Journal of Threatened
Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | 26 March 2026 | 18(3): 28582–28589
ISSN 0974-7907 (Online) | ISSN 0974-7893 (Print)
https://doi.org/10.11609/jott.9904.18.3.28582-28589
#9904 | Received 07 May 2025 | Final received 20 February 2026| Finally
accepted 02 March 2026
Species composition of butterflies associated with nectar
feeding on Libidibia coriaria (Jacq.)
Schltdl (Magnoliopsida: Fabales: Fabaceae)
V. Ajay Krishna 1 , M.P. Gopika
2 , S. Adithyan 3 &
K.S. Aneesh 4
1,2,3 College of Forestry, Kerala Agricultural University,
Thrissur, Kerala 680656, India.
4 Department of Forest Resource Management, College of
Forestry, Kerala Agricultural University, Thrissur, Kerala 680656, India.
1 ajaykrishna00007@gmail.com, 2 gopikaprabhulan@gmail.com,
3 adithyansuresh345@gmail.com,
4 aneesh.ks@kau.in (corresponding author)
Abstract: Butterflies are vital bioindicators
and pollinators, with their diversity often reflecting ecosystem health. This
study assessed the species richness of butterflies visiting Libidibia
coriaria during its flowering season within the
Kerala Agricultural University campus. A total of 41 butterfly species were
recorded, representing approximately 29.5% of the 139
butterfly species previously documented from the campus. The high
species richness observed around L. coriaria
underscores its ecological importance as a key nectar source that sustains
butterfly foraging activity.
Keywords: Bioindicators, butterfly host,
conservation, Divi-divi, foraging behaviour,
Kerala Agricultural University, nectar feeding, phenology, plant-pollinator
interactions, urban health.
Editor: Anonymity requested. Date of publication: 26 March 2026 (online & print)
Citation:
Krishna, V.A., M.P. Gopika, S. Adithyan
& K.S. Aneesh (2026). Species composition of butterflies associated
with nectar feeding on Libidibia coriaria (Jacq.) Schltdl
(Magnoliopsida: Fabales:
Fabaceae). Journal of Threatened Taxa 18(3): 28582–28589. https://doi.org/10.11609/jott.9904.18.3.28582-28589
Copyright: © Krishna et al. 2026. 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: None.
Competing interests: The authors declare no competing interests.
Acknowledgements: We thank the dean, College of Forestry, Kerala Agricultural University, for the encouragement and support and Dr. S. Gopakumar, professor, Department of Forest Resource Management for their constant support and encouragements.
Butterflies, often considered the
winged jewels of the insect world, play a vital role as pollinators in diverse
ecosystems worldwide. Both in their adult and larval stages, butterflies depend
on specific plants for their feeding needs. This intricate relationship between
butterflies and plants results in varied distribution patterns of butterflies
across different habitats and vegetation types (Huang et al. 2024). As such,
the mutualistic connection between butterflies and plants reflects the
diversity of plant life in an area and highlights butterflies as indicators of
ecosystem health (Nimbalkar et al. 2010). Libidibia coriaria,
commonly known as Divi-Divi, is a small to
medium-sized evergreen tree belonging to the family Leguminosae. It is
distributed throughout central America and northern South America. It has been
introduced in India in 1834 as a shade tree in urban landscapes (Chacko et al.
2002). The flowers are small, yellow, and fragrant, and arranged in axillary to
subterminal small panicles or clusters, much exceeded by subtending leaves (Deepakkumar & Ramanan 2016). The morphology of flowers,
particularly their size and shape, along with the structure of the pollinators’
feeding apparatus, determines the effectiveness of plant-pollinator
interactions. The flowers of L. coriaria, when
in bloom, have exposed reproductive structures. Butterflies visiting these
flowers move through the inflorescences, during which their legs, proboscis,
and head come into contact with the reproductive organs, thereby facilitating
pollination (Meerabai 2021). The present study was
undertaken to analyse the species composition and feeding behaviour of
butterflies associated with nectar foraging on the flowers of Libidibia coriaria.
