Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | 26 July 2021 | 13(8): 19137–19143

 

ISSN 0974-7907 (Online) | ISSN 0974-7893 (Print) 

https://doi.org/10.11609/jott.7095.13.8.19137-19143

#7095 | Received 18 January 2021 | Final received 12 June 2021 | Finally accepted 21 June 2021

 

 

Diversity pattern of butterfly communities (Lepidoptera) in different habitat types of Nahan, Himachal Pradesh, India

 

Suveena Thakur 1, Suneet Bahrdwaj 2  & Amar Paul Singh 3

 

1,2 Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, Indira Paryavaran Bhawan, Jorbagh Road, New Delhi 110003, India.

3 Department of Animal Ecology and Conservation Biology, Wildlife Institute of India, Chandrabani, Dehradun, Uttarakhand 248001, India.

1 suv_uhf@rediffmail.com (corresponding author), 2 bhardwaj-suneet1979@gmail.com, 3 amarpaulsingh4@gmail.com

 

 

 

Editor: Anonymity requested.   Date of publication: 26 July 2021 (online & print)

 

Citation: Thakur, S., S. Bahrdwaj & A.P. Singh (2021). Diversity pattern of butterfly communities (Lepidoptera) in different habitat types of Nahan, Himachal Pradesh, India.  Journal of Threatened Taxa 13(8): 19137–19143. https://doi.org/10.11609/jott.7095.13.8.19137–19143

 

Copyright: © Thakur et al. 2021. 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: Study was supported by Himachal Pradesh Forest Department.

 

Competing interests: The authors declare no competing interests.

 

Acknowledgements: We are thankful to the Himachal Pradesh Forest Department for providing logistic support and the necessary permission to conduct this study and also thankful to the director and dean, Wildlife Institute of India, Dehradun for encouragement and guidance.

 

 

 

Abstract: Diversity and similarity of butterfly communities were assessed in three different habitat types in the mountains of Nahan, Himachal Pradesh, from May 2012 to April 2013. A total of 75 species and five families were reported. Proportion of species was highest in deciduous dry forest (49%), followed by Shorea (Saal) forest (34%), and Pinus (Cheer) forest (17%). Family Pieridae was dominant followed by Nymphalidae in all three habitat types. Cluster analysis revealed that Cheer forest  stood out clearly from Dry and Saal forest which represents the different species composition. We found significant differences in butterfly diversity in the three forest types based on Shannon index, Simpson dominance index, and Buzas & Gibson’s evenness. These differences may be attributable to variations in host and nectar plant distribution. Of the habitats surveyed, dry deciduous forest appeared to be the most suitable for butterfly conservation.

 

Keywords: Butterfly, diversity index, species composition, western Himalaya.

 

 

 

Insect diversity is influenced by available vegetation (DeVries 1992). The diversity of some moths and beetles are high in natural forests and low in secondary forests (Morse et al. 1988; Barlow & Woiwod 1989), but butterfly diversity has been found to usually be low in natural forests, moderate in disturbed forests and high in moderately disturbed forests (Blair & Launer 1997; Schulze et al. 2004) or near forest banks (Vu 2008, 2009).

Asian forests are under intense pressure from deforestation and forest degradation (Achard et al. 2002), which can have large effects on biodiversity. Climate change is another factor affecting biodiversity (Stange & Ayres 2010). Lepidoptera (moths and butterflies) are considered bioindicator species because of their sensitivity to climate change (Ronkay 2004). For example, recently some butterflies have shifted their distribution northwards in Europe and North America (Parmesan 1996; Parmesan et al. 1999; Sparks et al. 2007), and local species compositions have also been affected by climate change (Woiwod 1997).

Tropical butterfly assemblages have been observed to be largely dependent on closed-canopy forests (Collins & Morris 1985; Sutton & Collins 1991), which have a rich variety of vegetation (Erhardt 1985; Thomas & Mallorie 1985; Viejo 1989; Lawton et al. 1998). Such studies are important for determining patterns of tropical insect diversity in forest ecosystems (Brown 1991; DeVries et al. 1997). Various studies have been performed in Himachal Pradesh in order to document the diversity of butterflies on regional basis (Uniyal & Mathur 1998; Singh 2008; Arora et al. 2009; Bhardwaj & Uniyal 2009; Kumar 2009; Chandel et al. 2014). So far, no study has been performed to document the variation in butterfly diversity among different habitat types of Nahan, Himachal Pradesh. Therefore, the present study documented the seasonal (pre-monsoon, monsoon, post-monsoon, pre-winter, winter, and post-winter) variation of butterfly diversity among three different habitat types.

