Rapid Assessment of Butterfly Diversity and Host plants at Piplaidevi Forest Range Dangs Gujarat Jagruti Y Rathod

Abstract

To record butterfly species and its nectar plants of few butterfly species, systematic
field survey was conducted by observation at Natural mango forest patch of Piplaidevi forest
range, Dangs during January 2015 to December 2016. A total 30 species of butterflies were
recorded from Piplaidevi forest range out of 32 species Nymphalidae, were the most dominant
groups (44%) followed by Pieridae (25%), Papilionidae (15%) and Lycaenidae (15%). Around 73
nectar producing and larval host plants from 28 families were identified in the study area based on
literature studies of butterfly plant relationship. The paper also discusses the relevance of
diversity of host plants in the forest areas for the occurrence of different butterfly species and
describes the possible threats to this symbiotic relationship. A strong relation was observed
between the occurrences of host plant species and butterfly species reported in the study area.

Full text

Bio Bulletin (2019), Vol. 5(1): 25-31,Suthar, Sankhwal, Rathod and Gavali 25
ISSN NO. (Print): 2454-7913
ISSN NO. (Online): 2454-7921
Rapid Assessment of Butterfly Diversity and Host plants at Piplaidevi
Forest Range, Dangs, Gujarat
Akshit R. Suthar1, Amita O. Sankhwal2, Jagruti Y. Rathod*1and Deepa J. Gavali1
1Gujarat Ecology Society, Synergy House, Subhanpura, Vadodara (Gujarat), India
2The Maharaja Sayajirao University of Baroda, Vadodara (Gujarat), India.
(Corresponding author: Jagruti Y. Rathod)
(Published by Research Trend, Website: www.biobulletin.com)
(Received 15 March 2019; Accepted 25 May 2019)
ABSTRACT: To record butterfly species and its nectar plants of few butterfly species, systematic
field survey was conducted by observation at Natural mango forest patch of Piplaidevi forest
range, Dangs during January 2015 to December 2016. A total 30 species of butterflies were
recorded from Piplaidevi forest range out of 32 species Nymphalidae, were the most dominant
groups (44%) followed by Pieridae (25%), Papilionidae (15%) and Lycaenidae (15%). Around 73
nectar producing and larval host plants from 28 families were identified in the study area based on
literature studies of butterfly plant relationship. The paper also discusses the relevance of
diversity of host plants in the forest areas for the occurrence of different butterfly species and
describes the possible threats to this symbiotic relationship. A strong relation was observed
between the occurrences of host plant species and butterfly species reported in the study area.
Keyword: Butterflies, Dangs, larva host plants, Piplaidevi forest, Nymphalidae
How to cite this article: Suthar, A.R., Sankhwal, A.O., Rathod, J.Y. and Gavali, D.J. (2019). Rapid
Assessment of Butterfly Diversityand Host plants at Piplaidevi Forest Range, Dangs, Gujarat. Bio Bulletin, 5(1): 25-
31.
INTRODUCTION
Amongst the faunal group, butterflies are one of
the most important assemblages of insects that act
as biodiversity indicators as well as nature’s
gardeners (Nair et al., 2014). Butterfly belongs to
Insecta class with morethan28,000 species across
the worldwith80percentrepresentation from th e
tropical regions. The Indian subcontinent with
diverse terrain, climate and vegetation hosts about
1,504butterflyspecies (Tipel, 2011).There are total
193 Species occurring in Gujarat State (Parashartya
and Jani, 2007). Butterflies play important role in
provisions of ecosystem services through their role
in pollination and serves important food chain
(Aneesh et. al., 2013) components to play a role as
a primary consumer. Butterflies are considered
especially useful organisms as indicators of
environmental quality (Brown, 1991, Kremen,
1992).
Butterflies are opportunistic foragers. Many
butterflies are generalists and few are specialists in
their food plant preferences. The food plant
specificity is well known among butterfly species
and it is more often related with the available flora
(Kumar et al., 2007). Tudor et al. (2004) have
reported the nectar feeding and flower preferences
of butterflies. Several butterfly species show
complex feeding evolutionary relationship during
both adult and larval stages (Ehrlich et al., 1964).
Further, butterflies have rapid life cycles and tight
association with plant resources; populations are
very sensitive to local weather, microclimates and
light levels (Ehrlich & Murphy 1987, Becalloni &
Gaston 1995).
This forest has good diverse flora and fauna which
are the part of the Tropical moist deciduous forest
of Dangs district. Further, the study on the
butterflies of the district is very limited and
scattered and the present study would add value
to the existing literature and knowledge. During
present study larva host plants of butterfly was
identified through available Sing, (2011)
Parasharya and Jani (2007) and Ravikanthachari
et.al. (2018).
