Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | 26 November 2019 | 11(14): 14816–14826

 

 

Butterfly diversity throughout Midnapore urban area in West Bengal, India

 

Surjyo Jyoti Biswas 1, Debarun Patra 2, Soumyajit Roy 3, Santosh Kumar Giri 4,  Suman Paul 5  & Asif Hossain 6

 

1,4,6 Department of Zoology, Sidho-Kanho-Birsha University (SKBU), Ranchi Road, Purulia, West Bengal 723104, India.

2,3 Centre for Biomedical Engineering, IIT Ropar, Rupnagar, Punjab 140001, India.

5 Department of Geography, Sidho-Kanho-Birsha University, Ranchi Road, Purulia, West Bengal 723104, India.

1 surjyo@rediffmail.com, 2 patradebarun@gmail.com, 3 s20roy1994@gmail.com, 4 girisantoshkumar7@gmail.com,

5 suman.krish.2007@gmail.com, 6 asifhossain.bu@gmail.com (corresponding author)

 

 

doi: https://doi.org/10.11609/jott.4587.11.14.14816-14826   

 

Editor: Jatishwor Singh Irungbam, Biology Centre CAS, Branišovská, Czech Republic.        Date of publication: 26 November 2019 (online & print)

 

Manuscript details: #4587 | Received 25 September 2018 | Final received 16 October 2019 | Finally accepted 28 October 2019

 

Citation: Biswas, S.J., D. Patra, S. Roy, S.K. Giri, S. Paul & A. Hossain (2019). Butterfly diversity throughout Midnapore urban area in West Bengal, India. Journal of Threatened Taxa 11(14): 14816–14826. https://doi.org/10.11609/jott.4587.11.14.14816-14826

 

Copyright: © Biswas et al. 2019. Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.  JoTT allows unrestricted use, reproduction, and distribution of this article in any medium by adequate credit to the author(s) and the source of publication.

 

Funding: None.

 

Competing interests: The authors declare no competing interests.

 

Author details: Surjyo Jyoti Biswas is currently working in Department of Zoology as Professor, SKBU and works in the area of ethnobotany, Debarun Patra and Soumyajit Roy are PhD fellow and works at IIT Ropar, Santosh Kumar Giri currently works as Assistant Teacher, Govt of West Bengal, Suman Paul is a Professor in Department of Geography at SKBU and works in the area of urban Geography, Asif Hossain is working as Assistant Professor in Zoology, SKBU and works in the field of Bioremediation and Biodiversity.

 

Author contributions: DP, SR, SKG collected the field data, SP prepared the map of study area, SJB and AH participated in planning and guiding the study, evaluation of results and performed statistical analysis.  All authors participated in preparing the final version of the manuscript.

 

Acknowledgements: SJB and AH thankfully acknowledge Head, Department of Zoology, SKB university for providing necessary facilities and DBT-BOOST, Government of West Bengal for infrastructural support.

 

 

Abstract: Butterflies have always attracted attention due to their unique colourations.  As most butterflies are highly specific in their niche utilisation, abundance of the species in a locality may advocate status of ecosystem functioning and environmental health.  In recent times, different anthropogenic activities and unscientific management of nature have resulted in a decline of butterfly communities at a rapid rate.  The objective of the present study is to study butterfly diversity in and around Midnapore Town, West Bengal, India.  A total of 82 butterfly species belonging to six families were recorded during the two years of the study period.  Of the six families Nymphalidae is the most abundant family comprising 42.54% of the total population followed by Lycaenidae (22.5%), Pieridae (19.03%), Papilionidae (8.58%), Hesperiidae (7.24%), and Riodinidae (0.11%).  Different diversity indices, Lorenz curve, Whittaker plot, and Gini index show high diversity in the butterfly community structure.  As Midnapore Town is the connecting area between the plains of Bengal and Chota Nagpur Plateau, the present study may be the baseline for further ecological, environmental, and conservation studies.

 

Keywords: Chota Nagpur Plateau, diversity indices, Lepidoptera, Lorenz curve, Nymphalidae, plains of Bengal.

 

 

 

 

INTRODUCTION

 

Butterflies play a pivotal roles for stability in food webs as: herbivores (Rusman et al. 2016), pollinators (Atmowidi et al. 2007; Mukherjee et al. 2015), host of parasitoids (van Nouhuys & Hanski 2002), and prey of predators (Hammond & Miller 1998; Rusman et al. 2016).  Numerous butterfly species act as biological indicators of environmental health and ecological changes (Hill 1999; Kocher & Williams 2000; Koh & Sodhi 2004; Thomas 2005; Posha & Sodhi 2006; Koh 2007) as they can be very sensitive to habitat fragmentation and climate change (Kunte 2000).  Butterflies contribute to a large extent in maintaining the community structure of flora in the tropical regions (Bonebrake et al. 2010; Samanta et al. 2017).