 

Material and Methods

Study was conducted in the three different forest types of Nahan town (30.55°N, 77.3°E) located in Sirmaur district of Himachal Pradesh with an elevation of 895 m. Nahan is situated in the Shivalik hills of western Himalaya. The town is surrounded by different forest patches, we conducted our study in Shorea (Saal) forest (30.554°N 77.293°E), deciduous dry forest (30.567°N 77.2852°E), and Pinus (Cheer) forest (30.563°N 77.314°E) (Figure 1).

Butterfly surveys were conducted from 8000 h to 1000 h and 1300 h to 1500 h in the afternoon, twice a month from May 2012 to April 2013. Butterflies were observed and identified in the field using a guide by Smetacek (2016) and doubtful species were collected using the sweep net method, identified & released immediately. We divided the data sets into six seasons: pre-monsoon (May–June), monsoon (June–July), post-monsoon (August–September), pre-winter (October–November), winter (December–January) and post-winter (February–March). Species diversity was calculated using:

Shannon index (Magurran 1988)

H’= −∑pi ln pi. (1)

pi= the proportion of the ith species in the total sample.

Simpson dominance index (D)

D= sum((ni/n)2) where ni is number of individuals of taxon i,

and Buzas & Gibson’s evenness= eH/S

where H is the Shannon diversity index and S is the number of species.

Comparisons of butterfly species composition among different forest types was estimated using single linkage cluster analysis based on Bray-Curtis similarity.

 

Results and Discussion

Seventy-five species of butterflies were recorded (Table 1). In dry deciduous forest, species from five families were recorded: Pieridae (46%), Nymphalidae (31%), Lycaenidae (19%), Papilionidae (2.7%), and Hesperiidae (1.4%). Pieridae were also dominant in Saal forest (45%), followed by Nymphalidae (31%), Lycaenidae (19%), Hesperiidae (2.7%), and Papilionidae (2.3%). Pieridae were also dominant in Cheer forest (61%) followed by Nymphalidae (27%), Lycaenidae (11%), and Hesperiidae (1.4%); no Papilionidae were recorded from Cheer forest.

The composition of butterfly communities in different habitat types is summarized in Figure 2. Comparisons indicate that Cheer forest had a markedly different species composition than dry deciduous and Saal forests, while the latter two showed similar species composition.

Shannon index in DDF ranged from 1.772 to 3.182 (Mean= 2.50 ± Sd 0.48), in SF from 1.435 to 3.065 (mean= 2.27 ± sd 0.57) and in CF from 0.8902 to 2.538 (mean= 1.75 ± sd 0.61) (Table 2, Figure 3). Diversity analysis for dominance in DDF ranged from 0.05334 to 0.2588 (mean= 0.12 ± sd 0.07), in SF from 0.05853 to 0.3208 (mean= 0.15 ± sd 0.09) and in CF from 0.09383 to 0.5542 (mean= 0.24 ± sd 0.16) (Table 3, Figure 4). Diversity analysis for evenness in DDF ranged from 0.4895 to 0.8237 (mean= 0.59 ± sd 0.12), in SF from 0.525 to 0.8608 (mean= 0.63 ± sd 0.15) and in CF from 0.4871 to 0.8742 (mean= 0.73 ± sd 0.14) (Table 4, Figure 5).

Species distribution governs the local assemblages (Ranta & Tiainen 1982). In this study, we documented the highest species diversity in DDF, followed by SF and CF. The habitat specificity of butterfly species is linked to the availability of host plants (Sarkar et al. 2011; Majumder et al. 2013), and in the present study species composition indicates the presence of host and nectar plants in particular areas and habitats. Family Pieridae was found dominant in all three forested habitats followed by Nymphalidae. Sarkar et al. (2011) also reported that the dominancy of Pieridae species correlates with the distribution of host plant species. On the other hand, high diversity of Nymphalidae directly indicates the high richness of host plants (Majumder et al. 2013). Nymphalidae species have a polyphagous nature, which allows them to inhabit vast habitats.

