 1988). Hence, the value will be low if there is a
very abundant species.
Fisher Alpha Index (S)
This is a parametric index of diversity that assumes
that the abundance of species follows the log series distribution:
αx, αx2/2, αx3/3, … αxn/n
where each term gives the number of species predicted
to have 1,2,3,....n individuals in the sample.
The index is the alpha parameter.
This is a useful index, which has been widely used. It is estimated by an iterative procedure
that may take an appreciable amount of time with large data sets.
Insect fauna in conservation implications
Within ecological science, there has been a large
focus on whether a reduction in the diversity of the entities of organisms –
biodiversity – is impacting ecological process and ecological services. Various studies have highlighted that there
is indeed a positive relationship between diversity and functioning in terms of
biomass production and some other functions (Balvanera
et al. 2006; Cardinale et al. 2006; Isbell et al. 2011). Biodiversity conservation should focus on
ecosystem function, rather than on a particular species, that could serve as a
framework for addressing the current urgent conservation challenges (Peh & Lewis 2012).
In this study, it is hoped that the documentation of insect fauna would
provide an impetus for biodiversity conservation of Tenompok
FR as insects are ecologically important
in the functioning of the ecosystem.
RESULTS and DISCUSSION
Overall insect diversity
The nocturnal insect diversity was moderately high, as
shown in Table 3. The mean Shannon Index
was 4.2 while Simpson index was 206.5 and Fisher alpha index was 260.2. Species number and abundance, however, were
moderate, with an average of 77 species and 84 individuals recorded within a 1m2
light-trapping cloth.
During light-trapping, the temperature was cold,
between 17°C and 18°C with relatively high humidity, between 88% and 91% (Table
1). The distribution of insect species
from the light-trapping positions is reflected in the species-rank abundance
curves in Figure 2. Position C recorded
the most species (85), as indicated with the long tail graph, and the Shannon’s
index of 4.37 was the highest among the three positions. Position C also shows the steepest curve,
with six specimens from one interesting moth species, Areas galactina. This was the most prominent species
throughout the three nights of light-trapping.
When the nocturnal insect richness is compared with
other forest reserves, Tenompok FR (in red) appeared
to be moderate as it is ranked 8th of the 19 sites in Sabah (Figure
3a). In terms of nocturnal insect
diversity, it is moderately high (ranked 5th of the 19 sites) and
almost comparable to many other montane forest reserves sampled previously,
such as Bukit Hampuan FR and Crocker Range FR (Figure
3b).
Many Bornean endemic species were recorded from Tenompok FR during the
survey, as listed in Table 4. The
endemics included 19 moth species (Image 3) and one beetle species (Image
4). This information provides input
towards recommendations on High Conservation Values (HCV) of the area, namely
HCV 1 as stipulated in HCVRN (2013). From the past insect surveys under the HoB programme in Sabah, Crocker Range FR recorded the
highest number of endemics with 27 species (Chung 2016a), followed by Bukit Hampuan FR with 19 species (Chung 2013). Hence, Tenompok FR
recorded the second highest number of endemics.
All the three forest reserves are located between 1,300 to 2,000 m
within the Crocker Range, which indicate that the montane forest is a haven for
endemic insect species. Merckx et al.
(2015) reported that tropical mountains are hot spots of biodiversity and
endemism.
Butterflies (Lepidoptera)
At least 13 butterfly species were recorded, as listed
in Appendix 1. Most of the butterflies
were recorded at Sg. Liden in Kg. Bundu Tuhan, at the fringe of the forest reserve. Among the
interesting butterflies sighted were the Rajah Brooke’s Birdwing Trogonoptera brookiana
which is the national butterfly of Malaysia and the Golden Birdwing Troides amphrysus,
a flagship species of Sabah (Otsuka 2001).
Moths (Lepidoptera)
Some 102 moth species were recorded during this study
(Appendix 2). A total of 19 endemic
species were documented (Image 3), which represents 19% of the moths recorded
during the survey. In terms of
percentage, more endemic moths were recorded in Crocker Range FR (Chung 2016a)
and Bukit Hampuan FR (Chung 2013), with 33% and 23%
respectively. In this paper, all Arctiidae and Lymantriidae moths
are classified under Erebidae based on DNA analyses
by Zahiri et al. (2010 & 2011) and taxonomic changes highlighted by
Holloway (2011).
Beetles (Coleoptera)
At least nine species of macro beetles were documented
(Appendix 3). One Bornean endemic
species was recorded, namely Odontolabis leuthneri (Image 4) of the telodonte
form (Fujita 2010). This stag beetle was
sighted during day time at 1,600m. A
large long-horned beetle, Batocera tigris, (about 65mm) was attracted to the light trap at
the Tenompok nursery.
It is a rare beetle in Borneo although it is known to be distributed in
Peninsular Malaysia, Thailand, Sumatra, Java and Borneo. Quite a number of the soldier beetles, Mimopolemius sp. of the family Cantharidae
were sighted while trekking along the trail at Kg. Bundu
Tuhan.
Other insects
At least 17 other insect species were recorded which
include termites, bugs, fig wasps, honeybees, ants, night wasps, praying
mantis, dragonflies, damselflies and crickets. They are listed in Appendix 4.