Empirical studies show that the Indian subcontinent hosts about 1,318 species of butterflies (Varshney & Smetacek 2015).  Over the last few decades, however, various anthropogenic activities and sudden climatic change conditions have led to modification of the habitat structure and function which in turn negatively influenced butterfly diversity (Clark et al. 2007; Di Mauro et al. 2007).  Therefore, the diversity studies of butterflies are critical to determine the effects of urbanization on butterfly communities and other aspects of biodiversity conservation (Blair 1999; Singh & Pandey 2004; Clark et al. 2007; Di Mauro et al. 2007; Saikia et al. 2009; Mukherjee et al. 2015).  Butterfly diversity indirectly also reflects the diversity of various plant communities (Murugesan et al. 2013; Mukherjee et al. 2016).  Pollard (1988) reported that biotic and abiotic factors also influence butterfly populations, indicating the bio-indication potential of the group.  There are numerous reports by various investigators on butterfly diversity from different parts of India (Bhaskaran & Eswaran 2005; Eswaran & Pramod 2005; Tiple & Khurad 2009; Nimbalkar et al. 2011; Tiple 2011; Kunte et al. 2012; Majumder et al. 2012; Tiple 2012; Harsh 2014).

 Midnapore is the headquarters of the district West Midnapore of the state of West Bengal in India.  It is in the junction of the plains of Bengal and Chota Nagpur Plateau.  The plains of Bengal are enriched mostly with agricultural fields where as the Chota Nagpur Plateau is mostly tropical deciduous forestland.  Since no systematic study of diversity of butterfly fauna was ever conducted in and around Midnapore Municipality area there is no documentation, the present investigation was carried out to explore the status of butterfly fauna in Midnapore Municipal area.

 

MATERIALS AND METHODS

 

Study Area

The study was conducted in and around Midnapore Municipality area of West Midnapore District of West Bengal, India.  The study area (22.2620N & 87.6540E; elevation about 1,035m) is situated on the banks of river Kangasabati on one side and the other side consists of sparse to highly dense forest, chiefly of Shorea robusta, which connects with Dalma Hills and is the entry point of Bengal-Jharkhand hill range of Chota Nagpur Plateau.  This range is often used as an elephant corridor, though the town is not affected by elephants.  Several adjacent areas like Gopegarh Heritage Park, Banks of Kasai River adjacent to the railway track, Vidyasagar Park, Khudiram Park, area adjacent to Aniket Bandh, Pakhibagan, Vidyasagar University Campus, area adjacent to government Silkworm Centre, Police Line field, and Ramakrishna Ashram field were the main points of study area (Figure 1). 

 

Methods

The survey of butterflies was done using Pollard walk method (Pollard et al. 1975; Pollard 1977).  The surveys of butterflies were carried out in most of the designated areas during day time mostly on sunny days (07.00 to 10.00 h).  Occasional surveys were also undertaken during early morning and even after 16.00h in search of the butterflies that love shadows during summer months.  The study areas were mainly divided into 12 sites and conducted on regular basis through random visit and photographs of most of the species were taken all over the year.  The line transect method was used principally for assessing the butterfly communities (Hossain & Aditya 2016).  We refrained from collection of live specimens or use of nets so as not to put these insects under stress or harm them accidentally during the investigation.  Most of the species were identified through photographs taken from different angle so as to make a positive identification.  Photographs were taken using Canon 600D +(55-250) mm f/4-5.6 lens and a Nikon L820 point & shoot camera.  Identification of specimen was done following the keys of Evans (1932), Wynter-Blyth (1957), Kehimkar (2008), and Kunte (2012).  Further, help was also taken from www.ifoundbutterflies.org.

 

Biodiversity indices

Different dominance indices and information statistic indices were analysed with the help of Microsoft Excel 2010 software to understand the community structure of the butterflies in the study area.  Species richness was analysed through Shanon index (Shannon & Weaver 1963) whereas, species abundance was analysed through Simpson index (Simpson 1964) and evenness was studied through Pielou index (Mulder et al. 2004).  A rank abundance curve or Whittaker plot was used to show relative abundance of different species.  The plot simultaneously represents species richness and species evenness.  Lorenz curve was used to show inequality in the population distribution of different species in the community (Damgaard & Weiner 2000).

