ArticlePDF Available

Nectar resource use by Butterflies in Gir Wildlife Sanctuary, Sasan, Gujarat

Authors:

Abstract and Figures

Butterflies are known to be the most fascinating creatures existing on this earth and have a great aesthetic value. They are in close relation with the plant species as they procure nectar from flowering plants to meet their energy requirements while butterflies serve to be pollinators for various plant species which is the only means of their propagation. Hence in order to understand the butterfly-flower interactions, the present study was conducted in Gir Wildlife Sanctuary, Sasan, Gujarat to determine the numerous host plants associated with these beautiful butterflies. An extensive entomological survey for a period of two years in the forest area of Gir was undertaken. Out of the 50 butterfly species recorded in Gir, 27 species (54%) used nectar while other species obtained their food from non-floral resources such as mud, wet soils and cow dung. Highest number of butterflies were recorded in Lantana camara (19), followed by Asclepias syriaca (10), Tamarindus indica (6), Diospyros melanoxylon (5) and Ixora arborea (5) respectively.
Content may be subject to copyright.
ISSN No. (Print): 0975-1130
ISSN No. (Online): 2249-3239
Nectar resource use by Butterflies in Gir Wildlife Sanctuary, Sasan,
Gujarat
Meeta Sharmaand Noopur Sharma
Forest Protection Division, Arid Forest Research Institute,
New Pali Road, Jodhpur (Rajasthan)-342005, India
(Received 05 June, 2013, Accepted 15 July, 2013)
ABSTRACT: Butterflies are known to be the most fascinating creatures existing on this earth and have a
great aesthetic value. They are in close relation with the plant species as they procure nectar from flowering
plants to meet their energy requirements while butterflies serve to be pollinators for various plant species
which is the only means of their propagation. Hence in order to understand the butterfly-flower interactions,
the present study was conducted in Gir Wildlife Sanctuary, Sasan, Gujarat to determine the numerous host
plants associated with these beautiful butterflies. An extensive entomological survey for a period of two years
in the forest area of Gir was undertaken. Out of the 50 butterfly species recorded in Gir, 27 species (54%)
used nectar while other species obtained their food from non-floral resources such as mud, wet soils and cow
dung. Highest number of butterflies were recorded in Lantana camara (19), followed by Asclepias syriaca (10),
Tamarindus indica (6), Diospyros melanoxylon (5) and Ixora arborea (5) respectively.
Key words:Butterflies, Nectar, Pollinators, Gir wildlife sanctuary, Host plants, Food
INTRODUCTION
Plants are a food source for many insects and animals;
some plants play host to caterpillars whereas other
plants provide sustenance for butterflies. Butterflies help
to pollinate plantsin return.Insects visit flowers to obtain
food, usually in the form of pollen or nectar. The
plants obtain the services of pollinators in carrying
pollen from one flower to another (Proctor et al.,
1996). Butterflies are often considered opportunistic
foragers that visit a wide variety of available flowers.
However their choice of flower is not random and they
exhibit distinct flower preference which can differ
between species (Jennersten, 1984). The choice of
plants as nectar sources by butterflies depends on
various factors including innate color preference,
corolla depth, clustering of flowers from which nectar
can be extracted (Porter et al., 1992). The flower scent
is an important signal for butterflies initially to
identify and subsequently to recognize and distinguish
among rewarding plants. The life cycle of plants, caterpillars
and butterflies has closely evolved to ensure the continuation of
various plant and animal species. Butterflies are generalists,
able to exist in a wide variety of habitats.Most
butterflies however are far more specialised, each
species having its own particular requirements
regarding habitats, temperature, humidity, larval food
plants and adult food sources. Most species of
caterpillars and butterflies only populate specific plant
families. Host plants are the types of plants that butterflies
choose to populate with their larvae.Whena caterpillarchanges
into a butterfly, it will populate various types ofotherplants for
food. Each category of pollinator is associated with a
syndrome of dependent floral characteristics (size,
shape, and reward).
The flora of Gir comprises of many flowering and
non-flowering plants which appear during rains. The
vegetation changes along with west to east axis. The
various plant consists of herbs (40.43%), trees
(21.12%), shrubs (16.67%), climbers (14.19%) and
grasses (7.59%) (Kumar and Meena, 2012). Many of
these plants serve as hosts for various stages of
butterfly life cycle. The consideration of Gir came into
picture because of the fact that it has become a very
stable ecosystem with tremendous regenerating, self
supporting and self sustaining capacity due to its rich
and diverse flora and fauna. Also, it is a potential place
to be a centre for creating environmental awareness
and imparting nature education (Kumar and Meena,
2012). It supports a varied topography means a
corresponding variety of microclimates, rainfall
patterns, plant distributions, wetlands and therefore the
butterfly distributions. The majority of species occur
in fair close proximity to their larval food plants.
Shahabuddin (1997) has worked on butterfly visitors
to 20 plant species in Palni hills, Western Ghats. The
environmental conditions of Gir Wildlife Sanctuary
differ from it. Hence, the present study gives a picture
of the butterfly attracting plant species in Gir that may
be helpful in future afforestation programmes.
Biological Forum An International Journal 5(2): 56-63(2013)
Sharma and Sharma 57
MATERIALS AND METHODS
The study area: A systematic study was carried out to
find out the food resources of butterflies in Gir Wildlife
Sanctuary. Various nes, thana and rivarine sites were
selected from eastern and western Gir ranges that come
under Wildlife Sanctuary areas i.e. between Latitude
20o40' N to 21o50' N and Longitude 70o50' E to 71o
15' E ( Krishnan and Guha, 2006). The present study
covered an area of 678.45 sq. km in West Gir Wildlife
Sanctuary. The study area has rich flora and wild life.
The major vegetation consists of Tectona grandis,
Wrightia tinctoria, Acacia catechu, Zizyphus
mauritiana, Acacia nilotica, Anogeissus latifolia,
Acacia leucophloea, Terminalia crenulata, Diospyros
melanoxylon, Bauhinia purpurea, Grewia tiliaefolia, A.
ferruginea, Boswellia serrata, Lannea coromandelica,
and Butea monosperma (Sharma and Johan Singh
1995).
Study method: The natural vegetation consisting of
trees, shrubs, herbs, climbers and grasses were observed
to find out the food resources of butterflies, in different
seasons. Recording of flower visiting insect species,
their foraging behavior, length of the visits and number
of flowers visited in unit time was done. All the above
data were recorded between 0600 and 1800 hrs.
Butterfly species were collected and identified by using
standard books of Kehimkar 2008; Gay et al. 1992 and
Wynter Blyth 1957.
RESULTS
Butterfly Diversity: A total of 50 species of small and
large butterflies belonging to four families within an
area of 678.45 km2of Western Gir Wildlife Sanctuary
encompassing eighty localities were recorded (Table 1).