Bio Bulletin 5(1): 25-31(2019)
(Published by Research Trend, Website: www.biobulletin.com)

Bio Bulletin (2019), Vol. 5(1): 25-31,Suthar, Sankhwal, Rathod and Gavali 26
There are total 248 plants species recorded at
study area however, 182 species of plants,
belonging to 38 families of plant were used by
butterfly as a host plants.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
A. Study Area
The present study was carried out at Pipaladevi
forest range of Dangs, Gujarat and lies in the
southernmost part of the North Dangs. The
mountain ranges are rugged and lie in
continuation to Satpuda mountain range. This
forest receives heavy rainfall (1600 to 3500 mm)
and classified as South Indian Moist Deciduous
Forest (38%) and Southern Dry Deciduous Forest
(58%). The Dangs forests fall in the biogeographic
Zone 5 “The Western Ghats”, under biotic
province 5A “Malabar Coast” and 5B “Western
Ghat Mountains”. The climate is tropical with three
distinct seasons, viz., monsoon (June to October),
winter (October to February) and summer (March
to June). The maximum temperature of the area
ranges from 34°C to 37°C with minimum
temperature varying from 14°C to 18°C. April and
May are the hottest month of the year.
The study sites situated between 20°42’-20°45’ N
and 73°48’-73°57’ E (Fig.1), adjoining Chinchli
village of Dangs District, Gujarat. The uniqueness
of the site is the presence of natural wild mangoes
growing in the slopes of the mountain range.
These mangoes Mangifera indica are present in a
belt of 10 km of total 7 forest compartments from
Gadad to Chinchili village. At some places wild
mangoes are grown along with the agricultural
fields by the tribals.
Fig. 1. Study area shown in map.
B. Methodology
Study was conducted at Piplaidevi forest range of
Dangs, Gujarat, in the period January 2015 to
December 2016. Observations were made
between 08:00 hrs to 18:00hrs and covered all the
three seasons Viz. winter, summer and monsoon.
The habitats surveyed included dense mango
forests patches, teak plantations, grasslands,
streams, cultivated fields, fallow lands and human
dwellings. A total of 7 sampling sites were
selected and line transects of around 1.5Km was
laid. About one and half hour was spent in each
transect. All butterflies were recorded during
survey and identified directly in the field following
photography and identification manual (Kunte et.
al., 2000, Evans, 1932 and Wynter-Blyth, 1957).
No capture or collections was made during the
present study, however butterflies were
photographed from different angles like dorsal,
lateral and ventral view as often as possible to
enable perfect identification of species.
The larval host plants were identified and noted
along with their butterfly larvae and adults.
Herbarium was prepared for the plants unidentified
in the field and later identified in the lab following
various identification manuals like butterflies of
Gujarat by Parasharya and Jani (2007) and Sing,
(2011) and host plants were classified based on
Ravikanthachari et.al. (2018).
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
During the present study about 32 species of
Butterflies belonging to 4 families were recorded in
Piplaidevi forest range of Dangs (Table 1).
Bio Bulletin (2019), Vol. 5(1): 25-31,Suthar, Sankhwal, Rathod and Gavali 26
There are total 248 plants species recorded at
study area however, 182 species of plants,
belonging to 38 families of plant were used by
butterfly as a host plants.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
A. Study Area
The present study was carried out at Pipaladevi
forest range of Dangs, Gujarat and lies in the
southernmost part of the North Dangs. The
mountain ranges are rugged and lie in
continuation to Satpuda mountain range. This
forest receives heavy rainfall (1600 to 3500 mm)
and classified as South Indian Moist Deciduous
Forest (38%) and Southern Dry Deciduous Forest
(58%). The Dangs forests fall in the biogeographic
Zone 5 “The Western Ghats”, under biotic
province 5A “Malabar Coast” and 5B “Western
Ghat Mountains”. The climate is tropical with three
distinct seasons, viz., monsoon (June to October),
winter (October to February) and summer (March
to June). The maximum temperature of the area
ranges from 34°C to 37°C with minimum
temperature varying from 14°C to 18°C. April and
May are the hottest month of the year.
The study sites situated between 20°42’-20°45’ N
and 73°48’-73°57’ E (Fig.1), adjoining Chinchli
village of Dangs District, Gujarat. The uniqueness
of the site is the presence of natural wild mangoes
growing in the slopes of the mountain range.
These mangoes Mangifera indica are present in a
belt of 10 km of total 7 forest compartments from
Gadad to Chinchili village. At some places wild
mangoes are grown along with the agricultural
fields by the tribals.
Fig. 1. Study area shown in map.
B. Methodology
Study was conducted at Piplaidevi forest range of
Dangs, Gujarat, in the period January 2015 to
December 2016. Observations were made
between 08:00 hrs to 18:00hrs and covered all the
three seasons Viz. winter, summer and monsoon.