Further pertinent observations on selected insects
during the survey
Tiger Moth Areas galactina
(Lepidoptera: Erebidae: Arctiinae)
This was the commonest moth species encountered during
the three nights of light-trapping at the Tenompok FR
nursery. It is a spectacular species
because of its vibrant colours and interesting pattern (Image 5a & b). According to Holloway (1988), this insect
cannot be confused with any other; the reticulate black markings of the
forewings and the black spots on patagia and tegulae distinguish it from Spilosoma of the ericsoni
group. The length of the forewings
is 32–35 mm for male and 40–42 mm for female. It is distributed from northern India and
southern China to Sundaland and the Philippines. Although widely distributed, it is not
commonly encountered, normally found between 1,200m and 2,000m. In this survey, it was recorded from
1,300m. Although it is predominantly a
montane species, it has been recorded in the lowland forest, such as Danum Valley (AYC Chung, unpublished data). There has been no information documented on
the host plants.
Tiger Moth Amerila
spp. (Lepidoptera: Erebidae: Arctiinae)
Two species of Amerila
were recorded during the survey, namely Amerila
astreus (Image 6a) and Amerila
omissa (Image 6b–d). Like that of Areas galactina,
both species are spectacular, with strikingly pink legs. Both were attracted to the light trap at the Tenompok FR nursery.
They are similar externally in appearance except for the dorsal part of
the abdomen. In A. astreus, it is entirely pink but only apically so in A.
omissa.
One of the interesting defense mechanisms that
was observed during the survey was the secretion of acrid smelling yellow froth
from the cervical glands at the anterior of the thorax when the moth was
disturbed.
Carton ball-like termite nests (Termitidae:
Nasutitermitinae)
While trekking along the trail (Sampling Site 3) from
Kg Bundu Tuhan, at least 10
ball-like termite nests were sighted from 1,300 to 1,461 m. They were found on tree trunks (Image 7a) or
hanging on tree branches (Image 7b), some of which were about the size of a
football. The nests were constructed
from soil and litter, mixed with termite saliva. This is interesting because it was rarely
observed in previous surveys in other forest reserves, e.g., Chung et al.
(2013, 2016a,b). The termites belong to
the Nasutiterminae group because of their
pointed-nose soldiers. They were
observed carrying their food back to the nest openly in an organized manner
(Image 7c).
Issues indirectly affecting insect diversity
Among many of the forest reserves in Sabah, Tenompok FR is considered one of those that is
well-protected, with active participation from the local communities. The reserve is a source of water supply for
many of the adjacent villages. Hence,
the local communities have formed a committee to monitor and take care of the
resources in the reserve. Sign boards
were put up to warn trespassers into the reserve (Image 8). During the survey, a few villagers joined the
researchers, indicating that they were keen to know more about the resources in
the reserve.
Tenompok FR is located between Kinabalu
Park and the Crocker Range Park. Hence,
the reserve is important as a corridor connecting the two park areas,
especially for wildlife movement. It is
a stepping stone approach for movement of birds and insects, and the adverse
impacts on inbreeding and decline in genetic diversity can be reduced. Staff from Sabah Parks and the Ecolinc project also participated in this survey to enhance
their info on this area. The Ecolinc project was initiated some eight years ago under
the EU-REDD+ programme to promote and enhance awareness to the local
communities on forest connectivity and related activities on climate change and
sustainable forest management. ECOLINC is the acronym for ECOlogical
Linkage (conserving Sabah’s heritage, empowering INdigenous
Communities).
Although the forest is considered well-protected, the
survey team also spotted a few animal traps in the forest. Among them was a pangolin trap at the base of
a big tree (Image 9a). A few tree trunks
were partly burnt previously, presumably to harvest honey from the stingless
bees (Image 9b).
It is important for the local communities to work
hand-in-hand with the relevant departments and agencies to tackle various
issues pertaining to forest biodiversity which could indirectly affect insect
population (Nilus et al. 2013). As shown in this brief study, relatively high
diversity of insects and many endemic species were recorded. Hence, it is important to continue to protect
the forest for its interesting biodiversity, in line with the goals of the
Sabah Biodiversity Strategy (Anon. 2012), guided by the National Policy on
Biodiversity.
Impediments in insect fauna study
Impediments to identification are one of the major
reasons why insect data are not the prime focus in conservation, as the group
is perceived too big and unwieldy to use. Misidentification potentially lead to
overestimating or underestimating species richness, and these problems can
extremely compromise research involving diversity. Poor taxonomy can jeopardize the
understanding of ecological patterns since they are based on richness and
measurement of species turnover between sites, respectively.
For biodiversity conservation, taxonomy is important,
primarily because in order to protect a taxon it is
essential know it first, and secondly, because no conservation action can
protect undescribed species. In this
study, the enumeration on nocturnal insect diversity was based on morphospecies.
Photographs of insects were taken and identification was based on
various publications and the scientific reference collection at the Forest
Research Centre, Sepilok. Various experts on certain insect groups also
provided input in the identification of insects in this study.
CONCLUSION
From this study, the nocturnal insect diversity in Tenompok FR was moderately high when compared to other
forest reserves surveyed earlier. Many
endemic species were recorded in this montane forest.
