Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | 26 January 2023 | 15(1): 22448–22470

 

 

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

https://doi.org/10.11609/jott.7519.15.1.22448-22470

#7519 | Received 01 June 2022 | Final received 09 January 2023 | Finally accepted 13 January 2023

 

 

 

Biodiversity of butterflies (Lepidoptera: Rhopalocera) in the protected landscape of Nandhour, Uttarakhand, India

 

Hem Chandra 1, Manoj Kumar Arya 2 & Aman Verma 3

 

1,2,3 Insect Biodiversity Laboratory, Department of Zoology, D.S.B. Campus, Kumaun University, Nainital, Uttarakhand 263002, India.

1 hemchandra5593@gmail.com (corresponding author), 2 dr.manojkumar19@rediffmail.com, 3 amanzoology187@gmail.com

 

 

 

Editor: Monsoon Gogoi, Bokakhat, Assam, India.          Date of publication: 26 January 2023 (online & print)

 

Citation: Chandra, H., M.K. Arya & A. Verma (2023). Biodiversity of butterflies (Lepidoptera: Rhopalocera) in the protected landscape of Nandhour, Uttarakhand, India. Journal of Threatened Taxa 15(1): 22448–22470. https://doi.org/10.11609/jott.7519.15.1.22448-22470

 

Copyright: © Chandra et al. 2023. Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.  JoTT allows unrestricted use, reproduction, and distribution of this article in any medium by providing adequate credit to the author(s) and the source of publication.

 

Funding: Self funded.

 

Competing interests: The authors declare no competing interests.

 

Author details: Hem Chandra is a research scholar and he is interested in the diversity of insects and assessment of ecosystem services. Manoj Kumar Arya is an assistant professor. He has deep interest in entomology and biodiversity conservation. Aman Verma is a research scholar and he is interested in the biology, ecology, behavior and conservation of insects, especially butterflies.

 

Author contributions: All the three authors participated in the field surveys. Data collection and analyses were done by HC and AV. Primary draft of the manuscript was written by AV, while editing and manuscript improvement were done by HC and MKA. All authors participated in preparing the final version of the manuscript.

 

Acknowledgements: We express our immense thanks to Mr. Monish Malik, IFS, chief wildlife warden, Uttarakhand Forest Department and Mr. Gambhir Singh, IFS, managing director of Van Nigam for granting permission to carry out this research work in Nandhour Wildlife Sanctuary. We are very grateful to divisional forest officers, rangers and other staff members of the sanctuary for their kind help and cooperation. Special thanks to Dr. Aseesh Pandey (manager KLCD) of G.B. Pant National Institute of Himalayan Environment and Sustainable Development, Sikkim, Dr. C. Sekar (scientist E), Dr. Harshit Pant (scientist C), and Dr. Deepika Bhatt Pandey (freelancer taxonomist) of G.B. Pant National Institute of Himalayan Environment and Sustainable Development, Kosi–Katarmal, Almora, Uttarakhand for their immense support in plant identification. Gracious hospitality received from local people is highly acknowledged. Suggestions and comments made by reviewers and editors in the early draft of this manuscript are acknowledged.

 

 

 

Abstract: An appraisal of butterfly species composition in terms of comparative diversity richness in various habitat types was conducted in and around the Nandhour Wildlife Sanctuary of Terai Arc landscape in Uttarakhand. During the two years of survey period (March 2018–February 2020), a total of 89 species of butterflies belonging to families Nymphalidae 43 species, Pieridae 15 species, Lycaenidae 13 species, Hesperiidae eight species, Papilionidae seven species, and Riodinidae three species were recorded, of which 46 species represented new records for the Nandhour Landscape. Butterfly diversity and richness were highest in dense moist & open dry riverine forests and lowest in human settlements & agricultural land. No significant differences in the number of species were found in moist mixed deciduous forest, subtropical Chir Pine forest, moist Bhabar Sal forest, moist Shiwalik Sal forest, and plantation forest. Eight species are endemic to the Indian Himalayan Region.

 

Keywords: Cultivation, forest ecosystems, host plants, Terai Arc Landscape

 

Abbreviations: CFD—Champawat Forest Division | HFD—Haldwani Forest Division | TAL—Terai Arc Landscape | TEFD—Terai East Forest Division.

 

 

 

INTRODUCTION

 

Butterflies (Lepidoptera: Rhopalocera) are a vital component of our natural ecosystems due to their important pollination services, high specificity of habitat utilization and complex interactions in food webs (Rusman et al. 2016). The status of butterfly diversity and richness in a given area reveals information on the ecosystem health and its functioning (Andrew et al. 2011). Butterflies are useful model organisms in predicting the impact of climate change on biodiversity (Warren et al. 2001; Davies 2019), and are an excellent indicator taxon for monitoring changes in ecological parameters such as environmental health, land use, habitat quality, levels of biodiversity, and conservation status (Bonebrake et al. 2010; Sharma et al. 2020; An & Choi 2021). They respond quickly to changes in local vegetation, climatic conditions, land use types, and disturbances (Bergerot et al. 2011; Chettri et al. 2018; Sharma et al. 2020; Verma & Arya 2021). Several anthropogenic drivers of defaunation have resulted in a global decline of about 35% in butterfly abundance over the last 40 years (Dirzo et al. 2014), and due to unscientific management, many species are on the verge of extinction (Wallenius et al. 2010; Wagner 2020). The Indian subcontinent is represented by about 1,501 butterfly species (Kehimkar 2016), and the hilly state of Uttarakhand in the western Himalaya hosts around 508 species of butterflies (Sondhi & Kunte 2018).

