Content uploaded by Mandeep Pathania
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Mandeep Pathania on May 26, 2015
Content may be subject to copyright.
Arthropods, 2015, 4(2): 46-68
IAEES www.iaees.org
Article
Diversity and population dynamics of phytophagous scarabaeid
beetles (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae) in different landscapes of
Himachal Pradesh, India
Mandeep Pathania1,2, RS Chandel1, KS Verma1, PK Mehta1
1Department of Entomology, College of Agriculture, Chaudhary Sarwan Kumar Himachal Pradesh Krishi Vishvavidyalaya,
Palampur, Himachal Pradesh, India 176062
2Punjab Agricultural University, Regional Research Station, Abohar, Punjab, India 152116
E-mail: mandeeppathania999@gmail.com
Received 9 December 2014; Accepted 15 January 2015; Published online 1 June 2015
Abstract
Scarabaeid beetles constitute a major group of defoliators of cultivated and wild plants. Therefore, it is
important to understand their diversity, abundance and distribution for planning effective pest management
programmes. We surveyed scarabaeid beetles from 8 landscapes from different zones in Himachal Pradesh (N
32o 29' and E 75o 10'), India. In 2011 and 2012, surveys were conducted during 4 months period (May-August)
by using UV light traps. A total of 13,569 scarabaeid adults of 20 genera and 56 species belonging to
subfamilies Melolonthinae, Rutelinae, Cetoniinae and Dynastinae were recorded. The five most common
species were Brahmina coriacea, Adoretus lasiopygus, Anomala lineatopennis, Maladera insanabilis and
Holotrichia longipennis. They comprised 9.88-10.05, 7.18-7.76, 7.13-7.27, 6.80-7.62 and 5.22-5.30% during
2011-12, respectively. Anomala (10 species) was the most dominant genus in the present study, whereas
Melolonthinae was the most dominant subfamily accounting 53.23% of total scarabs collected from the study
sites. Among different landscapes, Palampur had maximum diversity and abundance, while Shillaroo had least
diversity but more abundance of single species B. coriacea. The value of alpha diversity indices viz. Shannon
index was maximum (H'=3.01-3.03) at Palampur. This indicates maximum evenness and abundance of species
at Palampur. Shillaroo had lowest Shannon index (H'=1.12-1.17) and Pielou’s evenness index (J'=0.46-0.49).
This showed least species diversity and higher unevenness of scarabaeid beetles at Shillaroo. The results of
beta diversity analysis revealed poor similarity of scarabaeid species between different sites confirming that
the scarabaeid community in the north western Himalayan regions is much diverse.
Keywords abundance; biodiversity; Coleoptera; Himachal Pradesh; India; richness; Scarabaeid beetles.
Arthropods
ISSN22244255
URL:http://www.iaees.org/publications/journals/arthropods/onlineversion.asp
RSS:http://www.iaees.org/publications/journals/arthropods/rss.xml
Email:arthropods@iaees.org
EditorinChief:WenJunZhang
Publisher:InternationalAcadem
y
ofEcolo
gy
andEnvironmentalSciences
Arthropods, 2015, 4(2): 46-68
IAEES www.iaees.org
1 Introduction
Scarabaeidae is the second largest family within the order Coleoptera, and is cosmopolitan in distribution
(Ritcher, 1958). Scarabaeidae falls into two main groups, one group including Coprinae, Aphodiinae,
Geotrupinae and Troginae which are either saprophagous or fungus feeders and form a separate group
‘Laprosticti’. The second group includes the subfamilies Melolonthinae, Rutelinae, Dynastinae and Cetoniinae
which are strictly phytophagous forming 'Pleurosticti' (Ritcher, 1958). The world fauna of scarabaeids exceeds
30,000 species (Mittal, 2000; Jameson and Ratcliffe, 2001). Maximum numbers occur in the tropical areas of
the world, particularly in the African and Oriental regions. The family Scarabaeidae represents about 2,500
species from the Indian sub-continent to which the majority of the phytophagous scarabs belong to and the
economically most important sub families include Melolonthinae, Rutelinae, Dynastinae and Cetoniinae (Ali,
2001). The scarabaeid beetles and their larvae cause extensive damage to both cultivated and forest plants. The
adult beetles become active during May-June and feed on the foliage of different fruit and forest trees (Mehta
et al., 2008). Adults of the sub-family Melolonthinae and Rutelinae are pre-eminently leaf feeders (Arrow,
1917), whereas the adults of Cetoniinae feed on flowers and fruits, and are popularly referred to as flower
beetles. However, the larvae of scarabaeids commonly known as whitegrubs, cause extensive damage to the
roots of cereals, legumes, small fruit plants, shrubs and trees in many parts of the world. In India, whitegrubs
are pests of national importance and cause extensive damage to field crops and fruit trees (Mehta et al., 2010).
Among the soil macro fauna, whitegrubs form a major component both in number of species and diversity of
habits (Veeresh, 1988).The scarab fauna is quite diverse, but in Indian sub-continent it is yet to be fully
explored (Mishra and Singh, 1999). Scarabaeid beetles are serious pests of many field crops and fruit and
forest trees (Lawrence et al., 2000). Loss in biodiversity and degradation of natural habitats due to climate
change and human interference in natural ecosystem has necessitated the need to have an inventory of species
richness in an ecosystem.
Sampling is the basis of documenting the spatial distribution of species or assessing changes in ecosystem
structure, composition and function (Kremen et al., 1993; Heywood, 1995; Humphries et al., 1995; Stork and
Samways, 1995; Yoccoz et al., 2001; Coscaron et al., 2009; Zhang, 2011). It is important to use simple and
most effective methods to obtain an estimate of diversity and relative abundance of species (Southwood and
Henderson, 2000). Different methods have been used for collecting beetles for research purposes, and for
preparing inventories depending on their biology and host range (Lobo et al., 1988; White et al., 1990; Hayes,
2000; Falach and Shani, 2000; McIntosh et al., 2001; Missa et al., 2009).
Insects as a class respond to electromagnetic radiations from approximately 2537 A0-7000 A0, i.e., from
ultraviolet to the infrared. At the long range end of the spectrum, the most effective wavelength for insects is
of the order of 6500 A0 (Detheir, 1953). Based on light as an attractant, a variety of insect traps have been
developed and used to monitor long term changes in population of nocturnal insects. Light trap also provide
information on time of arrival of a particular species insect in a particular locality (Saini and Verma, 1991).
Many studies have been focused focus on sampling methods for analyzing and assessing the diversity of
scarabaeid beetles in different ecosystems (cultivated or forest ecosystem) by using different types of light
traps (Sanders and Fracker, 1916; Morofsky, 1933; Stearns, 1937; Gruner, 1975; Forschler and Gardner, 1991;
Kard and Hain, 1990; Rodriguez Jimenez et al., 2002; Zahoor et al., 2003; Pardo et al., 2005; Dhoj et al., 2009;
Khanal et al., 2012; Kishimota et al., 2011; Gracia et al., 2008; Petty, 1977; Stewart and Lam, 1968; Cho et al.,
1989; Freitas et al., 2002). In India, several studies have been conducted in different regions to explore the
scarab fauna, their diversity and bioecology by using different light sources for reporting and conservation of
species (Pal, 1977; Nath et al., 1978; Bakhetia and Sohi, 1982; Tripathi and Gupta, 1985; Vora and Rama
Krishnan, 1991; Chandramohan and Nanjan, 1991; Mishra and Singh, 1996; Mishra and Singh, 1997; Mishra
47
Arthropods, 2015, 4(2): 46-68
IAEES www.iaees.org
and Singh, 1999; Patel and Patel, 1999; Bhat et al., 2005; Thakare and Zade, 2012; Chandra and Gupta, 2012;
Dhasad et al., 2008; Bhawne et al., 2012; Viraktamath and Kumar, 2005; Chenchaiah, 2006; Devi et al., 1994;
Bhagat and Kashyap,1997).
The scarabaeid beetles and whitegrubs are widely distributed throughout the cultivated and forest areas of
Himachal Pradesh (Arrow, 1917; Bhalla and Pawar, 1977; Chandra, 2005; Sharma and Bhalla, 1964; Sharma
et al., 1969, 1971, 2004; Chandel et al., 1994; Kumar et al., 1996). However, little information is available on
species diversity, emergence pattern, richness and relative abundance in different agroecological regions of
Himalayan regions. This poses a basic problem in developing effective integrated pest management schedules
against these pests. To combat the burgeoning problem of whitegrubs, it is imperative to understand the
species distribution in different regions, so to develop a strategy for their management, and conservation in
wild habitats to maintain the ecological balance. Keeping these points in view, we studied the diversity and
relative abundance of scarabaeid beetles at 8 locations of Himachal Pradesh, India by using UV light traps
between May-August during 2011 and 2012.