The pioneer data from this rapid biodiversity
assessment will serve as baseline information for other research work in
future. Local university students could
use these data for comparative study for long-term monitoring on the insect
diversity status of Tenompok FR. The endemics and insect species with
conservation interest recorded during the survey provide salient information to
enhance the conservation of this forest as a Class I FR. Such information can also be used in
promoting nature tourism in Tenompok which is located
adjacent to the touristic Kinabalu Park and Crocker
Range Park.
Issues, such as poaching and encroachment may
indirectly affect the insect fauna. Relevant agencies would have to work
hand-in-hand to tackle the issues with the local communities. Public awareness and environmental education
would have to be enhanced among the villagers and their children who are living
adjacent to the reserve to instill on them the
importance of biodiversity conservation.
Table 1. Light-trapping positions at the nursery of Tenompok FR.
|
Sampling position |
Coordinates |
Elevation (m) |
Temp. (°C) |
Humidity (%) |
Sampling date |
Remarks |
|
A |
6.02050N 116.4990E |
1326 |
17.9 |
88 |
6 Sep |
Cloudy |
|
B |
6.0200N 116.4990E |
1329 |
18.0 |
90 |
7 Sep |
Cloudy |
|
C |
6.0200N 116.4990E |
1334 |
17.9 |
91 |
8 Sep |
Cloudy and misty |
Table 2. Daytime sampling sites in Tenompok
FR from 5 to 9 September 2016.
|
Sampling site |
Starting point coordinates |
Elevation (m) |
|
1 -- (Along the forest trail at Tenompok
nursery) |
6.0200N 116.4990E |
1327–1404 |
|
2 -- (Along the view point trail at Tenompok nursery) |
6.0200N 116.4990E |
1327–1397 |
|
3 -- (Along the trail at Kg Bundu
Tuhan) |
5.9620N 116.5370E |
1224–1461 |
Table 3. Insect diversity within a 1 x 1 m2
of the light-trapping cloth, as sampled in Tenompok
FR.
|
|
Sampling position |
Species |
Ind. |
Shannon |
Simpson |
Fisher Alpha |
|
1 |
A |
77 |
93 |
4.26 |
178.3 |
210.1 |
|
2 |
B |
56 |
64 |
3.98 |
224 |
214.3 |
|
3 |
C |
85 |
96 |
4.37 |
217.1 |
356.2 |
|
|
Mean |
73±15 |
84±18 |
4.2±0.2 |
206.5±24.6 |
260.2±83.2 |
Table 4. Bornean endemic insect species from Tenompok FR during the survey. The photographs of moth and beetle species
are shown in Figures 6 and 7, respectively.
|
|
Species |
Author |
Order |
Family |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 |
Odontolabis leuthneri |
Boileau |
Coleoptera |
Lucanidae |
|
2 |
Amata prepuncta |
Holloway |
Lepidoptera |
Erebidae |
|
3 |
Auriculoceryx pterodactyliformis |
Holloway |
Lepidoptera |
Erebidae |
|
4 |
Metaemene albigrisea |
Holloway |
Lepidoptera |
Erebidae |
|
5 |
Cyana cruentata |
Talbot |
Lepidoptera |
Erebidae |
|
6 |
Cyana saulia |
Swinhoe |
Lepidoptera |
Erebidae |
|
7 |
Garudina macrolatana |
Holloway |
Lepidoptera |
Erebidae |
|
8 |
Lyclene mesilaulinea |
Holloway |
Lepidoptera |
Erebidae |
|
9 |
Monosyntaxis trimaculata |
Hampson |
Lepidoptera |
Erebidae |
|
10 |
Spilosoma groganae |
Holloway |
Lepidoptera |
Erebidae |
|
11 |
Asota kinabaluensis |
Rothschild |
Lepidoptera |
Erebidae |
|
12 |
Ozola submontana |
Holloway |
Lepidoptera |
Geometridae |
|
13 |
Plutodes evaginata |
Holloway |
Lepidoptera |
Geometridae |
|
14 |
Problepsis borneamagna |
Holloway |
Lepidoptera |
Geometridae |
|
15 |
Spaniocentra apatelloides |
Holloway |
Lepidoptera |
Geometridae |
|
16 |
Buzara saikehi |
Holloway |
Lepidoptera |
Noctuidae |
|
17 |
Mudaria magniplaga |
Walker |
Lepidoptera |
Noctuidae |
|
18 |
Manoba coadei |
Holloway |
Lepidoptera |
Nolidae |
|
19 |
Tyana marina |
Warren |
Lepidoptera |
Nolidae |
|
20 |
Panacra psaltria |
Jordan |
Lepidoptera |
Sphingidae |
For
figures & images - - click here
REFERENCES
Acres, B.P., R.P. Bower, P.A. Burrough,
C.J. Folland, M.S. Kalsi, P. Thomas & P.S. Wright
(1975). The soils of Sabah. Volume 1.
Classification and description. Land
Resources Study 20. Land Resources
Division, Ministry of Overseas Development, Tolworth Tower, Surbiton, Surrey,
England.
Anon. (2012). Sabah Biodiversity Strategy 2012–2022.
Sabah State Government, Universiti Malaysia Sabah
& Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA).
Anon. (2013). Strategic Plan of Action (Sabah), the Heart of
Borneo Initiative (2014–2020). Sabah Forestry Department &
WWF-Malaysia, 92pp.
Anon. (2016). National Policy on Biodiversity.
https://www.mybis.gov.my/pb/590 (Date
accessed: 3 January, 2020).