The most dominant family was Nymphalidae followed
by Pieridae, Lycaenidae and Papilionidae. The data
indicated that the smallest butterfly recorded was
Castalius rosimon (Lycaenidae) and the largest was
Pachliopta aristolochiae (Papilionidae). Among the
butterflies sampled, Castalius rosimon is enlisted in
Schedule-I, Hypolimnas misippus is enlisted in
Schedule-I and II and Euploea core is enlisted in
Schedule-IV of the Indian Wildlife Protection Act,1972
(Evans,1932; Gaonkar, 1996; Kunte, 2000 & 2008;
Larson, 1987 & 1988; Talbot, 1939; Wynter-Blyth,
1957).
The faunal diversity of butterflies was greatly
influenced by season, monsoon to late winters being the
preferred seasons. However, butterflies of some
families were also visible during summers. The most
commonly observed species were Danais chrysippus,
Junonia lemonias,Junonia hierta, Junonia orithya,
Catopsilia pyranthe, Eurema hecabe and Papilio
demoleus. They were noticed in all the seasons.
Lycaenidae butterflies were dominant during monsoon.
Papilionidae were always encountered flying at heights
in pair or singly.
Nectar resources: Plant species associated with these
butterflies were identified as their host plants. Out of
the 50 butterfly species recorded, 27 species used nectar
while other species obtained their food from non-floral
resources such as mud, wet soils and cow dung. Floral
nectar of 50 plant species was used as food. The food
plants comprised of 27 species of trees, 10 species of
grasses, 9 species of shrubs and 4 species of herbs
respectively. Highest number of butterflies were
recorded in Lantana camara (19), followed by
Asclepias syriaca (10), Tamarindus indica (6),
Diospyros melanoxylon (5) and Ixora arborea (5). Five
plant species namely Terminalia arjuna, Balanites
aegyptica, Bauhinia variegata, Commiphora wightii
and Lannea coromandelica were not observed visited
by butterflies (Table 2). The flower color and size also
influence the visiting insects, therefore majority of
butterflies were attracted to white flowers (36.36%).
This was followed by yellow (29.09%), red (20%) and
green (14.55%) respectively (Fig. 1). Also small sized
flowers charmed maximum butterflies (Table 2).
Foraging behavior and timings varied among different
species. Most of the species remain active in the
forenoon (Selvarathinam et al., 2009). Junonia
lemonias visited many flowers and spent long durations
for collecting nectar. Danais chrysippus was observed
the whole day siphoning nectar. On the contrary,
swallowtail butterflies like Graphium sarpedon,
Pachliopta aristolochiae occasionally visited flowers
and spent only 1-2 seconds in a single flower and flew
away. The major flower visitors were Euploea core,
Phalantha phalantha, Eurema blanda, Anaphaeis
aurota and Catopsilia pomona.
Non-floral food source: Species of Pieridae and
Papilionidae are generally seen mud puddling
(Sreekumar and Balakrishnan, 2001). Catopsilia
pyranthe, C. crocale, Anaphaeis aurota, Eurema
blanda, Papilio demoleus and Graphium sarpedon were
observed mud puddling on wet soil in the monsoon
season. Alongside, two species of Nymphalidae viz.
Euploea core and Phalantha phalantha were also
observed mud puddling at times. Males seem to benefit
from the sodium uptake through mud-puddling
behavior with an increase in reproductive success. The
collected sodium and amino acids are often transferred
to the female with the spermatophore during mating as
a nuptial gift. This nutrition enhances the survival rate
of the eggs (Pivnik and McNeil, 1987; Medley and
Eisner, 1996; Molleman et al., 2004).
Sharma and Sharma 58
Table 1: Butterflies recorded in Western Gir Wildlife Sanctuary, Sasan, Gujarat (2011 to 2013).
S. No.
Common Name
Scientific Name
Family
Legal Status
1.
The Lemon Pansy
Junonia lemonias
Nymphalidae
-
2.
The Blue Pansy
Junonia orithya
Nymphalidae
-
3.
The Yellow Pansy
Junonia hierta
Nymphalidae
-
4.
The Peacock Pansy
Junonia almanac
Nymphalidae
-
5.
The Danaid Eggfly
Hypolimnas misippus
Nymphalidae
Schedule I & II
6.
Blue Tiger
Tirumala limniace
leopardus
Nymphalidae
-
7.
Plain Tiger/African
Monarch
Danais chrysippus
Nymphalidae
-
8.
The Monarch Butterfly/
The Milkweed Butterfly
Danais plexippus
Nymphalidae
-
9.
The Baronet
Euthalia nais
Nymphalidae
-
10.
The Common Indian
Crow
Euploea core
Nymphalidae
Schedule IV
11.
The Common Leopard
Phalantha phalantha
Nymphalidae
-
12.
The Common Nawab
Charaxes athamas
Nymphalidae
-
13.
Common evening brown
Melanitis leda
Nymphalidae
-
14.
Common threering
Ypthima asterope
Nymphalidae
-
15.
Dark evening brown
Melanitis phedima
Nymphalidae
-
16.
Spotted joker
Byblia ilithyia
Nymphalidae
-
17.
Angled castor
Ariadne ariadne
Nymphalidae
-
18.
Painted lady
Vanessa cardui
Nymphalidae
-
19.
Tawny coster
Acraea terpsicore Syn. A.
violae
Nymphalidae
-
20.
The common pierrot
Castalius rosimon
Lycaenidae
Schedule I
21.
Common guava blue
Virachola Isocrates
Lycaenidae
-
22.
Forget-me-not
Catochrysops Strabo
Lycaenidae
-
23.
Babul blue/ Topaz
spotted blue
Azanus jesous
Lycaenidae
-
24.
Indian red flash
Baspa melampus
Lycaenidae
-
25.
Stripped pierrot
Tarucus nara
Lycaenidae
-
26.
Common silverline
Cigaritis vulcanus
Lycaenidae
-
27.
Bright babul blue
Azanus ubaldus
Lycaenidae
-
28.
The Lemon Emigrant
Catopsilia pomona Syn.
Catopsilia crocale
Pieridae
-
29.
The Mottled Emigrant
Catopsilia pyranthe
Pieridae
-
30.
Yellow Orange Tip
Ixias pyrene evippe
Pieridae
-
31.
White Orange Tip
Ixias Marianne
Pieridae
-
32.
The Pioneer White
Belenois aurota Syn.
Anaphaeis aurota
Pieridae
-
33.
The Black veins
Aporia hippie
Pieridae
-
34.
Small orange tip
Colotis etrida
Pieridae
-
35.
Plain orange tip
Colotis eucharis
Pieridae
-
36.
Crimson tip
Colotis danae
Pieridae
-
37.
The Common Jezebel
Delias eucharis
Pieridae
-
38.
The Common Grass
Yellow
Eurema hecabe
Pieridae
-
39.
Three spot Grass yellow
Eurema blanda
Pieridae
-
40.