2 Methods
2.1 Field sites
Populations of scarabaeid beetles were monitored through UV light traps installed in six districts in zone I
(sub-tropical, sub-mountane and low hills), zone II (sub-temperate, sub humid mid hills), zone III (wet-
temperate high hills) and zone IV (dry-temperate high hills and cold deserts) of Himachal Pradesh, in the
northwestern Himalayan region, India in 2011 and 2012 lying between N 320, 05 to N 310, 12 Latitude and E
760, 32 to E 770, 25 Longitude with Altitude ranging from 1222-2479 m amsl (Fig. 1). The entire light traps
installed were either in fruit orchards or farmlands with different cropping patterns, which were grouped on the
basis of terrain and vegetation characteristics. The details of study sites are given in Table 1.
Fig.1 Map showing sites for sampling of scarab beetle populations in Himachal Pradesh, India.
48
Arthropods, 2015, 4(2): 46-68
IAEES www.iaees.org
Table 1 Location of light traps in Himachal Pradesh, 2011 and 2012.
District Location Zone Latitude Longitude Altitude (m) Crop habitat Soil type
Kangra Palampur II N 320, 05.666′E 760, 32.781′1222 Toon, peach, pear,
grasslands Silty clay
loam
Kullu Seobagh II N 320, 02.958′E 760, 37.533′1327 Apple , pear,
peach, grassland Clay loam
Dallash III N 310, 23.036′E 770, 26.024′2020 Apple, pear,
apricot, potato,
peas
Clay loam
Sirmaur Kwagdhar III N 300, 45.409′E 770, 09.235′1774 Apple, pear, peach,
wildrose, grassland Sandy
loam/ clay
loam
Kheradhar III N 300, 50.035′E 770, 20.634′2032 Apple, walnut,
pear, potato Sandy
loam/ clay
loam
Shimla Shillaroo III N 310, 12.409′E 770, 25.462′2479 Apple, walnut,
pear, potato,
grassland
Sandy
loam/ clay
loam
Kinnaur Reckong
Peo IV N 310, 31.348′E 770, 47.856′2117 Apple, pear,
walnut, apricot,
potato, rajmash
Gravelly
loamy
sand
Chamba Bharmour IV N 320, 26.505′E 760, 31.949′2169 Apple, pear,
apricot, potato,
rajmash, grassland
Sandy
loam
2.2 Collection of adult beetles from light trap
Light traps were used for four months, and the beetle populations monitored regularly. The light traps were
installed at 8 locations and there was one trap at each location. The light traps (Plate 1) were placed in the
centre of the fields at a height of about 3 metre above the ground and operated between 7:00 PM to 11:00 PM
to attract the scarabaeid beetles which are positively heliotactic in nature. The trapped beetles were collected
and separated species-wise and the cumulative count of each species was determined at each location. These
beetles were grouped on the basis of relative abundance and frequency for accessing the relative importance of
different species. The diversity of scarab beetles depends on the availability of food for larvae and adult,
weather conditions and soil type. Therefore, to reduce the seasonal effects, the beetles sampled between May-
June (2011 and 2012) which is the major activity period of all the scarabaeids were used for assessing the
species diversity. Beetles collected using light trap were pinned and preserved in the insect museum.
The light trap (Plate 1) was made of red coloured PVC plastic. The plastic funnel was 25 cm in height,
and in diameter of 30 cm. The bottom diameter of the funnel was 5 cm. The rain shed cone for protecting the
bulb was fixed at 17 cm above the funnel with the help of three white metal sheets. The diameter of the rain
shed cone was 20 cm. The light trap had three baffles (30 cm x 10 cm), placed at a uniform distance of 10 cm
around the circumference of funnel. The baffles were fixed to emit light uniformly in all directions without any
interference, when the beetles are attracted to light they collide with baffles and fall into the trap. A nylon bag
was attached to the bottom of this funnel. The light source consisted of hard glass bulb with copper wire choke.
The capacity of bulb was 120 Watts with UV radiation in the visible spectrum range having bluish light (Plate
2).
The scarab adults collected during the surveys and the adults emerging from larvae collected from
different locations were identified to the species level based on the keys and characters listed by Veeresh
(1977), Mittal and Pajni (1977), Khan and Ghai (1982) and Ahrens (2005). The identity of adult beetles was
confirmed by Dr. V.V. Ramamurthy, Indian Agriculture Research Institute, New Delhi, India. Some of the
samples were compared with scarabaeid collection available in Museum of Forest Research Institute,
Dehradun, India.
49
Arthropods, 2015, 4(2): 46-68
IAEES www.iaees.org
a b
Plate 1 UV light trap at Palampur (a), and at Kwagdhar (b).
2.3 Data analysis
2.3.1 Alpha diversity
The numbers of species recorded per site were considered as alpha diversity. Richness (number of species),
abundance (number of individuals) and four indices were used to access species diversity. The diversity
indices assume that individuals are randomly sampled from an infinitely large population. The Shannon index
(H') explains the evenness of the abundance of species, while the Simpson’s index of diversity (D) is less
sensitive to species richness, but more sensitive to the most abundant species (Price, 2004; Hill, 1973; Oksanen,
2013; Wilson and Peter, 1988; Whittaker, 1960, 1965; Chao, 2004). Pielou’s evenness index (J') explains the
evenness of allotment of individuals among the species (McDonald et al., 2010). The diversity indices were
based on all the information recorded during study period at each site by using the following indices (Krebs,
2001).
i) Shannon index
ii) Simpson’s index of diversity
s
D = 1- ∑ (pi)2
i=1
iii) Simpson’s reciprocal index= 1/D
iv) Pielou’s evenness index (J')
J' = H'/ Hmax
where
H'= Shannon diversity index
pi= Proportion of total sample belonging to the ith species.
S= Number of species.
∑= Sum from species 1 to species S
D= Simpson’s index of diversity.
N= Total percentage cover or total number of organisms.
n= Percentage cover of a species or number of organisms of a species
J'= Evenness of allotment of individuals among the species.
Hmax= Maximum species diversity (H') = Log2S
S
H' = - ∑ (pi) (log2pi)
i=1
50
Arthropods, 2015, 4(2): 46-68
IAEES www.iaees.org
Diversity dominance plots were drawn to assess the changes in abundance in each species at each locality.
The properties and merit of each index, and the appropriateness of each index has been discussed extensively
by Kempton (1979); Routledge (1979); Koeleff et al. (2003); Magurran (1988, 2004). A combination of
indices, which measure species richness, diversity and evenness are more appropriate for the purpose
(McDonald et al., 2010).
2.3.2 Beta diversity
Bray-Curtis index to estimate species similarity between two habitats was calculated as follows (Chandra and
Gupta, 2012; Koleff et al., 2003).
CN = 2jN/(Na+Nb)
where
Na = the total number individuals in site Aj
Nb = the total number of individuals in site Bj
2jN = the sum of the lower of the two abundance for species found in both sites. The index value ranges from
one (or 100) when two samples are identical, 0 when there are no shared species between them. The index is
selected because it reflects differences in total abundance rather than relative abundance (Magurran, 2004).
Sorensens similarity index is a simple measure of beta diversity
ß=2C/(C+S1+S2)
where C= no. of shared species between different landscapes
S
1= no. of species in site 1
S
2= no. of species present in site 2.
Jaccard similarity index was calculated according to Jaccard (1912) by using the following formula.
S=a/(a+b+c)
where
a= No. of shared species between different landscapes
b= No. of species in site 1
c= No. of species present in site 2.
3 Results
3.1 Species composition
Information in relation to the topography, climate, soil, and vegetation are given in Table 1. A total of 13,569
scarabaeid beetles were collected in the light traps from 8 landscapes in Himachal Pradesh with an average of
316.75 individuals per trap per month. The total scarabaeid fauna represented 20 genera and 56 species during
the period. The collected beetles belonged to four sub-families, Melolonthinae (51.79%), Rutelinae (33.93%),
Cetoniinae (10.71%) and Dynastinae (3.57%). The light trap catches from 8 locations completed at 29 (Fig. 2)
Melolonthinae species in 10 genera (Fig. 3), 19 Rutelinae species in 5 genera, 6 Cetoniinae species in 4 genera,
and 2 Dynastinae species. Maximum species belonged to Melolonthinae (52.95 and 53.5% during 2011 and
2012, respectively (Fig. 4) followed by Rutelinae (42.66% in 2011 and 42.37% in 2012).The species belonged
to Cetoniinae and Dynastinae were least abundant in terms of total number of individuals trapped during the
study period (Fig. 4). The maximum number of scarabs across years and locations (Fig. 5) were caught in June
(50.79%). The average trap catch during July, May and August was 29.81, 12.92 and 6.46%, respectively (Fig.
5). Species belonged to Melolonthinae and Rutelinae were the most abundant species of whitegrubs in
Himachal Pradesh. However, the species belonged to these subfamilies are quite different in behavior and
51
Arthropods, 2015, 4(2): 46-68
IAEES www.iaees.org
period of activity. Activity of Melolonthids was low in May (38.59%), but a sharp increase was observed in
the activity of beetles of the subfamily with the onset of monsoon rains and it became most dominant group in
June (87.84% of total catch) (Fig. 5). The activity of rutelinids was maximum during the hot summer in May
(68.41%) and their number declined afterwards (Fig. 5).