 

Species Richness

Shanon index is an important information-statistic index, used in measuring species richness in a community. Rare species with very few individuals can contribute some value to this biodiversity index.  The index is calculated through the following equation:

HS = -Ʃ pi ln pi

where, Hs is the value of Shanon index and pi is the proportion of ith species in the community.

 

Species Abundance

Simpson’s index is the measures of probability that two individuals randomly selected from a community will belong to the same species.  Simpson’s index was calculated using the protocol given by Simpson 1964 (Simpson 1964):

λ = Ʃ pi2

where, λ is the value of Simpson index and pi is the proportion of ith species in the community.

 

Species Evenness

Species evenness denotes how close the species are in a community numerically.  Statistically it is well-defined as a degree of species diversity which quantifies how equal the community is.  Evenness of species in a community can be represented by Pielou’s index (Pielou 1969), as follows:

E = Hs / Hmax where, E is the evenness, Hs is the value of Shanon index and Hmax is equal to ln(s) (Where, S=number of species in the community)

 

Whittaker plot and Lorenz curve

Whittaker plot or rank-abundance curve is a graphical representation used in ecology to display relative species abundance.  In the rank abundance curve, the X-axis is denoted as abundance rank and Y-axis is denoted as relative abundance.  Further, it is used to visualize species richness and evenness simultaneously (Whittaker 1965).  Lorenz curves were used to demonstrate phenomena such as disproportionate distribution of species abundance in a community.  This curve was also used to demonstrate degree of inequality in abundance in a community.  Quantitative comparison of rank abundance curves of different families of butterflies can demonstrate the unequal distribution of species.

 

SHE analysis

SHE analysis scrutinizes the relationship between species richness (S), diversity as measured by Shanon index or the information (H) and evenness (E) in the samples.  The most obvious advantage of this analysis is that it allows to interpret variations in the diversity (Magurran 1988).  SHE analysis fundamentally can shed light on the species abundance and distribution (Buzas & Hayek 1998).  The SHE analysis (McAleece et al. 1997) provides the variations in the species richness, abundance and evenness in the sample size (N) or throughout the months (N, over time) abundance for an area (Mukherjee et al. 2015) in a nutshell.  The analysis for SHE was conducted using PAST software (Hammer et al. 2001).

 

 

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

 

During the present study period overall 82 species of butterflies were recorded in the field with a total of 5,107 individuals belonging to six families.  The list of the butterflies along with their occurrence and time of appearance has been listed in Table 1.  Of the butterfly species recorded, most are ‘common’ and ‘generalist’ species (Sarma et al. 2012), and not a single species is threatened globally as per the IUCN Red List 2018, however, there are many species which were declared legally protected, viz., Gram Blue Euchrysops cnejus, Pointed Ciliate Blue Anthene lycaenina, Common Gull Cepora nerissa under Schedule II, and Striped Albatross Appias libythea under Schedule IV of the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972.  The study shows higher species richness when compared with other empirical studies (Jana et al. 2013; Samanta et al. 2017; Pahari et al. 2018) on butterfly diversity in the nearby urban and forested areas except Kolkata’s suburban areas which shows 91 species (Mukherjee et al. 2015).

Satellite overview of the marked study area have been represented in Figure 1.  During the study period we found that family Nymphalidae is the dominant species comprising 2,173 number of individuals which constitutes 42.54% of the total population followed by Lycaenidae comprising 1,153 numbers of individuals and 22.5%, followed by Pieridae (971 individuals and 19.03%), Papilionidae (438 and 8.58%), Hesperiidae (370 and 7.24%), and Riodinidae (2 and 0.11%) (Figure 2).  Previous study support Nymphalidae as the most dominant family in the semi-urban areas of Howrah and Haldia (Pahari et al. 2018) whereas, Lycaenidae as the most dominant family in the suburban areas of Kolkata, West Bengal (Mukherjee et al. 2015).

Papilio polytes which belongs to family Papilionidae was found to be the most abundant while Papilio crino was the least.  In the family Pieridae, Catopsilia pomona was more predominant than other species but we found only a single species of Ixias marianne.  In the family Nymphalidae we found that Danais chrysippus was the most common species while Lethe europa was the least.

The Shanon-Weaver index for the studied community with a value of 4.01 shows that the community is a natural one with high species richness.  As the value of Simpson index increases, the species abundance decreases.  The value of Simpson’s index ranges between 0 and 1 and the more the index value inclined to 0 the more the species abundance in the community.  The value of Simpsonʼs index in this study is 0.021 that shows an intuitive high proportion to species abundance.  As we know the value of Pielou’s index ranges between 0 and 1 and the more the index value reaches 1 the more the evenness in the community.  The species evenness (E=0.91) calculated for the studied community shows high evenness (Table 2).