Spotless grass yellow
Eurema laeta
Pieridae
-
Sharma and Sharma 59
Broad bordered grass
yellow
Eurema brigitta
Pieridae
-
Common gull
Cepora nerissa
Pieridae
-
Small white
Pieris rapae
Pieridae
-
Large white
Pieris brassicae
Pieridae
-
Common Lime
Butterfly/ Chequered
Swallowtail
Papilio demoleus
Papilionidae
-
The Swallowtail
Papilio veiovis
Papilionidae
-
Common Rose
Swallowtail
Pachliopta aristolochiae
Papilionidae
-
The Common Mormon
Papilio polytes romulus
Papilionidae
-
Zebra butterfly
Graphium nomius
Papilionidae
-
Common bluebottle
Graphium sarpedon
Papilionidae
-
Table 2 : Butterfly attracting plant species (flowers) recorded in Gir Wildlife Sanctuary, Sasan, Gujarat
(2011 to 2013).
1.
Lantana camara
(Shrub)
Lantana, red sage,
shrub verbena
Verbenaceae
Small
white, pink, or
yellow,
changing to
orange or red
19
2.
Asclepias
syriaca (Herb)
Common
Milkweed
Asclepiadaceae
Small
Pinkish-
purple
10
3.
Zizyphus
mauritiana
(Shrub)
Ber, Indian plum,
Jujube
Rhamnaceae
Small
Yellow
4
4.
Zizyphus
xylopyrus
(Shrub)
Ghatbor
Rhamnaceae
Small
Yellow-green
2
5.
Terminalia
bellirica (Tree)
Baheda
Combretaceae
Small
Greenish-
yellow
3
6.
Terminalia
crenulata (Tree)
Aina, sadad
Combretaceae
Small
Cream
1
7.
Butea
monosperma
(Tree)
Flame of forest,
dhak, palash,
khakhar
Fabaceae
Large
Red
2
8.
Tectona grandis
(Tree)
Teak
Verbenaceae
Large
White
2
9.
Cassia tora
(Herb)
Charota or
Chakod. Guj.
Kawaria, kuvadio
Fabaceae
Large
Yellow
1
10.
Cassia fistula
(Tree)
Golden shower
tree, Garmalo
Fabaceae
Large
Yellow
2
11.
Nerium oleander
(Shrub)
Oleander
Apocynaceae
Large
White, pink to
red
2
12.
Acacia catechu
(Tree)
Khair, cutch tree,
Kumath
Fabaceae
Small
White to pale
yellow
1
13.
Acacia nilotica
(Tree)
Babul, gum
Arabic tree
Fabaceae
Small
Yellow
2
Sharma and Sharma 60
14.
Acacia senegal
(Shrub)
Gum Arabic tree,
gum acacia, gorad
Fabaceae
Small
Creamy white
3
15.
Acacia
leucophloea
(Tree)
Safed kikkar,
safed babul,
hermo
Fabaceae
Small
White
1
16.
Ficus
benghalensis
(Tree)
Banyan tree, Vad
Moraceae
Small
Pinkish-red
1
17.
Syzygium cumini
(Tree)
Jamun
Myrtaceae
Small
White
3
18.
Diospyros
melanoxylon
(Tree)
Tendu, timru
Ebenaceae
Small
White
5
19.
Pongamia
pinnata (Tree)
Karanj
Fabaceae
Small
White
3
20.
Ficus racemosa
(Tree)
Cluster fig tree,
Umro
Moraceae
Small
White
2
21.
Mitragyna
parvifolia (Tree)
Kalam, Kaim
Rubiaceae
Small
Yellow
3
22.
Holoptelia
integrifolia
(Tree)
Indian elm, Charal
Ulmaceae
Small
Greenish-
yellow
1
23.
Albizia lebbeck
(Tree)
Sirus
Fabaceae
Large
White
1
24.
Tamarindus
indica (Tree)
Amli
Fabaceae
Large
Red & yellow
6
25.
Prosopis
juliflora (Shrub)
Vilayati babul,
Gandobaval
Fabaceae
Small
Greenish-
yellow
2
26.
Casuarina
equisetifolia
(Tree)
Sheoak, saru
Casuarinaceae
Small
Brown
1
27.
Wrightia
tinctoria (Tree)
Duhi, dudhlo
Apocynaceae
Small
White
3
28.
Aegle marmalos,
(Tree)
Stone apple, bili
Rutaceae
Large
White
3
29.
Carissa
carandus
(Shrub)
Karonda
Apocynaceae
Small
White
2
30.
Emblica
officinalis (Tree)
Amla
Euphorbiaceae
Small
Green
1
31.
Vitex negundu
(Shrub)
Five leaved haste
tree, nirgundi
Verbenaceae
Large
White to blue-
purple
1
32.
Anogeissus
latifolia (Tree)
Dhawa, dhavdo
Combretaceae
Small
Yellow
1
33.
Sterculia urens
(Tree)
Gum karaya,
kadaya
Malvaceae
Small
Green
3
34.
Bauhinia
racemosa (Tree)
Bidi leaf tree,
Asundharo
Fabaceae
Large
White
2
35.
Bombax ceiba
(Tree)
Cotton tree,
semal,semlo
Malvaceae
Large
Red
1
36.
Boswellia
serrata (Herb)
Salai , saaledi
Burseraceae
Small
Cream
1
Sharma and Sharma 61
37.
Ixora arborea
(Shrub)
Torch tree
Rubiaceae
Small
White
5
38.
Grewia
tiliaefolia
(Tree)
Dhaman, dhamani
Malvaceae
Small
Yellow
3
39.
Mangifera
indica (Tree)
Mango
Anacardiaceae
Small
White
1
40.
Ricinus
communis
(Herb)
Castor oil plant
Euphorbiaceae
Small
Red
1
41.
Sehima
nervosum
(Grass)
Rat’s tail grass,
white grass
Poaceae
Small
-
1
42.
Sehima
sulcatum
(Grass)
Shaniyar
Poaceae
Small
-
1
43.
Dicanthium
annulatum
(Grass)
Sheda grass,
zinjoo
Poaceae
Small
-
1
44.
Bothriochloa
ischaemum
(Grass)
Yellow blue
stem,jinjavo
Poaceae
Small
-
1
.45
Cymbopogon
jwarancusa
(Grass)
Lemongrass,
gandharu
Poaceae
Small
-
1
46.
Cymbopogon
martini
(Grass)
gingergrass and
rosha or rosha
grass, rosa
Poaceae
Small
-
1
47.
Chrysopogon
(Grass)
Guria grass
Poaceae
Small
-
1
48.
Apulda mutica
(Grass)
Mauritian Grass,
Bhongla,
bhangaru
Poaceae
Small
-
1
49.
Aristida
adscensionis
(Grass)
Common needle
grass, lapdu
Poaceae
Small
-
1
50.
Heteropogon
contortus
(Grass)
black spear grass,
dabhasaliu
Poaceae
Small
-
1
51.