51.79
33.93
10.71
3.57
29
19
6
2
0
20
40
60
Species Diversity
Relative percentag
e
species
No. of Species
Fig. 2 Subfamily-wise distribution of scarabaeid species
on light traps in Himachal Pradesh.
Fig. 3 Genus wise dominance of scarabaeids in light
traps in Himachal Pradesh.
Fig. 4 Subfamily-wise distribution of number of
individuals of scarabaeids caught in light traps in
Himachal Pradesh.
Fig. 5 Month-wise catch of beetles belonging to different
subfamilies from Himachal Pradesh (in 2011 and 2012).
3.2 Distribution and abundance
Maximum diversity was recorded in genus Anomala with 11 species (Tables 2 and 3) followed by 9 in
Brahmina and 4 in Holotrichia. The genera Maladera, Melolontha, Adoretus, Mimela, Popillia and Protaetia
were represented by 3 species each (Tables 2 and 3).
Dominance diversity plots for 2011 and 2012 showed differences in populations of different species
between the habitats (Fig. 6). The relative abundance of the scarabaeid adults was quite variable across habitats
but number of some species showing high abundance when correlated with other less abundant species. B.
coriacea was the most abundant species followed by A. lasiopygus, A. lineatopennis, M. insanabilis and H.
longipennis. They accounted for 37.11% of total individuals collected (Fig. 7). B. coriacea (676 beetles/trap)
accounted for 9.96% of the total number of scarabaeid beetles collected, followed by A. lasiopygus (506.5
beetles/trap) accounting for 7.47% of the total catch. The relative abundance of M. insanabilis and A.
lineatopennis was 7.21 and 7.20%, with an average catch of 489.5 and 488.5 beetles/trap, respectively.
52
Arthropods, 2015, 4(2): 46-68
IAEES www.iaees.org
Table 2 Scarabaeid beetle species collected in UV light traps at different locations in Himachal Pradesh (May - August, 2011).
Species Palampur Kullu Dallash Shillaroo Kheradhar Kwagdhar Bharmour
Reckong
P
Total
no. of
beetles
%
Dominance
No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. %
Apogonia carinata Barlow 8 0.67 8 0.12
Apogonia ferruginea Fab. 3 0.38 3 0.04
Apogonia villosella Bl. 40 3.33 30 3.75 70 1.04
Autoserica phthisica Br. 43 3.57 97 12.13 140 2.09
Brahmina bilobus Fab. 16 2.00 22 2.89 27 3.34 65 0.97
Brahmina coriacea (Hope) 4 0.33 103 12.88 72 6.77
25
6
70.5
2
14
8
21.2
3
78 7.75 77
10.1
2
10
0
12.3
8
838 12.50
Brahmina crinicollis Burm. 2 0.25 4 0.40 58 7.62 43 5.32 107 1.60
Brahmina flavosericea Br. 6 0.50 29 2.73 27 7.44 49 4.87 41 5.39 77 9.53 229 3.42
Brahmina kuluensis Moser 25 3.29 25 0.37
Brahmina sp. 1 17 2.13 17 0.25
Brahmina sp. 2 5 1.38 5 0.07
Brahmina sp. 3 3 0.39 3 0.04
Brahmina sp. 4 8 0.99 8 0.12
Holotrichia longipennis Bl. 89 7.40 87 10.88 85 7.99 28 7.71 61 8.75 63 6.26 41 5.39 60 7.43 514 7.67
Holotrichia nigricollis Br. 51 4.24 51 0.76
Holotrichia problematica Br. 8 2.20 8 0.12
Holotrichia sikkimensis Br. 54 4.49 42 5.25 57 5.36 22 3.16 175 2.61
Lepidiota stigma (Fab.) 5 0.63 5 0.07
Maladera insanabilis (Br.) 148 12.30 62 7.75 87 8.18 89 8.84
13
2
16.3
4
518 7.73
Maladera irridescens Bl. 27 2.24 4 0.50 31 0.46
Maladera piluda 15 1.25 8 0.79 23 0.34
Melolontha cuprescens Bl. 21 2.63 34 3.20 23 3.30 63 8.28 47 5.82 188 2.80
Melolontha furcicauda Ancy 33 2.74 27 3.38 43 4.04 32 4.59 73 9.59 208 3.10
Melolontha indica Hope 38 3.16 41 3.85 79 1.18
Melolontha virescens Br. 5 0.42 5 0.07
Microtrichia cotesi Br. 16 1.33 16 0.24
Schizonycha sp. 1 4 0.50 26 2.44 6 0.60 57 7.49 97
12.0
0
190 2.83
Schizonycha sp. 2 6 1.65 6 0.09
Trichoserica umbrinella (Br.) 8 0.67 9 1.18 17 0.25
Adoretus bimarginatus Ohaus 121 11.3
7
95
13.6
3
216 3.22
Adoretus lasiopygus Burm. 94 7.81 119 11.1
8
99
14.2
0
97
12.7
5
11
1
13.7
4
520 7.76
Adoretus pallens Bl. 81 6.73 168
16.6
8
249 3.71
Anomala comma Arrow 9 0.75 9 0.13
Anomala dimidiata Hope 39 3.24 59 7.38 72 6.77 170 2.54
Aomala lineatopennis Bl. 94 7.81 88 8.27 296
29.3
9
478 7.13
Anomala pellucida Arrow 15 1.25 15 0.22
Anomala polita Bl. 18 2.25 18 0.27
Anomala rufiventris Redt. 44 3.66 83 10.38 52 4.89 63 9.04 10
6
13.9
3
348 5.19
Anomala rugosa Arrow 19 1.58 46 6.60 65 0.97
Anomala singularis Arrow 22 1.83 20 2.50 42 0.63
Anomala stoliezkoe Hope 50 6.19 50 0.75
Anomala varicolor (Gyll.) 85 7.07 78 7.33 243
24.1
3
406 6.06
Mimela fulgidivittata Bl. 54 4.49 60 5.64 114 1.70
Mimela passerinii Hope 20 5.51 42 6.03 40 5.26 15 1.86 117 1.75
Mimela pectoralis Bl. 42 6.03 42 0.63
Popillia cyanea Hope 4 1.10 4 0.06
Popillia nasuate Newman 5 1.38 5 0.07
Popillia virescens 2 0.29 2 0.03
Clinteria spilota (Hope) 1 0.10 1 0.01
Heterorrhina nigritarsis Hope 4 1.10 4 0.06
Protaetia coensa (West.) 6 0.50 4 0.57 10 0.15
Protaetia impavida Jan. 4 0.50 4 0.06
Protaetia neglecta Hope 18 2.58 49 6.44 37 4.58 104 1.55
Oxycetonia albopunctata (Fab.) 2 0.20 2 0.03
Heteronychus lioderes
(Fabricius) 56 4.66 78 9.75 134 2.00
Phyllognathus dionysius Redt. 22 2.75 22 0.33
Total 1203 800 1064 36
3
69
7
1007 76
1
80
8
6703
53
Arthropods, 2015, 4(2): 46-68
IAEES www.iaees.org
Table 3 Scarabaeid beetle species collected in UV light traps at different locations in Himachal Pradesh (May - August, 2012).