Balvanera, P., A.B. Pfisterer, N.
Buchmann, J.-H. He, T. Nakashizuka, D. Raffaelli & B. Schmid (2006). Quantifying the evidence for biodiversity effects on
ecosystem functioning and services. Ecology Letters 9: 1146–1156.
Basset, Y. & G.P.A. Lamarre (2019). Toward a world
that values insects. Science 364(6447): 1230–1231.
Beck, J. & W. Schwanghart
(2010). Comparing measures of species diversity from incomplete inventories: an
update. Methods in Ecology and Evolution 1: 38–44.
Cardinale, B.J., D.S. Srivastava, J.E. Duffy, J.P.
Wright, A.L. Downing, M. Sankaran &
C. Jouseau (2006). Effects of biodiversity on the functioning of trophic
groups and ecosystems. Nature (443):
989–992.
Chung, A.Y.C., S.K.F. Chew, R. Majapun & R. Nilus (2013). Insect diversity
of Bukit Hampuan Forest Reserve, Sabah,
Malaysia. Journal of Threatened
Taxa 5(10): 4461–4473.
Chung, A.Y.C., R. Nilus
& F. Kugan (2015). Sabah’s rainforests: a treasure trove of fascinating
insects. Paper presented at the International Conference on Rainforest Ecology,
Diversity and Conservation in Borneo, Kota Kinabalu,
Sabah. 9–11 June 2015.
Chung, A.Y.C., S. Bosuang,
R. Majapun & R. Nilus
(2016a). Diversity and geographical ranges
of insects in Crocker Range Forest Reserve, Sabah, Malaysia. Journal of
Tropical Biology & Conservation 13: 135–155.
Chung, A.Y.C., E. Khoo, R. Nilus,
M.A.F. Suis & J.B. Sugau
(2016b). An insect survey in Kungkular Forest Reserve, Tenom,
Sabah. Sepilok Bulletin 23 & 24:
37–50.
Costello, M.J., K.H. Beard, R.T. Corlett, G.S.
Cumming, V. Devictor, R. Loyola, B. Maas, A.J.
Miller-Rushing, R. Pakeman & R.B. Primack (2016). Field work ethics in biological research. Biological
conservation 203: 268–271.
Didham, R.K., S.R. Leather & Y. Basset (2019). Ethics in
entomology. Antenna 43(3): 124–125.
Fujita, H. (2010). The lucanid beetles of the world. Mushi-Sha’s Iconographic Series of Insects 6. Tokyo, Japan.
HCVRN (2013). High Conservation Value Resource Network – common
guidance for HCV identification for high conservation values. The Proforest Initiative, Oxford, UK, 74pp.
Hill, D. & F. Abang
(2005). The insects of Borneo
(including South-east and East Asia). Universiti
Malaysia Sarawak. 435 pp.
Holloway, J.D. (1983). Moths of Borneo (part 4): family Notodontidae
Malayan Nature Journal 37: 1–107.
Holloway, J.D. (1985). Moths of Borneo (part 14): Family Noctuidae:
subfamilies Euteliinae, Stictopterinae,
Plusiinae, Pantheinae Malayan Nature Journal 38: 157–317.
Holloway, J.D. (1986). Moths of Borneo (part 1): key to families: families Cossidae, Metarbelidae, Ratardidae, Dudgeoneidae, Epipyropidae and Limacodidae. Malayan
Nature Journal 40: 1–166.
Holloway, J.D. (1987). The moths of Borneo (part 3): superfamily Bombycoidea: families Lasiocampidae,
Eupterotidae, Bombycidae, Brahmaeidae, Saturniidae, Sphingidae. Southdene Sdn. Bhd., Kuala Lumpur, 199pp.
Holloway, J.D. (1988). The moths of Borneo (part 6): family Arctiidae, subfamilies Syntominae,
Euchromiinae, Arctiinae; Noctuidae misplaced in Arctiidae
(Camptoloma, Aganainae).
Southdene Sdn. Bhd., Kuala
Lumpur, 101pp.
Holloway, J.D. (1989). The moths of Borneo (part 12): family Noctuidae, trifine subfamilies: Noctuinae, Heliothinae, Hadeninae, Acronictinae, Amphipyrinae, Agaristinae. Southdene Sdn. Bhd., Kuala
Lumpur, 226pp.
Holloway, J.D. (1993). The moths of Borneo (part 11): family Geometridae, subfamily Ennominae. Southdene Sdn. Bhd., Kuala Lumpur, 309pp.
Holloway, J.D. (1996). The moths of Borneo (part 9): family Geometridae, subfamilies Oenochrominae,
Desmobathrinae and Geometrinae.
Malayan Nature Journal 49: 147–326.
Holloway, J.D. (1997). The moths of Borneo (part 10): family Geometridae, subfamilies Sterrhinae
& Larentiinae. Malayan Nature Journal 51:
1–242.
Holloway, J.D. (1998). The moths of Borneo (part 8): families Castniidae, Callidulidae, Drepanidae & Uraniidae. Malayan
Nature Journal 52: 1–155.
Holloway, J.D. (1999). The moths of Borneo (part 5): family Lymantriidae. Malayan Nature Journal 53: 1–188.
Holloway, J.D. (2001). The moths of Borneo (part 7): family Arctiidae, subfamily
Lithosiinae. Southdene
Sdn. Bhd., Kuala Lumpur, 486pp.