Terminalia
arjuna (Tree)
Arjun tree
Combretaceae
Small
Yellow
0
52.
Balanites
aegyptica
(Tree)
Soap berry tree
Zygophyllaceae
Large
Yellow-green
0
53.
Bauhinia
variegata
(Shrub)
Orchid tree
Fabaceae
Large
Pink
0
54.
Commiphora
wightii (Tree)
Gugal
Burseraceae
Large
Red-pink
0
55.
Lannea
coromandelica
(Tree)
Indian ash tree,
Moledi
Anacardiaceae
Small
Green
0
Sharma and Sharma 62
Fig. 1. A graph depicting the preference of color of flowers by the visiting butterflies.
DISCUSSION
Most butterflies have specific habitat and food
requirements. Although adult butterflies are sensitive to
their choice of flowers for feeding, most species never
visit some flowers (Feltwell, 1986). All the butterflies are not
flower visitors, only the highly evolved species whose mouth
parts are represented by a long, thin proboscis, is adapted for
feeding on liquid diet known as nectar (Wynter-Blyth, 1957).
The amount of nectar present in a flower is related to foraging
visits of a butterfly. When little nectar is available, visits are short
and a butterfly visits many flowers. While when large amounts of
nectar accumulate, the butterflies need to spend more time to
extract nectar and hence they visit few flowers (Cruden, 1976).
This study indicates that Gir proves to be a flourishing
habitat for butterflies various life cycle stages (egg to
adult). Since butterflies are in close relationship with
vegetation, they indicate the floral diversity of a habitat.
This diversity, in turn, determines the survival of
herbivores and hence the dependent carnivores of that
particular habitat. The nature of vegetation is an
important factor that determines the survival of
herbivores in a particular habitat. Being highly sensitive
to changes in environment, butterflies are easily
affected by minor changes in the habitat. To maintain a
healthy habitat, it is essential to sustain the biodiversity.
Hence, to attract butterflies, butterfly attracting plant
species listed here may be included in the afforestation
programmes. Therefore, protecting butterflies confers
protection of coexisting organisms as well. The check-
list of host plant species provides suitable route for
mass scale breeding of beautiful butterflies species in
order to develop a butterfly garden in future studies.
Due to various developmental activities, most of the
natural habitat of butterflies is under threat. There is
need to identify the threats and survival chances of
various species by which the conservation programme
can be develop. There is a need to further survey work
in the other parts of Gir to get the entire spectrum of
butterflies and their host plants in this region. It also
reiterates the need to have more such unadulterated
areas such as National Parks and Wildlife Sanctuaries
for long term conservation of rare and endangered flora
and fauna.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The authors would like to thank the Director, Arid
Forest Research Institute, Jodhpur for their co-operation
in financial assistance of the project and State Forest
Department, Gujarat for granting permission and
valuable support during field studies.
Sharma and Sharma 63
REFERENCES
Cruden, R.W. 1976. Intraspecific variation in pollen-
ovule ratio and nectar secretion-preliminary
evidence of ecotype, Annals of the Missouri
Botanical Garden, 63, 77-289.
Evans, W.H. 1932. The identification of Indian
Butterflies.Bombay Natural History Society,
Mumbai, 454.
Feltwell, J. 1986. The natural history of butterflies.
Christopher Helm Publishers Ltd, England,
133.
Gaonkar, H. 1996. Butterflies of the Western ghats,
India, including Sri Lanka: Biodiversity
assessment of a threatened mountain system,
Centre for Ecological Sciences, Indian
Institute of Science, Bangalore and the
Natural History Museum, London,18.
Gay, T., Kehimkar, I.D. and Punetha, J.C.1992.
Common Butterflies of India. WWF-India and
Oxford University Press, Mumbai, India, 88.
Jennersten, O. 1984. Flower visitation and pollination
efficiency of some North European butterflies.
Oecologia 63: 80-89.
Kehimker, I. 2008. The Book of Indian Butterflies.
Bombay Natural History Society and Oxford
University Press, Mumbai, 520.
Krishnan, M. and Guha, R. 2006. Eye in the jungle.
Universities press, Hyderabad,128.
Kumar, S. and Meena, R.L. 2012. Management Plan for
GIR Protected Areas.(1): 270.
Kumar, S. and Meena, R.L. 2012. Management Plan for
GIR Protected Areas. (2): 154.
Kunte, K.J. 2000. Butterflies of Peninsular India.
Indian Academy of Science, Bangalore and
University Press, Hyderabad, 254.
Kunte, K. 2008. The Wildlife (Protection) Act and
conservation prioritization of butterflies of the
Western Ghats, southwestern India. Current
Science,94, 729-735.
Larsen, T.B. 1987. The butterflies of the Nilgiri
mountains of Southern India. Journal of
Bombay Natural History Society,84, 560-584.
Larsen, T.B. 1988. The butterflies of the Nilgiri
mountains of Southern India. Journal of
Bombay Natural History Society,85(1), 26-43.
Medley, S.R. and Eisner,T. 1996. Sodium: a male
nuptial gift to its offspring. Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences,93(2), 809
813.
Molleman, F., Zwaan, B.J. and Brakefield, P.M. 2004.
The effect of male sodium diet and mating
history on female reproduction in the puddling
squinting bush brown Bicyclus anynana
(Lepidoptera). Behavioral Ecology and
Sociobiology,56(4), 404411.
Pivnik, K. and McNeil, J.N. 1987. Puddling in
butterflies: sodium affects reproductive
success in Thymelicus lineola.Physiological
Entomology,12(4), 461472.
Porter, K., Steel, C. A. and Thomas, J.A. 1992.
Butterflies and communities. The Ecology of
Butterflies in Britain (Dennis, R.L.H., ed.),
University Press, Oxford, New York, Tokyo,
139-177.
Proctor, M.C.F., Yeo, P. and Lack, A. 1996. The
natural history of pollination. Timber Press,
Portland,479.
Selvarathinam, T., Balasubramanian, P. and
Kumaravelu, G. 2009. Nectar resource use by
butterflies in a dry deciduous forest in Eastern
Ghats, India, Indian Forester, 135(10), 1299-
1306.
Shahabuddin, G. 1997. Habitat and nectar resource
utilization by butterflies found in
Siruvattukadu kombei, Palani hills, Western
Ghats, Journal of Bombay Natural History
Society, 94, 423-428.
Sharma, D. and Johnshingh,A.J.T.1995. Impacts of
management practices on lion and ungulate
habitats in Gir Protected Area. Wildlife
Institute of India, 94.
Sreekumar, P.G. and Balakrishnan, M. 2001. Habitat
and altitude preferences of butterflies in
Aralam Wildlife Sanctuary, Kerala, Tropical
Ecology,42(2), 277-281.
Talbot, G. 1939. The Fauna of British India, including
Ceylon and Burma- Butterflies, Volume II.
