Journal of Insects
Volume 2014 (2014), Article ID 254972, 4 pages
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2014/254972

Research Article

Butterfly Diversity of Indian Institute of Forest Management, Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh, India

Sprih Harsh

WWF-India, Mandla, Madhya Pradesh 481661, India

Received 17 July 2014; Revised 12 October 2014; Accepted 16 November 2014; Published 25 November 2014

Academic Editor: Rostislav Zemek

Copyright © 2014 Sprih Harsh. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract.

A study to find out the diversity of butterflies at the Indian Institute of Forest Management (IIFM), Bhopal, was carried out over a period of six months from October 2013 to March 2014. A total of 55 butterfly species belonging to 5 families, namely, Hesperiidae (7 species), Papilionidae (4 species), Pieridae (10 species), Lycaenidae (13 species), and Nymphalidae (21 species), were recorded (with photographic record) during the study from three different habitats of campus: open scrub, dry deciduous, and urbanized habitat. Shannon diversity indices and Pielou’s evenness index were calculated for all the habitats. Shannon index was found to be highest for open scrub (3.76). Out of 54 species, Eurema brigitta was the most dominant species followed by Eurema hecabe, Junonia lemonias, and Phalanta phalantha. Dominance of these species can be explained by the presence of their larval and host plants in the campus.

1. Introduction

Butterflies are one of the most conspicuous species of Earth’s biodiversity. Being extremely responsive to any changes in their environment, namely, temperature, humidity, light, and rainfall patterns [1–4], these insects are identified as useful bioindicators. They have different requirements for different habitat types for mating, breeding, and nectaring and are, thus, in sync with the diversity and quality of their habitats.

The present study aims to examine the diversity and distribution of butterflies across three different habitats, namely, dry deciduous, open scrub, and urbanized habitat. A checklist of butterfly species is also provided.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Area

The study was done in Indian Institute of Forest Management, Bhopal (23.208371°N and 77.384417°E), from July 2012 to March 2013. The location of campus, built on a hill at an elevation of about 556 m and surrounded by water on three sides, along with the wide range of climatic conditions that it passes through brings in diverse structure of habitats. The major types of vegetation included grasslands, open scrub forest, and dry deciduous forest and bamboo groves. The study was conducted in 12 transects (each approximately 300 to 500 m long) covering an area of 93-hectare campus.

For our study, transects were divided into three habitats according to general landscape attributes and vegetation present there. The chief habitat types were as follows: (1) open scrub, (2) dry deciduous, and (3) urbanized habitat.

2.2. Butterfly Survey

The survey of butterfly was done using Pollard walk method [5, 6] from 8 am to 10 am. The butterflies were observed within 2.5 meters to the left and right side and five meters in front of the observer. Butterflies were observed, captured, identified, and released immediately at the spot of capture. A butterfly net was used for this purpose. Many of the species were photographed in the wild. The dead specimens, many of them not in very good condition, were kept in butterfly collection boxes. Collecting live specimens was avoided during the study.

2.3. Data Analysis

(A) Shannon Index . Species diversity was calculated using the Shannon Index [8]:

Here, is the proportion of the th species in the total sample. The number of species (species richness) in the community and their evenness in abundance (or equitability) are the two parameters that define .

(B) Pielou’s Evenness Index (Equitability) or . The species evenness is the proportion of individuals among the species. Evenness of species indicates their relative abundance on site [8, 9]:

Here, is the number of species present in the site.

3. Results

A total of 55 butterfly species with a total of 815 individuals belonging to 5 families were recorded (with photographic record) during the study. The butterfly list along with their abundance in different habitats is given in Table 1. There are 8 species with lowest individual number having abundance less than 5 in all the three habitats. The three most abundant species are Eurema brigitta (with 48 individuals) followed by Eurema hecabe (with 45 individuals) and Junonia lemonias (with 34 individuals). The greatest number of all these three species occurred in open scrub. Out of 55 species, 52 were found in open scrub followed by 49 species in dry deciduous habitat and then 44 species in urbanized habitat. A total of 815 individuals were recorded from the campus with highest abundance in open scrub () followed by dry deciduous habitat () and urbanized habitat (). Out of the five families of butterflies, Nymphalidae were the most commonly recorded, accounting for 38% () of total species recorded followed by Lycaenidae 23% (), Pieridae 10% (), and Hesperiidae 12% () of total species and minimum was recorded for Papilionidae 7% ().

Table 1: List of butterfly species and their abundance in different habitats (Source [7]).