Study area
The observations were taken from
the Libidibia coriaria
trees planted in the main campus of Kerala Agricultural University (KAU),
situated in Vellanikkara, Thrissur District, Kerala,
at a geographic coordinate range of 10.544–10.553 oN
and 76.288–76.284 oE (Figure 1). The main
campus is also located near the Peechi-Vazhani
Wildlife Sanctuary, which is part of the Western Ghats, a globally recognised
biodiversity hotspot. During the study period, the average temperature ranged
24.02–31.76 oC, with a mean annual
rainfall of 14.1 mm (KAU Weather Station 2024).
Methods
Four individuals of Libidibia coriaria,
planted along the avenues of the KAU main campus, were selected for the
observations. Data were collected twice daily, from 08.30–11.00 h and
15.30–17.00 h, during the flowering period of L. coriaria
(i.e., August–September). Digital photographs were taken using a Nikon Z 50
mirrorless camera, and the butterflies visiting the flowers were recorded. For
every species observed, the duration of each floral visit was noted, and based
on these data, the minimum and maximum time spent by each species on the
flowers were documented. Species identification was carried out using field
guides by Kunte (2000), Kehimkar
(2008), and Bhakare & Ogale
(2018).
Result and discussion
A total of 41 butterfly species, comprising
1,106 individuals and representing five families, were recorded during the
study period (Table 1; Image 1–34). The families Nymphalidae,
Hesperiidae, and Papilionidae
were the most species, each accounting for 24.39% of the total species
documented (n = 10) followed by Pieridae (n = 6) and Lycaenidae (n = 5) (Figure 2).
Nymphalidae—Hypolimnas
bolina was the most frequent floral visitor (n =
150), with a nectar-feeding duration ranging from 40–47 s per visit, whereas
Danaus genutia exhibited the longest
nectar-feeding duration among the recorded nymphalids
(53–57 s per visit).
Lycaenidae—Among the Lycaenidae,
Rapala manea
was the most dominant nectar feeding species (n = 60), exhibiting the longest
feeding duration of 88–96 s per visit followed by Jamides
celeno (19–23 s per visit) and Acytolepis puspa
(16–22 s per visit).
Hesperiidae—Nectar-feeding durations were
longest in Telicota ancilla (n = 4),
with visits ranging from 96–117 s, suggesting that skippers, particularly this
species, engage in more prolonged floral foraging. In addition to T. bambusae, other hesperiids
such as Lambrix salsala
(90–96 s), Hasora chromus
(84–91 s), and Borbo cinnara
(80–88 s) also demonstrated consistently longer feeding durations compared to
most other butterfly species recorded in the study.
Pieridae—Among the Pierids, Catopsilia pomona
(n = 219) spent the longest time on nectar feeding, with durations ranging from
97–115 s per visit. This was followed by Delias
eucharis (35–39 s per visit) and Eurema
hecabe (9–13 s per visit), reflecting
considerable variation in foraging duration among species within the family.
The temporal distribution and
relative abundance of butterfly families observed throughout the flowering
period of Libidibia coriaria
is illustrated in Figure 3. Nymphalidae and Pieridae exhibited sustained and widespread presence across
most days, indicating their continuous activity and possibly broader
adaptability to the flowering period of Libidibia
coriaria. Papilionidae
and Hesperiidae exhibited relatively narrower
fluctuations in abundance, indicating distinct periodic peaks in activity. Papilionidae were more active during the blooming stages of
Libidibia coriaria,
while Hesperiidae showed increased activity during
the later stage of flowering.
Conclusion
A total of 41 butterfly species
documented in this study represents approximately 29.5% of the 139 species
previously recorded from the KAU campus (Aneesh et al. 2013), highlighting the
ecological significance of Libidibia coriaria as an important nectar resource. These
findings emphasize the species’ role in supporting butterfly diversity and
foraging activity during its flowering phase. Notably, the strong association
between floral resource availability and butterfly presence aligns with the
observations of Martínez-Adriano et al. (2018), who reported that plant species
serve as limiting factors for butterfly diversity and emphasized the functional
role butterflies play in pollination networks, particularly in tropical
habitats.