Today & Tomorrow’s Printers & Publishers,
New Delhi, 506.
Wynter Blyth, M.A. 1957. Butterflies of the Indian
region. Bombay Natural History Society and
Oxford University Press, Mumbai, 523.
... The diversity of plants and butterflies are fully correlated each other [12] , a change in vegetation structure may change in the butterfly diversity. An opportunistic foragers butterflies; visit variety of flowering plants and thereby perform one of the major important ecological processes called 'pollination' in ecosystems [13] . Host plant specificity was observed in female butterflies which are also related with time and space [14] . ...
... In the family Papilionidae, maximum number of species are found in Papilio demoleus (12), followed by Papilio polytes (9) Chilasa clytia (2), Graphium Sarpedon (1), Graphium Agamemnon (1), Atrophaneura aristolochiae (1). In the family Pieridae Leptosia Nina (17) show maximum number than other species followed by Catopsilia pyranthe (13), Eurema brigitta (7), Catopsilia Pomona (7), Delias eucharis (2), Eurema hecabe (2), Pareronia hippie (2). In the Lycaenidae family Neopithecops zalmora (13), show maximum abundance, followed by Castalius rosimon (6), Chilades lajus (1), Acytolepis puspa (1), Euchrysops cnejus (1), Leptotes plinius (1), Rapala manea (1), Tarucus Callinara (2). ...
... In the family Pieridae Leptosia Nina (17) show maximum number than other species followed by Catopsilia pyranthe (13), Eurema brigitta (7), Catopsilia Pomona (7), Delias eucharis (2), Eurema hecabe (2), Pareronia hippie (2). In the Lycaenidae family Neopithecops zalmora (13), show maximum abundance, followed by Castalius rosimon (6), Chilades lajus (1), Acytolepis puspa (1), Euchrysops cnejus (1), Leptotes plinius (1), Rapala manea (1), Tarucus Callinara (2). In the family Nymphalidae Acraea terpsicore (15) exhibit maximum number followed by Melanitis leda (13), Euploea core (7), Junonia almana (6) [19] . ...
... They use a variety of nectaring host plants for their nutritional requirements. Butterflies are often considered opportunistic foragers that visit a wide variety of available flowers (Sharma & Sharma, 2013) [20] . Butterflies, being poikilotherms, respond to environmental changes with sharp declines in their diversity (Sidat and Bhatt, 2020) [22] . ...
... They use a variety of nectaring host plants for their nutritional requirements. Butterflies are often considered opportunistic foragers that visit a wide variety of available flowers (Sharma & Sharma, 2013) [20] . Butterflies, being poikilotherms, respond to environmental changes with sharp declines in their diversity (Sidat and Bhatt, 2020) [22] . ...
... The present record of the butterfly species was not documented in the previous studies of this region. Previous studies on butterflies in Western Gujarat was carried out by (Gandhi et al., 2018) [13] , (Bhambhania & Vaghela, 2014) [4] , (Dabhadkar & Prajapati, 2020) [8] , (Bhatt & Nagar, 2017) [5] , (Sharma & Sharma, 2013) [ 20] , (Soni, 2005) [23] , (Ahmed et al., 2016) [2] , (Ahir & Parikh, 2010) [1] , (Bhalodia et al., 2002) [3] , (Gohel and Raval, 2019) [9] , (Khodbhaya & Raval, 2020) [15] , (Raval, et al., 2020) [15] , (Shekahda, et al. 2021) [21] , (Chauhan et al., 2022) and (Bamaniya et al., 2022. Varshney & Smetacek, (2015) [26] described the distribution of species in Eastern Gujarat, no records were found for its distribution in Western Gujarat. ...
Article
The paper aims to document the sighting record of a butterfly from Western Gujarat based on research done from July 2019 to June 2020. The present findings were not reported in past by the researchers from Gujarat. The butterfly Tricolour Pied Flat (Coladenia indrani) and its larval host plants found in the region were described. This record will help in the addition of species in the current butterfly fauna of Gujarat.
... "Butterflies are the most beautiful, fragile and important component of our biodiversity and they are opportunistic foragers; visit a wide variety of flowering plants thereby performing one of the key ecological processes called 'pollination' at many ecosystems" [1]. "Interestingly, they have an intimate association with plants for their survival" [2]. ...
... These results were on par with those of Sharma and Sharma [1] who conducted study in Gir wildlife sanctuary, Sasan, Gujarat to determine the numerous host plants associated with the beautiful butterflies. A total of 50 butterfly species recorded in Gir, highest number of butterflies were recorded in L. camara (19) followed by Asclepias syriaca (10), Tamarindus indica (6), Diospyros melanoxylon (5) and Ixora arborea (5), respectively. ...
Article
The present study was conducted to investigate the different nectar rich flowering plants of few butterfly species at various habitats in PJTSAU campus, Rajendranagar, Hyderabad during the period from October 2022 to March 2023. The study was conducted in agricultural fields (college farm, student farm and Agricultural Research Institute (ARI)), open scrub areas, Agri biodiversity park (ABP) and botanical garden. To record the nectar plants of few butterfly species, systematic field survey through transact walk was conducted by employing visual count method (VCM) in various habitats. A total of 37 flowering plant species belongs to 20 families were visited by butterflies during the study period. Interestingly, flowering trees found to have contributed more (27.03%) followed by weeds (24.32%), cultivable crops (16.22%), herbs and shrubs with same contribution (13.51%) and the least contribution was found to have recorded with climbers (5.41%). Among the 20 families, Asteraceae (6 plant species) and Fabaceae (6 plant species) families with Yellow, white and pink colored flowers were visited more often for nectar collection. It could help to understand the locally available flora with different flower colors as source of food for few butterfly species and emphasized the need of herbaceous flora conservation to restore native butterfly species in various habitats.
... Voskop 3 due to humidity, precipitation, and flowering, which influence their numbers (Sharma & Sharma, 2013;Priya & Krishnaraj, 2017). ...
Conference Paper
Full-text available
Studies and research about Lepidoptera (butterfly) are numerous. This is due to the continuous nature of the research, which can never be fully completed. Butterflies are one of the most important groups in various habitats and environments, as well as one of the largest fauna groups. These organisms play a significant ecological role in these environments. The collection of biological material for this paper was conducted during the period of 2021-2022 at various stations in the Korça region, specifically: Drenova, Voskopoja, Dardha, Morava, Polena, and Voskop, among others. We collected biological material from May to September, which coincides with the flight period of these species. During the study, 290 individuals belonging to 25 species were collected. The family with the highest biodiversity of species is Nymphalidae, with 12 species, while the family with the fewest species is Papilionidae, with 2 species. The station with the highest diversity observed was Morava, with 15 species, and the station with the lowest diversity was Voskop, with 3 species.