The habitats surveyed included dense mango
forests patches, teak plantations, grasslands,
streams, cultivated fields, fallow lands and human
dwellings. A total of 7 sampling sites were
selected and line transects of around 1.5Km was
laid. About one and half hour was spent in each
transect. All butterflies were recorded during
survey and identified directly in the field following
photography and identification manual (Kunte et.
al., 2000, Evans, 1932 and Wynter-Blyth, 1957).
No capture or collections was made during the
present study, however butterflies were
photographed from different angles like dorsal,
lateral and ventral view as often as possible to
enable perfect identification of species.
The larval host plants were identified and noted
along with their butterfly larvae and adults.
Herbarium was prepared for the plants unidentified
in the field and later identified in the lab following
various identification manuals like butterflies of
Gujarat by Parasharya and Jani (2007) and Sing,
(2011) and host plants were classified based on
Ravikanthachari et.al. (2018).
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
During the present study about 32 species of
Butterflies belonging to 4 families were recorded in
Piplaidevi forest range of Dangs (Table 1).
Bio Bulletin (2019), Vol. 5(1): 25-31,Suthar, Sankhwal, Rathod and Gavali 26
There are total 248 plants species recorded at
study area however, 182 species of plants,
belonging to 38 families of plant were used by
butterfly as a host plants.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
A. Study Area
The present study was carried out at Pipaladevi
forest range of Dangs, Gujarat and lies in the
southernmost part of the North Dangs. The
mountain ranges are rugged and lie in
continuation to Satpuda mountain range. This
forest receives heavy rainfall (1600 to 3500 mm)
and classified as South Indian Moist Deciduous
Forest (38%) and Southern Dry Deciduous Forest
(58%). The Dangs forests fall in the biogeographic
Zone 5 “The Western Ghats”, under biotic
province 5A “Malabar Coast” and 5B “Western
Ghat Mountains”. The climate is tropical with three
distinct seasons, viz., monsoon (June to October),
winter (October to February) and summer (March
to June). The maximum temperature of the area
ranges from 34°C to 37°C with minimum
temperature varying from 14°C to 18°C. April and
May are the hottest month of the year.
The study sites situated between 20°42’-20°45’ N
and 73°48’-73°57’ E (Fig.1), adjoining Chinchli
village of Dangs District, Gujarat. The uniqueness
of the site is the presence of natural wild mangoes
growing in the slopes of the mountain range.
These mangoes Mangifera indica are present in a
belt of 10 km of total 7 forest compartments from
Gadad to Chinchili village. At some places wild
mangoes are grown along with the agricultural
fields by the tribals.
Fig. 1. Study area shown in map.
B. Methodology
Study was conducted at Piplaidevi forest range of
Dangs, Gujarat, in the period January 2015 to
December 2016. Observations were made
between 08:00 hrs to 18:00hrs and covered all the
three seasons Viz. winter, summer and monsoon.
The habitats surveyed included dense mango
forests patches, teak plantations, grasslands,
streams, cultivated fields, fallow lands and human
dwellings. A total of 7 sampling sites were
selected and line transects of around 1.5Km was
laid. About one and half hour was spent in each
transect. All butterflies were recorded during
survey and identified directly in the field following
photography and identification manual (Kunte et.
al., 2000, Evans, 1932 and Wynter-Blyth, 1957).
No capture or collections was made during the
present study, however butterflies were
photographed from different angles like dorsal,
lateral and ventral view as often as possible to
enable perfect identification of species.
The larval host plants were identified and noted
along with their butterfly larvae and adults.
Herbarium was prepared for the plants unidentified
in the field and later identified in the lab following
various identification manuals like butterflies of
Gujarat by Parasharya and Jani (2007) and Sing,
(2011) and host plants were classified based on
Ravikanthachari et.al. (2018).
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
During the present study about 32 species of
Butterflies belonging to 4 families were recorded in
Piplaidevi forest range of Dangs (Table 1).

Bio Bulletin (2019), Vol. 5(1): 25-31,Suthar, Sankhwal, Rathod and Gavali 27
Table 1: Checklist of butterfly and their host plants available at the study site.
S. No.
Butterfly family
Common English
name
Scientific name
Family
Host plants present and verified from
various reference book
LYCAENIDAE
1.
Indian Sunbeam
Curetisthetis
Fabaceae, Mimosaceae
Abrusprecatorious, Buteamonosperma,
Pongamiapinnata.
2.
Common Pierrot
Castaliusrosimon
Rhamnaceae
Zizyphusrugosa
3.
Common Cerulean
Jamidesceleno
Fabaceae, Myrtaceae,
Boraginaceae, Oxiladaceae
Buteamonosperma,
Pongamiapinnata,Gonigynahirta,
Indigofera, Pisum, Rhynchosia,
Heliotropium, Oxalis
4.