Serial number
Name
Scientific name
Author name of species
Family
Abundance

1
Common Banded Awl
Hasora chromus
Pieter Cramer
Hesperiidae
12

2
Malabar Spotted Flat
Celaenorrhinus ambareesa
Frederic Moore
10

3
Indian Skipper
Spialia galba
Johan Christian Fabricius
1

4
Spotted Small Flat
Sarangesa purendra
Frederic Moore
3

5
Tricolored Pied Flat
Coladenia indrani
Frederic Moore
9

6
Bevan’s Swift
Pseudobordo bevani
Frederic Moore
11

7
Small Branded Swift
Pelopidas mathias
Johan Christian Fabricius
9

8
Common Mime
Chilasa clytia
Carolus Linnaeus
Papilionidae
10

9
Common Mormon
Papilio polytes
Carolus Linnaeus
18

10
Lime Butterfly
Papilio demoleus
Carl Linnaeus
16

11
Crimson Rose
Atrophaneura hector
Carl Linnaeus
9

12
Small Grass Yellow
Eurema brigitta
Pieter Cramer
Pieridae
48

13
Common Grass Yellow
Eurema hecabe
Carl Linnaeus
45

14
Spotless Grass Yellow
Eurema laeta
Jean Baptise Boisduval
32

15
Common Emigrant
Catopsilia pomona
Johan Christian Fabricius
11

16
Mottled Emigrant
Catopsilia pyranthe
Carl Linnaeus
13

17
Plain Orange Tip
Colotis eucharis
Johan Christian Fabricius
5

18
Common Wanderer
Pareronia valeria
Carl Linnaeus
19

19
Common Gull
Cepora nerissa
Johan Christian Fabricius
3

20
Common Jezebel
Delias eucharis
Dru Drury
2

21
Pioneer
Belenois aurota
Johan Christian Fabricius
10

22
Guava Blue
Deudorix isocrates
Johan Christian Fabricius
Lycaenidae
19

23
Zebra Blue
Leptotes plinius
Johan Christian Fabricius
7

24
Common Cerulean
Jamides celeno
Pieter Cramer
27

25
Forget Me Not
Catochrysops strabo
Johan Christian Fabricius
22

26
Rounded Pierrot
Tarucus nara
Arthur Gardiner Butler
8

27
Dark Pierrot
Tarucus ananda
Lionel De Nicéville
7

28
Dark Grass Blue
Zizeeria karsandra
Frederic Moore
21

29
Pale Grass Blue
Pseudozizeeria maha
Vincenz Kollar

11

30
Lesser Grass Blue
Zizina otis
Johan Christian Fabricius
14

31
Tiny Grass Blue
Zizula hylax
Johan Christian Fabricius
8

32
Gram Blue
Euchrysops cnejus
Johan Christian Fabricius
9

33
Small Cupid
Chilades parrhasius
Johan Christian Fabricius
8

34
Lime Blue
Chilades lajus
Pieter Cramer
11

35
Blue Tiger
Tirumala limniace
Pieter Cramer
Nymphalidae
22

36
Striped Tiger
Danaus genutia
Pieter Cramer
21

37
Plain Tiger
Danaus chrysippus
Carl Linnaeus
23

38
Glassy Tiger
Parantica aglea
Caspar Stoll
24

39
Anomalous Nawab
Polyura agraria
Dru Drury
6

40
Common Evening Brown
Melanitis leda
Carl Linnaeus
29

41
Common Threering
Ypthima asterope
Klug
3

42
Common Fourring
Ypthima huebneri
Kirby
4

43
Tawny Coster
Acraea violae
Carl Linnaeus
10

44
Common Leopard
Phalanta phalantha
Dru Drury

32

45
Common Sailer
Neptis hylas
Carl Linnaeus
11

46
Baronet
Euthalia nais
Forster
21

47
Blue Pansy
Junonia orithya
Carl Linnaeus
25

48
Yellow Pansy
Junonia hierta
Johan Christian Fabricius
11

49
Chocolate Pansy
Junonia iphita
Pieter Cramer
12

50
Grey Pansy
Junonia atlites
Carl Linnaeus
9

51
Lemon Pansy
Junonia lemonias
Carl Linnaeus
34

52
Great Eggfly
Hypolimnas bolina
Carl Linnaeus
19

53
Danaid Eggfly
Hypolimnas misippus
Carl Linnaeus
17

54
Autumn Leaf
Doleschallia bisaltide
Pieter Cramer
2

55
Common Crow
Euploea core
Pieter Cramer
12

Figure 1 shows that proportion of rare species tends to increase from open scrub to dry deciduous to urbanized habitat. The proportion of uncommon species is similar in open scrub and dry deciduous environment while it tends to decrease in urbanized structure. The proportion of common species, on the other hand, indicates a decreasing trend from open scrub to dry deciduous to urbanized environment.

Figure 1: Proportion of species abundance in each habitat. Note. Rare: species with individuals less than 5; Uncommon: species with individuals between 6 and 10; Common: species with individuals more than 10.

The diversity of butterfly species in three different habitat types in IIFM is presented in Table 2. The open scrub has the greatest species number with 52 species while urbanized habitat ranks lowest with 44 species. The same order follows for abundance and diversity index with highest diversity index for open scrub and least for urbanized habitat and greatest individual numbers for open scrub and least for urbanized environment. The greatest species number of open scrub habitat leads to the high diversity index although it has a lower evenness index than dry deciduous habitat. The evenness index is almost similar in the entire three habitats with the index being highest in dry deciduous habitat where there is not any dominating species with high individual number.

Table 2: Results of different ecological indices for different habitats.