Species Palampur Kullu Dallash Shillaroo Kheradhar Kwagdhar Bharmour
Reckong
P
Total
no. of
beetles
%
Dominance
No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. %
Apogonia carinata Barlow 8 0.60 8 0.12
Apogonia ferruginea Fab. 4 0.51 4 0.06
Apogonia villosella Bl. 35 2.63 31 3.98 66 0.96
Autoserica phthisica Br. 58 4.35 111 14.25 169 2.46
Brahmina bilobus Fab. 13 1.67 26 3.12 19 2.49 58 0.84
Brahmina coriacea (Hope) 5 0.38 98 12.58 60 5.56 291 72.39 130 19.23 64 6.39 92 11.03 88 11.55 828 12.06
Brahmina crinicollis Burm. 1 0.13 7 0.70 70 8.39 57 7.48 135 1.97
Brahmina flavosericea Br. 9 0.68 29 2.69 20 4.98 42 4.20 50 6.00 87 11.42 237 3.45
Brahmina kuluensis Moser 18 2.16 18 0.26
Brahmina sp. 1 22 2.82 22 0.32
Brahmina sp. 2 3 0.75 3 0.04
Brahmina sp. 3 5 0.60 5 0.07
Brahmina sp. 4 5 0.66 5 0.07
Holotrichia longipennis Bl. 99 7.43 51 6.55 107 9.91 30 7.46 60 8.88 66 6.59 43 5.16 63 8.27 519 7.56
Holotrichia nigricollis Br. 62 4.65 62 0.90
Holotrichia problematica Br. 11 2.74 11 0.16
Holotrichia sikkimensis Br. 53 3.98 58 7.45 59 5.46 29 4.29 199 2.90
Lepidiota stigma (Fab.) 3 0.39 3 0.04
Maladera insanabilis (Br.) 182 13.66 53 6.80 89 8.24 98 9.79 148 19.42 570 8.30
Maladera irridescens Bl. 35 2.63 7 0.90 42 0.61
Maladera piluda 10 0.75 4 0.40 14 0.20
Melolontha cuprescens Bl. 24 3.08 40 3.70 20 2.96 66 7.91 36 4.72 186 2.71
Melolontha furcicauda Ancy 28 2.10 22 2.82 45 4.17 32 4.73 81 9.71 208 3.03
Melolontha indica Hope 33 2.48 45 4.17 78 1.14
Melolontha virescens Br. 7 0.53 7 0.10
Microtrichia cotesi Br. 17 1.28 17 0.25
Schizonycha sp. 1 2 0.26 28 2.59 10 1.00 66 7.91 75 9.84 181 2.64
Schizonycha sp. 2 8 1.99 8 0.12
Trichoserica umbrinella (Br.) 3 0.23 9 1.08 12 0.17
Adoretus bimarginatus Ohaus 103 9.54 90 13.31 193 2.81
Adoretus lasiopygus Burm. 112 8.41 109 10.09 88 13.02 99 11.87 98 12.86 506 7.37
Adoretus pallens Bl. 77 5.78 184 18.38 261 3.80
Anomala comma Arrow 12 0.90 12 0.17
Anomala dimidiata Hope 39 2.93 54 6.93 77 7.13 170 2.48
Aomala lineatopennis Bl. 99 7.43 77 7.13 284 28.37 460 6.70
Anomala pellucida Arrow 24 1.80 24 0.35
Anomala polita Bl. 21 2.70 21 0.31
Anomala rufiventris Redt. 40 3.00 86 11.04 54 5.00 73 10.80 117 14.03 370 5.39
Anomala rugosa Arrow 38 2.85 41 6.07 79 1.15
Anomala singularis Arrow 23 1.73 26 3.34 49 0.71
Anomala stoliezkoe Hope 46 6.04 46 0.67
Anomala varicolor (Gyll.) 84 6.31 95 8.80 239 23.88 418 6.09
Mimela fulgidivittata Bl. 73 5.48 63 5.83 136 1.98
Mimela passerinii Hope 24 5.97 42 6.21 49 5.88 8 1.05 123 1.79
Mimela pectoralis Bl. 41 6.07 41 0.60
Popillia cyanea Hope 3 0.75 3 0.04
Popillia nasuate Newman 5 1.24 5 0.07
Popillia virescens 3 0.44 3 0.04
Clinteria spilota (Hope) 2 0.20 2 0.03
Heterorrhina nigritarsis Hope 0 0.00
Protaetia coensa (West.) 5 0.38 3 0.44 8 0.12
Protaetia impavida Jan. 2 0.26 2 0.03
Protaetia neglecta Hope 24 3.55 43 5.16 30 3.94 97 1.41
Oxycetonia albopunctata
(Fab.) 1 0.10 1 0.01
Heteronychus lioderes (Fab.) 62 4.65 67 8.60 7 1.74 136 1.98
Phyllognathus dionysius Redt. 25 3.21 25 0.36
Total 1332 779 1080 402 676 1001 834 762 6866
54
Arthropods, 2015, 4(2): 46-68
IAEES www.iaees.org
Fig. 6 Dominance diversity plot, numeric code for each species corresponds to those in Tables 2 and 3.
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
(%) Proportio n
2011 2012
Fig. 7 Dominant species of scarabaeid beetles caught in light trap in Himachal Pradesh.
Chandel et al. (1994) reported that B. coriacea constituted 13.4-18.9% of total beetle catch on light trap at
Nauni in Solan, Himachal Pradesh. In Kullu valley, B. coriacea comprised up to 26.87% of total catch in light
trap (Kumar et al., 2007). This is the most abundant species in Shimla hills constituting 96.38% of total beetle
catch at Shillaroo. At Kheradhar, B. coriacea accounted to 84.95% of total catch (Gupta, 2012). Kumar et al.
(1996) reported that M. insanabilis was the most predominant species in Kullu valley and comprised of 16.04 -
29.58% of the total beetle catch in the light trap. Anomala lineatopennis was the predominant species at
Palampur (Chandel et al., 2010) and Kwagdhar (Anon, 2010). Holotrichia longipennis (357 beetles/trap)
constituted 5.26% of the total scarabaeid beetles collected in light trap during 2011-12. It accounted for 11.2-
13.7% of the total beetle catch at Nauni (Chandel et al., 1994), 10.66-18.43% in Kullu valley (Kumar et al.,
2007) and 5.05% at Palampur (Mehta et al., 2010). According to Sushil et al. (2006), H. longipennis is the
55
Arthropods, 2015, 4(2): 46-68
IAEES www.iaees.org
most abundant species in Uttrakhand (8.15-10.41% of total beetle catch). Five species viz., O. albopunctata, C.
spilota, P. impavida, P. cynea and A. ferruginea were least abundant species in Himachal Pradesh and were
region specific (Tables 2 and 3). The species H. nigritarsis was observed only during 2011. The scarabaeid
beetles were quite abundant in the Himalayan region, India. The average light trap catch per month was 257.13
beetles/trap and maximum numbers were recorded in Zone II. In zone III and IV, the average trap per month
was 196.56 and 197.81 beetles/trap, respectively. Maximum species diversity was recorded in the mid hills
(zone I and II), where 38 species were recorded.
Table 4 Data matrix with beta diversity values obtained through Sorensen similarity index, Jaccard similarity index and Bray
Curtis index with number of species per site and number of shared species for 2011-12.
Site
I* Site
II* No. of
species at
site 1
No. of
species at
site II
Shared
species Sorensen
index
Jaccard
index Bray Curtis
index
1 2 29 21 11 0.3607 0.1803 0.4573
1 3 29 16 10 0.3636 0.1818 0.5867
1 4 29 10 3 0.1429 0.0714 0.0485
1 5 29 12 7 0.2917 0.1458 0.2947
1 6 29 14 8 0.3137 0.1569 0.3891
1 7 29 15 8 0.3077 0.1538 0.2342
1 8 29 14 5 0.2083 0.1042 0.2944
2 3 21 16 10 0.4255 0.2128 0.4549
2 4 21 10 2 0.1212 0.0606 0.2253
2 5 21 12 6 0.3077 0.1538 0.3968
2 6 21 14 4 0.2051 0.1026 0.2313
2 7 21 15 9 0.4000 0.2000 0.3472
2 8 21 14 7 0.3333 0.1667 0.3296
3 4 16 10 3 0.2069 0.1034 0.1780
3 5 16 12 8 0.4444 0.2222 0.5179
3 6 16 14 7 0.3784 0.1892 0.4085
3 7 16 15 8 0.4103 0.2051 0.4449
3 8 16 14 7 0.3784 0.1892 0.4476
4 5 10 12 3 0.2400 0.1200 0.4113
4 6 10 14 3 0.2222 0.1111 0.1942
4 7 10 15 4 0.2759 0.1379 0.3185
4 8 10 14 4 0.2857 0.1429 0.2647
5 6 12 14 2 0.1429 0.0714 0.1631
5 7 12 15 7 0.4118 0.2059 0.5364
5 8 12 14 6 0.3750 0.1875 0.4186
6 7 14 15 5 0.2941 0.1471 0.1912
6 8 14 14 6 0.3529 0.1765 0.3152
7 8 15 14 10 0.5128 0.2564 0.6080
*1 = Palampur, 2 = Kullu, 3 = Dallash, 4 = Shillaroo, 5 = Kwagdhar, 6 = Kheradhar, 7 = Bharmour, 8 = Reckong Peo
3.3 Species diversity across locations
A large variation was observed in diversity and abundance of species across locations. Abundance of
scarabaeid beetles was three times greater at Palampur (1203 adults during 2011 and 1332 in 2012) with 29
species from 13 genera, comprising 18.68% of the total scarabaeid species during 2011-2012 as compared to
Shillaroo (363 adults during 2011 and 402 in 2012), constituting 5.63% of total catch during 2011-12 with 10
species belonging to 7 genera (Tables 2 and 3). Abundance and diversity of scarabaeid beetles was
significantly and negatively correlated with altitude (p<0.01 or p<0.05= -0.697). At Dallash, 1,064 and 1,080
beetles from 16 species belonging to 10 genera were collected during 2011 and 2012, respectively, which
constituted 15.80% of the total catch. The highest numbers of beetles were collected in Kwagdhar and Dallash,
which belonged to subfamily Rutelinae. At other sites most of the beetles belonged to Melolonthinae in terms
of numbers of adults collected (Tables 2 and 3). At Kwagdhar, Kheradhar, Reckong Peo, Bharmour and Kullu,
56
Arthropods, 2015, 4(2): 46-68
IAEES www.iaees.org
the number of species ranged from 12-21 (Fig. 8a) constituting 14.80, 10.12, 11.57, 11.75 and 11.64% of the
total catch during 2011-12, respectively. No beetles of the subfamily Dynastinae were collected during the
study period from Dallash, Kheradhar, Kwagdhar, Bharmour and Reckong Peo. Similarly, from Dallash, no
species belonged to subfamily Cetoniinae were recorded. The general diversity of scarab beetles at each site is
shown in Tables 2 and 3.