Pale Grass Blue
Pseudozizeeriamaha
fabaceae, zingerberaceae,
Abrus,Buteamonosperma,
Pongamiapinnata
5.
Grass jewel
Chiladestrochylus
oxiladaceae, acanthaceae
Oxalis, Strobilanthes
NYMPHALIDAE
6.
Common Castor
Ariadne merione
Euphorbiaceae
Castor, Chrozophora, Ricinuscommunis
7.
Joker
Bybliailithyia
Euphorbiaceae
Dalechampiascandens
8.
Common crow
Euploea core
Apocynaceae, Asclepiadiaceae,
Moraceae, Asteraceae
Holarrhenea, Cryptolepsis, Hemidesmus,
Tylophora, Ficus, Streblus, Agertaum
9.
Plain Tiger
Danauschrysippus
Asclepiadaceae
Asclepias, Calotropis, Tylophora
10.
Striped tiger
Danausgenutia
Asclepiadaceae
Asclepias, Tylophora
11.
Blue Tiger
Tirumalalimniace
Asclepiadaceae, Asteraceae,
Amaranthaceae
Crotalaria, Tylophora, Ageratum, Celosia.
12.
Tawny Coster
Telchiniaviolae
Euphorbiaceae, Passifloraceae
Adenia, Passiflora,
13.
Baronet
Euthalianais
Dipterocarpaceae, Ebanaceae
Shorea, Diosypros
14.
Common Sailer
Neptishylas
Mimosaceae, Fabaceae,
Bombacaceae, Malvaceaem,
Rhamnaceae, Tiliaceae,
Acacia,Albizia, Pongamia, Bombax,
Zizyphus, Grewia, Eaeopcarpus,
Dalbergia,
15.
Danaideggfly
Hypolimnasmisippus
Acanthaceae, portucalaceae
Barleria, Hygrophilla, Justicia,
16.
Lemon pansy
Junialemonias
acanthaceae, Malvaceae, Tiliaceae
Barleria, Hygrophilla, Justicia,
Lepidagathis, Sida, Corchous
17.
Blue Pansy
Junoniaorithiya
Acanthaceae, Malvaceae,
Tiliaceae, Mimoseceae
Hygrophilla, Justicia, Lepidagathis, Sida,
Mimosa
18.
Yellow Pansy
Junoniahierta
Acanthaceae, Malvaceae,
Barleria, Hygrophilla, Ruellia
19.
Chocolate pansy
Junoniaiphita
Acanthaceae
Barleria, Hygrophilla, Justicia,
Lepidagathis, Ruellia
PAPILIONIDAE
20.
Common Jay
Graphiumdoson
Annonaceae, Magnoneaceae,
Miliusa, Annoa
21.
Lime butterfly
Papiliodemoleus
Rutaceae,
Aegle, citrus,

Bio Bulletin (2019), Vol. 5(1): 25-31,Suthar, Sankhwal, Rathod and Gavali 28
To be continued…
S. No.
Butterfly family
Common English
name
Scientific name
Family
Host plants present and verified from
various reference book
PAPILIONIDAE
22.
Tailed Jay
Graphiumagamemnon
Annonaceae, Lauraceae,
Magnoneaceae,
Aristolochiaceae
Annona, Miliusa
23.
Common Rose
Atrophaneuraaristolochiae
Aristolochiaceae
Aristolicha
24.
Common Mormon
Papiliopolytes
Rutaceae,
Aegle, citrus, Glycosmis, Limonia, Murraya
PIERIDAE
25.
Lemon emigrant or
Common emigrant
Catopsiliapomona
Apocynaceae,
fabaceae,Caesalpiniaceae,
Carrisa, Bahunia, Butea, Cassia fistula,
Cassia tora
26.
Common Grass
Yellow
Teriashecabe
Fabaceae, Caesalpiniaceae,
mimosaceae
Aechynomeneindica, Albiziamara, Cassia
fistula, Sennatora, Sennaoccidentalis
27.
Small Grass yellow
Euremabrigitta
fabaceae,Caesalpiniaceae,
Mimosaceae.
Caesalpinia, Cassia, Acacia, Albizia,
Sesbania.
28.
Common Gull
Ceporanerissa
Capparaceae
Capparis
29.
Common Jezebel
Delias eucharis
Loranthaceae
Viscum, Loranthus, Dendrophthoe
30.
Crimson Tip
Colotisdanae
Capparaceae
Cadaba, Capparis, Maerua
31.
Yellow Orange tip
Ixias pyrene
Capparaceae
Cadaba, Capparis, Maerua
32.
White Orange Tip
Ixias marianne
Capparaceae
Capparis
Fig. 2. Family wise representation of butterfly species reported in percentage in the study area.