Bray-Curtis single linkage cluster analysis based on the similarity value revealed the percentage similarity between DDF and SF with a linkage of 99 % whereas CF has different species composition. We predicted that the Pinus roxburghii is the dominant plant species in cheer forest, which is why it has the lowest butterfly species diversity. Among all the habitats surveyed, the dry deciduous forest signified the most suitable habitat for butterfly diversity, which might be because of the habitat richness having the preferable nectar and host plant species.

 

 

Table 1. Butterfly species reported in different forest types. DDF—Dry deciduous forest | SF—Saal forest | CF—Cheer Forest of Nahan.

 

Family

Scientific name

Common name

DDF

SF

CF

1

Hesperiidae

Sarangesa dasahara (Moore, [1866])

Common Small Flat

4

18

7

2

Suastus gremius (Fabricius, 1798)

Oriental Palm Bob

1

0

0

3

Pelopidas mathias (Fabricius, 1798)

Small Branded Swift

1

0

0

4

Pelopidas sinensis (Mabille, 1877)

Chinese Branded Swift

0

3

0

5

Notocrypta feisthamelii (Boisduval, 1832)

Spotted Demon

4

7

0

6

Taractrocera danna (Moore, 1865)

White-Spotted Grass Dart

4

1

0

7

Ochlodes brahma (Moore, 1878)

Grey-Branded Darter

7

0

0

8

Lycaenidae

Zizeeria karsandra (Moore, 1865)

Dark Grass Blue

15

11

14

9

Zizula hylax (Fabricius, 1775)

Tiny Grass Blue

7

0

0

10

Pseudozizeeria maha (Kollar, [1844])

Pale Grass Blue

48

16

6

11

Heliophorus sena (Kollar, [1844])

Sorrel Sapphire

93

58

12

12

Zizina otis (Fabricius, 1787)

Lesser Grass Blue

28

20

11

13

Lampides boeticus (Linnaeus, 1767) 

Pea Blue

65

59

1

14

Acytolepis puspa (Horsfield, [1828])

Common Hedge Blue

19

11

6

15

Euchrysops cnejus (Fabricius, 1798)

Gram Blue

5

0

0

16

Arhopala rama (Kollar, [1844])

Dark Oakblue

1

0

0

17

Cyrestis thyodamas Doyère, [1840]

Common Map

0

14

0

18

Chilades pandava (Horsfield, [1829])

Plains Cupid

3

11

4

19

Talicada nyseus (Guérin-Méneville, 1843) 

Red Pierrot

2

2

0

20

Leptotes plinius (Fabricius, 1793)

Zebra Blue

1

1

0

21

Castalius rosimon (Fabricius, 1775)

Common Pierrot

3

0

0

22

Catochrysops strabo (Fabricius, 1793)

Forget-Me-Not

0

0

1

23

Rapala selira (Moore, 1874)

Himalayan Red Flash

1

0

0

24

Nymphalidae

Tirumala limniace (Cramer, [1775])

Blue Tiger

2

0

0

25

Phalanta phalantha (Drury, [1773])

Common Leopard

38

36

12

26

Neptis hylas (Linnaeus, 1758) 

Common Sailer

24

10

20

27

Aglais caschmirensis (Kollar, [1844])

Indian Tortoiseshell

4

0

0

28

Danaus chrysippus Linnaeus, 1758

Plain Tiger

6

5

11

29

Danaus genutia Cramer, 1779

Common Tiger

6

0

2

30

Danaus genutia (Cramer, [1779])

Striped Tiger

9

0

0

31

Parantica aglea (Stoll, [1782])

Glassy Tiger

6

5

0

32

Tirumala septentrionis (Butler, 1874)

Dark Blue Tiger

1

0

0

33

Junonia lemonias (Linnaeus, 1758) 

Lemon Pansy

156

145

20

34

Junonia hierta (Fabricius, 1798) 

Yellow Pansy

3

6

0

35

Junonia iphita (Cramer, [1779])

Chocolate Pansy

18

29

12

36

Vanessa indica (Herbst, 1794)