... Following Drenovës, Moravës station has 19 species, and Erseka station has 9 species. The lowest diversity is observed at Pirg station with 5 species, likely due to habitat destruction from human interventions such as construction, intensive agriculture, and deforestation (Sharma & Sharma, 2013;Priya & Krishnaraj, 2017). ...
Conference Paper
Full-text available
A study was conducted to document the butterfly diversity in the Korçë area from May to September 2022-2023 across four stations: Moravë, Drenovë, Ersekë, and Pirg in the Korçë region, located in the southeastern part of Albania. A total of 241 individuals from the families Nymphalidae, Pieridae, Papilionidae, Lycaenidae, and Hesperiidae were collected, identified into 36 species. Our analysis revealed that the family with the highest species biodiversity is Nymphalidae, while the family with the lowest biodiversity is Lycaenidae. The area with the highest diversity is Drenovë, and the area with the lowest diversity is Pirg.
... [4] Any minor changes in their habitat affect butterflies population because they are highly sensitive nature to changing environmental conditions. [5] Decline of butterfly population is due to their inability to adjust to change the habitat and the prevalence of unfavorable weather conditions. [6] Surprisingly, many butterfly species are monophagous; their distribution is restricted to certain landscapes, which are more prone to climate change than the widespread generalist butterfly species. ...
... Among the butterfly families, Nymphalidae was the richest family in the study area that comprised (14 and 47%), followed by Pieridae with (6 and 20%) species, Lycanidae with (5 and 16.3%), Papilionidae and Hesperiidae with (4 and 13.3%), 1and 3.3%) species were the lowest as shown in (Tables 2). Common evening brown Melanitis leda 10 Common castor Ariadne merione 11 Tawny castor Acraea terpiscore 12 Common baron Euthalia aconthea 13 Danaid eggfly Hypolimnas misippus 14 Peacock pansy Junonia almana 15 Lemon pansy Junonia lemonias 16 Blue pansy Junonia orithya 17 Chocolate pansy Junonia iphita 18 Common lascar Pantoporia hordonia 19 Common fivering Ypthima baldus 20 ...
Research
Full-text available
A study on butterfly was carried out in A total of 30 species belonging to five families were recorded during the study period. Nymphalidae was the richest family that comprised (14 and 47%) of the total species followed by Pieridae (6 and 20%), Lycanidae (5and 13%), Papilionidae (4 species) and Hesperiidae (1 and 3%) were the lowest. All the species recorded in the IUCN list as listed in the least concern, not evaluated, not rare, common category of the IUCN. Therefore, a large variety of butterflies inhabit the research area, and more study may be conducted to understand more about this richness and gather data for butterfly parks and conservation initiatives. The identification of endangered butterfly species, their preservation, and awareness-raising initiatives among school and college students should all be prioritized. By enhancing butterfly variety and abundance, the establishment of butterfly gardens will help to preserve species that could otherwise go extinct or become rare.
... Hesperiidae with 4 species (9.52%) and with 2 species Papilionidae (4.76%). The survey also revealed the fact that among the identified forty two species, three species highest numbers of butterflies were spotted in July, August and September months; may be because of humidity, rainfall, and blossoming (Sharma and Sharma, 2013;Priya and Krishnaraj, 2017). However, spp. were found Pieris predominant from February to April, while Pseudozizeeria maha maha (Kollar, 1844) and Zizeeria karsandra (Moore, 1865) were found in large numbers throughout the study period except winter season. ...
Article
Full-text available
A survey was conducted to document butterfly diversity in the district Rewari, a semiarid region in Haryana, India from March 2021 to November 2022. A total of forty-two species of butterflies belonging to thirty genera and five families were identified. The expedition revealed that the diversity of the family Pieridae (40.47%) is maximum followed by Lycaenidae (28.57%), Nymphalidae (16.66%), Hesperiidae (9.52%) and Papilionidae (4.76%). It has also been observed that the species Euchrysop cnejus cnejus, Lampides boeticus and Melanitis zitenius are mentioned in Schedule II of the Indian Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972. However, other species are mentioned in Schedule I and II.
... Among the butterfly families, Nymphalidae was the richest family in the study area that comprised (14 and 47%), followed by Pieridae with (6 and 20%) species, Lycanidae with (5 and 16.3%), Papilionidae and Hesperiidae with (4 and 13.3%), 1and 3.3%) species were the lowest as shown in (Tables 2). Common evening brown Melanitis leda 10 Common castor Ariadne merione 11 Tawny castor Acraea terpiscore 12 Common baron Euthalia aconthea 13 Danaid eggfly Hypolimnas misippus 14 Peacock pansy Junonia almana 15 Lemon pansy Junonia lemonias 16 Blue pansy Junonia orithya 17 Chocolate pansy Junonia iphita 18 Common lascar Pantoporia hordonia 19 Common fivering Ypthima baldus 20 ...
Article
The present study is the first preliminary checklist of Birds from National Botanical Research Institute (NBRI), Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh. It is a botanical garden located at 26.8563° N and 80.9499° E in Lucknow. The survey was carried out from January 2023 to April 2023. A total number of 45 bird species were observed and photographed. The identification was done using field guides, relevant literature, and online bird data depositories. Avifaunal Diversity is one of the most important ecological indicators to evaluate the status of habitats. Birds are the crucial animal group of an ecosystem which maintains a trophic level. Therefore, detail study on avifauna and their ecology is important to protect them. They are one of the biological control tools to control pests in gardens, on farms, and other places. They abet in the pollination of plants. Birds are also good seed dispersal. Surveys were carried out seasonally and observations were done using Line Transect Method with the aid of 10x50 binoculars and Camera (Canon EOS 100D, Super Zoom Lens 55X). NBRI Avifaunal Assessment which comprised of 45 bird species was from 15 orders and 26 families. The order Passeriformes had maximum 20 bird species; Insectivorous birds (22%) were the most numerous, followed by Carnivores species (22%), Omnivores species (22%), Frugivores (16%), Granivores (14%), Scavengers (2%) and Nectivorous (2%).
... Among the butterfly families, Nymphalidae was the richest family in the study area that comprised (14 and 47%), followed by Pieridae with (6 and 20%) species, Lycanidae with (5 and 16.3%), Papilionidae and Hesperiidae with (4 and 13.3%), 1and 3.3%) species were the lowest as shown in (Tables 2). Common evening brown Melanitis leda 10 Common castor Ariadne merione 11 Tawny castor Acraea terpiscore 12 Common baron Euthalia aconthea 13 Danaid eggfly Hypolimnas misippus 14 Peacock pansy Junonia almana 15 Lemon pansy Junonia lemonias 16 Blue pansy Junonia orithya 17 Chocolate pansy Junonia iphita 18 Common lascar Pantoporia hordonia 19 Common fivering Ypthima baldus 20 ...
