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:

[email protected]

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


Journal of Research in Biology (2013) 3(2): 840-846 842

Common Silverline Butterfly Lemon Pansy Butterfly

Peacock Pansy, Butterfly



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.



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.



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

[email protected]

www.jresearchbiology.com/Submit.php.

Wynter-Blynth MA. 1957. Butterflies of the Indian

Region, Bombay Natural History Society, Bombay-523.

72.



butterfly fauna of daroji sloth bear sanctuary, hospet, bellary district, karnataka, india

Science

species of butterflies

habitat of butterflies

sanctuary area

unique sanctuary

abundance of butterflies

butterflies lepidoptera

butterflies borges

journal of research