Bio Bulletin (2019), Vol. 5(1): 25-31,Suthar, Sankhwal, Rathod and Gavali 28
To be continued…
S. No.
Butterfly family
Common English
name
Scientific name
Family
Host plants present and verified from
various reference book
PAPILIONIDAE
22.
Tailed Jay
Graphiumagamemnon
Annonaceae, Lauraceae,
Magnoneaceae,
Aristolochiaceae
Annona, Miliusa
23.
Common Rose
Atrophaneuraaristolochiae
Aristolochiaceae
Aristolicha
24.
Common Mormon
Papiliopolytes
Rutaceae,
Aegle, citrus, Glycosmis, Limonia, Murraya
PIERIDAE
25.
Lemon emigrant or
Common emigrant
Catopsiliapomona
Apocynaceae,
fabaceae,Caesalpiniaceae,
Carrisa, Bahunia, Butea, Cassia fistula,
Cassia tora
26.
Common Grass
Yellow
Teriashecabe
Fabaceae, Caesalpiniaceae,
mimosaceae
Aechynomeneindica, Albiziamara, Cassia
fistula, Sennatora, Sennaoccidentalis
27.
Small Grass yellow
Euremabrigitta
fabaceae,Caesalpiniaceae,
Mimosaceae.
Caesalpinia, Cassia, Acacia, Albizia,
Sesbania.
28.
Common Gull
Ceporanerissa
Capparaceae
Capparis
29.
Common Jezebel
Delias eucharis
Loranthaceae
Viscum, Loranthus, Dendrophthoe
30.
Crimson Tip
Colotisdanae
Capparaceae
Cadaba, Capparis, Maerua
31.
Yellow Orange tip
Ixias pyrene
Capparaceae
Cadaba, Capparis, Maerua
32.
White Orange Tip
Ixias marianne
Capparaceae
Capparis
Fig. 2. Family wise representation of butterfly species reported in percentage in the study area.
LYCAENIDAE
22%
PAPILIONIDA
E
14%
NYMPHALIDAE
47%
PIERIDAE
17%
Bio Bulletin (2019), Vol. 5(1): 25-31,Suthar, Sankhwal, Rathod and Gavali 28
To be continued…
S. No.
Butterfly family
Common English
name
Scientific name
Family
Host plants present and verified from
various reference book
PAPILIONIDAE
22.
Tailed Jay
Graphiumagamemnon
Annonaceae, Lauraceae,
Magnoneaceae,
Aristolochiaceae
Annona, Miliusa
23.
Common Rose
Atrophaneuraaristolochiae
Aristolochiaceae
Aristolicha
24.
Common Mormon
Papiliopolytes
Rutaceae,
Aegle, citrus, Glycosmis, Limonia, Murraya
PIERIDAE
25.
Lemon emigrant or
Common emigrant
Catopsiliapomona
Apocynaceae,
fabaceae,Caesalpiniaceae,
Carrisa, Bahunia, Butea, Cassia fistula,
Cassia tora
26.
Common Grass
Yellow
Teriashecabe
Fabaceae, Caesalpiniaceae,
mimosaceae
Aechynomeneindica, Albiziamara, Cassia
fistula, Sennatora, Sennaoccidentalis
27.
Small Grass yellow
Euremabrigitta
fabaceae,Caesalpiniaceae,
Mimosaceae.
Caesalpinia, Cassia, Acacia, Albizia,
Sesbania.
28.
Common Gull
Ceporanerissa
Capparaceae
Capparis
29.
Common Jezebel
Delias eucharis
Loranthaceae
Viscum, Loranthus, Dendrophthoe
30.
Crimson Tip
Colotisdanae
Capparaceae
Cadaba, Capparis, Maerua
31.
Yellow Orange tip
Ixias pyrene
Capparaceae
Cadaba, Capparis, Maerua
32.
White Orange Tip
Ixias marianne
Capparaceae
Capparis
Fig. 2. Family wise representation of butterfly species reported in percentage in the study area.

Bio Bulletin (2019), Vol. 5(1): 25-31,Suthar, Sankhwal, Rathod and Gavali 29
Family Nymphalidae (14 species) was the most
dominant with 44% of butterfly, followed by
Pieridae (25%, 8 species), Papilionidae (16%, 5
species) and Lycaenidae (15%, 5 species) (Fig: 2,
Table 1). Members of Hesperiidae family are
reported from bamboo forest but the present
study area did not have bamboo forest. The
choice of plants as host plants by butterflies
depends on various factors including innate color
preference, corolla depth, clustering of flowers
from which nectar can be extracted chemicals
present in leaf of plants (Porter et al., 1992). The
plants obtain the services of pollinators in carrying
pollen from one flower to another (Proctor et al.,
1996).