The Nandhour landscape located in the eastern part of Uttarakhand, is a representative part of the vast conservation geographic division called Terai Arc Landscape (TAL). The TAL is an eco–fragile Terai–Bhabar region on the outer slopes of the Shiwalik Himalaya to the foothill areas and Gangetic flood plains (Semwal 2005; Chanchani et al. 2014). The entire region of the Nandhour due to its unique topography, geology, and climate is well known for pristine ecological conditions, spatial heterogeneity and rich biodiversity (WII 2019). The central part of the landscape was designated as a Nandhour Wildlife Sanctuary (covering a total geographical area of 269.95 km2) in 2012, and recently an eco-sensitive zone (covering a total geographical area of 540.26 km2) has been established around the periphery of the sanctuary for proper management and propagation of wildlife (Anonymous 2020). However, human activities such as habitat fragmentation, over–exploitation, and poaching have posed serious threats to the rich biodiversity of the region (Mehra 2015).

Published data on butterfly fauna is currently lacking from the protected landscape of Nandhour. The landscape has not been surveyed well since the British colonial era. The Nandhour Landscape provides a crucial corridor for wildlife movement across the eastern forests of TAL, such as Brahmadev & Sukhlaphata Wildlife Reserve of Nepal, and the western forests of Corbett & Terai Central Forest Division in India (Verma 2011; WII 2019). In the recent past, few empirical studies have been conducted in protected and unprotected forest ecosystems of Kumaon and Garhwal regions of Uttarakhand (Singh & Bhandari 2003, 2006; Joshi 2007; Joshi & Arya 2007; Singh 2009; Bhardwaj & Uniyal 2011; Smetacek 2012; Bhardwaj et al. 2012; Singh & Sondhi 2016; Arya et al. 2020a,b; Samraj & Agnihotri 2021; Verma & Arya 2021). However, the butterfly diversity and richness of Nandhour Landscape received less attention and was not comprehensively reported from the protected sanctuary. Earlier, Arya & Dayakrishna (2017) recorded 35 butterfly species from the Nandhour Wildlife Sanctuary. There are also few reports on recent rediscoveries and new records of butterfly species to Uttarakhand from the Nandhour Wildlife Sanctuary (Sondhi 2017; Kumar et al. 2020).

Studies on butterflies are important from the standpoint of their diversity, conservation, behavioral, and ecological functional roles as well as to assess the impact of land use changes on them (Bonebrake et al. 2010; Chettri et al. 2018). At present, there are no comprehensive studies that understand the systematic composition of butterflies in this region. Hence, this research primarily aims to record butterfly diversity and richness patterns across different habitats in and around the Nandhour Wildlife Sanctuary of biodiversity rich TAL. The study also intends to investigate the anthropogenic factors affecting butterfly diversity, and to provide guidelines for effective and proper butterfly conservation.

 

 

MATERIALS AND METHODS

 

Study area

Nandhour Wildlife Sanctuary stretched between 28°56’29.35”─29°16’39.79” N & 79°33’03.82”─80°10’00.03” E, is a sub landscape of the Shiwalik–Bhabar Tract in the central sector of the eastern part of TAL (Figure 1). This sub landscape of Nandhour (core zone) along with its adjoining buffer area (eco–sensitive zone) falls under three protected and managed territorial forest divisions of Uttarakhand i.e. Haldwani Forest Division (HFD in the north-west), Terai East Forest Division (TEFD in the south-east), and Champawat Forest Division (CFD in the north-east). Majority of the landscape lies in the HFD of district Nainital (Mehra 2015). The Nandhour Landscape is intersected by the river Nandhour in the north, and bounded by river Gola and river Ladhiya in the west, and by the river Sharda in the east towards Nepal (Verma 2011). Geologically, the landscape consists mostly of alluvial plains (Bhabar), and loose conglomerates & hard sandstones of the Shiwalik Himalaya (Mehra 2015). The topography of Nandhour is represented by steep mountains, high denudational hills, broad & narrow valleys, flat & rugged slopes, and flood plains. Due to the close proximity to the Himalayan mountain range, the region experiences sub-tropical to temperate type of climate, and the maximum average temperature varies from 28°C in January─37°C in May (Mehra 2015). With an annual precipitation of over 1,400 mm, the region receives most rainfall from the southwest monsoon that breaks in mid June and lasts until the end of September–October (Mehra 2015).

The landscape harbors diverse and complex ecosystems of tropical moist forests and dry deciduous forests. The dominant vegetation includes Shorea robusta, Tectona grandis, Dalbergia sisso, Syzygium cumini, Terminalia arjuna, Terminalia alata, Terminalia bellerica, Mallotus philippensis, Mallotus repandus, Anogeissus latifolia, Butea monosperma, Calotropis procera, Murraya koenigii, Clerodendrum infortunatum, Justicia adhatoda, and Woodfordia fruticosa (Verma 2011). These natural forest and riverine habitats are home to about 32 mammalian species, including several endangered and flagship species such as the Royal Bengal Tiger Panthera tigris and Asian Elephant Elephas maximus (Mann et al. 2013), 250 species of resident and migratory birds, 15 reptilian species, and 20 fish species (Verma 2011). The landscape is also represented by plantation forests, wetlands, barren lands, human settlements, and cultivated lands.

Appraisal surveys on butterflies were conducted in different forest ranges by covering a variety of habitats in and around the sanctuary. Butterflies were sampled in eight habitat types (sites): human habitation & agricultural land (S1 in Nandhour Range of HFD), Butterfly Conservation Zone (S2 in Nandhour Range of HFD), dense moist riverine forest (S3 in Nandhour Range of HFD), moist Bhabar sal (S. robusta) forest (S4 in Chakata Range of HFD), open dry riverine forest (S5 in Jaulasal Range of HFD), subtropical Chir Pine Pinus roxburgii forest (S6 in Chakata Range of HFD), moist Shiwalik Sal forest (S7 in Dogadi Range of CFD) and moist mixed deciduous forest (S8 in Sharda Range of HFD). Of these S1, S2, S3, S5, S6, and S7 were located in the core zone, while S4 & S8 were located in the buffer area of the sanctuary. For the purpose of the present study, an area of one hectare was selected in each site (Image 1 & Table 1). The sites in the study area were selected on the basis of different land use and forest types to reflect the importance of a mosaic of habitats in sustaining butterfly diversity. Management practices and anthropogenic threats within each site were noted during the study period.