Holloway, J.D. (2003). The moths of Borneo (part 18): family Nolidae. Southdene Sdn. Bhd., Kuala Lumpur, 279pp.
Holloway, J.D. (2005). The moths of Borneo: family Noctuidae,
subfamily Catocalinae. Malayan Nature Journal
58(1–4): 1–529.
Holloway, J.D. (2008). The moths of Borneo: family Noctuidae,
subfamilies Rivulinae, Phytometrinae,
Herminiinae, Hypeninae and Hypenodinae. Malayan Nature Journal 60(1–4): 1–268.
Holloway, J.D. (2009). The moths of Borneo (part 13): family Noctuidae, subfamily Pantheinae
(part), Bagisarinae, Acontiinae,
Aediinae, Eustrotiinae, Bryophilinae, Araeopteroninae, Aventiinae, Eublemminae and
further miscellaneous genera. Malayan Nature Journal 62(1&2): 1–240.
Holloway, J.D. (2011). The moths of Borneo: families Phaudidae,
Himantopteridae and Zygaenidae;
revised and annotated checklist. Malayan Nature Journal 63(1–2): 1–548.
Isbell, F., V. Calcagno, A. Hector, J. Connolly, S. Harpole, P.B. Reich, M. Scherer-Lorenzen, B. Schmid, D.
Tilman, J. van Ruijven, A. Weigelt,
B.J. Wilsey,
E.S. Zavaleta
& M. Loreau (2011). High plant diversity is needed to maintain ecosystem
services. Nature (199): 202.
Kirton, L.G. (2014). A naturalist’s guide to the butterflies of
Peninsular Malaysia, Singapore and Thailand. John Beaufoy
Publ. Ltd., UK & FRIM, Malaysia, 176pp.
Magurran, A.E. (1988). Ecological Diversity and its Measurement.
Croom Helm, London, 178pp.
Magurran, A.E. (2004). Measuring Biological Diversity. Blackwell, UK.
Makihara, H. (1999).
Atlas of longicorn beetles in Bukit Soeharto
Education Forest, Mulawarman University, East
Kalimantan, Indonesia. PUSREHUT Special Publication No. 7. Mulawarman University & JICA, 140pp.
Merckx, V.S., K.P. Hendriks, K.K. Beentjes, C.B. Mennes, L.E.
Becking, K.T. Peijnenburg
, A. Afendy,
N. Arumugam, H. de Boer, A. Biun,
M.M. Buang, P.P. Chen, A.Y.C. Chung,
R. Dow, F.A. Feijen, H. Feijen, C. Feijen-van Soest, J. Geml, R. Geurts, B. Gravendeel,
P. Hovenkamp, P. Imbun,
I. Ipor, S.B. Janssens, M. Jocqué, H. Kappes, E.
Khoo, P. Koomen, F. Lens, R.J. Majapun, L.N. Neupane, N.
Nieser, J.T. Pereira, H. Rahman, S. Sabran, A. Sawang, R.M.
Schwallier, P.S. Shim, H. Smit, N. Sol, M. Spait, M. Stech, F. Stokvis, J.B. Sugau, M.
Suleiman, S. Sumail, D.C. Thomas, J.
van Tol, F.Y. Tuh,
B.E. Yahya, J. Nais, R. Repin, M. Lakim &
M. Schilthuizen (2015).
Evolution of endemism on a young tropical mountain. Nature 524: 347–350.
Nilus, R., J.T. Pereira, A.Y.C. Chung, J.B. Sugau, S. Sabran, C. Prudente
& F. Kugan (2013). Inventory of biodiversity in the Heart of Borneo (HoB), Sabah. Paper presented at the International
Conference on Heart of Borneo’s Natural Capital: Unleashing their Potential for
Sustainable Growth in Sabah. 11–12 November, 2013, Kota Kinabalu,
Sabah.
Oldfield, M. (2014). The green heart of Sabah. Scubazoo
Publications & Sabah Forestry Department, 255pp.
Orr, A.G. (2003). A guide to the dragonflies of Borneo: their
identification and biology. Natural History Publications (Borneo), Kota Kinabalu, 195pp.
Otsuka, K. (1988). Butterflies of Borneo. Vol. I. Tobishima
Corporation, Tokyo, Japan, 61pp.
Otsuka, K. (2001). A field guide to the butterflies of Borneo and
South East Asia. Hornbill Books, 224pp.
Peh, K.S.-H. & S.L. Lewis (2012). Conservation implications of recent advances in
biodiversity-functioning research. Biological Conservation 151: 26–31.
Robinson, G.S., K.R. Tuck & M. Shaffer (1994). A field guide to smaller moths of South-east Asia.
The Natural History Museum, London & Malaysian Nature Society, 309pp.
Seaby, R.M.H. & P.A. Henderson (2007). Species Diversity & Richness version 4.1.2.
Pisces Conservation Ltd., Lymington, UK.
Southwood, T.R.E. & P.A. Henderson (2000). Ecological methods. Blackwell, UK, 565pp.
Sutton, S., H. Barlow & T. Whitaker (2015). A preliminary guide to pyralids
of Borneo (part 1). Natural History Publications (Borneo) & Southdene Sdn. Bhd., Kuala
Lumpur, 89pp.