The rank abundance curve for the community has a relatively low steep inclination in Whittaker plot showing high evenness as the high-ranking species have much lower abundances than the low-ranking species.  A low gradient dictates high evenness among the different species (Figure 3 A).  The rank-abundance curve when compared family wise (Figure 3 B) shows that family Nymphalidae has the highest species evenness, whereas family Papilionidae has the lowest species evenness.  In Lorenz curve (Figure 4) a perfectly equal species abundance would be one in which every species has the same population size.  The Gini coefficient is the ratio of the area between the line of equality and Lorenz curve.  It ranges between 0 and 1.  The higher the Gini coefficient, the more unequal the population distribution (Gini 1936).  In the present study (Table 2) the Gini coefficient value is 0.269 that supports the species richness and species abundance demonstrated through the Shanon and Simpson index.

Observations on SHE graphs of monthly variations in richness and abundance of butterfly species clearly indicate log series pattern of distribution, where S will increase, H will remain constant and E will decrease (Figure 5) (Hayek & Buzas 1997; Buzas & Hayek 2005; Magurran 2004).  It seems that the butterfly abundance increased in winter and post monsoon and decreased in summer and monsoon.  This may be due to the changes in the temperature in this lateritic soil area and high precipitation in the monsoon may cause destruction of the habitats as well as food supply of most of the species concerned.

 

 

CONCLUSION

 

The present report on the butterflies in and around Midnapore Municipality area is the first of its kind.  There are no such records on the studies of butterflies earlier from the region.  Butterflies are susceptible to subtle changes in landscape, land use patterns and vegetation loss, therefore, utmost care should be taken to preserve not only butterflies but also the species that support them.  Percentage-wise distribution of the family Riodinidae was the lowest so it might be that the habitat of the study areas and climate of the region was not suitable for the family in the present investigation which warrants independent investigations.  During our study we encountered that butterflies were abundant during post monsoon and monsoon while at other times (winter and summer) their population dwindled which may be due to less rainfall in winter, scorching heat and long dry spells during summer.  The Shanon-Weaver index for the studied community shows high species richness.  Simpsonʼs index shows an intuitive high proportion to species abundance.  The species evenness (E=0.91) calculated through Pielou’s index shows high evenness.  A low gradient in rank-abundance curve dictates high evenness among the different species.  Gini coefficient (0.269) in the present study supports well about the species richness and species abundance demonstrated through the Shanon and Simpson index.  SHE analysis indicate log series distribution of the butterfly species throughout the year in the studied area.  Such studies can generate or inculcate interest among students, locals and authorities to save or conserve these pollinators and their habitat, also its conservation is essential for sustainable development.

 

 

Table1. Butterfly species, their abundance and season of occurrence in the study area.

 

 

Common name

Scientific name

Total number of species found during study period (2013–2015)

Season

Observed time

(M/N/A)

Family: Papilionidae

1

Common Rose

Atrophaneura aristolochiae (Fabricius)

78

Feb–Nov

M, N

2

Common Mormon

Papilio polytes (Linnaeus)

126

Jan-Dec

M, N

3

Blue Mormon

Papilio polymnestor (Cramer)

12

Aug-Nov

M, N

4

Common Jay

Graphium doson (Felder)

63

Jan-Dec

N

5

Tailed Jay

Graphium agamemnon (Linnaeus)

44

May-Nov

N

6

Lime Butterfly or Common Lime

Papilio demoleus (Linnaeus)

81

Jan-Dec

M, N, A

7

Common Mime

Chilasa clytia (Linnaeus)

19

Aug-Oct

N, A

9

Common-banded Peacock

Papilio crino (Fabricius)

4

Jul-Aug

A

10

Spot bar Swordtail

Graphium nomius (Esper)

11

Jun-Oct

M, A

Family: Pieridae

11

Common Albatross

Appias albino (Boisduval)

59

Mar-Nov

M

12

Common Emigrant

Catopsilia pomona (Fabricius)

196

Jan-Dec

M, N, A

13

Mottled Emigrant

Catopsilia pyranthe (Linnaeus)

171

Jan-Dec

M, A

14

Common Grass Yellow

Eurema hecabe (Linnaeus)

124

Jan-Dec

M, N, A

15

Small Grass Yellow

Eurema brigitta (Cramer)

49

Jun-Oct

 

16

Pioneer

Belenois aurota (Fabricius)

6

Jul-Aug

A

17

Common Gull

Cepora nerissa (Fabricius)