Article
A study on butterfly was carried out in A total of 30 species belonging to five families were recorded during the study period. Nymphalidae was the richest family that comprised (14 and 47%) of the total species followed by Pieridae (6 and 20%), Lycanidae (5and 13%), Papilionidae (4 species) and Hesperiidae (1 and 3%) were the lowest. All the species recorded in the IUCN list as listed in the least concern, not evaluated, not rare, common category of the IUCN. Therefore, a large variety of butterflies inhabit the research area, and more study may be conducted to understand more about this richness and gather data for butterfly parks and conservation initiatives. The identification of endangered butterfly species, their preservation, and awareness-raising initiatives among school and college students should all be prioritized. By enhancing butterfly variety and abundance, the establishment of butterfly gardens will help to preserve species that could otherwise go extinct or become rare.
Article
Full-text available
This paper discusses the butterfly- flower interrelationships in a dry deciduous forest in Sathyamangalam Wildlife Sanctuary, Tamil Nadu, Eastern Ghats. A total of 86 species of butterflies belonging to five families were recorded in the study area. Butterfly foraging observations were recorded on 27 plant species belonging to 17 families. A total of 49 species of butterflies foraged on floral nectar of 21 plant species. Maximum number of flower-visiting butterfly species (n=17) belonged to Nymphalidae. Small-sized flowers (<1cm) attracted maximum number of butterfly species (n=48). Among the various flower colours, red were visited by maximum number of species (n=36). Mud-puddling behaviour of butterflies is also discussed.
Technical Report
Full-text available
IMPACT OF MANAGEMENT PRACTICES ON LION AND UNGULATE HABITAT IN GIR PROTECTED AREA. SUMMARY A study on the impacts of management practices on lion and ungulate habitat was conducted in Gir Protected Area (PA) from June 1991 to July 1994. The Gir PA includes Gir Wildlife Sanctuary and National Park. It is situated between 20o 55' to 21o 20'N and 70o 25' to 71o 15' E in the Southern part of Kathiawar peninsula in western Gujarat. Gir PA (hereafter Gir) is located about 60km South of Junagadh. The area which was 3,107 sq km in 1877 (Joshi 1976) has been presently reduced to 1,412 sq km, of which about 259 sq km is national nark. The terrain is hilly, altitude ranging from about 100m above mean sea level to 528m above mean sea level. The hills run in all directions, have moderate slopes, and constitute an important catchment for Kathiawar peninsula. The rocks are volcanic in origin, consisting of Deccan traps and are the oldest exposed rocks in Gir (Patel 1992). As many as seven types of soils have been categorized based on their colours (Munsell colour chart) ranging from dark yellowish brown to very dark greyish Brown (Pandit et al. 1992). The climate is semi-arid with three distinct seasons; summer (March-mid June), monsoon (mid June - mid October) and winter (late October to February). Gir has dry deciduous forest - 5A/C1b (Champion & Seth 1968). West Gir has Tectona grandis dominated vegetation. In eastern Gir Anogeissus pendula replaces Tectona grandis but the vegetation is dominated by thorny species such as Acacia and Zizyphus. Gir is the last refuge of the wild Asiatic lions (Panthera leo persica) and long term conservation of the Asiatic lion is an overriding management objective of Gir. In order to improve habitat conditions in Gir, the park authorities, over the last 20-25 years have made some management interventions such as relocation of some maldharis (local graziers), reduction in livestock grazing (especially migrant livestock during the rainy season) and fire control. These measures have led to vegetational improvement and increase in wild ungulate and lion populations. Understanding this vegetational improvement was thought to be crucial to determine the extent of management intervention required. The objectives of this study were: 1. to investigate the impact of maldharis on vegetation; 2. to investigate the habitat utilization by wild ungulates; and 3. to find out the impact of management practices (such as use of fire, creation of water holes, grass harvesting, maldhari relocation and creating of national park). The vegetation study was conducted in 211 plots of 20m X 20m each. Vegetation data included counts and measurement of trees, seedling, and shrubs. Status of trees and seedlings in terms of lopped, cut, dead or intact was recorded to study the effect of anthropogenic factors. Data on environmental variables i.e. slope and soil parameters (pH, electrical conductivity, potash, phosphorus, organic carbon, texture, moisture and water retaining capacity and colour) was collected to study their impact on the vegetation. Habitat utilization by ungulates was investigated through direct and indirect evidence. Indirect evidence included pellet group count and browse consumption. Pellets groups of chital (Cervus axis), sambar (Cervus unicolor), nilgai (Boselaphus tragocamelus), chinkara (Gazella gazella), chowsingha (Tetracerus quadricornis) and wildpig (sus scrofa) were counted from ten 10m X 2m belt transects in and around 100 vegetation plots. Direct count of ungulates was carried out using vehicle transects at twelve routes all over Gir in the summers of 1992, 1993 and 1994. Data on cover and animal evidence was collected in summer (April-May) and winter (December-January) of 1991, 1992, and 1993. Browse consumption by ungulates was estimated on trial for few major browse species. The browse production and consumption was estimated through diameter-weight relationship of twings based on linear regression. Habitat factors included were cover at 0.5m, 1.0m and 1.75m height, canopy, tree species diversity, browse availability, grass cover, leaf litter, distance from nes (hamlet), distance from water, slope and grazing by livestock. Cover was measured from five, fixed 1m X 1m quadrats in the 100 vegetation plots. Relationship of vegetation associations with environmental factors and ungulate abundance with habitat factors were investigated using multivariate analysis. Fifteen vegetation associations were categorized based on two way indicator species analysis (TWINSPAN) computer programme. These were: 1. Acacia catechu - Zizyphus nummularia - Aristida adscensionis 2. Apluda mutica - Themeda quadrivalvis - Sehima nervosum 3. Anogeissus latifolia - Acacia catechu - Terminalia crenulata 4. Anogeissus latifolia - Acacia catechu 5. Acacia spp. - Zizyphus mauritiana 6. Zizyphus mauritiana 7. Acacia nilotica - Zizyphus mauritiana 8. Tectona grandis - Acacia catechu - Zizyphus mauritiana 9. Tectona grandis - Acacia catechu - Terminalia crenulata 10. Tectona grandis 11. Acacia catechu - Lannea coromandelica - Boswellia serrata 12. Tectona grandis - Acacia spp. - Wrightia tinctoria 13. Tectona grandis mixed 14. Mixed and 15. Syzygium rubicundum - Pongamia pinnata associations. Tree density and diversity were all maximum in Mixed association while seedling density and shrub volume were maximum in Syzygium rubicundum - Pongamia pinnata association. Soil pH, moisture and potash were important environmental factors which determined the vegetation distribution (Canonical correspondence analysis-CANOCO; P=.05). However, different vegetation associations were governed by various environmental variables separately and just one or a combination of some variables could not explain the distribution of vegetation associations. Twelve habitat types were classified based on similarity in the vegetation associations and TWINSPAN analysis. These habitats were given a simple name and a name that represented the habitats. The following twelve habitats were categorized: 1. Scrubland 2. Savanna 3. Anogeissus - Acacia - Terminalia 4. Anogeissus - Acacia 5. Thorn forest 6. Teak - Acacia - Zizyphus 7. Teak forest 8. Teak - Acacia - Boswellia 9. Teak - Acacia - Wrightia 10. Teak mixed 11. Mixed forest 12. Riverine Mixed habitat was more diverse while riverine was most dense in terms of cover. Thorn forest provided maximum browse to the ungulates. Chital (Cervus axis) showed high use of Thorn