Butterfly fauna of daroji sloth bear sanctuary, hospet, bellary district, karnataka, india
-
Upload
research-biology -
Category
Science
-
view
192 -
download
5
description
Transcript of Butterfly fauna of daroji sloth bear sanctuary, hospet, bellary district, karnataka, india
Jou
rn
al of R
esearch
in
Biology
Butterfly fauna of Daroji Sloth Bear Sanctuary, Hospet, Bellary District,
Karnataka, India
Keywords: Deccan Plateau, Hypolimnas misippus, Pachliopta hector, Lampides boeticus, Indian Wildlife Protection Act 1972, Daroji Sloth Bear Sanctuary.
ABSTRACT:
Butterflies were enumerated during February 2010 to January 2012 using pollard walk method to assess the species diversity in the tropical thorn dry deciduous (Deccan Plateau) scrub jungle with granite boulder outcrop habitats of Daroji Sloth Bear Sanctuary, Bellary District, Karnataka. This area, a total of 5,587.30 hectares is being proposed for the conservation of threatened species of Indian subcontinent the Sloth bear, Melursus ursinus and announded as a Sanctuary. A total of 41 butterfly species belonging to Hesperiidae, Papilionidae, Pieridae, Lycaenidae and Nymphalidae families were recorded. Two species of butterflies recorded from this region have a protected status under the Indian Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972. Habitat destruction in terms of mining activity can be a potential threat to this area and is suggested to be the reason for the reduction of species richness and abundance of butterflies in impacted areas of the study site. This study provides support for long-term conservation of these fragmented scrub forest to ensure biodiversity protection.
840-846 | JRB | 2013 | Vol 3 | No 2
This article is governed by the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/
licenses/by/2.0), which gives permission for unrestricted use, non-commercial, distribution and reproduction in all medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
www.jresearchbiology.com
Journal of Research in Biology
An International Scientific
Research Journal
Authors:
Harisha MN and
Hosetti BB*.
Institution:
1. Department of Post
Graduate studies and research in Wildlife
Management, Kuvempu
University, Jnana Sahyadri,
Shankaraghatta- 577451,
Shimoga, Karnataka.
* Department of Post
Graduate studies and
research in Applied Zoology,
Kuvempu University, Jnana
Sahyadri, Shankaraghatta- 577451, Shimoga,
Karnataka.
Corresponding author:
Hosetti BB.
Email:
Web Address: http://jresearchbiology.com/documents/RA0331.pdf.
Dates: Received: 02 Feb 2013 Accepted: 09 Feb 2013 Published: 02 Apr 2013
Article Citation: Harisha MN and Hosetti BB. Butterfly fauna of Daroji Sloth Bear Sanctuary, Hospet, Bellary District, Karnataka, India. Journal of Research in Biology (2013) 3(2): 840-846
Journal of Research in Biology An International Scientific Research Journal
Original Research
INTRODUCTION
More than half of earth’s diversity comprises the
insects. Butterflies (Lepidoptera: Rhopalocera) plays an
important role in both ecological and economical
benefits to human beings. They increase aesthetic value
and actively involved in pollination thus help in seed
setting of plants. Butterflies enhance earth’s beauty due
to their diverse colors on their wings (May, 1992). Due
to their beauty and ecological significance butterflies are
the well studied group throughout the world (Ghazoul,
2002). The habitat of butterflies is very specific and their
occurrence is seasonal (Kunte, 1997). They are also
considered as the good indicators of habitat quality
including anthropogenic disturbances (Kocher and
Williams, 2000). Butterflies always attracted the
attention of researchers, ecologists and conservationist
by their community assemblage and the influencing
factors.
Butterflies are broadly considered as potent
ecological indicators (Erhardt, 1985; Brown, 1991;
Kremen, 1992) and are sensitive to the temperature,
humidity, and light levels and also to the habitat
disturbance (Balmer and Erhardt, 2000). The relationship
between plants and butterflies is highly complex and
co-evolved (Ehrlich and Raven, 1964), since the
butterflies depend on plants for the food and completion
of their life cycle, contrary to this many of the
economically important plant species are pollinated by
butterflies (Borges et al., 2003). In view of the above,
there is a need to conserve butterflies. Even though the
tropic is abund with diverse fauna including insects, the
data on the diversity of insects both in natural and man
made habitats still lacking. This situation prompted us to
document the butterfly diversity in Daroji Sloth Bear
Sanctuary India.
STUDY AREA
Daroji Sloth Bear Sanctuary (5,587.30 hectares)
is unique sanctuary in Karnataka, and is the only
sanctuary for sloth bear situated in North Karnataka.
The sanctuary located between 15°14' to 15°17' N
latitude and 76°31' to 76°40' E longitude at an elevation
of 647 m above mean sea level with the temperature
ranged between 20°-43°C. The sanctuary is close to the
Hampi a renowned world heritage site in Bellary district.