Tang, H.B., L.K. Wang, & M. Hamalainen
(2010). A photographic guide to the
dragonflies of Singapore. The Raffles Museum of Biodiversity Research,
Singapore, 222pp.
Tung, V.W–Y. (1983). Common Malaysian beetles. Longman, Kuala Lumpur, 142pp.
Zahiri, R., I.J. Kitching, J.D. Lafontaine, M. Mutanen, L. Kaila, J.D. Holloway & N. Wahlberg (2010). A new molecular phylogeny offers hope for a stable
family level classification of Noctuoidea
(Lepidoptera). Zoologica Scripta 2010: 1–16.
Zahiri, R., J.D. Holloway, I.J. Kitching, J.D.
Lafontaine, M. Mutanen, & N. Wahlberg (2011). Molecular phylogenetics of Erebidae
(Lepidoptera, Noctuoidea). Systematic Entomology 37(1):
102–124. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-3113.2011.00607.x
Appendix 1. Butterflies recorded from Tenompok FR, Sabah (5–9 September 2016).
|
|
Species |
Author |
Family |
Photo no. (TEN) * |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 |
Graphium sarpedon sarpedon |
Linnaeus |
Papilionidae |
0432 |
|
2 |
Trogonoptera brookiana brookiana |
Wallace |
Papilionidae |
Spotted |
|
3 |
Troides amphrysus flavicollis |
Druce |
Papilionidae |
Spotted |
|
4 |
Troides sp. |
|
Papilionidae |
Spotted |
|
5 |
Eurema blanda blanda |
Boisduval |
Pieridae |
0182 |
|
6 |
Cethosia hypsea hypsea |
Doubleday |
Nymphalidae |
0018 |
|
7 |
Euploea mulciber portia |
Fruhstorfer |
Nymphalidae |
0180 |
|
8 |
Junonia orithya metion |
Fruhstorfer |
Nymphalidae |
0437 |
|
9 |
Mycalesis sp. |
|
Nymphalidae |
0362 |
|
10 |
Neptis duryodana duryodana |
Moore |
Nymphalidae |
0184 |
|
11 |
Ypthima pandocus
sertorius |
Fruhstorfer |
Nymphalidae |
0015 |
|
12 |
Sinthusa sp. |
|
Lycaenidae |
0158 |
|
13 |
Potanthus sp. |
|
Hesperiidae |
0409 |
Appendix 2. Selected moths recorded from Tenompok FR, Sabah (5–9 September 2016).
|
|
Species |
Author |
Family |
Photo no. (TEN)
* |
Remarks |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 |
Penicillifera apicalis |
Walker |
Bombycidae |
0453 |
|
|
2 |
Arthroschista hilaralis |
Walker |
Crambidae |
0512 |
|
|
3 |
Dichocrocis zebralis |
Moore |
Crambidae |
0124 |
|
|
4 |
Fritillerynnis clathraria |
Warren |
Crambidae |
0255, 0107 |
|
|
5 |
Heortia vitessoides |
Moore |
Crambidae |
0469, 0473 |
|
|
6 |
Nevrina procopia |
Stoll |
Crambidae |
0463 |
|
|
7 |
Pitama hermesalis |
Walker |
Crambidae |
0095 |
|
|
8 |
Rhimphalea sp. |
|
Crambidae |
0083 |
|
|
9 |
Syllepte iophanes |
Meyrick |
Crambidae |
0112 |
|
|
10 |
Syllepte sp. |
|
Crambidae |
0133 |
|
|
11 |
Xanthomelaena sp. |
|
Crambidae |
0261 |
|
|
12 |
Oreta sp. |
|
Drepanidae |
0263 |
|
|
13 |
Tridrepana flava |
Moore |
Drepanidae |
0126 |
|
|
14 |
Asota heliconia |
Linnaeus |
Erebidae |
0488 |
|
|
15 |
Asota kinabaluensis |
Rothschild |
Erebidae |
0259 |
Endemic |
|
16 |
Asota nr producta |
Butler |
Erebidae |
0511 |
|
|
17 |
Nyctemera muelleri |
Vollenhoven |
Erebidae |
0456, 0458 |
|
|
18 |
Nyctemera sp. |
|
Erebidae |
0321 |
Day flying |
|
19 |
Amata prepuncta |
Holloway |
Erebidae (Arctiinae) |
0264 |
Endemic |
|
20 |
Amerila astreus |
Drury |
Erebidae (Arctiinae) |
0478 |
|
|
21 |
Amerila omissa |
Rothschild |
Erebidae (Arctiinae) |
0502, 0523 |
|
|
22 |
Areas galactina |
Hoeven |
Erebidae (Arctiinae) |
0052, 0065 |
|
|
23 |
Asura fulguritis |
Hampson |
Erebidae (Arctiinae) |
0125 |
|
|
24 |
Auriculoceryx pterodactyliformis |
Holloway |
Erebidae (Arctiinae) |
0243, 0256 |
Endemic |
|
25 |
Barsine lineatus |
Walker |
Erebidae (Arctiinae) |
0108 |
|
|
26 |