There are total 248 species of plants present in
the study area out of which 73 host plants of
butterflies was identified in the study area. The
family wise categorization of the host plants
indicated that 47% of the plant family reported in
present work used by Nymphalidae, followed by
22% by Lycaenidae group, 17% by Pieridae group
and 14% by Papilionidae group. The strong
relation between the plant host families versus the
percentage representation of the butterfly family
indicates that the forest type and the plant species
composition govern the occurrence of butterflies.
Present figure shows the number of host plants
and species of butterfly (Fig. 3). Butterfly uses
different host plants for nectar, laying eggs and
larval development and therefore presence of host
plants is important for the successful completion of
the life cycle.
Butterflies are often considered opportunistic
foragers that visit a wide variety of available
flowers as well as plant species of different
families. However, they exhibit distinct flower
preference which can differ between species
(Jennersten, 1984). The flower scent is an
important signal for butterflies initially to identify
and subsequently to recognize and distinguish
among rewarding plants (Sharma and Sharma,
2013).
The analysis indicated that Nymphalidae
members used 34 Plant species belonging to 17
different plant families. This type of dominance is
also reported by Tiple and Khurad (2009); and
Nimbalkar et.al. (2011); Chowdhury and Soren
(2011); Kumar and Murugesan (2014);
Chowdhury (2014).
Nymphalidae is the only family reported which
also feeds on the monocot plant species from
Poaceae (23), Arecaceae (1) Zingiberaceae (1)
others. Gosh and Saha (2015) reported
preference of monocotyledons (Poaceae,
Arecaceae, Zingiberaceae) by Nymphalidae
members. During present study there are total 28
species of Poaceae species identified. In present
study areas five species of butterfly of
Nymphalidae family (Daniaideggfly
Hypolimnasmisippus, Lemon Pansy
Junialemonias, Blue Pansy Junoniaorithya,
Yellow Pansy Junoniahierta and Chocolate
PansyJ unoniaiphita use Acanthaceae family
plants species. Four species of butterfly like Plain
tiger Danauschrysippus, Striped tiger
Danausgenutia, Blue tiger Triumalalimniace,
Common crow Euploea core use Asclepiadaceae
Calotropisfamily plants as a host plants.
Fig. 3. Number of host plants and species of butterfly.
11
8
34
19
5
5
14
8
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
LYCAENIDAE
PAPILIONIDAE
NYMPHALIDAE
PIERIDAE
No. of host plant
species
No. of butterfly species

Bio Bulletin (2019), Vol. 5(1): 25-31,Suthar, Sankhwal, Rathod and Gavali 30
Some of plants of Acanthaceae (Barleria, and
Sida) family and Asclepiadaceae family
(Calotropis) have medicinal values (Sankhwal et.
al., 2013). This can conclude that some of butterfly
species use medicinal plants as a host plants this
could be due to presence of oil, latex, and obvious
smell of their leaves which may provide nutritional
value to their life. Pieridae group used 19 different
plant species representing 6 different families.
Papilionidae members sustains on 8 species
representing 5 different families. Amongst them
lime butterfly (Papiliodemoleus) use citrus plant as
a host plants (Table 1), similar type of finding was
reported by Patel et. al., (2017) where Citrus limon
(Rutaceae, family) was the most preferred host
plant for egg laying by lemon butterfly. Cassia
fistula,Cassia tora,Cadaba, Capparis, have
medicinal value (Shah et. al., 2017) preferred by
butterfly of Pieridae family. Further. Maerua and
Acacia species of plants are used as a host plants
by Common Grass Yellow (Euremahecabe) and
Common Emigrant Catopsilia Pomona butterflies.
This type of observation is also reported by
Ravikanthachari et. al. (2018). This also indicates
that smell, latex, oil which is secreted from the
leaves of the plants, are important to complete the
life cycle of the butterfly. The possible reason could
be due to presence of chemicals in the leaves is
least preferred by herbivore animals and the
foliage is not browced upon, therefore safe
guarding the eggs. Further, Loranthus,
Dendrophthoe Loranthaceae family are used as a
host plant by butterfly of Pieridae family. Both
these families possess alkaloids, flavonoids,
glycosides, reducing sugar, saponin, terpenoids,
tannins and steroids (Shashikanth et. al. 2014;
Baheti et al. 2010). However, butterfly of this family
derive their food from mud puddling (Sreekumar
and Balakrishnan, 2001; Sharma and Sharma,
2013).
Fabaceae was found to be most important plant
family and about 14 host plant species is present in
the study area. Further, Common Grass Yellow
(Euremahecabe) butterfly is very common at most
of the habitat like village and urban environment.