Sanctuary area belongs to Deccan Plateau scrub jungle
characterized by vast stretches of undulating plains with
intermittent parallel chains of hills, mostly bare and
stony, granite boulder outcrops. This habitat makes the
sloth bears to live comfortably in unique geographical
location.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
A study of butterfly diversity was conducted
from February 2010 to January 2012 to compare with
earlier reports and to record their status and abundance.
The survey was conducted to once in a month for a
period of two years from February 2010 to January 2012.
Butterflies were recorded by direct visual observation
and identified by using various field guides (Gay et al.,
1992; Antram, 2002; Wynter-Blynth, 1957, Kunte, 2000;
Sharma et al., 2005).
The line transect method developed by the
Institution of Terrestrial Ecology (Pollard, 1979) was
followed to monitor the diversity. The butterflies were
encountered along a fixed transect route of 2 km and
recorded regularly at an interval of every 15 day per
month in the study period. Based on the visual
observation i.e., presence-absence scoring method
made during the entire study period. On the basis of
percentage of occurrence the status of butterflies was
determined and categorized into three groups such 1-6%
as rare (R), 7-18% as Common (C) and >18% as very
common (VC).
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The study revealed the presence of 41 species of
butterflies, belonging to five families. The family
Papilionidae is represented by 6 species; Lycaenidae 7
Harisha and Hosetti., 2013
841 Journal of Research in Biology (2013) 3(2): 840-846
species; Nymphalidae 15 species; Pieridae 12 species;
and Hesperidae by single species. The checklists of all
the species observed with their status are given in
Table 1. Out of 41 species recorded during the present
investigation, 28 species have already been reported by
Neginhal et al., (2003); Madhav Gadgil et al., (2011) and
found during present study period. It is likely that many
more species could be added to the list on further
exploration of this area. Analysis on the status of
butterflies shows that 15 were rare, 12 were common and
14 were very common, similar pattern was reported in
the Tiger-Lion Safari, Thyavarekoppa of Shimoga,
Karnatka (Pramod et al., 2007).
Butterflies are sensitive to changes in the habitat
and climate, which influence their distribution and
abundance (Wynter-Blyth, 1957). Two specie viz,-
Pachliopta hector L and Hypolimnas misippus L
recorded in this region have a protected status under the
schedule I part IV of Indian Wildlife Protection Act,
1972 (Arora, 2003) and Lampides boeticus under
Schedule IV (Gupta et al., 2005). Similar pattern
has been reported from Melghat region of Maharashtra
and Ankua Reserve Forest of Jharkhand
(Mamata Chandraker et al., 2007) and Jogimatti state
forest of Chitradurga (Harish et al., 2009).
The conservation activities such as the
monitoring and mapping of biodiversity played a key
role in determining the status of the diversity
(Margules and Pressey, 2000). The habitat
fragmentation, grazing pressure and change in land use
pattern are mainly responsible for diversity loss of both
butterflies and plants. Along with the above, mining
activity can also be treated as potential threat to
biodiversity loss in this area. Lycaenidae family
members are largely affected both in terms of abundance
and diversity since they feed on grasses, which is lost
due to grazing.
Apart from butterflies, other threatened
wildlife recorded in the study area during the present
survey were, Sloth Bear, Melursus ursinus
(Vulnerable; Garshelis et al., 2008), Indian Python,
Python molurus molurus and Jackal, Canis aureus and
Yellow-throated Bulbul, Pycnonotus xantholaemus a
globally threatened species and restricted to the southern
Deccan plateau (BirdLife International, 2001), Leopard
Panthera pardus listed as a "Near Threatened" species
on the IUCN Red List (Henschel et al., 2008). Indian
Harisha and Hosetti., 2013
Journal of Research in Biology (2013) 3(2): 840-846 842
Common Silverline Butterfly Lemon Pansy Butterfly
Peacock Pansy, Butterfly
Harisha and Hosetti., 2013
843 Journal of Research in Biology (2013) 3(2): 840-846
Sl.No Common name Scientific name
Status
Family: Papilionidae
1 Common Blue Bottle Graphium sarpedon (Linnaeus) R
2 Crimson Rose* Pachliopta hector (Linnaeus) VC
3 Common Rose Pachliopta aristolochiae (Fabricius) R