 

Sampling protocols and data collection

Every month, from March 2018─February 2020, butterflies were sampled for eight consecutive sampling days. Sampling was conducted along three permanent linear transects (each measuring 300 m), spaced about 300–500 m apart from each other, in each of the eight habitat types (sites) selected in the study area. Modified Pollard Walk Method was adopted for the presence–absence and abundance data of adult butterfly species in each site (Pollard 1977; Pollard & Yates 1993). Diurnal butterflies were counted mostly during optimal conditions of maximum activity, around an imaginary space of 5 m × 5 m × 5 m while walking slowly and uniformly covering each of the three transects of a site between 07.00─13.00 h of a day. A minimum of 1.5 h was spent on butterfly sampling in a permanent transect. The same survey method was employed in each site on consecutive sampling days. The preferred host plants of butterflies available in the sites were also noted through primary observations and secondary information (Wynter–Blyth 1957; Kunte 2000, 2006; Robinson et al. 2010; Sengupta et al. 2014; Nitin et al. 2018; Sondhi & Kunte 2018).

Most of the butterfly species were identified visually with the help of available field guides (Kumar 2008; Kehimkar 2016; Singh 2017; Sondhi & Kunte 2018), photographed by using lens of power 18–15 mm in DSLRs Nikon D3500 and Canon 750D. Species which were difficult to identify superficially were collected by a butterfly net, placed in a clear glass bottle, and identified using morphological keys outlined in the literature (Evans 1932; Wynter-Blyth 1957; Haribal 1992). Each collected individual was released immediately after identification at the site of its capture, and no specimen was harmed or killed during the field visits. Plant species were identified using published information (Verma 2011; Mehra 2015), and by the help of experts and taxonomists at G.B. Pant National Institute of Himalayan Environment and Sustainable Development.

 

Data analysis

Monsoon affects the diversity and distribution of butterfly community at a temporal scale across India (Wynter-Blyth 1957), and several species are strictly seasonal (Kunte 1997; Harisha & Hosetti 2021). Therefore, an annual survey period was categorized into three main seasons―summer (March–June), rainy (July–October), and winter (November–February) to determine the seasonality pattern of butterflies in the study area. The taxonomic classification of butterflies was adopted from Kehimkar (2016), Sondhi & Kunte (2018). The total number of counted individuals of each species across habitat types was pooled to obtain the relative abundance following Verma & Arya (2021) expressed as a percentage based on total individual counts of butterfly fauna in the study area. A rank abundance curve to depict the distribution pattern of different species was created by log transforming the individual abundance data following Magurran (2004). Diversity measures were obtained using the Shannon–Weiner diversity index (Shannon & Weaver 1949), Margalef richness index (Margalef 1972), and Pielou evenness index (Pielou 1969). Individual based rarefaction curves were obtained for each habitat types following Gotelli & Colwell (2001). The analyses of diversity measures and rarefaction curves were done using the software PAST (Hammer et al. 2001). In order to compare the species richness and abundance of butterflies across seasons and habitat types, one–way analysis of variance (ANOVA) tests at the 5% level of significance were performed using the software SPSS. The Sorensen’s similarity index was calculated to determine the extent of assemblage similarity in different habitat types of the study area (Sorensen 1948).

 

 

RESULTS

 

Overall species composition of butterflies

A total of 10,713 individuals belonging to 89 species and six families were recorded during the study period (2018–20) from eight habitat types selected in the Nandhour Landscape (Appendix 1). The butterfly community was more or less evenly distributed in the study area as depicted by a relatively low steep inclination of the plot in the rank abundance curve (Figure 2). Detailed account of each family is given below:

Family Hesperiidae: This family comprised of eight species and 4.48% of the total recorded individuals (Images 1–8). Species namely, Parnara guttatus (Relative abundance = 1.82) and Borbo bevani (1.29) were the most abundant found across all habitats, while the least abundant species Udaspes folus (0.13) was found in agricultural land, dry riverine, and chir pine forests, & Aeromachus stigmata (0.13) in chir pine forest (Appendix 1).

Family Riodinidae: Riodinidae consisted of three species with 1.90% of the total individuals (Images 9–11). Dodona durga (1.39) recorded as the most abundant species in this family was found across all habitats except agricultural land and butterfly zone. Abisara bifasciata (0.07) recorded as the least abundant was found in moist riverine and Shiwalik Sal forests (Appendix 1).

Family Pieridae: With a total of 37.97% individuals, Pieridae was the most abundant family and comprised of 15 species (Images 12–26). Most of the species were euryoecious in nature. Species such as Catopsilia pomona (6.78), Pieris brassicae (5.84), Eurema laeta (5.05), Eurema hecabe (4.48), Pieris canidia (3.97), and Catopsilia pyranthe (3.85) were recorded as the most abundant and found across all habitats. The least abundant species under this family namely, Colias erate (0.35) was found in butterfly zone, moist & dry riverine forests, Chir Pine forest, and mixed deciduous forest, and Eurema andersonii (0.45) in moist Bhabar Sal forest, moist & dry riverine forests (Appendix 1).

Family Papilionidae: This family was comprised of seven species and 9.24% of the total recorded individuals (Images 27–33). Swallowtails, namely, Papilio polytes (3.70), and Papilio demoleus (2.88) were the most abundant found across all habitats, while Papilio clytia (0.16) found in moist riverine and mixed deciduous forests, and Graphium nomius (0.42) in moist riverine, Bhabar Sal & mixed deciduous forests were the least abundant species under this family (Appendix 1).