Indian Red Admiral

12

3

0

37

Kaniska canace (Linnaeus, 1763)

Blue Admiral

0

2

0

38

Vanessa cardui (Linnaeus, 1758)

Painted Lady

13

4

0

39

Kallima inachus (Doyère, [1840])

Orange Oakleaf

1

0

0

40

Ideopsis similis (Linnaeus, 1758)

Blue Glassy Tiger

2

3

4

41

Symphaedra nais (Forster, 1771)

Baronet

0

8

0

42

Mycalesis perseus Fabricius, 1775

Common Bushbrown

2

1

1

43

Melanitis leda (Linnaeus, 1758)

Evening Bushbrown

2

0

0

44

Melanitis phedima (Cramer, [1780]) 

Dark Evening Brown

0

0

3

45

Nymphalidae

Lethe rohria (Fabricius, 1787) 

Common Treebrown

2

0

0

46

Melanitis leda (Linnaeus, 1758) 

Common Evening Brown

1

0

0

47

Hypolimnas bolina (Linnaeus, 1758) 

Great Eggfly

5

4

0

48

Junonia hierta (Fabricius, 1798)

Yellow Pansy

1

0

0

49

Euthalia aconthea (Cramer, [1777])

Common Baron

4

0

0

50

Hypolimnas misippus (Linnaeus, 1764)  

Danaid Eggfly

2

2

0

51

Ypthima asterope (Klug, 1832) 

Common Three Ring

7

0

0

52

Ypthima baldus (Fabricius, 1775)

Common Five Ring

4

0

0

53

Papilio polytes Linnaeus, 1758

Common Mormon

81

34

48

54

Euploea core (Cramer, [1780])

Common Crow

14

4

0

55

Euploea mulciber (Cramer, [1777]) 

Striped Blue Crow

2

2

0

56

Ariadne ariadne (Linnaeus, 1763)

Angled Castor

26

11

0

57

Ariadne merione (Cramer, [1777])

Common Castor

21

11

4

58

Lethe confusa Aurivillius, [1898]

Banded Treebrown

0

0

3

59

Lasiommata schakra (Kollar, [1844])

Common Wall

1

0

0

60

Papilionidae

Pachliopta aristolochiae (Fabricius, 1775)

Common Rose

0

4

0

61

Papilio demoleus Linnaeus, 1758

Lime Swallowtail

39

18

0

62

Graphium nomius (Esper, 1799)

Spot Swordtail

2

2

0

63

Pieridae

Catopsilia pomona (Fabricius, 1775)

Lemon Emigrant

188

186

119

64

Eurema hecabe (Linnaeus, 1758)

Common Grass Yellow

98

67

44

65

Eurema brigitta (Stoll, [1780]) 

Small Grass Yellow

30

23

9

66

Cepora nerissa (Fabricius, 1775)

Common Gull

88

5

0

67

Delias belladonna (Fabricius, 1793)

Hill Jezebel

0

2

0

68

Pieris rapae Linnaeus, 1758 

Small Cabbage White

209

94

84

69

Catopsilia pyranthe (Linnaeus, 1758)

Mottled Emigrant

83

82

56

70

Belenois aurota (Fabricius, 1793)

Pioneer

13

4

0

71

Pontia daplidice (Linnaeus, 1758)

Bath White

2

0

0

72

Eurema laeta (Boisduval, 1836)

Spotless Grass Yellow

1

17

5

73

Eurema blanda (Boisduval, 1836)

Three Spot Grass Yellow

1

0

0

74

Delias eucharis (Drury, 1773) 

Indian Jezebel

0

0

0

75

Pieris brassicae (Linnaeus, 1758)

Large Cabbage White

2

0

0

 

 

Table 2. Two way ANOVA For Shannon diversty Index between seasons and forest type.

Source of variation

SS

Df

MS

F

P-value

F crit

Forest type

1.757115

2

0.878557

46.02805

9.03E-06

4.102821

Season

4.471064

5

0.894213

46.84824

1.28E-06

3.325835

Error

0.190874

10

0.019087

 

 

 

Total

6.419053

17

 

 

 

 

 

 

Tale 3. Two way ANOVA For Simpson’s dominance index between seasons and forest type.