forest habitat while sambar (Cervus unicolor) used more Mixed, Riverine and Teak - Acacia - Zizyphus habitat. Data on other ungulates was not sufficient for statistical analysis. CANOCO showed that human disturbance governed the wild ungulate abundance in summer while ground cover and human disturbance were decisive factors in winter. Sambar and nilgai were away from disturbance while chital were relatively unaffected by disturbance, in both summer and winter. Chinkara was observed mostly in the east Gir, a place with conditions like savanna and with more human disturbance. Impacts of management practices was investigated in vegetation plots and pellet transects, and by comparing them at varying distances from nes and water points, between national park and wildlife sanctuary, burnt and unburnt areas and between harvested and unharvested localities. Late seral stages of vegetation succession (Thorny - with Acacia and Zizyphus) were reached after 10 yrs of nes relocation and such stages were utilized more by ungulates. Impact of current neses on vegetation was severe only up to 500 m. Chital evidence were maximum, whereas sambar least, nearest a nes. The overall variation was significant only for chital both in summer and winter. There was significant variation in both summer and winter in chital evidence, not sambar, found at various distances from water holes. Maximum chital evidence were nearest the water holes whereas sambar were 1-2 km away from water. Controlled and cool fires did not change the vegetation composition and tree density significantly. Grass harvested areas produced more grass (1701±179 kg/ha) than unharveasted ones (377±249 kg/ha). National park had significantly more tree density (500/ha), and less chital evidence (80 pellet groups/ha) than in wildlife sanctuary (480/ha, and 140/ha respectively). Teak thinning on an experimental basis is recommended to promote chital abundance. Water management by reviving disused wells in riverine tract, removal of at least 30 neses in a phased manner is suggested. Grass harvesting for local people and cool season rotational burning in unharvested areas are recommended.
Article
Full-text available
Because pollen-ovule ratios (P/O's) reflect the predictability of pollinators in a habitat and the efficiency of pollination, large intraspecific differences in P/O's suggest differences in pollinator numbers and/or their efficiency. Plants of Heracleum lanatum, which is andromonoecious, from forests have larger percentages of male flowers than those outside of forests, hence a higher P/O. This difference is associated with differences in the kinds of flower visitors. I suggest the pollen removal by small bees that forage on Heracleum in but not outside the woods may be the selective force that accounts for the larger percentage of male flowers of woods plants. In andromonoecious Caesalpinia the percentage of hermaphroditic flowers in a population ranges from 8-83%, and appears to be ecotypically adapted to levels of pollinator, i.e., butterfly, activity. Nectar secretion is continuous and is the key to successful reproduction, especially in populations with low pollinator activity. Pollination is proportional to foraging time and a function of the pollen carried. The amount of nectar in the flowers reflects pollinator activity; thus in low activity populations there will be more nectar and visits will be longer, thus increasing the likelihood of pollination. Because there are large numbers of male flowers in such populations the pollinators presumably carry more pollen, which also increases the likelihood of pollination. In populations with high pollinator activity large numbers of visits balance the shortness of individual visits. A consequence of this balanced system is that the fecundity of hermaphroditic flowers in quite dissimilar populations is equivalent. Deviations from predicted levels of seed set and fruit set are consistent with below normal levels of pollinator activity. Nectar production in two populations of Calliandra anomala are quite different, with a high elevation population producing far less nectar than a lower elevation population. The low rate of nectar production in the high elevation population is undoubtedly an adaptation that forces the pollinators, i.e., hawkmoths, to visit large numbers of flowers to obtain sufficient nutrients, thus increasing fruit set and maximizing fecundity. The breeding system and pollination biology of Leonotis nepetaefolia are used to explain the distribution of this African plant in Mexico, where it is a roadside weed.
Article
Full-text available
Various schedules of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 (henceforth WPA), dictate the level of legal protection given to species of Indian animals. Shortcomings of the schedules of the WPA with respect to insects have been pointed out, but no solutions have been suggested. Here I have used butterflies of the Western Ghats as a case study, analysed their conservation values with multiple species attributes and then compared my findings with the species listed under the WPA. Analysis shows that a large proportion of species with high conservation values, many of them narrowly endemic and endangered, are not listed under the WPA, indicating the need to expand the listings. This methodology can be used to objectively assess conservation values of other animals and their inclusion in the WPA.
Article
Full-text available
The males of butterflies transfer a spermatophore to the female during mating that can contain nutrients enhancing the reproductive potential of their partners. The nutrients transferred by males can be derived from both larval and adult feeding. These nutrients may be depleted by multiple matings. An apparent difference in adult feeding behaviour between the sexes is puddling on mud, dung and carrion, which in most butterfly species is exclusively a male behaviour. A possible explanation for this division in feeding behaviour is that nutrients derived from puddling by males are transferred to the female during mating. Here, we test this hypothesis in the African fruit-feeding butterfly Bicyclus anynana. We varied the male nuptial gift by (1) feeding males either a diet with or without sodium, and (2) varying the number of previous successful copulations by remating males up to five times on consecutive days. The results show both a strong effect of order of mating on the mating duration, and an individual effect with some males typically copulating for a shorter time than others. The effects on female reproduction were, however, minimal. The total number of eggs per female and the sodium content of the eggs did not differ significantly between diets, nor were they affected by the mating histories of the males. Eggs showed a non-significant lower hatching for females partnered by a male who had already mated several times. There was an indication of an interaction with male diet: the sodium treatment showing a decline in egg hatchability with order number of male mating, whilst the control treatment showed a constant hatchability. The results are discussed in relation to determinants of male gift-giving strategy and to other potential explanations for a restriction of puddling to males in butterflies.
Article
Nectar plant utilization by butterflies was compared with the abundance of flowering plants on some SW Swedish meadows. The transportation of pollen grains by individual butterflies was analysed using a scanning electron microscope.For the majority of plant species, butteflies were of minor importance as pollinators. Some flowers with protruding sexual organs, e.g. Knautia arvensis, when heavily utilized by butterflies, might also be pollinated by these.For Dianthus deltoides and Viscaria vulgaris, butterfly pollination was found to be important.Several butterfly species, e.g. Plebicula amanda, visited legumes regularly. In spite of this, legume pollen was rarely transported by the butterflies. This suggests these butterflies act as nectar robbers among the legumes.
Book
This book was for absolute beginners, but its subsequent edition is badly done and I do not recommend it for reading or reference. I would advise everybody to ignore it now. Thank you, Isaac Kehimkar