Family Lycaenidae: This family was comprised of 13 butterfly species and 17.87% of the total recorded individuals (Images 34–46). Species such as Pseudozizeeria maha (5.69), Heliophorus sena (3.20), Zizeeria karsandra (2.81), and Lampides boeticus (1.91) were the most abundant and found in almost all habitats. Flos asoka (0.05) found in Shiwalik sal forest, Tarucus nara (0.05) in moist and dry riverine forest, and Arhopala amantes (0.10) in Shiwalik sal forest were recorded as the least abundant species under this family (Appendix 1).

Family Nymphalidae: Nymphalidae with a total of 43 species was the most species rich and with a total of 28.51% individuals was the second abundant family in the study area (Images 47–89). The most abundant species included Euploea core (2.14), Danaus genutia (1.91), Danaus chrysippus (1.66), Junonia iphita (1.48), Ypthima kasmira (1.28), and Parantica aglea (1.26) which were also found in all habitats. The least abundant species were Athyma selenophora (0.01) found in moist riverine forest, Charaxes agrarius (0.07), Lethe confusa (0.09), and Ypthima asterope (0.14) found in dry riverine forest (Appendix 1).

 

Seasonality of butterflies

Across the seasons, species richness, and abundance showed significant differences when analyzed through one–way ANOVA (Richness: F = 31.21, df = 2, 21, and P = 0.00; Abundance: F = 21.25, df = 2, 21, and P = 0.00). The highest number of species and individuals were recorded during rainy season (82 species and 50.46% of the total individuals), followed by summer (78 species and 37.56% of the total individuals) (Table 2). Winter season showed a significantly lower richness and abundance (48 species and 11.97% of the total individuals).

Seasonally, a bi-annual peak in butterfly diversity was observed in the study area (Figure 3). The Shannon diversity (Hs) was at its peak during the dry summers (Mar–May) and the monsoons (Aug–Oct). Diversity was at its minimum during Dec–Jan (winters). Forty-eight species were found across all seasons, 23 species were found during the summer and rainy seasons, 11 species were found during the rainy season, and seven species were found during the summer (Appendix 1).

 

Diversity and richness patterns of butterflies across habitats

The steeper and asymptotic individual rarefaction curves showed adequate sampling efforts to differentiate assemblages in each site (Figure 4). The overall species richness pattern differed significantly across the selected habitat types (ANOVA: F 3.92, df 7, 184, and P 0.00), while the abundance showed insignificant differences (ANOVA: F 0.61, df 7, 184, and P 0.74). The highest number of species was recorded in S3 (71 species), followed by S5 (68 species), S8 (59 species), S4, S6 (50 species each), S2 (48 species), S7 (44 species), and S1 (37 species).  

       The calculated diversity measures show high richness patterns in eight habitat types of the study area (Table 3). The maximum species diversity and richness was recorded in the sites represented by riverine forests (S3, S5 with Hs 3.97 & 3.90; Hm 9.21 & 9.15, respectively), while the habitat characterized by human settlements and agricultural land showed the minimum diversity, richness, and evenness of the species (S1 with Hs 3.20, Hm 5.11, and J 0.66). Butterfly assemblage in the subtropical Chir Pine forest at S6 was very even in its distribution (J 0.80).

The pair-wise comparisons of Sorensen’s similarity index for assemblages in different habitat types depicted that riverine forests (S3 & S5) had high similarity (0.87) and a unique species composition (Table 4). Similarly, man managed habitats (S1 & S2) had a high degree of similarity (0.82), and mixed deciduous forest (S8) had high similarity (0.81 & 0.80) with moist riverine forest (S3) and dry riverine forest (S5). 26 species were found across all the habitat types, while nine species were found as habitat specific in the study area (Appendix 1). 

 

 

DISCUSSION

 

The present study revealed that the protected Nandhour landscape of TAL, with 89 species belonging to six families hosts good diversity (Hs 3.927) and richness (Hm 9.484) of butterflies (Appendix 1, Table 3). The recorded butterfly richness constituted about 17.50% of the total known species from Uttarakhand (Sondhi & Kunte 2018). Previous to this study, there are known records of 20 species in Nandhour Village (S1), 34 species in Butterfly Zone (S2), 32 species in Machhli Van (S3), 26 species in Suryadevi Temple (S4), and 28 species in Jaulasal (S5), which altogether constituted 53 species of butterflies from the protected area of Nandhour (Arya & Dayakrishna 2017). Of them, 42 species were also recorded in the present study, while the rest 47 species (out of 89 species) represent new records for the Nandhour Landscape (Appendix 1). The unreported butterfly species included Spialia galba (Hesperiidae), Pachliopta aristolochiae, Graphium doson (Papilionidae), Ixias marianne, Colotis sp., Belenois aurota (Pieridae), Neopithecops zalmora, Freyeria trochylus (Lycaenidae), Hypolimnas misippus, Cupha erymanthis, Neptis sankara, and Ypthima huebneri (Nymphalidae). Most of these species are either common or uncommon in Uttarakhand (Sondhi & Kunte 2018). Such results substantiate the importance of natural forest habitats in sustaining and maintaining the rich butterfly diversity. More intensive and consistent monitoring protocols could result in the addition of new butterfly species to the protected landscape of Nandhour.