Source of variation

SS

df

MS

F

P-value

F crit

Forest type

0.049197

2

0.024598

8.719129

0.00643

4.102821

Season

0.178656

5

0.035731

12.66528

0.000462

3.325835

Error

0.028212

10

0.002821

 

 

 

Total

0.256064

17

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 4. Two way ANOVA For Buzas & Gibson’s evenness index between seasons and forest type.

Source of variation

SS

df

MS

F

P-value

F crit

Forest type

0.064756

2

0.032378

7.591687

0.009873

4.102821

Season

0.241155

5

0.048231

11.30879

0.000736

3.325835

Error

0.042649

10

0.004265

 

 

 

Total

0.34856

17

 

 

 

 

 

 

For figures - - click here

 

 

References

 

Achard, F., H.D. Eva, H.J. Stibig, P. Mayaux, J. Gallego, T. Richards & J.P. Malingreau (2002). Determination of deforestation rates of the world’s humid tropical forests. Science 297: 999–1002. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1070656

Arora, G.S., H.S. Mehta & V.K. Walia (2009). Handbook on Butterflies of Himachal Pradesh. Zoological Survey of India, Kolkata, 160pp.

Barlow, H.S. & I.P. Woiwod (1989). Moth diversity of a tropical forest in Peninsular Malaysia. Journal of Tropical Ecology 5(1): 37–50.

Bhardwaj, M. & V.P. Uniyal (2009). Assessment of butterflies in montane temperate forest of Allain-Duhaingan catchment in Kullu, Himachal Pradesh, India. Proposed Hydroelectric Project Site. Indian Forester 135(10): 1357–1366.

Blair, R.B. & A.E. Launer (1997). Butterfly diversity and human land use: species assemblages along an urban gradient. Biological Conservation 80(1): 113–125. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0006-3207(96)00056-0

Brown, K.S. Jr. (1991). Conservation of neotropical environments: insects as indicators, pp. 449–504. In: Collins, N.M. & J.A. Thomas (eds.). The Conservation of Insects and Their Habitats. Academic Press, London.

Chandel, S., V. Kumar, B.P. Sharma & R. Patiyal (2014). Butterfly Fauna of Shivalik Hills Areas of Kangra and Hamirpur districts of Himachal Pradesh in India. Life Science Leaflets 55: 25–38.

Collins, N.M. & M.G. Morris (1985). Threatened Swallowtail Butterflies of the World. International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources, Gland, Switzerland, 21–26pp.

DeVries, P.J., D. Murray & R. Lande (1997). Species diversity in vertical, horizontal, and temporal dimensions of a fruit-feeding butterfly community in an Ecuadorian rainforest. Biological Journal of the Linnaean Society 62: 343–364.

DeVries, R.G. (1992). Outlines of Entomology - 7th Edition. Chapman & Hall/CRC, Boca Raton, Fla, USA, 420pp.

Erhardt, A. (1985). Diurnal Lepidoptera: sensitive indicators of cultivated and abandoned grassland. Journal of Applied Ecology 22: 849–861. https://doi.org/10.2307/2403234

Kumar, R. (2009). Biosystematics and ecological studies on butterflies from Himachal Pradesh. PhD Thesis, H.P. University, Shimla, India, 288pp.

Lawton, J.H., D.E. Bignell, B. Bolton, G.F. Bloemers, P. Eggleton, M. Hodda, R.D. Holt, T.B. Larsen, N.A. Mawdsley & N.E. Stork (1998). Biodiversity inventories, indicator taxa and effects of habitat modification in tropical forest. Nature 391(6662): 72–76.

Magurran, A.E. (1988). Ecological Diversity and Its Measurement. Chapman & Hall, London, UK, X+179pp. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-7358-0   

Majumder, J., R. Lodh & B.K. Agarwala (2013). Butterfly species richness and diversity in the Trishna wildlife sanctuary in South Asia. Journal of Insect Science 13: 79. https://doi.org/10.1673/031.013.7901

Morse, D.R., N.E. Stork & J.H. Lawton (1988).  Species number, species abundance and body length relationships of arboreal beetles in Bornean lowland rain forest trees. Ecological Entomology 13(1): 25–37.