63

Mar-Dec

M, N

18

Common Jezebel

Delias eucharis (Drury)

97

Jan-Dec

M, A

19

White Orange tip

Ixias marianne (Cramer)

1

Sept

M,A

20

Yellow Orange tip

Ixias pyrene (Linnaeus)

15

Apr-Oct

M, A

21

Psyche

Leptosia nina (Fabricius)

104

Jan-Dec

M, N, A

22

Common Wanderer

Pareronia valeria (Cramer)

86

Jun-Dec

N

Family: Nymphalidae

23

Common Castor

Ariadne merione (Cramer)

43

Mar-Oct

M, A

24

Angled Castor

Ariadne ariadne (Moore)

119

Jan-Dec

M, N, A

25

Tawny Coster

Acraea violae (Fabricius)

143

Feb-Nov

M, A

26

Plain Tiger

Danais chrysippus (Linnaeus)

211

Jan-Dec

M, N, A

27

Stripped Tiger

Danais genutia (Cramer)

82

Feb-Nov

M, N, A

28

Common Crow

Euploea core (Cramer)

131

Jan-Dec

M, N, A

29

Blue Tiger

Tirumala limniace (Cramer)

64

Mar-Nov

M, A

30

Common Leopard

Phalanta phalantha (Drury)

37

Mar-Dec

N

31

Baronet

Symphaedra nais (Forster)

34

Mar-Sept

M, A

32

Common Baron

Euthalia aconthea (Cramer)

27

Mar-Oct

A

33

Common Sailor

Neptis hylas (Linnaeus)

18

Feb-Nov

M, N

34

Chestnut-streaked Sailor

Neptis jumbah (Moore)

19

Feb-Nov

M, N, A

35

Great Eggfly

Hypolimnas bolina (Linnaeus)

49

Jan-Dec

N, A

36

Peacock Pansy

Junonia almanac (Linnaeus)

94

Jan-Dec

N, A

37

Blue Pansy

Junonia orithya (Linnaeus)

66

Mar-Oct

M, N, A

38

Yellow Pansy

Junonia hierta (Fabricius)

47

Jan-May

M, A

39

Lemon Pansy

Junonia lemonias (Linnaeus)

138

Jan-Dec

N, A

40

Grey Pansy

Junonia atlites (Linnaeus)

161

Jan-Dec

N, A

41

Chocolate Pansy

Junonia iphita (Cramer)

39

Apr, Oct

N

42

Common Palmfly

Elymnias hypermnestra (Linnaeus)

50

Dec- May

N, A

43

Common Evening brown

Melanitis leda (Linnaeus)

182

Jan-Dec

M, A

44

Common Bush Brown

Mycalesis perseus (Fabricus)

163

Jan-Dec

A

45

Dark Branded Bushbrown

Mycalesis mineus (Linnaeus)

43

Oct-Mar

N, A

46

Common Fourring

Ypthima huebneri (Kirby)

121

Jan-Deb

M, A

47

Common Fivering

Ypthima baldus (Fabricus)

33

May-Oct

N

48

Bamboo Tree brown

Lethe europa (Fabricus)

3

Mar

M

49

Commander

Moduza procris (Cramer)

56

Jun-Nov

M, N

Family:  Riodinidae

50

Double-banded Judy

Abisara bifasciata (Moore)

2

Dec-Mar

N

Family: Lycaenidae

51

Ape Fly

Spalgis epius (Westwood)

9

Mar-Nov

M, N

52

Common Pierrot

Castalius rosimon (Fabricius)

144

Jan-Dec

M, N

53

Common Cerulean

Jamides celens (Cramer)

49

Jul-Oct

M, N

54

Common Lineblue

Prosotas nora (Felder)

33

Jan-Oct

M, N

55

Common Quacker

Neopithecops zalmora (Butler)

31

Jul-Nov

N, A

56

Common Silverline

Spindasis vulcanus (Fabricius)

67

Jun-Nov

M, N

57

Dark Cerulean

Jamides bochus (Stoll)

5

Mar-Apr

A

58

Dark Grassblue

Zizeeria karsandra (Moore)

167

Jan-Dec

M, N, A

59

Falcate Oakblue

Mahathala ameria (Hewitson)

8

Apr-Nov

M, N

60

Gram Blue

Euchrysops cnejus (Fabricius)

96

Jan-Dec

M, N, A

61

Indian oakblue

Arhopala atrax (Hewitson)

12

Jun-Jul

 

62

Lesser Grassblue

Zizina otis (Fabricius)

17

Jul-Oct

M, N

63

Lime Blue

Chilades lajus (Stoll)