4 Tailed Jay Graphium Agamemnon (Linnaeus) C
5 Blue Mormon** Papilio polymnestor (Cramer) R
6 Common Mormon Papilio polytes (Linnaeus) C
Family: Lycaenidae
7 Common Silverline Spindasis vulcanus (Fabricius) R
8 Common Pierrot Castalius rosimon (Fabricius) VC
9 Common Cerulean Jamides celeno (Cramer) VC
10 Dark Cerulean Jamides bochus (Stoll) C
11 Dark Grass Blue Zizeeria karsandra (Moore) VC
12 Pea Blue Lampides boeticus (Linnaeus) C
13 Grass Jewel Freyeria trochylus (Kollar) C
Family: Nymphalidae
14 Common Castor Ariadne merione (Cramer) R
15 Tawny Coaster Acraea violae (Fabricius) VC
16 Blue Tiger Tirumala linniace (Cramer) VC
17 Plain Tiger Danaus chrysippus (Linnaeus) R
18 Striped Tiger Danaus genutia (Cramer) C
19 Indian Common Crow Euploea core (Cramer) VC
20 Danaid Eggfly** Hypolimnas misippus (Linnaeus) C
21 Lemon Pansy Junonia lemonias (Linnaeus) VC
22 Peacock Pansy Junonia almana (Linnaeus) C
23 Yellow Pansy Junonia hierta (Fabricius) C
24 Chocolate Pansy Junonia iphita (Cramer) C
25 Grey Pansy Junonia atlites (Linnaeus) R
26 Common Evening Brown Melanitis leda (Linnaeus) VC
27 Common Sailor Neptis hylas (Moore) VC
28 Common Leopard Phalanta phalantha (Drury) VC
29 Common Four Ring Ypthima baldus (Fabricius) VC
Family: Pieridae
30 Indian Cabbage White Pieris canidia (Linnaeus) C
31 Crimson Tip Colotis danae (Linnaeus) R
32 Pioneer Anaphaeis aurota (Fabricius) VC
33 Common Emigrant Catopsilia Pomona (Fabricius) C
34 Common Jezebel** Delias eucharis (Drury) R
35 Common Grass Yellow Eurema hecabe (Linnaeus) VC
36 Great Orange Tip Hebomoia glaucippe (Linnaeus) R
37 White Orange Tip Ixias Marianne (Cramer) R
38 Yellow Orange Tip Ixias pyrene (Linnaeus) R
39 Large Salmon Arab Colotis fausta (Olivier) R
40 Small Salmon Arab Colotis amata (Fabricius) R
41 Common Wanderer Pareronia valeria (Joicey & Talbot) C
Family: Hesperiidae
42 Indian Skipper Spialia galba (Fabricius) R
Table 1. List of butterflies along with their status in the Daroji Sloth Bear Sanctuary, Bellary.
VC-Very common; C-Common; R-Rare, *-Endemic to Western Ghats; **-Endemic to Peninsular India and Sri Lanka
Chameleon, Chamaeleo zeylanicus is listed in Schedule
II of the Indian Wildlife (Protection) Act 1972.
CONCLUSION
The presence of all these species indicates that
this forest is rich and unique habitat that hold animal
diversity that is typical of ‘undisturbed tropical dry
deciduous scrub forests’. Disturbances in the form of
anthropogenic activities such as open cast mining,
construction of roads, movement of heavy vehicles,
firewood collection, etc. can result in habitat
fragmentation, population loss and cause local
extinctions that would seriously affect the distribution of
forest butterflies. Based on the results of this study, it is
recommended that long-term conservation of these
fragmenting tropical Deccan scrub forest habitats in
Bellary Forest Division is to protect the biodiversity
which can be achieved through ‘good mining practices’
and strict vigilance.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We are grateful to ACF and RFO of Daroji Sloth
Bear Sanctuary, Bellary Forest Division who have
encouraged and directed this work from the beginning.
I also thank the two forest watchers Putteshi and
Anjinappa for their support and assistance in the field.
MNH is thankful to UGC, New Delhi for sanctioning
(RGNF) Fellowship, to research team of Panchavati
Research Academy for Nature (PRANA) Trust,
Linganamakki, Sagar (Tq), Shivamogga for support and
also to Kuvempu University for facilities.
REFERENCES
Antram CB. 2002. Butterflies of India. A Mittal
Publication, New Delhi. 226pp.
Arora K. 2003. Forest Laws. The Wildlife Protection
Act, 1972 as amended by the Wild (Protection)
Amendment Act, 2002. Professional Book Publishers,
New Delhi, 85pp.
Balmer O and Erhardt A. 2000. Consequences of
succession on extensively grazed grassland for central
European butterfly communities: Rethinking
conservation practices. Conservation Biology 14: 746-
757.
Birdlife International. 2001. Threatened Birds of Asia.
BirdLife International Red Data Book. Birdlife
International, Cambridge, U. K.: Birdlife International.
Borges RM, Gowda V and Zacharias M. 2003.
Butterfly pollination and highcontrast visual signals in a
low-density distylous plant. Oecologia. 136, 571-573.
Brown KS. 1991. The conservation of insects and their
habitats, pp. 350-403. In: Conservation of Neotropical
Environments: Insects as Indicators. 15th Symposium of
the Royal Entomological Society.