Despite being an introduced
species, L. coriaria supports high butterfly
diversity during its flowering phase, likely due to its abundant floral
display, accessible floral morphology, and favourable nectar composition. This
study underscores the importance of maintaining a diversity of nectar
resources, to sustain pollinator networks, enhance habitat quality, and support
long-term biodiversity conservation.
Table 1. Species
composition of butterflies recoded during the nectar
feeding on Libidibia coriaria.
|
|
Common name |
Scientific name |
No. of individuals recorded |
Time spent on nectar feeding
(s) |
|
Family: Papilionidae
|
||||
|
1. |
Crimson Rose |
Pachliopta hector (Linnaeus, 1758) |
30 |
90–98 |
|
2. |
Common Rose |
Pachliopta aristolochiae (Fabricius,
1775) |
20 |
72–80 |
|
3. |
Tailed Jay |
Graphium agamemnon (Linnaeus, 1758) |
56 |
12–16 |
|
4. |
Common Jay |
Graphium doson (C. & R. Felder, 1864) |
34 |
11–18 |
|
5. |
Common Bluebottle |
Graphium sarpedon (Linnaeus, 1758) |
15 |
15–18 |
|
6. |
Common Mormon |
Papilio polytes (Linnaeus, 1758) |
2 |
10–12 |
|
7. |
Blue Mormon |
Papilio polymnestor (Cramer, 1775) |
2 |
6 |
|
8. |
Lime Butterfly |
Papilio demoleus (Linnaeus, 1758) |
1 |
5 |
|
9. |
Southern Birdwing |
Troides minos (Cramer, 1779) |
3 |
5–7 |
|
10. |
Common Mime |
Papilio clytia (Linnaeus, 1758) |
10 |
10–13 |
|
Family: Pieridae |
||||
|
11. |
Common Emigrant |
Catopsilia pomona (Fabricius, 1775) |
219 |
97–115 |
|
12. |
Great Orange Tip |
Hebomoia glaucippe (Linnaeus, 1758) |
1 |
6 |
|
13. |
Three-spot Grass Yellow |
Eurema blanda (Boisduval, 1836) |
2 |
9–12 |
|
14. |
Common Grass Yellow |
Eurema hecabe (Linnaeus, 1758) |
22 |
9–13 |
|
15. |
Common Jezebel |
Delias eucharis (Drury, 1773) |
73 |
35–39 |
|
16. |
Mottled Emigrant |
Catopsilia pyranthe (Linnaeus, 1758) |
3 |
9–12 |
|
Family: Nymphalidae
|
||||
|
17. |
Great Egg Fly |
Hypolimnas bolina (Linnaeus, 1758) |
150 |
40–47 |
|
18. |
Common Leopard |
Phalanta phalantha (Drury, 1773) |
7 |
5–12 |
|
19. |
Chocolate Pansy |
Junonia iphita (Cramer, 1779) |
24 |
12–19 |
|
20. |
Striped Tiger |
Danaus genutia
(Cramer,
1779) |
7 |
53–57 |
|
21. |
Rustic |
Cupha erymanthis (Drury, 1773) |
5 |
6–9 |
|
22 |
Common Castor |
Ariadne merione
(Cramer,
1777) |
10 |
7–13 |
|
23 |
Tamil Yeoman |
Cirrochroa thais (Fabricius, 1787) |
4 |
7–10 |
|
24. |
Glassy Tiger |
Parantica aglea (Stoll, 1782) |
4 |
9–12 |
|
25. |
Blue Tiger |
Tirumala limniace
(Cramer,
1775) |
2 |
37 |
|
26. |
Common Crow |
Euploea core (Cramer, 1780) |
7 |
19–21 |
|
Family: Lycaenidae |
||||
|
27. |
Slate Flash |
Rapala manea (Hewitson, 1863) |
60 |
88–96 |
|
28. |
Common Cerulean |
Jamides celeno (Cramer, 1775) |
11 |