Ecological indices
Open scrub
Dry deciduous habitat
Urbanized habitat

Evenness ()
0.94
0.96
0.93

Species richness ()
52
49
44

Total abundance
359
277
179

Shannon-Wiener diversity index ()
3.76
3.74
3.53

4. Discussion

Fifty-five species of butterflies were documented during the survey. Open scrub, the least disturbed, was found to have the highest species richness followed by dry deciduous habitat and the lowest in urbanized habitat, the most disturbed. These results can be attributed to the presence of host and larval plant species, whose occurrence impacts distribution of butterflies [10]. There are many studies that have shown higher butterfly diversity in disturbed habitat or forest gaps than that in dense forest or closed canopy [11–14]. This study, therefore, shows some sort of contradictory results which might be due to different levels of disturbance among these habitats, more in open scrub in terms of human interference in the form of fuel wood gathering, cattle grazing, forest fire, and so forth, but less in urbanized habitat where there are well maintained gardens. These human interferences result in more gaps, edges which provide more light and space, and diversity in plant structure to support more butterfly species than natural forest [3, 13, 15]. The correlation of disturbance and occurrence of butterflies is attributed to the emergence of secondary vegetation like Lantana camera, Eupatorium odoratum, and so forth, which are good food sources for many butterfly species [14].

One important aspect of study is the statistics of common species between different habitats which indicates the beta diversity and how different (or similar) these habitats are in terms of the variety and abundance of species found in them. The open scrub and dry deciduous habitat showed highest number of shared species (47 species), as these areas are relatively more rich in food resources in terms of nectars for butterflies. Species community structure was different among habitats, but rather similar in the open scrub and dry deciduous habitat. Many species of butterflies depend on remnant vegetation or secondary forest for survival, especially in urban areas [15, 16]. So for the conservation of species in human dominated landscape, any institutional campus maintaining high plant diversity and different types of habitats is a good option.

Conflict of Interests

The author declares that there is no conflict of interests regarding the publication of this paper.

References

D. D. Murphy and S. B. Weiss, “A long-term monitoring plan for a threatened butterfly,” Conservation Biology, vol. 2, pp. 367–374, 1988.

H. R. Sparrow, T. D. Sisk, P. R. Ehrlich, and D. D. Murphy, “Techniques and guidelines for monitoring neotropical butterflies,” Conservation Biology, vol. 8, no. 3, pp. 800–809, 1994.

K. Spitzer, J. Jaroš, J. Havelka, and J. Lepš, “Effect of small-scale disturbance on butterfly communities of an Indochinese montane rainforest,” Biological Conservation, vol. 80, no. 1, pp. 9–15, 1997.

T. Brereton, D. B. Roy, I. Middlebrook, M. Botham, and M. Warren, “The development of butterfly indicators in the United Kingdom and assessments in 2010,” Journal of Insect Conservation, vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 139–151, 2011.

E. Pollard, “A method for assessing changes in the abundance of butterflies,” Biological Conservation, vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 115–134, 1977.

E. Pollard, D. O. Elias, M. J. Skelton, and J. A. Thomas, “A method of assessing the abundance of butterflies in Monks Wood National Nature Reserve in 1973,” Entomologist’s Gazette, vol. 26, pp. 79–88, 1975.

I. Kehimkar, The Book of Indian Butterflies, Bombay Natural History Society, 2008.

A. E. Magurran, Ecological Diversity and Its Measurement, Chapman & Hall, London, UK, 1988.

E. C. Pielou, An Introduction to Mathematical Ecology, vol. 286, John Wiley, New York, NY, USA, 1969.

A. D. Tiple, A. M. Khurad, and R. L. H. Dennis, “Butterfly diversity in relation to a human-impact gradient on an Indian university campus,” Nota Lepidopterologica, vol. 30, no. 1, pp. 179–188, 2007.

K. Spitzer, V. Novotny, M. Tonner, and J. Leps, “Habitat preferences, distribution and seasonality of the butterflies (Lepidoptera, Papilionoidea) in a montane tropical rain forest, Vietnam,” Journal of Biogeography, vol. 20, no. 1, pp. 109–121, 1993.

J. Hill, K. Hamer, J. Tangah, and M. Dawood, “Ecology of tropical butterflies in rainforest gaps,” Oecologia, vol. 128, no. 2, pp. 294–302, 2001.

K. C. Hamer, J. K. Hill, L. A. Lace, and A. M. Langan, “Ecological and biogeographical effects of forest disturbance on tropical butterflies of Sumba, Indonesia,” Journal of Biogeography, vol. 24, no. 1, pp. 67–75, 1997.

B. Wood and M. P. Gillman, “The effects of disturbance on forest butterflies using two methods of sampling in Trinidad,” Biodiversity and Conservation, vol. 7, no. 5, pp. 597–616, 1998.

R. B. Blair, “Birds and butterflies along an urban gradient: surrogate taxa for assessing biodiversity?” Ecological Applications, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 164–170, 1999.

M. K. Saikia, J. Kalita, and P. K. Saikia, “Ecology and conservation needs of nymphalid butterflies in disturbed tropical forest of eastern Himalayan biodiversity hotspot, Assam, India,” International Journal of Biodversity Conservation, vol. 1, no. 8, pp. 231–250, 2009.