121

Feb-Nov

M, N, A

64

Tailless Lineblue

Prosotas dubiosa indica (Evans)

5

Jul

N

65

Oriental Grass Jewel

Freyeria putli (Stoll)

4

Mar-Aug

 

66

Pale Grass Blue

Pseudozizeeria maha (Kollar)

109

Mar-Oct

 

67

Plains Cupid

Chilades pandava (Horsfield)

38

May-Sep

M, N, A

68

Rounded Pierrot

Tarucus nara (Kollar)

146

Mar-Oct

N, A

69

Slate Flash

Rapala manea (Hewitson)

64

Mar-Dec

M

70

Zebra Blue

Leptotes plinius (Fabricius)

17

May-Jul

M, A

71

Pea Blue

Lampides boeticus (Linnaeus)

11

Oct-Nov

N

Family: Hesperiidae

72

Brown Awl

Badamia exclamationis (Fabricius)

14

Jun-Aug

N, A

73

Chestnut Bob

Lambrix salsala (Moore)

78

Jan-Dec

M, N

74

Common branded Awl

Hasora chromus (Cramer)

2

Aug

M

75

Common snow Flat

Tagiades japetus (Stoll)

13

Nov-Jan

M

76

Forest Hopper

Astictopterus jama (Felder and Felder)

1

Oct

M

77

Indian Grizzle Skipper

Spialia galba (Fabricius)

29

May-Jul

M, A

78

Moore Ace

Halpe porus (Mabille)

2

Jul-Aug

N

79

Indian Palm Bob

Suastus gremius (Fabricius)

74

Jan-Dec

M, N

80

Tree Flitter

Hyarotis adrastus (Stoll)

52

Sep-Feb

M

81

Common Redeye

Matapa aria (Moore)

82

Feb-Nov

M, N, A

82

Grass Demon

Udaspes tolus (Cramer)

23

Aug-Dec

M, N, A

 

M—morning (05.00–10.59) | N—noon (11.00–15.59) | A—afternoon: (16.00–19.00).

 

For figures & images – click here

 

 

REFERENCES

 

Atmowidi, T., D. Buchori, S. Manuwoto, B. Suryobroto & P. Hidayat (2007). Diversity of pollinator insects in relation of seed set of Mustard (Brassica rapa L.: Cruciferae). HAYATI Journal of Bioscience 14: 155–161. https://doi.org/10.4308/hjb.14.4.155  

Blair, R.B. (1999). Birds and butterflies along an urban gradient: surrogate taxa for assessing biodiversity? Ecological Applications 9(1): 164–70. https://doi.org/10.1890/1051-0761(1999)009[0164:BABAAU]2.0.CO;2  

Bonebrake, T.C., L.C. Ponisio, C.L. Boggs & P.R. Ehrlich (2010). More than just indicators: a review of tropical butterfly ecology and conservation. Biological conservation 143(8): 1831–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2010.04.044  

Bhaskaran, S. & R. Eswaran (2005). Status and distribution of butterfly species in Sivakasi Taluk, Tamilnadu. Journal of Insect science 18(1): 134–136.

Buzas, M.A., & L.A.C. Hayek (1998). SHE analysis for biofacies identification. Journal of Foraminiferal Research 28: 233–239.

Buzas, M.A., & L.A.C Hayek (2005). On richness and evenness within and between communities. Paleobiology 31: 199–220. https://doi.org/10.1666/0094-8373(2005)031[0199:ORAEWA]2.0.CO;2  

Clark, P.J., J.M. Reed & F.S. Chew (2007). Effects of urbanization on butterfly species richness, guild structure, and rarity. Urban Ecosystems 10(3): 321–37. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11252-007-0029-4  

Damgaard, C., & J. Weiner (2000). Describing inequality in plant size or fecundity. Ecology 81(4):1139–1142. https://doi.org/10.1890/0012-9658(2000)081[1139:DIIPSO]2.0.CO;2  

Di Mauro, D., T. Dietz & L. Rockwood (2007). Determining the effect of urbanization on generalist butterfly species diversity in butterfly gardens. Urban ecosystems 10(4): 427–39. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11252-007-0039-2  

Eswaran, R. & P. Pramod (2005). Structure of butterfly community of Anaikaty Hills, Western Ghats. Zoos’ Print Journal 20(8): 1939–1942. https://doi.org/10.11609/JoTT.ZPJ.1330.1939-42  

Evans, W.H. (1932). The Identification of Indian Butterflies. Bombay Natural History Society, Bombay, 464pp.

Gini, C. (1936). On the measure of concentration with special reference to income and statistics. Colorado College Publication, General Series No. 208: 73–79.