3.4 Emergence pattern and activity period
To study the beetle’s emergence pattern and peak activity period at different locations, data were recorded for
four months, i.e., May-August. Adult emergence starts in May at all the locations comprising 3.86-12.97% of
the total catch in Shillaroo, Kheradhar, Kullu, Bharmour, Palampur and Dallash, respectively, during 2011 (Fig.
9). A similar trend was observed during 2012 at all the locations (Fig. 10). However, the scarab catch was
maximum in Kwagdhar during the month of May (36.54%) because of the high abundance of rutelinids,
especially A. lineatopennis and A. varicolor suggesting that May is the peak activity period for rutelinids (Figs.
9 and 10). At Reckong Peo, no scarab activity was recorded during May (Figs. 9 and 10). Total beetle catch
was maximum in June at all the locations which coincided with onset of monsoon rains except at Reckong Peo,
where the beetle catch was highest in July 2011 (55.32% of total beetle catch at Reckong Peo). Reckong Peo is
located in the dry temperate zone of Himalayas and monsoon rains starts in late July. There was a direct
relationship with occurrence of pre-monsoon rains and peak activity of scarabaeids. By the end of the August
the scarab activity began to decline, with minimum catch at all the locations (Figs. 9 and 10).
57
Arthropods, 2015, 4(2): 46-68
IAEES www.iaees.org
Fig. 9 Monthwise catch of scarabaeid beetles in light traps during 2011.
a)
Richness
b)
Abundance
c) d)
e)
f)
Fig. 8 Scarabaeid beetle diversity at eight study sites in Himachal Pradesh. a) Number of Species, b) Total number
of beetle specimen, c) Shannon index (H'), d) Simpson’s index of diversity (D), e) Simpson’s reciprocal index
( 1/D), and f) Pielou’s evenness index (J').
58
Arthropods, 2015, 4(2): 46-68
IAEES www.iaees.org
Fig. 10 Monthwise catch of scarabaeid beetles in light traps during 2012.
3.5 Diversity analysis
The overall diversity of scarabaeid beetles in Himachal Pradesh, as revealed by light trap catches, is depicted
in Fig. 8. The Simpson’s index (D) was ≥ 0.90 at Palampur, Dallash, Reckong Peo, Bharmour and Kullu
during 2011 and at Palampur, Dallash, Bharmour and Kullu in 2012. At Palampur, the Simpson’s index of
diversity (D = 0.94) was highest followed by Dallash (D = 0.93). At Kwagdhar, Simpson’s index was 0.81. At
Shillaroo, it was lowest (D = 0.46 - 0.49). The Simpson’s reciprocal index was maximum at Shillaroo (1/D =
2.04 - 2.17) and minimum at Palampur (1/D = 1.06). The maximum Simpson’s index and minimum Simpson’s
reciprocal index at Palampur indicated that scarabaeid community at Palampur consisted of maximum number
of species (Fig. 8) with more or less similar abundance. Similar trend was observed at Dallash, Reckong Peo,
Bharmour, and Kullu. At Kwagdhar, the species richness was low, and with greater variation in abundance of
different species. At Shillaroo, the species richness was lower than at Kwagdhar. Shillaroo had the lowest
Shannon index (H' = 1.12 - 1.17) and Pielou’s evenness index (J' = 0.49 - 0.51) during 2011 and 2012,
respectively (Fig. 8). These values for Shannon index and Pielou’s evenness index showed poor species
richness, with least evenness in relative abundance of different species. The beetle community at Shillaroo was
least diverse. This unevenness of scarabaeid community was mainly due to the dominance of B. coriacea,
which comprised of more than 70% of total beetle catch.
The Shannon index was maximum (H' = 3.01 - 3.03) at Palampur and Pielou’s evenness index ranged
0.89 - 0.90 (Fig. 8) suggesting maximum abundance of scarabaeid beetles species at Palampur. There exists a
local variation among the scarabaeid beetles, but the evenness was high. Since Shannon index was > 3, there
was no dominance of any particular species at Palampur (Fig. 8). A community dominated by few species is
considered to be less diverse than one with a high species richness and evenness (Dhoj et al. 2009). There was
considerable variation in the diversity of scarabaeid beetles across locations an observation reported by several
workers in the past (Chandel et al., 1994; Anon, 2008, 2009, 2010). Variation in beetle diversity might be due
to variation in vegetation, crops grown, and altitude and soil types.
Beta diversity was also calculated for different locations, which is one of most important measure to
compare abundance, richness and diversity within sites. Diversity within the sites by using Bray-Curtis index,
Sorensen’s similarity index and Jaccard index was calculated by pooling the data for 2011-2012. The shared
species statistics between different landscapes of Himachal Pradesh is given in Table 4. The Bray-Curtis index
indicated 60.80% similarity between Bharmour and Reckong Peo. Jaccard index and Sorensens index also
indicated a similar pattern with 25.64 and 51.28% similarity, respectively, between Bharmour and Reckong
59
Arthropods, 2015, 4(2): 46-68
IAEES www.iaees.org
Peo which had the highest similarity across locations. The Bray-Curtis index was minimum (0.0485) between
Palampur and Shillaroo which indicating that these two sites have poor similarity in terms of diversity,
richness and abundance.
3.6 Species turnover comparison across the locations
Jaccard similarity coefficient matrix was used to find out the differences in species composition between the
locations. Dendrogram prepared by using Jaccard similarity matrix for clustering of habitats with similar
diversity is given in Fig. 11. Clustering was measured on the basis of similarity, richness and abundance of the
scarab taxa. Palampur, Kullu, Dallash and Shillaroo were in a single cluster while Kheradhar and Reckong Peo
in another cluster. Kwagdhar and Bharmour were placed in separate clusters. The composition and population
structure of scarabs species were similar between Palampur, Kullu and Dallash whereas, Bharmour area was
completely different from these clusters.
4 Discussion and Conclusions
In the present study, 56 species belonging to subfamilies Melolonthinae, Rutelinae, Cetoniinae and Dynastinae
were recorded from the eight locations in the northwestern Himalayan region of Himachal Pradesh. More than
50% of the species found in Palampur and Kullu which have one of most important and diverse scarab fauna in
India (Chandra, 2005; Kumar et al., 2007; Chandel et al., 1994). These habitats had a diverse scarabs beetle
fauna, because they are rich in vegetation for feeding, mating and nesting (Cherty et al., 2008; Dhoj et al.,
2009; Bhalla and Pawar, 1964; Kumar et al., 1996, 2005). These agroecological regions have a high scarab
diversity for historical, geographical and landscape reasons. There is a long history of fruit and vegetable
cultivation in these regions which serve as important adult and larval food, for conserving the scarab fauna.
The surveyed landscapes are located in sub-tropical and dry temperate latitudinal region (N 300, 45.409'-320,
05.666' (Table 1)), with a broad altitude range (1222 - 2479 m amsl; Table 1, Fig. 1), which facilitated the
diversity of scarab fauna in different habitats. Most of the landscapes are surrounded by natural vegetation,
which might contribute to greater diversity of scarab fauna in the region (Dhoj et al., 2009; Khanal et al., 2012;
Chandra and Gupta, 2012). B. coriacea was the dominant species in high hills and dry temperate zones,
whereas H. longipennis was dominant in the mid hills.
There was a large variation in beetle abundance in different landscapes across years 2011 and 2012
(Tables 2 and 3). The abundance and diversity decreased with an increase in altitude. Species richness was
significantly and negatively correlated with altitude. The possible reason may be low temperatures of high
altitudes which limits the growth and development of scarabs. A similar relationship has been observed in the
Iberian mountains of Spain (Martin-Piera et al., 1992; Romero-Alcaraz and Avila, 2000) and, the central
region of mainland Japan (Imura et al., 2010). The species richness at Palampur and Kullu was exceptionally
high as compared to the other landscapes. This might be due surrounding uncultivated wild habitats, which
served as a source of scarab beetles. The broad leaved deciduous forests and pastures increase species richness,
whereas artificial coniferous forests decrease species richness (Imura et al., 2011). A positive relationship
between local abundance and the distribution range of species is a ubiquitously observed phenomenon in
taxonomic assemblages (Hanski, 1982; Brown, 1984; Lawton, 1993, and Gaston, 1996). In the present study,
all the species exhibited such a relationship. These findings are in conformity with the earlier studies by
Chandra (2005), Chandra and Gupta (2012), Dhoj et al. (2009), Hanski and Koskela (1978) and Romero-
Alcaraz and Avila (2000). A positive distribution-abundance relationship is significant in conservation and the
species with restricted host range and small populations are more vulnerable to human activities, risk of
extinction and likely emergence of new pests or secondary pest problems in managed ecosystems (Lawton,
1996). The results of the present study also stressed the need for continuous large scale monitoring to assess
60
Arthropods, 2015, 4(2): 46-68
IAEES www.iaees.org
the distribution and abundance of scarab beetles for effective conservation of species, as well as to study their
movements/shifts from forests to cultivated crops of agricultural and horticultural importance.