Barsine roseororatus |
Butler |
Erebidae (Arctiinae) |
0241 |
|
|
27 |
Creatonotos transiens |
Walker |
Erebidae (Arctiinae) |
0091 |
|
|
28 |
Cyana cruentata |
Talbot |
Erebidae (Arctiinae) |
0238 |
Endemic |
|
29 |
Cyana pudens |
Walker |
Erebidae (Arctiinae) |
0481 |
|
|
30 |
Cyana saulia |
Swinhoe |
Erebidae (Arctiinae) |
0111 |
Endemic |
|
31 |
Eilema sp. |
|
Erebidae (Arctiinae) |
0480 |
|
|
32 |
Eugoa trifasciata |
Snellen |
Erebidae (Arctiinae) |
0239 |
|
|
33 |
Garudina macrolatana |
Holloway |
Erebidae (Arctiinae) |
0454 |
Endemic |
|
34 |
Lyclene angulifera |
Holloway |
Erebidae (Arctiinae) |
0240 |
|
|
35 |
Lyclene mesilaulinea |
Holloway |
Erebidae (Arctiinae) |
0092, 0265 |
Endemic |
|
36 |
Monosyntaxis trimaculata |
Hampson |
Erebidae (Arctiinae) |
0234 |
Endemic |
|
37 |
Padenia obliquifascia |
Rothschild |
Erebidae (Arctiinae) |
0484 |
|
|
38 |
Spilosoma groganae |
Holloway |
Erebidae (Arctiinae) |
0066, 0260 |
Endemic |
|
39 |
Metaemene albigrisea |
Holloway |
Erebidae (Boletobiinae) |
0125 |
Endemic |
|
40 |
Metaemene sp. |
|
Erebidae (Boletobiinae) |
0250 |
|
|
41 |
Arctornis sp. |
|
Erebidae (Lymantriinae) |
0075 |
|
|
42 |
Nygmia amplior |
Collenette |
Erebidae (Lymantriinae) |
0110 |
|
|
43 |
Nygmia nr atereta |
Collenette |
Erebidae (Lymantriinae) |
0088 |
|
|
44 |
Nygmia nr atrisignata |
Swinhoe |
Erebidae (Lymantriinae) |
0268 |
|
|
45 |
Nygmia peperites |
Collenette |
Erebidae (Lymantriinae) |
0081 |
|
|
46 |
Eupterote asclepiades |
Felder |
Eupterotidae |
0524 |
|
|
47 |
Eupterote naessigi |
Holloway |
Eupterotidae |
0134 |
|
|
48 |
Eupterote sp. |
|
Eupterotidae |
0086 |
|
|
49 |
Dichomeris sp. |
|
Gelechiidae |
0487 |
|
|
50 |
Chloroglyphica xeromeris |
Prout |
Geometridae |
0262 |
|
|
51 |
Cleora sp.
1 |
|
Geometridae |
0270 |
|
|
52 |
Cleora sp.
2 |
|
Geometridae |
0272 |
|
|
53 |
Comostola pyrrhogona |
Walker |
Geometridae |
0094 |
|
|
54 |
Comostola subtiliaria |
Bremer |
Geometridae |
0069 |
|
|
55 |
Dooabia plana |
Prout |
Geometridae |
0132 |
|
|
56 |
Eucyclodes sp. |
|
Geometridae |
0076 |
|
|
57 |
Hypephyra brunneiplaga |
Swinhoe |
Geometridae |
0105 |
|
|
58 |
Hypochrosis hyadaria |
Guenée |
Geometridae |
0093 |
|
|
59 |
Hyposidra apioleuca |
Prout |
Geometridae |
0507 |
|
|
60 |
Omiza lycoraria |
Guenée |
Geometridae |
0121 |
|
|
61 |
Ornithospila bipunctata |
Prout |
Geometridae |
0465, 0468 |
|
|
62 |
Ozola liwana |
Sommerer |
Geometridae |
0115 |
|
|
63 |
Ozola submontana |
Holloway |
Geometridae |
0067 |
Endemic |
|
64 |
Pachyodes sp. |
|
Geometridae |
0097 |
|
|
65 |
Perixera sp. |
|
Geometridae |
0116 |
|
|
66 |
Pingasa sp. |
|
Geometridae |
0257 |
|
|
67 |
Plutodes evaginata |
Holloway |
Geometridae |
0489, 0129 |
Endemic |
|
68 |
Problepsis borneamagna |
Holloway |
Geometridae |
0452 |
Endemic |
|
69 |
Protuliocnemis biplagiata |
Moore |
Geometridae |
0074 |
|
|
70 |
Ruttellerona sp. |
|
Geometridae |
0127 |
|
|
71 |
Spaniocentra apatelloides |
Holloway |
Geometridae |
0096 |
Endemic |
|
72 |
Thinopteryx crocopterata |
Kollar |
Geometridae |
0087 |
|
|
73 |
Tristeirometa sp. |
|
Geometridae |
0119 |
|
|
74 |
Trabala hantu |
Roepke |
Lasiocampidae |
0522 |
|
|
75 |
Scopelodes unicolor |
Westwood |
Limacodidae |
0106 |
|
|
76 |
Unidentified |
|
Noctuidae |
0123 |
|
|
77 |
Buzara saikehi |
Bremer |
Noctuidae |
0073 |
Endemic |
|
78 |
Catocala macula |
Hampson |
Noctuidae |
0118, 0131 |
|
|
79 |
Daddala lucilla |
Butler |
Noctuidae |
0251 |
|
|
80 |
Daddala sp. |