Hammer, Ø., D.A.T. Harper & P.D. Ryan (2001). PAST: Paleontological Statistics Software Package for Education and Data Analysis. Paleontologia Electronica 4(1): 9.

Hammond, P.C. & J.C. Miller (1998). Comparison of the biodiversity of Lepidoptera within three forested ecosystems. Annals of the Entomological Society of America 91: 323–328. https://doi.org/10.1093/aesa/91.3.323  

Harsh, S. (2014). Butterfly Diversity of Indian Institute of Forest Management, Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh, India. Journal of Insects 2014. 1–4. https://doi.org/10.1155/2014/254972  

Hayek, L.A.C. & M.A. Buzas (1997). Surveying Natural Populations. Columbia University Press, New York, 347–389.

Hill, J.K. (1999). Butterfly spatial distribution and habitat requirements in a tropical forest: impacts of selective logging. Journal of Applied Ecology 36: 564–572. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2664.1999.00424.x  

Hossain, A. & G. Aditya (2016). Avian Diversity in Agricultural Landscape: Records from Burdwan, West Bengal, India. Proceedings of the Zoological Society 69(1): 38–51. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12595-014-0118-3  

Jana, D., S. Giri, D.K. Tamili & S.K. Chakraborty (2013). Diversity of lepidopteran insects in the coastal regions of Midnapur (East), West Bengal, India. Indian Journal of Biological Sciences 19: 32–41.

Kehimkar, I. (2008). The Book of Indian Butterflies. Bombay natural History Society and Oxford University Press, Mumbai, 497pp.

Kocher, S.D., & E.H. Williams (2000). The diversity and abundance of North American butterflies vary with habitat disturbance and geography. Journal of Biogeography 27(4): 785–94. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2699.2000.00454.x  

Koh, L.P. (2007). Impacts of land use change on Southeast Asian forest butterflies: a review. Journal of Applied Ecology 44: 703–213. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2664.2007.01324.x  

Koh, L.P. & N.S. Sodhi (2004). Importance of reserves, fragments, and parks for butterfly conservation in a tropical urban landscape. Ecological Applications 14(6): 1695–708. https://doi.org/10.1890/03-5269  

Kunte, K. (2000). Butterflies of Peninsular India. Universities Press (India) Limited, Hyderabad, 254pp.

Kunte, K., S. Sondhi, B.M. Sangma, R. Lovalekar, K. Tokekar & G. Agavekar (2012). Butterflies of the Garo Hills of Meghalaya, northeastern India: their diversity and conservation. Journal of Threatened Taxa 4(10): 2933–2992. https://doi.org/10.11609/JoTT.o2945.2933-92  

Magurran, A.E. (1988). Ecological Diversity and its Measurement. Chapman & Hall, London, 192pp.

Magurran, A.E. (2004). Measuring Biological Diversity. Blackwell Publishing, Oxford, 256pp.

Majumder, J., R. Lodh & B.K. Agarwala (2012). Variation in butterfly diversity and unique species richness along different habitats in Trishna Wildlife Sanctuary, Tripura, northeast India. Check List 8(3): 432–436. https://doi.org/10.15560/8.3.432  

McAleece, N., P.J.D. Lambshead, G.L.J. Paterson & J.D. Gage (1997). “Biodiversity Pro: free statistics software for ecology.” The Natural History Museum and the Scottish Association for Marine Science, UK. https://www.sams.ac.uk/research/software, accessed October 24, 2018

Mukherjee, S., S. Banerjee, G.K. Saha, P. Basu & G. Aditya (2015). Butterfly diversity in Kolkata, India: An appraisal for conservation management. Journal of Asia-Pacific Biodiversity 8(3): 210–221. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.japb.2015.08.001  

Mukherjee, S., G. Aditya, P. Basu & G.K. Saha (2016). Butterfly diversity in Kolkata metropolis: a synoptic check list. Check List 12(2): 1858. https://doi.org/10.15560/12.2.1858  

Mulder, C.P.H., E. Bazeley-White, P.G. Dimitrakopoulos, A. Hector, M. Scherer-Lorenzen & B. Schmid (2004). Species evenness and productivity in experimental plant communities. Oikos 107: 50–63. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0030-1299.2004.13110.x  

Murugesan, M., P.R. Arun & B.A.K. Prusty (2013). The butterfly community of an urban wetland system - a case study of Oussudu Bird Sanctuary, Puducherry, India. Journal of Threatened Taxa 5(12): 4672–4678. https://doi.org/10.11609/JoTT.o3056.4672-8  

Nimbalkar, R.K., S.K. Chandekar & S.P. Khunte (2011). Butterfly diversity in relation to nectar food plants from Bhor Tahsil, Pune District, Maharashtra, India. Journal of Threatened Taxa 3(3): 1601–1609. https://doi.org/10.11609/JoTT.o2612.1601-9  

Pahari, P.R., N.P. Mishra, A. Sahoo & T. Bhattacharya (2018). A study on the butterfly diversity of Haldia industrial belt and adjacent rural area in Purba Medinipur District, West Bengal, India. World Scientific News 97: 207–224.