(Jaccard similarity matrix-abundance)
Fig. 11 Dendrogram comparing different sites for scarabaeid beetle species assemblage (b = Palampur, c = Kullu, d = Dallash, e
= Shillaroo, f = Kwagdhar, g = Kheradhar, h = Bharmour, I = Reckong Peo).
Fig. 12 Overall emergence pattern of scarabaeid adults in Himachal Pradesh, India (2011-2012).
In the present study 13,569 adults of scarabaeid beetles belonging to 56 species of 4 subfamilies were
recorded from different landscapes. The five most dominating species were B. coriacea, A. lasiopygus, A.
lineatopennis, M. insanabilis and H. longipennis. Melolonthinae was most dominant with 29 species,
comprising 51.79% (Fig. 4) of the total species followed by Rutelinae with 19 species (33.93%). Anomala was
the most dominant genus with 17.86% of total species followed by Brahmina (16.07% of total species).
Chandra (2005) collected 89 species of phytophagous scarabs in Himachal Pradesh, belonging to 33 genera.
He reported 34 species in subfamily Melolonthinae, and recorded maximum diversity (13 species) under the
genus Anomala. Mehta et al. (2010) reviewed the status of whitegrubs in north western Himalaya and listed
116 species belonging to 43 genera, with maximum diversity in the genus Anomala (19 species). Maximum
species diversity in the present study was in genus Anomala. June was the most critical month for planning
management and conservation strategies for the scarab beetles, as 50.80% (Fig. 12) of the total scarab beetles
were trapped in June followed by July. Among the collected species, B. coriacea, B. flavosericea, B. crinicollis,
61
Arthropods, 2015, 4(2): 46-68
IAEES www.iaees.org
H. longipennis, H. sikkimensis, A. lineatopennis, A. dimidiata, A. varicolor, M. indica, M. furcicauda, M.
cuprescens, Schizonycha spp., M. insanabilis, M. cotesi, H. lioderes, P. dionysius, Popillia spp.and C. spilota
has been reported to be of agricultural and horticultural pests.
The structure of the organism’s diversity at the landscape scale can be analyzed by using within
community (α diversity) and between community (β diversity) (Whittaker, 1972; Magurran, 1988; Southwood
and Herderson, 2000). To understand the structure and functioning of the ecosystem, it is important to specify
how species composition and distribution are determined. Beta diversity indicates that species composition
over large areas, which fluctuates in a random (Legendre et al. 2005). The present study supported second and
third hypotheses as Beta diversity was observed to be <50% between the locations except Bharmour and
Reckong Peo (60.80% similarity) and Kwagdhar and Bharmour (53.64% similarity) and Dallash and
Kwagdhar (51.79% similarity). The overall results of beta diversity analysis indicated that Himachal Pradesh
has a rich diversity of scarabaeid beetles and shared species between the landscapes were very low. This may
be because of differences in cropping patterns and the surrounding wild habitats. Differences in climatic,
edaphic and landscape management may be responsible for the observed differences in beta diversity of beetle
communities in the Himalayan regions.
Biodiversity surveys play a crucial role in providing information for conservation, justification for the
protected areas as well as designing and development of pest management plans (Spector and Forsyth, 1998).
Mid hill regions in Himachal Pradesh were rich in diversity of scarab beetles. The information on species
diversity, abundance, richness and dominance will be helpful for planning strategies for conservation of
ecosystems and biological health of natural habitats. This information can be utilized to solve the increasing
menace of scarab beetles in field crops and fruit trees in the Himalayan regions in Himachal Pradesh.
Acknowledgements
We are grateful to Dr. V. V. Ramamurthy (Principal Scientist), Division of Entomology, IARI, New Delhi and
Dr. Sunil Singh (Principal Scientist), Division of Entomology, FRI, Dehradun for their help in identification of
scarabaeid species. We are also thankful to Dr. K. D. Sharma and Dr. Rajesh Thakur, Department of
Agriculture Economics, CSKHPKV, Palampur, Himachal Pradesh for their help in data analysis. The study
was supported by the funding of Department of Science and Technology (DST), Government of India, New
Delhi, in the form of INSPIRE Fellowship. We are thankful to Network Coordinator, All India Network
Project on Whitegrubs and Other Soil Arthropods, Jaipur for providing necessary facilities and encouragement.
References
Ahrens D. 2005. Illustrated key of phytophagous scarabs of the Chitwan region (Nepal): Including figures of
adults of white grubs recorded in the IPM project entitled “Identification of whitegrub species of Nepal”.
Project report NE36 (43636) Version 1.2
Ali ATM. 2001. Biosystematics of phytophagous scarabaeidae-An Indian Overview. In: Indian Phytophagous
Scarabs and their Management. Present Status and Future Strategies (Sharma G, Mathur YS, Gupta RBL
eds). 5-37, Agrobios, India
Anonymous. 2008. Annual Report, 2007-08. All India Network project on White Grubs and Other Soil
Arthropods, Palampur, India
Anonymous. 2009. Annual Report, 2008-09. All India Network project on White Grubs and Other Soil
Arthropods, Palampur, India
62
Arthropods, 2015, 4(2): 46-68
IAEES www.iaees.org
Anonymous. 2010. Annual Report, 2009-10. All India Network project on White Grubs and Other Soil
Arthropods, Palampur, India
Arrow GJ. 1917. The fauna of British India. Including Ceylon and Burma. Coleoptera, Lamellicornia Part 2
(Rutelinae: Desmonycinae and Euchirinae). Taylor and Francis, London, UK
Bakhetia DRC, Sohi AS. 1982. Scarabaeid beetles collected in the light traps. Journal of Soil Biology and
Ecology, 2: 99-100
Bhagat RM, Kashyap NP. 1997. A preliminary study on white grubs of Dhauladhar foot hills (Himachal
Pradesh) and adjoining areas. Indian Journal of Entomology, 59: 337-340
Bhalla OP, Pawar AD. 1977. A survey study of insect and non insect pests of economic importance in
Himachal Pradesh. Tikku and Tikku, Kitab Mehal, Bombay India
Bhat OK, Bhat AA, Kaul VK. 2005. Faunistic studies of white grubs in Kashmir. Insect Environment, 11: 14-
15
Bhawane GP, Mamlayya AB, Wagh SR, Chougule AK. 20120 Diversity of white grub beetles and their host
range from northern western ghats, Kolhapur District (MS) India. The Bioscan, 7: 589-596
Brown JH. 1984. On the relationship between abundance and distribution of species. American Naturalist, 14:
255-279
Chandel RS, Gupta PR, Chander R. 1994. Diversity of scarabaeid beetles in mid hills of Himachal Pradesh.
Himachal Journal of Agriculture Research, 20: 98-101
Chandel RS, Mehta PK, Verma KS, Sharma PC. 2010. A survey study of white grubs of economic importance
in Himachal Pradesh. In: Proceedings of National Conference on Plant Protection in Agriculture through
Ecofriendly Techniques and Traditional Farming Practice. 441-442, Durgapur Rajasthan, India
Chandra K, Gupta D. 2012. An inventory of scarab beetles (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae) of Achanakmar-
Amarkantak Biosphere Reserve, Chhattisgarh, India. International Journal of Science and Nature, 3: 886-
891
Chandra K. 2005. Insecta: Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae. Zoological Survey of India, Fauna of West Himachal
(Part 2). 141-155, India
Chandramohan N, Nanjan K. 1991. Pattern of emergence of white grubs in Nilgiris. South Indian Horticulture,
39: 382-383
Chao A. 2004. Species richness estimation. In: Encyclopedia of Statistical sciences (Balakrishnan N, Read CB,
Vidakovic B, eds). Wiley, New York, USA
Chenchaiah KC. 2006. Biology and control of white grubs of arecanut in Sub-Himalayan Tarai region of West
Bengal. Indian Journal of Plant Protection, 34: 33-35
Cho SS, Kim SH, Yang JS. 1989. Studies on the seasonal occurrence of the white grubs and the chafers, and
on the species of chafers in the Peanut fields in Yeo-Ju area. Res Rep of Rural Development Admin: Crop
Protection, 31: 19-26
Coscaron MC, Melo MC, Coddington JA, Corronca J. 2009. Estimating biodiversity: a case study on true bugs
in Argentinian wetlands. Biodiversity and Conservation, 18: 1491-1507
Cronin JT, Hayes JL, Turchin P. 2000. Evaluation of traps used to monitor southern pine beetle aerial
populations and sex ratios. Agriculture and Forest Entomology, 2: 69-76
Dashad SS, Chauhan R, Choudhary OP. 2008. Emergence of different species of white grub beetles in relation
to abiotic factors based on light trap catches. Research on Crops. 9: 688-691
Dethier VG. 1953. Vision. In: Insect Physiology (Roeder KD, ed). 488-522, Wiley New York, USA
Devi N, Raj D, Kashyap NP. 1994. Relative abundance of some white grub beetles in mid hill zone of
Himachal Pradesh (India). Journal of Entomological Research, 18: 139-142
63
Arthropods, 2015, 4(2): 46-68
IAEES www.iaees.org
Dhoj Yubak GC, Keller S, Nagel P, Kafle L. 2009. Abundance and diversity of scarabaeid beetles (Coleoptera:
Scarabaeidae) in different farming areas of Nepal. Formosan Entomon, 29: 103-112
Falach L, Shani A. 2000. Trapping efficiency and sex ratio of Maladera matrida beetles in yellow and black
traps. Journal of Chemical Ecology, 26: 2619-2624
Forschler BT, Gardener WA. 1991. Flight activity and relative abundance of phytophagous scarabaeidae
attracted to blacklight traps in Georgia. Journal of Agriculture, 8: 179-187
Freitas FA de, Zanuncio TV, Lacerda MC, Zanuncio JC. 2002. Fauna of coleoptera collected with light traps in
a Eucalyptus grandis plantation in Santa Barbara, Minas Gerais, Brazil. Revist Arvo, 26: 505-511
Garg DK,Shah NK. 1983. White grub outbreak on rainfed dryland rice in Uttar Pradesh. International Rice
Research Newsletter. 8: 16-17
Gaston KJ. 1996. The multiple forms of interspecific abundance-distribution relationship. Oikos, 76: 211-220
GhartyChetry YD. 2006. Whitegrubs (Coleoptera: Scarabaeideae) associated with Neplaese agriculture and
their control with the indigenous entomopathogenic fungus Metarrhizium anisopliae (metsch.). Ph. D
Thesis. University of Basel, Switzerland
Gracia A, Trujillo NA, Moron CD, Lopez MA, Olguin JF. 2008. Use of fluorescent light traps for the
management of white grubs (Coleoptera: Melolonthinae) in maize (Zea mays L.). Agrociencia-Montecillo,
42: 217-223
Gruner L. 1975. An investigation on the activity of various West Indian scarabaeids with the aid of light traps
and chemical traps. Ann-de-Zool-Animale, 7: 399-423
Gupta BD, Joshi NK, Joshi ID. 1977. Some important defoliating and fruit eating beetles of temperate fruit
trees: A Survey Study and Control. Progressive Horticulture, 8: 53-60
Gupta S. 2012. Distribution and abundance of Brahmina coriacea (Hope) in Himachal Pradesh. MSc Thesis.