In comparison to modern empirical studies conducted previously in different forest ecosystems of Uttarakhand, Samraj & Agnihotri (2021) reported 92 butterfly species in the nearby Terai region of Pantnagar, Verma & Arya (2021) reported 98 species in the Pancheshwar Multipurpose Project Site of district Champawat, Arya et al. (2020a) recorded 56 species in the Corbett Tiger Reserve, Arya et al. (2020b) reported 46 species in the Binsar Wildlife Sanctuary, Bhardwaj et al. (2012) recorded 79 species in the Tons Valley of Garhwal region, Smetacek (2012) reported 243 species from a dying watershed in the Kumaon region, Bhardwaj & Uniyal (2011) reported 34 species in the Gangotri National Park, Singh (2009) recorded 143 species in the Kedarnath Musk Deer Reserve, Joshi & Arya (2007) reported 54 species in the Pindari area of Nanda Devi Biosphere Reserve, Joshi (2007) reported 40 species in the Motichur Sanctuary of Rajaji National Park, Singh & Bhandari (2003, 2006) recorded 183 species in the Dehradun Valley of Garhwal region. Furthermore, annual rainfall patterns have a significant impact on tropical butterflies (Wolda 1988; Valtonen et al. 2013), and the occurrence of dry–wet seasonal cycles generate bi–annual rhythms in species diversity and similarity of butterfly communities by bringing changes in the host plant dynamics of the region (Grøtan et al. 2012, 2014). The reported high diversity and richness during dry summers (Mar–May) and wet monsoons (Aug–Oct) is in concordance with previous findings from the study area (Arya & Dayakrishna 2017), as well as from the regions experiencing tropical to sub–tropical type of climate in India (Gupta et al. 2019; Arya et al. 2020a).

Amongst the sampled habitats, butterfly richness was significantly low in the site (S1) characterized by human habitation and agricultural land (Figure 4). Local transportation, increased cultivation with use of chemical fertilizers & pesticides, and other human activities might have resulted in the least diversity and richness in S1 (Table 3). Generalist species like P. brassicae, P. demoleus, P. polytes, C. pomona, E. hecabe and P. guttatus dominated this habitat (Appendix 1). It is known that declines in soil properties caused by pollution from anthropogenic toxins and habitat simplification through agriculture could result in reduced diversity and local extinctions of butterflies (Öckinger et al. 2006; Gilburn et al. 2015; Braak et al. 2018). On the other hand, the relatively less disturbed sites characterized by dense moist and open dry riverine habitats (S3 & S5), had the highest number of species and ample diversity (Figure 4, Table 3). Natural forests, especially associated with the riverine ecosystems usually have greater environmental heterogeneity, provide unique vegetation & large quantities of diverse resources, better mating & ovipositioning sites, safety from predation, and low disturbance, hence are highly preferred by several butterflies, including specialist species (Cabette et al. 2017; An & Choi, 2021).

Species namely, A. selenophora (in S3), C. agrarius, L. confusa, Y. asterope (in S5), Pseudocoladenia fatih, T. nara, Charaxes bharata, Hestinalis nama, Kallima inachus, and Vagrans egista (in both S3 & S5) were found as habitat specific butterflies in the riverine forests (Appendix 1). Similarly, A. amantes, F. asoka were unique to the moist Shiwalik Sal forest (S7), A. stigmata, Ypthima nareda to the subtropical Chir Pine forest (S6), and Zizula hylax to the butterfly zone (S2). These findings suggest that since the Nandhour landscape comprises of a variety of forest habitats types, it provides a congenial living environment and a diverse food supply for many species. Also, these results corroborate with a few earlier findings from nearby regions that revealed a high butterfly diversity and richness in natural habitats, but a low diversity and richness in habitats disturbed or managed by the human activities (Arya et al. 2020a; Samraj & Agnihotri 2021; Verma & Arya 2021).

As per the Indian Wildlife (Protection) Act 1972, five species identified in the present study are legally protected under different schedules (Appendix 1). Butterflies namely, L. boeticus (Lycaenidae), Libythea lepita, Neptis soma (Nymphalidae) are listed under Schedule II, and E. core, Euploea mulciber (Nymphalidae) are listed under Schedule IV (Anonymous 2006). Endemic butterflies of the Indian Himalayan Region included Potanthus dara (Hesperiidae), D. durga (Riodinidae), H. sena (Lycaenidae), Acraea issoria, Aglais caschmirensis, Athyma cama, Neptis hylas, and Ypthima nikaea (Nymphalidae) (Appendix 1).  Such faunal records along with the reported rich diversity of butterflies signify a high conservation value of the study area. This means, the region must be conserved more intensely, especially by focusing on scientific management of riverine forest habitats located in and around the sanctuary. Butterflies are an excellent ecological indicator group for scaling and quantifying riverine characteristics because of their strong relationship with larval food plants, and riverine zones are thus conservation priority sites (Cabette et al. 2017; An & Choi 2021). Stream sides or muddy bogs in riverine forests are important microhabitats for those adult butterflies seeking rich puddling grounds to intake water and nutrients lacking in their larval diet (Nelson 2007; Verma & Arya 2021).

Human induced pressures in forest habitats from activities such as increased cultivation, forest fires, cattle grazing, illicit felling & logging, and collecting fuelwood, fodder & forest products could threaten the existence of several butterfly species in the protected landscape of Nandhour. These disturbances could have adverse impacts on their host plants in natural habitats, while the use of pesticides and fertilizers in cultivated areas adjacent to the sanctuary could be detrimental to rich biodiversity of the region (Braak et al. 2018; An & Choi 2021; Verma & Arya 2021).  Being phytophagous, butterflies play vital role in the ‘green’ food webs of tropical ecosystems (Kitching et al. 2020), and form a critical food base for organisms at higher trophic levels (Bonebrake et al. 2010). Agricultural chemicals cause butterfly declines and may disrupt their complex ecological interactions, potentially harming insectivorous species such as birds and bats (Gilburn et al. 2015; Forister et al. 2016). Thus, it is extremely important that the soil properties in the cultivated lands of the protected Nandhour Landscape should not be deteriorated by the use of any sort of biocide, and the practice of organic farming must be encouraged by the concerned authorities for better socio-economic development of local inhabitants as well as for regional biodiversity conservation and natural balance.