Pielou, E.C. (1969). An Introduction to Mathematical Ecology, John Wiley, New York, NY, USA, viii+286pp.

Pollard, E. (1977). A method for assessing changes in the abundance of butterflies. Biological Conservation 12(2): 115–134. https://doi.org/10.1016/0006-3207(77)90065-9  

Pollard, E. (1988). Temperature, rainfall and butterfly numbers. Journal of Applied Ecology 1: 819–828. https://doi.org/10.2307/2403748  

Pollard, E., D.O. Elias, M.J. Skelton & J.A. Thomas (1975). A Method of Assessing the Abundance of Butterflies in Monk’s Wood National Nature Research in 1973. Entomologist’s Gazette 26: 79–87.

Posa, R.M.C. & N.S. Sodhi (2006). Effects of anthropogenic land use on forest birds and butterflies in Subic Bay, Philippines. Biological Conservation 129: 256–270. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2005.10.041  

Rusman, R., T. Atmowidi & D. Peggie (2016). Butterflies (Lepidoptera: Papilionoidea) of Mount Sago, West Sumatra: Diversity and Flower Preference. HAYATI Journal of Biosciences 23(3): 132–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hjb.2016.12.001  

Saikia, M.K., J. Kalita & P.K. Saikia (2009). Ecology and conservation needs of nymphalid butterflies in disturbed tropical forest of eastern Himalayan biodiversity hotspot, Assam, India. International Journal of Biodiversity Conservation 1(8): 231–250.

Samanta, S., D. Das & S. Mandal (2017). Butterfly fauna of Baghmundi, Purulia, West Bengal, India: a preliminary checklist. Journal of Threatened Taxa 9(5): 10198–10207. https://doi.org/10.11609/jott.2841.9.5.10198-10207  

Shannon, C.E. & W. Weaver (1963). The Mathematical Theory of Communication. The University of Illinois Press, Urbana, 117pp.

Sarma, K., A. Kumar, A. Devi, K. Mazumdar, M. Krishna, P. Mudoi & N. Das (2012). Diversity and habitat association of butterfly species in foothills of Itanagar, Arunachal Pradesh, India. Cibtech Journal of Zoology 1(2): 67–77.

Simpson, G.G. (1964). Species density in North American recent mammals. Systemetic Zoology 13: 57–73.

Singh, A.P. & R. Pandey (2004). A model for estimating butterfly  species  richness  of  areas  across  the  Indian  subcontinent: species proportion of family Papilionidae as an indicator. Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society 101: 79–89.

Thomas, J.A. (2005). Monitoring change in the abundance and distribution of insects using butterflies and other indicator groups. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences 360(1454): 339–57. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2004.1585  

Tiple, A.D. (2011). Butterflies of Vidarbha region, Maharashtra State, central India. Journal of Threatened Taxa 3(1): 1469–1477. https://doi.org/10.11609/JoTT.o2397.1469-77  

Tiple, A.D. (2012). Butterfly species diversity, relative abundance and status in Tropical Forest Research Institute, Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh, central India. Journal of Threatened Taxa 4(7): 2713–2717.

Tiple, A.D. & A.M. Khurad (2009). Butterfly species diversity, habitats and seasonal distribution in and around Nagpur City, central India. World Journal of Zoology 4(3): 153–62. https://doi.org/10.11609/JoTT.o2656.2713-7  

Van Nouhuys, S. & I. Hanski (2002). Colonization rates and distances of a host butterfly and two specific parasitoids in a fragmented landscape. Journal of Animal Ecology 71(4): 639–50. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2656.2002.00627.x  

Varshney, R.K. & P. Smetacek (eds.) (2015). A Synoptic Catalogue of the Butterflies of India. Indinov Publishing, NewDelhi, 261pp.

Whittaker, R.H. (1965). Dominance and diversity in land plant communities: numerical relations of species express the importance of competition in community function and evolution. Science. 147(3655): 250–60. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.147.3655.250  

Wynter-Blyth, M.A. (1957). Butterflies of the Indian Region. Bombay Natural History Society, xx+523pp+72pl.