CSK HPKV, Palampur, Himachal Pradesh, India
Hanski I. 1982. Dynamics of regional distribution: the core and satellite species hypotheses. Oikos, 38: 210-
221
HanskiI, Koskela H. 1978. Stability, abundance and niche width in the beetle community inhabiting cow dung.
Okios, 31: 290-298
Heywood VH, Watson RT. 1995. Globalbiodiversity Assessment. Cambridge University Press, USA
Hill MO. 1973. Diversity and evenness: a unifying notation and its consequences. Ecology, 54: 427-473
Humphries CJ, Williams PH, Vane-Wright RI. 1995. Measuring biodiversity value for conservation. Annual
Review of Ecology and Systematics, 26: 93-111
Imura O. 2010. Diversity and function of dung beetles in pastures. In: Conservation and Ecology of Grasslands
(Japanese Society of Grassland Science, ed). 204-214, Scientific Societies Press, Tokyo, Japan
Imura O, Morimoto N, Shi K and Sasaki H. 2014. Landscape diversity of pasture dung beetle communities in
the central region of mainland Japan and implications for conservation management. Biodiversity and
Conservation, 23: 597-616
Imura O, sasaki H, Shi K, Morimoto N. 2011. Landscape for conserving diversity of pasture dung beetles.
Journal of Japan Agricultural Society, 27: 9-20
Jaccard. 1912. The distribution of the flora of the alpine zone. New Phytologist, 11: 37-50
Jameson ML, Ratcliffe BC. 2001. Scarabaeoidea:Scarabaeoid beetles (= Lamellicornia) (URL:
http://wwwmuseum.unl.edu/research/entomology/Guide/ Scarabaeoidea /Scarabaeoidea-ages/
Scarabaeoidea-Overview/ScarabaeoideaO.html). In: Generic Guide to New World Scarab Beetles (URL:
http://www-museum.unl.edu/research/entomology/Guide/ index4.htm) (Ratcliffe BC, Jameson ML, eds).
Kard BMR, Hain FP. 1990. Flight pattern and white grub population densities of three beetles species
64
Arthropods, 2015, 4(2): 46-68
IAEES www.iaees.org
(Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae) in the mountains of northwestern North Carolina. Journal of Entomological
Science, 25: 34-43
Kempton RA. 1979. Structure of species abundance and measurement of diversity. Biometircs, 35: 307-322
Khan KM, Ghai S. 1982. Taxonomic status of the genus Holotrichia Hope.(Melolonthini: Melolonthinae:
Sacarbaeidae) with description of five new species from India along with redescription of two poorly
described species and a key to species. Indian Journal of Entomology, 23: 28-45
Khanal D, Dhoj YGC, Sporleder M, Thapa RB. 2012. Distribution of whitegrubs in here ecological domains of
Nepal. The Journal of Agriculture and Environment, 13: 40-46
Kishimoto YK, Itioka T, Nakagawa M, Momose K, Nakashizuka T. 2011. Phytophagous sacrabaeid diversity
in Swidden cultivation landscapes in Sarawak, Malaysia. Raffales Bulletin of Zoology, 59: 285-293
Koleff P, Gaston KJ, Lennon JJ. 2003. Measuring beta diversity for presence-absence data. Journal of Animal
Ecology, 72: 367-382
Korschefsky VR. 1940. Bestimmugstabelle der haufigsten deutschen scarabaeidanlarven. Arbaei Ten Uber
Physiol Ung Ange Wante Ento, Berlin-Dalhem, 7: 41-51
Krebs CJ. 2001. Species diversity measures of heterogeneity. In: FogartyE, Dutton H, EarlW (eds) Ecology:
The Experimental Analysis of Distribution and Abundances. 617-618, Wesley Longman Inc, San Fransisco,
USA
Kremen C, Colwell RK, Erwin TL, MurphyDD, Noss RF, Sanjayan MA. 1993. Terrestrial arthropod
assemblages: their use in conservation planning. Conservation Biology, 7: 796-808
Kumar J, Kashyap NP, Chandel RS. 1996. Diversity and density of defoliating beetles in Kullu valley of
Himachal Pradesh. Pest Management and Economic Zoology, 4: 25-29
Kumar J, Sharma SD, Lal R. 2007. Scarabaied beetles of Kullu valley, Himachal Pradesh. Entomon, 32: 103-
110
Kumar J, Sharma SD, Lal R, Deor BS. 2005. White grubs damaging maize and paddy crops in Kullu and
Mandi districts of Himachal Pradesh. Pest Management and Economic Zoology, 13: 15-20
Lawrence JF, Hastings AM, Dallwitz MJ, Paine TA, Zurcher EJ. 2000. Beetles of the World. CSIRO
Publishing, Australia
Lawrence JF, BrittonEB. 1994. Australian Beetles. CSIRO Publishing, Australia
Lawton JH. 1993. Range, population abundance and conservation. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 8: 409-
413
Legendre P, Borcard D, Peres-Neto PR. 2005. Analysing beta diversity: Partitioning the Spatial Variation of
Community Composition Data. Ecology Monograph, 75: 435-450
Lobo JM, Martín-Piera F, Veiga CM. 1988. Las trampas pitfall con cebo, sus sibilidadesen el estudio de las
comunidades coprófagas de Scarabaeoidea (Col.) I. Revue 'Écologie et de Biologie du Sol, 25: 77-100
Magurran AE. 1988. Ecological Diversity and Its Measurement. Princeton University Press, Princeton, USA
Magurran AE. 2004. Measuring Biological Diversity. Blackwell Science LTD, USA
Martin-Piera F, Veiga CM, Lobo Jm. 1992. Ecology and biogeography of dung-beetle communities
(Coleoptera: Scarabaeoidea) in an Iberian mountain range. Journal of Biogeogrgraphy, 19: 677-691
Mc Donald C, Smith R, Scott M and Dick J. 2010. Using indices to measure biodiversity change through time.
In: International Workshop On Spatio-Temporal Modeling. Santiago de Compostela, Spain
McIntosh RL, Katinic PJ, Allison J, Borden JH, Downey DL. 2001. Comparative efficacy of five types of trap
for woodborers in the Cerambycidae, Buprestidae and Siricidae. Agricultural and Forest Entomology, 3:
113-120
Mehta PK, Chandel RS, Mathur YS. 2008. Phytophagous whitegrubs of Himachal Pradesh. Technical Bulletin:
65
Arthropods, 2015, 4(2): 46-68
IAEES www.iaees.org
Department of Entomology, CSK HPKV, Palampur, India
Mehta PK, Chandel RS, Mathur YS. 2010. Status of whitegrubs in north western Himalaya. Journal of Insect
Science, 23: 1-14
Mishra PN, Singh MP. 1996. Studies on the white grubs (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae) prevalent in Uttar Pradesh
hills. Annals of Agriculture Research, 17: 411-413
Mishra PN, Singh MP. 1997. Determination of predominant species of white grub in Kumaon region of Uttar
Pradesh hills and their control. Annals of Plant Protection Science, 5: 154-156
Mishra PN, Singh MP. 1999. Determination of predominant species of whitegrubs in Garhwal regions of Uttar
Pradesh hills (India). Journal of Entomological Research, 23: 65-69
Mishra PN. 2001. Scarab fauna of Himalayan region and their management. In: Indian Phytophagous Scarabs
and their Management: Present Status and Future Strategies (Sharma, Mathur YS, Gupta RBL, eds). 74-85,
Agrobios, India
Missa O, Basset Y, Alonso A, Miller SE, Curletti G, Meyer MD, Eardley C, Mansell MW, Wagner T. 2009.