Parmesan, C. (1996). Climate and species range. Nature 382: 765–766. https://doi.org/10.1038/382765a0

Parmesan, C., N. Ryrholm, C. Stefanescu, J.K. Hill, C.D. Thomas, H. Descimon, B. Huntley, L. Kaila, J. Kullberg, T. Tammaru & W.J. Tennent (1999). Poleward shifts in geographical ranges of butterfly species associated with regional warming. Nature 399: 579–583. https://doi.org/10.1038/2118.1

Ranta, E. & M. Tiainen (1982). Structure in seven bumblebee com- munities in eastern Finland in relation to resource availability. Ecography 5: 48–54. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0587.1982.tb01016.x

Ronkay, L. (2004). Jelenkorifaunaváltozások a Kárpát-medencebelsőterületein: tények, jelenségekésértékelhetőségük. (Lepkék, elsősorban Macroheterocera) – Esettanulmány„ A globálisklímaváltozáshatásai Magyarországfaunájára” c. kérdéskörről. Kézirat, 22pp. [Current changes in the interior of the Carpathian Basin: facts, phenomena and their evaluability. (Butterflies, mainly Macroheterocera) - Case Study “The effects of global climate change on Hungary’s fauna” c. issue]

Smetacek, P. (2016). A Naturalist’s Guide to the Butterflies of India. Prakash Books India Private Limited, 176pp.

Sarkar, V.K., D.D. Sukumar, V.C. Balakrishnan & K. Kunte (2011). Validation of the reported occurrence of Tajuria maculata, the spotted royal butterfly (Lepidoptera: Lycaenidae), in the Western Ghats, southwestern India, on the basis of two new records. Journal of Threatened Taxa 3(3): 1629–1632. https://doi.org/10.11609/JoTT.o2645.1629-32

Schulze, C.H., I. Steffan-Dewenter & T. Tsharntke (2004). effects of land use on butterfly communities at the rain forest margin: a case study from Central Sulawesi, pp. 281–297. In: Gerold, G., M. Fremerey & E. Guhardja (eds.). Land Use, Nature Conservation and The Stability of Rainforest Margins in Southeast Asia. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, XXXI533pp.

Singh, A.P. (2008). Butterflies of Renuka Wildlife Sanctuary, Sirmaur District, Himachal Pradesh, India. Indian Forester 134(10): 1326–1338.

Sparks, T.H., R.L. Dennis, P.J. Croxton & M. Cade (2007). Increased migration of Lepidoptera linked to climate change. European Journal of Entomology 104(1): 139.

Stange, E.E. & M.P. Ayres ( 2010). Climate Change Impacts: Insects, pp. 1–7. In: Encyclopedia of Life Sciences (ELS). John Wiley & Sons, Ltd: Chichester. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470015902.a0022555

Sutton, S.L. & P.J. Collins (1991). Insects and tropical forest conservation, pp. 405–424. In: Collins, N.M. & J.A. Thomas (eds.). The Conservation of Insects and Their Habitats. Academic Press, London, 450pp.

Thomas, C.D. & H.C. Mallorie (1985). Rarity, species richness and conservation: butterflies of the Atlas Mountains in Morocco. Biological Conservation 33: 95–117. https://doi.org/10.1016/0006-3207(85)90098-9

Uniyal, V.P. & P.K. Mathur (1998). Diversity of butterflies in the Great Himalayan National Park, Western Himalaya. Indian Journal of Forestry 21(2): 150–155.

Viejo, J.L. (1989). The importance of woodlands in the classification of butterflies (Lep.: Papilionoidea and Hesperoidea) in the centre of the Iberian Peninsula. Biological Conservation 48: 101–114. https://doi.org/10.1016/0006-3207(89)90029-3

Vu, L.V. (2009). Diversity and similarity of butterfly communities in five different habitat types at Tam Dao National Park, Vietnam. Journal of Zoology 277(1): 15–22. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7998.2008.00498.x

Vu, V.L. (2008). Biodiversity of butterflies (Lepidoptera: Rhopalocera) and ecological indicator role of some butterfly species in Tam Dao National Park, Vinh Phuc. PhD Thesis. Institute of Ecology and Biological Resources, Hanoi, Vietnam.

Woiwod, I.P (1997). Detecting the effects of climate change on Lepidoptera. Journal of Insect Conservation 1: 149–158.