Lycaenidae members use 11 plant hosts belonging
to 8 plant families. All these plants were recorded
at study site but only 5 species of butterfly were
recorded in this family. Members from family
Lycaenidae largely feed on grasses (Chandekar et
al. 2013) and cattle grazing affected their diversity
and abundance of adults. During present study
there are total 23 species of grasses were
recorded of Poaceae family which provide the food
for butterfly but we did not get any specific species
of butterfly which directly depends on grasses of
Poaceae family same like for Anacardiace family.
According to Padhye et.al (2012) Nymphalidae,
Lycaenidae and Hesperiidae occurred in evergreen
forests and deciduous habitat.
CONCLUSIONS
The conclusion of the study is that present study
areas lies in the northern most end of Western
Ghats and therefore the species diversity
represents both the Western Ghats (Strobilanthes
callosus, Dalechampia scandens, Aechynomene
indica and others) and Dangs region of Gujarat
(Buchananialanzan, Holarrhena pubescens and
others). Further, the study reveals that butterflies
preferred host plant with medicinal values. This
could be an adaptive mechanism to protect stages
of life cycle from predators and get nutrition from
the medicinal plants.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
We are thankful to Dr. Jitendra Gavali and Mrs.
Shruti Shah for their support in identification of
food and larva host plants. We are also thankful to
other GES staff for their valuable support during
field work. We are thankful to shree Anand Kumar,
IFS, DCF, North Dangs for his logistic support in
this remote area of Dangs.
REFERENCES
Aluri, J.S.R., Rao, S.P. (2002). Psychophily and
Evolution Consideration of Cadabafructicosa
(Capparaceae), J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 99(1):
59–63.
Aneesh, K.S., Adarsh C.K. & Nameer P.O. (2013).
Butterflies of Kerala Agricultural University (KAU)
campus, Thrissur, Kerala, Ind. J. Threatened
Taxa, 5(9): 4422–4440.
Baheti, D.G., Kadam S.S., Namdeo A, Shinde P.B.,
Agrawal M.R. and Argade P.D. (2010).
Pharmacognostic Screening of Dendrophthoe
falcate. Vol. 2(6).www.phcogj.com
Beccalloni, G.W. & Gaston K.J. (1995). Predicting
species richness of Neotropical forest butterflies:
Ithomiinae (Lepidoptera: Nymphalidae) as
indicators. Bio. Con., Essex, 71(1): 77-86.
Brown, K.S. (1991). Conservation of Neotropical
Environments: insects as indicators, p. 350-404. In:
N.M. Collins & J.A. Thomas (eds). The conservation
of insects and their habitats. London, Academic
Press, XVIII pp.+450.
Chandekar, S.K., Nimbalkar R.K. & Kuvalekar, A.A.
(2013). The seasonal pattern in the abundance of
Butterflies, their biotopes and nectar food plants
from Maval Tahsil, Pune District, Maharastra, India.
Int. J. Plant, Animal and Environmental Sci., 4(1):
50-64.

Bio Bulletin (2019), Vol. 5(1): 25-31,Suthar, Sankhwal, Rathod and Gavali 31
Chowdhury, S. & Soren, R. (2011). Butterfly Fauna of
East Calcutta Wetlands, West Bengal, India. The J.
Bio. Data. Vol. 7(6): 700-703.
http://dx.doi.org/10.15560/10960.
Chowdhury, S. (2014). Butterflies of Sundarban
Biosphere Reserve, West Bengal, Eastern India, a
preliminary survey of their taxonomic diversity,
ecology and their conservation. J. Threatened Taxa,
6(8): 6082-6092.
Ehrlich P.R. & Murphy, D.D. (1987). Conservation
lessons from longterm studies of checkerspot
butterflies. Conservation Biology, Boston, 1: 122-
131.
Ehrlich, P.R., Raven P.H. (1964). Butterflies and plants:
A study in conservation. Evolution., 18(4): 586-608.
Evans W. H. (1932). The identification of Indian
butterflies. Bombay Natural History Society, 464.
Ghosh, S. & Saha S. (2016). Seasonal diversity of
butterflies with reference to habitat heterogeneity,
larval host plants and nectar plants at Taki, North 24
Parganas, West Bengal, India. World Scientific
News (WSN), 50: 197-238.
Jennersten, O. (1984). Flower visitation and pollination
efficiency of some North European butterflies.
Oecologia, 63: 80-89.
Kremen, C. (1992). Assessing the indicator properties of
species assemblages for natural areas monitoring.
Ecological Applications, Washington, 2(2): 203-217.
Kumar, P.M., Hosetti B.B, Poomesha H.C, & R.H.T.
Gowda (2007). Butterflies of the Tiger-Lion Safari,
Thyavarekoppa, Shimoga, Karnataka. Zoo’s Print J.,
22(8): 2805.
