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 |
|
|
|
|
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.