 

 

CONCLUSION

 

The present study indicates the high conservation value of ecologically fragile natural habitats in sustaining rich diversity including several habitat specific, legally protected, and endemic butterflies of the Himalayas. However, overexploitation, illegal utilizations, excessive grazing, unauthorized access, and non-forestry related developments could cause declines in diversity by directly limiting important food choices and resources. Such activities should be regulated and strictly monitored in the protected Nandhour landscape. Special emphasis should be placed on the preservation and restoration of interconnected natural forests supporting rich diversity, as well as providing better gene flow between butterfly populations. The establishment of several biodiversity offsets in different habitats will aid in the proliferation of butterflies. Government authorities and local bodies associated with management of the sanctuary should focus on activities related to plantation of more host plants and continuous monitoring programs to ensure their effective long-term conservation in the landscape.

 

For figures & images - - click here for full PDF

 

 

REFERENCES

 

Acharya, B.K. & L. Vijayan (2015). Butterfly diversity along the elevation gradient of Eastern Himalaya, India. Ecological Research 30(5): 909–919. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11284-015-1292-0

An, J. & S. Choi (2021). Butterflies as an indicator group of riparian ecosystem assessment. Journal of Asia-Pacific Entomology 24: 195–200. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aspen.2020.12.017

Andrew, M.E., M.A. Wulder & N.C. Coops (2011). How do butterflies define ecosystems? A comparison of ecological regionalization schemes. Biological Conservation 144(5): 1409–1418. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2011.01.010

Anonymous (2006). The Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972. Natraj Publishers, Dehradun, India.

Anonymous (2020). CG-DL-E-26052020-219552, Part II—Section 3—Sub–section (ii). Notification published by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, New Delhi, India.

Arya, M.K. & Dayakrishna (2017). Species richness and diversity of butterflies in the landscape of Nandhaur Wildlife Sanctuary, Nainital, Uttarakhand. Journal of Environment and Bio-Sciences 31(2): 307–315.

Arya, M.K., Dayakrishna & A. Verma (2020a). Patterns in distribution of butterfly assemblages at different habitats of Corbett Tiger Reserve, Northern India. Tropical Ecology 61: 180–186. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42965-020-00077-7

Arya, M.K., A. Verma & P. Tamta (2020b). Diversity of butterflies (Lepidoptera: Papilionoidea) in a temperate forest ecosystem, Binsar Wildlife Sanctuary, Indian Himalayan Region. Nature Environment and Pollution Technology 19: 133–1140. https://doi.org/10.46488/NEPT.2020.v19i03.025 

Bergerot, B., B. Fontaine, R. Julliard & M. Baguette (2011). Landscape variables impact the structure and composition of butterfly assemblages along an urbanization gradient. Landscape Ecology 26: 83–94. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-010-9537-3

Bhardwaj, M. & V.P. Uniyal (2011). High altitude butterfly fauna of Gangotri National Park, Uttarakhand: Patterns in species, abundance, composition and similarity. ENVIS Bulletin 14(1): 38–48.

Bhardwaj, M., V.P. Uniyal, A.K. Sanyal & A.P. Singh (2012). Butterflies communities along an elevational gradient in the Tons valley, Western Himalayas: Implications of rapid assessment for insect conservation. Journal of Asia-Pacific Entomology 15(2): 207–217. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aspen.2011.12.003

Bonebrake, T.C., L.C. Ponisio, C.L. Boggs & P.R. Ehrlich (2010). More than just indicators: A review of tropical butterfly ecology and conservation. Biological Conservation 143(8): 1831–1841. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2010.04.044

Braak, N., R. Neve, A.K. Jones, M. Gibbs & C.J. Breuker (2018). The effects of insecticides on butterflies: A review. Environmental Pollution 242: 507–518. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2018.06.100

Cabette, R.S.H., R.J. Souza, Y. Shimano & L. Juen (2017). Effects of changes in the riparian forest on the butterfly community (Insecta: Lepidoptera) in Cerrado areas. Revista Brasileira de Entomologia 61: 43–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rbe.2016.10.004

Chanchani, P., B.R. Lamichhane, S. Malla, K. Maurya, A. Bista, R. Warrier, S. Nair, M. Almeida, R. Ravi, R. Sharma, M. Dhakal, S.P. Yadav, M. Thapa, S.R. Jnawali, N.M.B. Pradhan, N. Subedi, G.J. Thapa, H. Yadav, Y.V. Jhala, Q. Qureshi, J. Vattakaven & J. Borah (2014). Tigers of the Transboundary Terai Arc Landscape: Status, distribution and movement in the Terai of India and Nepal. National Tiger Conservation Authority, Government of India, and Department of National Park and Wildlife Conservation, Government of Nepal.

Chettri, P.K., K. Sharma, S. Dewan & B.K. Acharya (2018). Butterfly diversity in human-modified ecosystems of southern Sikkim, the eastern Himalaya, India. Journal of Threatened Taxa 10(5): 11551–11565. https://doi.org/10.11609/jott.3641.10.5.11551-11565

Davies, J.W. (2019). Multiple temperature effects on phenology and body size in wild butterflies predict a complex response to climate change. Ecology 100(4): e02612. https://doi.org/10.1002/ecy.2612

Dirzo, R., H.S. Young, M. Galetti, G. Ceballos, N.J.B. Isaac & B. Collen (2014). Defaunation in the Anthropocene. Science 345: 401–406. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1251817

Evans, W.H. (1932). The Identification of Indian Butterflies. 2nd edition. Bombay Natural History Society, Bombay, 454 pp.