Kumar, P. & Murugesan, A. G. (2014). Species diversity
and habitat association of butterflies around 30km
radius of Kundankulam Nuclear Power Plant area of
Tamilnadu, India. Int. J. Bio. & Con.6(8): 608-615.
Kunte, K. (2000). Butterflies of Peninsular India. Indian
Academy of Sciences, Bangalore and Universities
Press, Hyderabad, India, 1-270.
Marchiori, M.O., & Romanowski, H.P. (2006). Species
composition and Diel variation of a butterfly
taxocene (Lepidoptera, Papilionoidea and
Hesperioidea) in a resting forest at ltapua State
Park, Rio Grande do sul, Brazil. RevistaBrasileira de
Zoologia, 23(2): 443-454.
Nair, A.V., P. Mitra, & Yopadhyay S.A.B. (2014). Studies
on the diversity and abundance of Butterfly
(Lepidoptera: Rhopalocera) Fauna in and around
Sarojini Naidu Collage campus, Kolkata, West
Bengal, India. J. of Entomology and Zoology
studies, 2(4): 129-134.
Nimbalkar, R.K., Chandekar, S.K. & Kunte, S.P. (2011).
Butterfly diversity in relation to nectar food plants
from BhorTahsil, Pune District, Maharashtra, India.
J. Thr. Taxa, 3, 1601-1609.
Padhye A., Shelke S., & Dahanukar, N. (2012).
Distribution and composition of butterfly species
along the latitudinal and habitat gradients of the
Western Ghats of India. Check List,J. Spe. lists and
dist.8(6): 1196–1215, www.checklist.org.br
Parasharya B.M. & Jani J.J. (2007). Butterflies of
Gujarat. Anand Agricultural University, Anand, India.
30-130.
Patel, P.P., Patel, S.M., Pandya, H.V. & Amlani, M.H.
(2017). Survey on host plants and host plant
preference by lemon butterfly Papiliodemoleus
Linnaeus (Lepidoptera: Papilionidae) J. Ent. and
Zoo. Stu. 5(6): 792-794.
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. & Lack, A. (1996). The natural
history of pollination. Timber Press, Portland, 479.
Ravikanthachari Nitin, V.V. Balakrishan., P.V. Churi., S.
Kalesh Satyaprakash & Kunte K. (2018). Larval
host plants of butterfly of the Western Ghats, India.
J. Thr. taxa.10(4). 11495-44550.
Sankhwal A., Shah S., & Gavali, D. (2013). Traditional
knowledge among the locals in two villages of
Vadodara Taluka. J. Bio sci. Res. Vol. 4(3&4): 72-
81.
Shah, S., Sankhwal A. & Gavali, D. (2017). Agrestals
Diversity, uses and Traditional knowledge from
villages Adjoining Vadodara city. Gujarat. Ind. J.
Plant Sci.6(2): 84-98.
Sharma M. & Sharma N. (2013). Nectar resource use by
Butterflies in Gir Wildlife Sanctuary, Sasan, Gujarat.
Biological Forum – An Int. J.5(2): 56-63.
Shashikanth J., Mohan C.H. & Reddy R.P. (2014). A
Potent Folklore Medicinal Plant: Cadaba fruticosa
(L.) Druce. Research and Reviews:Journal of
Botanical Sciences. RRJBS, Volume 3, Issue 3, July
– September.
Sing, A.P. (2011). Butterfly of India. Published by Om
Book International.
Sreekumar P.G. & Balakrishnan M. (2001). Habitat and
altitude preferences of butterflies in Aralam Wildlife
Sanctuary, Kerala .International Society for Tropical
Ecology. Tropical Ecology, 42(2): 277-281.
Thomas, J.A. (2005). Monitoring change in the
abundance and distribution of insects using
Butterflies and their indicator groups. Philosophical
Transactions of the Royal Society (B) 360: 339–357.
Tiple A.D. (2011). Butterflies of Vidarbha region
Maharashtra, India; a review with and implication for
conservation. J. Thr. Taxa.3(1): 1469-1477.
Tiple, A.D. & Khurad, A.M. (2009). Butterfly species
diversity, habitats and seasonal distribution in and
around Nagpur city, Central India. World J. Zoo.,
4(3): 153-162.
Tudor, O., Dennis, R.L.H., Greatorex-davies, J.N. &
Sparks, T.H. (2004). Flower preferences of
woodland butterflies in the UK: nectarine specialists
are species of conservation concern. Biological
Conservation,119: 397-403.
Weiss M. R., & Papaj D.R. (2003). Center for Insect
Science, Tucson Color learning in two behavioral
contexts: how much can a butterfly keep in mind?
Animal Behave.65: 425-434.
Wynter-blyth M.A. (1957). Butterflies of the Indian region.
Mumbai, Bombay Natural History Society, 523.