Monitoring arthropods in a tropical landscape: relative effects of sampling methods and habitat types on
trap catches. Journal of Insect Conservation, 13: 103-118
Mittal IC, Pajni HR. 1977. New species belonging to Melolonthini (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae: Melolonthinae)
from India. Entomologist, 2: 85-88
Mittal IC. 2000. Survey of Scarabaeid (Coleoptera) fauna of Himanchal Pradesh (India). Journal of
Entomology Research, 24: 133-141
Morofsky WF. 1933. Distribution of May beetles (Phyllophaga) in Michigan. Journal of Economic
Entomology, 26: 831-834
Nath P, Singh J. 1981. Monitoring of rootgrubs in Varanasi and Mirzapur districts of eastern Uttar Pradesh.
Pesticides, 15: 7-9
Nath V, Srivastva AS, Dhari R, Singh R, Verma RS. 1978. Effect of light trap on the beetles of white grub,
Holotrichia consanguinea Blanchard. Indian Journal of Entomology, 40: 465-466
Oksanen J. 2013. Vegan: Ecological diversity. Id: diversity-vegan. Rnw 2807 2013-12-05 11:50:52Z Jarioksa
processed with vegan 2.0-10 in r under development (unstable). 2013-12-11 r64449) on December 12,
2013
Pal SK. 1977. Relative abundance of scarabaeid beetles on light trap. Indian Journal of Applied Entomology,
39: 197-200
Pardo LLC, Motoya LJ, Bellotti AC, Schoonhoven A Van. 2005. Structure and composition of the white grub
complex (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae) in agroecological systems of North Cauca, Columbia. Florida
Entomologist, 88: 355-363
Patel BD, Patel GM. 1999. First record of new species of white grubs in Gujarat. Gujarat Agricultural
University Research Journal, 25: 110-111
Petty GJ. 1977. Beetle pests of pineapples: Some Biological Aspects. Citrus and Subtropical-Fruit Journal, 529:
4-7
Pinto RZJ, Zanuncio HS, Zanuncio TV and Lacerda MC. 2004. Coleoptera collected with light traps in
plantation of Eucalyptus urophylla in the Brazillian Amazonian Region. Ciencia Florestal, 14: 111-119
Price DL. 2004. Species diversity and seasonal abundance of scarabaeid dung beetles (Coleoptera:
Scarabaeidae, Geotrupidae and Trogidae) attracted to cow dung in central New Jersey. Journal of New
York Entomological Society, 112: 334-347
Ritcher PO. 1958. Biology of Scarabaeidae. Annual Review of Entomology, 3: 311-334
Rodriguez J, Sinse Luis ML, Grillo Ravelo VH. 2002. Timing of employment of light traps for the capture of
66
Arthropods, 2015, 4(2): 46-68
IAEES www.iaees.org
scarabaieds (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae) in pineapple plantations in Ciego de Avila. Centro-Agricola, 29:
71-74
Romero-AlcarazE, Avila JM. 2000. Landscape heterogeneity in relation to variations in epigaeic beetle
diversity of Mediterranian ecosystem.Implications for conservation. Biodiversity Conservation, 9: 985-
1005
Routledge RD. 1979. Diversity indices: which ones are admissible. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 76: 503-
515
Saini RK, Verma AN. 1991. Effectiveness of light traps in suppressing populations of red hairy caterpillar,
Amsacta moorei Butler. Haryana Agriculture University Journal of Research, 21: 250-251
Sanders JS, Fracker SB. 1916. Lachnosterna Records in Wisconsin. Journal of Economic Entomology, 9: 253-
261
Shah NK, Garg DK. 1985. White grubs and their beetles (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae) in Uttar Pradesh hills.
Indian Journal of Entomology, 47: 240-244
Shah NK, Garg DK. 1988. Seasonal abundance of whitegrub beetles on a light trap. Indian Journal of Ecology,
15: 105-108
Sharma PL, Bhalla OP. 1964. A survey study of insect pests of economic importance in Himachal Pradesh.
Indian Journal of Entomology, 26:318-331
Sharma PL, Aggarwal SC, Attri BS. 1971. Beetles eating pome and stone fruits in Himachal Pradesh and their
control. Himachal Journal of Agriculture Research, 1: 57-60
Sharma PL, Attari BS, Aggarwal SC. 1969. Beetles causing damage to pome and stone fruits in Himachal
Pradesh. Indian Journal of Entomology,, 31: 377-379
Sharma RM, Mitra B, Chakraborty P. 2004. Beetles of Kalatop-Khajjiar wild life Sanctuary, Himachal Pradesh.
Zoo’s Print Journal, 19: 1626
Southwood TRE, Henderson PA. 2000. Ecological Methods (3rd Edition). Blackwell Science LTD, USA
Spector S, Forysth AB. 198. Indicator taxa in the vanishing tropics. In: Conservation in a Changing World
(Blamford A, Mace G, eds). 181-210, Zoological Society of London, London, UK
Stearns LA. 1937. Important insects of the year. Bulletin of Delaware Agricultural Experiment Station, 207:
29-30
Stewart PA, Lam Jr JJ. 1968. Catch of insects at different traps equipped with blacklight lamps. Journal of
Economic Entomology, 61: 1227-1230
Stork NE, Samways MJ. 1995. Inventorying and monitoring. In: Global Biodiversity Assessment (Heywood
VH, ed). 453-543, Cambridge University Press, USA
Sushil SN, Mohan M, Selvakumar G, Bhatt JC. 2006. Relative abundance and host preference of white grubs
(Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae) in Kumaon hills of Indian Himalayas. Indian Journal of Agriculture Science, 76:
338-339
Sushil SN, Pant SK, Bhatt JC. 2004. Light trap catches of white grub and its relation with climatic factors in
Kumaon region of North Western Himalaya. Annals of Plant Protection Science. 12: 254-256
Thakare VG, Zade VS. 2012. Diversity of beetles (Insecta: Coleoptera) from the vicinity of Semadoh-Makhala
road, Sipnarange, Melghat Tiger Reserve, (MS) India. Bioscience Discovery, 3: 112-115
Tripathi GM, Gupta BP. 1985. Studies on collection of beetles at light trap at Chaubattia in Uttar Pradesh hills.
Progressive Horticulture, 17: 347-353
Veeresh GK. 1988. Whitegrubs. In: Applied Soil Biology and Ecology (2nd Edition) (Veeresh GK, Rajgopal D,
eds). 243-282, IBH, New Delhi, India
Veeresh GK. 1977. Studies on root grubs in Karnataka with special reference to bionomics and control of
67
Arthropods, 2015, 4(2): 46-68
IAEES www.iaees.org
Holotrichia serrata F. (Coleoptera: Melolonthinae). UAS Monograph Series No. 2, Bangalore. India
Viraktamath S, Kumar KHD. 2005. Efficacy of two types of light traps in attracting insect pests of economic
importance. Insect Environment, 10: 162-164
Vora VJ, Ramakrishnan N. 1991. Attraction of beetles, Holotrichia consanguinea Blanchard (Scarabaeidae:
Coleoptera) to light and host plant. Indian Journal of Entomology, 53: 45-49
White NDG, Arbogast RT, Fields PG, Hillmann RC, Loschiavo SR, Subramanyam B, Throne JE, Wright VF.
1990. The development and use of pitfall and probe traps for capturing insects in stored grain. Journal of
the Kansas Entomology Society, 63: 506-525
Whittaker RH. 1960. Vegetation of Soskiyou mountains, Oregon and California. Ecological Monographs, 30:
279-338
Whittaker RH. 1965. Dominance and diversity in plant communities. Science, 147: 250-260
Wilson EO, Peter FM. 1988. Biodiversity. An important collection of papers that launched public awareness of
biodiversity and its importance. National Academy Press, Washington DC, USA
Yoccoz NG, Nichols JD, Boulinier T. 2001. Monitoring of biological diversity in space and time. Trends in
Ecology and Evolution, 16: 446-453
Zahoor MK, Suhail A, Zulfaqar Z, Iqbal J, Anwar M. 2003. Biodiversity of scarab beetles (Scarabaeidae:
Coleoptera) in agroforestry area of Faislabad. Pakistan Entomologist, 25: 119-126
Zhang WJ. 2011. A Java program to test homogeneity of samples and examine sampling completeness.
Network Biology, 1(2): 127-129
68
