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.