Forister, M.L., B. Cousens, J.G. Harrison, K. Anderson, J.H. Thorne, D. Waetjen, C.C. Nice, M.D. Parsia, M.L. Hladik, R. Meese, H. van Vliet & A.M. Shapiro (2016). Increasing neonicotinoid use and the declining butterfly fauna of lowland California. Biology Letters 12: 20160475. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsbl.2016.0475

Gilburn, A.S., N. Bunnefeld, J.M. Wilson, M.S. Botham, T.M. Brereton, R. Fox & D. Goulson (2015). Are neonicotinoid insecticides driving declines of widespread butterflies? PeerJ 3: e1402. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.1402

Gotelli, N.J. & R.K. Colwell (2001). Quantifying biodiversity: procedure and pitfalls in the measurement and comparison of species richness. Ecology Letters 4: 379–391. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1461-0248.2001.00230.x

Grøtan, V., R. Lande, S. Engen, B.E. Sæther & P.J. DeVries (2012). Seasonal cycles of species diversity and similarity in a tropical butterfly community. Journal of Animal Ecology 81: 714–723. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2656.2011.01950.x

Grøtan, V., R. Lande, I.A. Chacon & P.J. DeVries (2014). Seasonal cycles of diversity and similarity in a Central American rainforest butterfly community. Ecography 37: 509–516. https://doi.org/10.1111/ecog.00635

Gupta, H., C. Tiwari & S. Diwakar (2019). Butterfly diversity and effect of temperature and humidity gradients on butterfly assemblages in a sub–tropical urban landscape. Tropical Ecology 60(1): 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42965-019-00019-y

Hammer, Ø., D.A.T. Harper & P.D. Ryan (2001). PAST: Paleontological Statistics software package for education and data analysis. Paleantologia Electronica 4(1): 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.071034098

Haribal, M. (1992). The Butterflies of the Sikkim Himalaya and Their Natural History. Sikkim Nature Conservation Foundation, Gangtok, 217 pp.

Harisha, M.N. & B.B. Hosetti (2021). Status, abundance, and seasonality of buterfy fauna at Kuvempu University Campus, Karnataka, India. Journal of Threatened Taxa 13(5): 18355–18363. https://doi.org/10.11609/jott.4488.13.5.18355-18363

Joshi, P.C. & M. Arya (2007). Butterfly communities along altitudinal gradients in a protected forest in the Western Himalayas, India. The Natural History Journal of Chulalongkorn University 7(1): 1–9.

Joshi, P.C. (2007). Community structure and habitat selection of butterflies in Rajaji National Park, a moist deciduous forest in Uttaranchal, India. Tropical Ecology 48(1): 119–123.

Kehimkar, I. (2016). Butterflies of India. Bombay Natural History Society, Mumbai, 528 pp.

Kitching, R.L., C.A.L. Dahlsjö & P. Eggleton (2020). Invertebrates and the complexity of tropical ecosystems. Biotropica 52: 207–214. https://doi.org/10.1111/btp.12768

Kumar, P. (2008). Handbook on Common Butterflies of Uttarakhand. Zoological Survey of India, Kolkata.

Kumar, S., P. Singh, S. Balmiki & K. Bilal (2020). New record of Tawny Rajah Charaxes bernardus (Insecta: Lepidoptera: Nymphalidae) from Kumaon, Uttarakhand, India. Bionotes 22(4): 207–208.

Kunte, K. (1997). Seasonal patterns in butterfly abundance and species diversity in four tropical habitats in Northern Western Ghats. Journal of Biosciences 22: 593–603. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02703397

Kunte, K. (2000). Buterfies of Peninsular India. Universites Press (Hyderabad) and Indian Academy of Sciences, Bangalore, 254.

Kunte, K. (2006). Addition to known larval host plants of Indian butterflies. Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society 103(1): 119–122.

Magurran, A.E. (2004). Measuring Biology Diversity. Blackwell, Oxford, UK.

Margalef, R. (1972). Homage to Evelyn Hutchinson, or why is there an upper limit to diversity? Transactions of the Connecticut Academy of Arts and Sciences 44: 211–235.

Mehra, S. (2015). Management plan of Nandhaur Wildlife Sanctuary (2015–2016 to 2024–2025). Western Circle Office, Forest Department, Haldwani, Uttarakhand, India.

Nelson, S.M. (2007). Butterflies (Papilionoidea and Hesperioidea) as potential ecological indicators of riparian quality in the semi–arid western United States. Ecological Indicators 7(2): 469–480. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2006.05.004

Nitin, R., V.C. Balakrishnan, P.V. Churi, S. Kalesh, S. Prakash & K. Kunte (2018). Larval host plants of the butterflies of the Western Ghats, India. Journal of Threatened Taxa 10(4): 11495–11550. https://doi.org/10.11609/jott.3104.10.4.11495-11550

Öckinger, E., O. Hammarstedt, S.G. Nilsson & H.G. Smith (2006). The relationship between local extinctions of grassland butterflies and increased soil nitrogen levels. Biological Conservation 128: 564–573. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2005.10.024

Pielou, E.C. (1969). An Introduction to Mathematical Ecology. Wiley, New York, 286pp.

Pollard, E. (1977). A method for assessing changes in the abundance of butterflies. Biological Conservation 12(2): 115–134. https://doi.org/10.1016/0006-3207(77)90065-9

Pollard, E. & T.J. Yates (1993). Monitoring butterfies for ecology and conservation. Chapman and Hall, London.

Robinson, G.S., P.R. Ackery, I.J. Kitching, G.W. Beccaloni & L.M. Hernández (2010). HOSTS - A Database of the World’s Lepidopteran Hostplants. Natural History Museum, London.

Rusman, R., T. Atmowidi & D. Peggie (2016). Butterflies (Lepidoptera: Papilionoidea) of Mount Sago, West Sumatra: Diversity and flower Preference. HAYATI Journal of Biosciences 23(3): 132–137. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hjb.2016.12.001

Samraj, J.M. & M. Agnihotri (2021). Impact of land use pattern and seasonality on butterfly diversity in a sub–tropical Terai arc landscape (TAL), Pantnagar, Uttarakhand (India). Tropical Ecology 62: 301–310. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42965-021-00150-9

Semwal, R.L. (2005). The Terai Arc Landscape in India, Securing Protected Areas in the Face of Global Change. WWF–India, New Delhi, 47 pp.