19–23 |
|
29. |
Common Hedge Blue |
Acytolepis puspa (Horsfield, 1828) |
7 |
16-–22 |
|
30. |
Redspot |
Zesius chrysomallus (Hübner,
1819) |
4 |
4–12 |
|
31. |
Red Pierrot |
Talicada nyseus (Guérin-Meneville, 1843) |
1 |
4 |
|
Family: Hesperiidae |
||||
|
32. |
Common Banded Awl |
Hasora chromus (Cramer, 1780) |
32 |
84–91 |
|
33. |
Dark Palm Dart |
Telicota ancilla (Moore, 1878) |
4 |
96–117 |
|
34. |
White Banded Awl |
Hasora taminatus (Hübner, 1818) |
18 |
61–67 |
|
35. |
Chestnut Bob |
Iambrix salsala (Moore, 1865) |
81 |
90–96 |
|
36. |
Restricted Demon |
Notocrypta curvifascia (Felder & Felder, 1862) |
38 |
67–76 |
|
37. |
Brown Awl |
Badamia exclamationis (Fabricius,
1775) |
51 |
11–87 |
|
38. |
Rice Swift |
Borbo cinnara (Wallace, 1866) |
96 |
80–88 |
|
39. |
Ceylon Swift |
Parnara bada (Moore, 1878) |
1 |
19 |
|
40. |
Indian Palm Bob |
Suastus gremius (Fabricius, 1798) |
6 |
70–76 |
|
41. |
Conjoined Swift |
Pelopidas conjuncta (Herrich-Schäffer, 1869) |
1 |
12 |
For figures & images - - click here for full PDF
References
Aneesh, K.S., C.K. Adarsh & P.O. Nameer (2013). Butterflies of Kerala Agricultural
University (KAU) campus, Thrissur, Kerala, India. Journal of Threatened Taxa
5(9): 4422–4440. https://doi.org/10.11609/JoTT.o2870.4422-40
Bhakare, M. & H. Ogale (2018). A Guide to Butterflies of Western
Ghats (India). Milind Bhakare, 496 pp.
https://books.google.co.in/books?id=R6jivQEACAAJ
Chacko, K.C., R.C. Pandalai, K. K. Seethalakshmi,
C. Mohanan, G. Mathew & N. Sasidharan (2002). Manual of Seeds of Forest Trees,
Bamboos and Rattans. Kerala Forest Research Institute, Peechi,
Kerala.
Deepakkumar, R.& S.S. Ramanan (2016).
Flowering and fruiting phenology of Caesalpinia
coriaria (Jacq.) Wild. International Journal
of Hill Farming 29(1): 72–78.
Kehimkar, I. (2008). The Book of
Indian Butterflies. Bombay Natural History Society, 497 pp.
Kunte, K. (2000). Butterflies of
Peninsular India. Universities Press, Hyderabad & Indian Academy of
Sciences, Bengaluru, 270 pp.
Nimbalkar, R.K., S.K. Chandekar &
S.P. Khunte (2011).
Butterfly diversity in relation to nectar food plants from Bhor
Tahsil, Pune district, Maharashtra, India. Journal of Threatened Taxa
3(3): 1601–1609. https://doi.org/10.11609/JoTT.o2612.1601-9
Martínez-Adriano, C.A., C. Díaz-Castelazo
& A. Aguirre-Jaimes (2018). Flower-mediated plant-butterfly interactions in an
heterogeneous tropical coastal ecosystem. PeerJ.
6. 1–22. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.5493
Meerabai, G. (2021). A study on attitude of butterflies at
forage on diverse morphological flowers. Current Approaches in Science and
Technology Research 9: 14–19. https://doi.org/10.9734/bpi/castr/v9/10706D