Ehrlich PR and Raven PH. 1964. Butterflies and
plants: a study in co-evolution. Evolution 18: 586-608.
Erhardt A. 1985. Diurnal Lepidoptera: Sensitive
indicators of cultivated and abandoned grassland.
Journal of Applied Ecology. 22: 849-861.
Garshelis DL, Ratnayeke S and Chauhan NPS. 2008.
Melursus ursinus. In: IUCN 2010. IUCN Red List
of Threatened Species. Version 2010.2.
<www.iucnredlist.org>. Downloaded on 13 August
2010.
Ghazoul J. 2002. Impact of logging on the richness and
diversity of forest butterflies in a tropical dry forest in
Thailand. Biodivers Conserv. 11: 521-541.
Harisha and Hosetti., 2013
Journal of Research in Biology (2013) 3(2): 840-846 844
Gay TI, Kehimkar D and Punitha JC. 1992. Common
Butterflies of India. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Gupta I J. and Mondal DK. 2005. Red Data Book, Part
II: Butterflies of India. Zoological Society of India,
Kolkata.
Harish MN, Hosetti BB and Shahnawax A. 2009.
A checklist of Butterfly from Jogimatti State Forest,
Chitradurga, Karnataka. Journal of Insect environment.
15(3):113-116.
Henschel P, Hunter L, Breitenmoser U, Purchase N,
Packer C, Khorozyan I, Bauer H, Marker L,
Sogbohossou E, Breitenmoser-Würsten C. 2008.
"Panthera pardus". IUCN Red List of Threatened
Species. Version 2011.2. International Union for
Conservation of Nature.
Kunte K. 1997. Seasonal patterns in butterfly abundance
and species diversity in four tropical habitats in the
northern Western Ghats. J. Biosci. 22: 593-603.
Kunte K. 2000. India-A Life scape Butterflies of
Peninsular India. Indian Academy of Sciences,
Bangalore, Universities Press. 270pp.
Kocher SD and Williams EH. 2000. The diversity and
abundance of North American butterflies, vary with
habitat disturbance and geography. J. Biogeogr. 27: 785-
794.
Kremen C. 1992. Assessing the indicator properties of
species assemblages for natural area monitoring.
Ecological Applications 2: 203-217.
Madhav Gadgil, Geetha Gadagkar, Harish R Bhat,
Prema Iyer, Ramachandra TV, Yogesh Gokhale.
2011. Checklist of Butterflies of Daroji Bear Sanctuary,
Karnataka. Status of Karnataka Biodiversity.
SAHYADRI E-NEWS: Issue XI. Sahyadri: Western
Ghats Biodiversity Information System ENVIS @CES,
Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore. http://
www.ces.iisc.ernet.in/biodiversity/sahyadri_enews/
newsletter/issue11/hotspot/index.htm.
Mamata Chandraker, Sachin Palekar and Sangita
Chandrakar. 2007. Butterfly Fauna of Melghat Region,
Maharashtra. Zoos’ Print Journal. 22(7): 2762-2764.
Margules CR and Pressey RL. 2000. Systematic
conservation planning. Nature. 405: 243-253.
May PG. 1992. Flower selection and the dynamics of
lipid reserves in two nectarivorous butterflies. Ecol.73
(6): 2181-2191.
Neginhal SG, Harish R Bhat, Pramod S and Karthik
G. 2003. Biodiversity Hotspot Report for Daroji Bear
Sanctuary. http://www.ces.iisc.ernet.in/biodiversity/
sahyadri_enews/newsletter/issue11/hotspot/hotspots/
Daroji.htm.
Pramod Kumar MPM, Hosetti BB, Poornesha HC
and Raghavendra Gowda HT. 2007. Butterflies of the
Tiger-Lion Safari, Thyavarekoppa, Shimoga, Karnataka.
Zoos’ print Journal. 22(8):2805.
Pollard E. 1979. A national scheme for monitoring the
abundance of butterflies. The First Three Years British
Entomological and Natural History Society. Proceedings
and Transations. 12:77-99.
Sharma RM and, Radhakrishna C. 2005. Insecta:
Lepidoptera (Rhopalocera and Grypocera) Fauna of
Melghat Tiger Reserve Conservation Area Series, 24.
Aoological Survey of India, Kolkata. 377-400.
Harisha and Hosetti., 2013
845 Journal of Research in Biology (2013) 3(2): 840-846
Submit your articles online at www.jresearchbiology.com
Advantages
Easy online submission Complete Peer review Affordable Charges Quick processing Extensive indexing You retain your copyright
www.jresearchbiology.com/Submit.php.
Wynter-Blynth MA. 1957. Butterflies of the Indian
Region, Bombay Natural History Society, Bombay-523.
72.
Harisha and Hosetti., 2013
Journal of Research in Biology (2013) 3(2): 840-846 846