Sengupta, P., K.K. Banerjee & N. Ghorai (2014). Seasonal diversity of butterflies and their larval food plants in the surroundings of upper Neora valley National Park, a subtropical broad leaved hill forest in the eastern Himalayan landscape, West Bengal, India. Journal of Threatened Taxa 6(1): 5327–5324. https://doi.org/10.11609/JoTT.o3446.5327-42

Shannon, C.E. & W. Weaver (1949). The Mathematical Theory of Communication. The University of Illinois Press, Illinois, 144 pp.

Sharma, K., B.K. Acharya, G. Sharma, D. Valente, M. Pasimeni, I. Petrosillo & T. Selvan (2020). Land use effect on butterfly alpha and beta diversity in the Eastern Himalaya, India. Ecological Indicators 110: 105605. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2019.105605

Singh, A.P. & R.S. Bhandari (2003). Butterfly diversity in tropical moist deciduous sal (Shorea robusta) forests of Dehradun Valley: the lower western Himalayas. Indian Forester 129(10): 1257–1269.

Singh, A.P. & R.S. Bhandari (2006). New additions to the butterflies of Dehradun Valley, the lower Western Himalayas. Indian Forester 132(6): 767–769.

Singh, A.P. & S. Sondhi (2016). Butterflies of Garhwal, Uttarakhand, Western Himalaya, India. Journal of Threatened Taxa 8(4): 8666–8697. https://doi.org/10.11609/jott.2254.8.4.8666-8697

Singh, A.P. (2009). Butterflies of Kedarnath Musk Deer Reserve, Garhwal Himalayas, India. Journal of Threatened Taxa 1(1): 37–48. https://doi.org/10.11609/joTT.o1873.37-48

Singh, A.P. (2017). Butterflies of India. Om books International, India, 184 pp.

Smetacek, P. (2012). Butterflies (Lepidoptera: Papilionoidea and Hesperoidea) and other protected fauna of Jones Estate, a dying watershed in the Kumaon Himalaya, Uttarakhand, India. Journal of Threatened Taxa 4(9): 2857–2874. https://doi.org/10.11609/JoTT.o3020.2857-74

Sondhi, S. & K. Kunte (2018). Butterflies of Uttarakhand - A Field Guide. Bishen Singh Mahendra Pal Singh (Dehradun), Titli Trust (Dehradun), National Centre for Biological Sciences, Bengaluru.

Sondhi, S. (2017). First records of butterflies Anthene emolus emolus (Godart, [1924]) (Lepidoptera: Lycaenidae: Polyommatinae) and Gandaca harina assamica Moore, [1906] (Lepidoptera: Pieridae: Coliadinae) from Kumaon, Uttarakhand, India. Journal of Threatened Taxa 9(6): 10355–10357. https://doi.org/10.11609/jott.3233.9.6.10355-10357

Sorensen, T. (1948). A method of establishing groups of equal amplitude in plant society based on the similarity of species content and its application to analyses of the vegetation on Danish Commons. Biologiske Skrifter 5: 1–34.

Swarnali, M., D.P. Rudra, B. Soumyajit, B. Pathiba, S.K. Goutam & A. Gautam (2019). Correspondence of butterfly and host plant diversity: Foundation for habitat restoration and conservation. European Journal of Ecology 5(1): 49–66. https://doi.org/10.2478/eje-2019-0007

Tiple, A.D., V.P. Deshmukh & R.L.H. Dennis (2006).  Factors influencing  nectar  plant  resource  visits  by  butterflies  on  a  university  campus:  implications  for  conservation.  Nota  Lepidopteralogica  28(3/4): 213–224.

Valtonen, A., F. Molleman, C.A. Chapman, J.R. Carey, M.P. Ayres & H. Roininen (2013). Tropical phenology: bi–annual rhythms and interannual variation in an Afrotropical butterfly assemblage. Ecosphere 4(3): 36. https://doi.org/10.1890/ES12-00338.1

Verma, A. (2011). Report of the Proposal for Nandhaur Wildlife Sanctuary. Uttarakhand Forest Department, India, 29 pp.

Verma, A. & M.K. Arya (2021). Proposed Multipurpose Project at Pancheshwar in the Western Himalaya affects rich butterfly diversity: a conservation concern. Journal of Insect Conservation 25: 89–107. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10841-020-00285-5

Wagner, D.L. (2020). Insect declines in the Anthropocene. Annual Review of Entomology 65: 457–480. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-ento-011019-025151

Wallenius, T., L. Niskanen, T. Virtanen, J. Hottola, G. Brumelis, A. Angervuori, J. Julkunen & M. Pihlström (2010). Loss of habitats, naturalness and species diversity in Eurasian forest landscapes. Ecological Indicators 10: 1093–1101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2010.03.006

Warren, M.S., J.K. Hill, J.A. Thomas, J. Asher, R. Fox, B. Huntley, D.B. Roy, M.G. Telfer, S. Jeffcoate, P. Harding, G. Jeffcoate, S.G. Willis, J.N. Greatorex-Davies, D. Moss & C.D. Thomas (2001). Rapid responses on British butterflies to opposing forces of climate and habitat change. Nature 414: 65–69. https://doi.org/10.1038/35102054

WII (2019). A socio–economic overview of proximate communities around Nandhaur Wildlife Sanctuary in supporting transboundary tiger recovery in India and Nepal. Wildlife Institute of India and Uttarakhand Forest department, 42 pp.

Wolda, H. (1988). Insect seasonality – why? Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 19: 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.es.19.110188.000245

Wynter-Blyth, M.A. (1957). Butterflies of the Indian Region. Bombay Natural History Society, Bombay, 523 pp.