|
Noctuidae |
0244 |
|
|
81 |
Episparis costistriga |
Walker |
Noctuidae |
0077 |
|
|
82 |
Hamodes propitia |
Guérin-Méneville |
Noctuidae |
0117 |
|
|
83 |
Hypopyra ossigeroides |
Holloway |
Noctuidae |
0113 |
|
|
84 |
Mudaria magniplaga |
Walker |
Noctuidae |
0128 |
Endemic |
|
85 |
Ochrotrigona praetextata |
Hering |
Noctuidae |
0476 |
|
|
86 |
Psimada quadripennis |
Walker |
Noctuidae |
0252 |
|
|
87 |
Rema sp. |
|
Noctuidae |
0269 |
|
|
88 |
Rusicada nigritarsis |
Walker |
Noctuidae |
0509 |
|
|
89 |
Rusicada sp. |
|
Noctuidae |
0271 |
|
|
90 |
Unidentified |
|
Noctuidae? |
0254 |
|
|
91 |
Blenina sp. |
|
Nolidae |
0090 |
|
|
92 |
Clethrophora angulipennis |
Prout |
Nolidae |
0485 |
|
|
93 |
Hylophilodes nr dubia |
Prout |
Nolidae |
0483 |
|
|
94 |
Manoba coadei |
Holloway |
Nolidae |
0273 |
Endemic |
|
95 |
Tyana marina |
Warren |
Nolidae |
0510 |
Endemic |
|
96 |
Acosmeryx shervillii |
Boisduval |
Sphingidae |
0089 |
|
|
97 |
Hippotion rosetta |
Swinhoe |
Sphingidae |
0245 |
|
|
98 |
Panacra psaltria |
Jordan |
Sphingidae |
0464 |
Endemic |
|
99 |
Theretra boisduvali |
Bugnion |
Sphingidae |
0508 |
|
|
100 |
Theretra latreillei |
MacLeay |
Sphingidae |
0246 |
|
|
101 |
Dysaethria quadricaudata |
Walker |
Uraniidae |
0482 |
|
|
102 |
Dysaethria sp. |
|
Uraniidae |
0267 |
|
Appendix 3. Beetles recorded from Tenompok
FR, Sabah (5–9 September 2016).
|
|
Species |
Author |
Family |
Photo no.
(TEN) * |
Remarks |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 |
Mimopolemius sp. 1 |
|
Cantharidae |
0104 |
|
|
2 |
Mimopolemius sp. 2 |
|
Cantharidae |
0304 |
|
|
3 |
Batocera tigris |
Voet |
Cerambycidae |
0175, 0174 |
Rare (1,400m) |
|
4 |
Unidentified |
|
Chrysomelidae |
0048, 0043 |
|
|
5 |
Eumorphus sp. |
|
Endomychidae |
9977 |
|
|
6 |
Eulichas sp. |
|
Eulichadidae |
0275 |
|
|
7 |
Unidentified |
|
Lampyridae |
0049 |
Bioluminescent larva |
|
8 |
Odontolabis leuthneri |
Boileau |
Lucanidae |
0209 |
Endemic (1,600m) |
|
9 |
Aceraius sp. |
|
Passalidae |
0072 |
|
Appendix 4. Other insects recorded from Tenompok FR, Sabah (5–9 September 2016).
|
|
Species |
Author |
Order |
Family |
Photo no.
(TEN)* |
Remarks |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 |
Bulbitermes sp. |
|
Blattodea |
Termitidae |
0343 |
|
|
2 |
Hospitalitermes sp. |
|
Blattodea |
Termitidae |
0336, 0365, 0373, 0386 |
|
|
3 |
Unidentified 1 |
|
Hemiptera |
|
9969 |
|
|
4 |
Unidentified 2 |
|
Hemiptera |
|
9972 |
|
|
5 |
Unidentified 3 |
|
Hemiptera |
|
0358 |
|
|
6 |
Blastophaga sp. |
|
Hymenoptera |
Agaonidae |
0324 |
Fig wasps |
|
7 |
Apis cerana |
Fabricius |
Hymenoptera |
Apidae |
0156 |
|
|
8 |
Dolichoderus sp. |
|
Hymenoptera |
Formicidae |
9974, 9967 |
|
|
9 |
Myrmicaria sp. |
|
Hymenoptera |
Formicidae |
0022 |
|
|
10 |
Provespa anomala |
De Saussure |
Hymenoptera |
Vespidae |
0078, 0253 |
|
|
11 |
Unidentifed |
|
Mantodea |
Mantidae |
9983 |
|
|
12 |
Vestalis sp. |
|
Odonata |
Calopterygidae |
0423 |
|
|
13 |
Euphaea sp. |
|
Odonata |
Euphaeidae |
0414 |
|
|
14 |
Orthetrum glaucum |
Brauer |
Odonata |
Libellulidae |
0434 |
|
|
15 |
Orthetrum testaceum |
Burmeister |
Odonata |
Libellulidae |
0433 |
|
|
16 |
Nisitrus vittatus |
de Haan |
Orthoptera |
Gryllidae |
0012 |
|
|
17 |
Mecopoda sp. |
|
Orthoptera |
Tettigoniidae |
0417 |
|
*Note: TEN 0000 is the photo code for Tenompok FR insects. All photographs were taken by the
first author and are kept in the Forest Research Centre of the Sabah Forestry
Department.