Journal of Threatened Taxa |
www.threatenedtaxa.org | 26 August 2020 | 12(11): 16521–16530
ISSN 0974-7907 (Online) | ISSN 0974-7893
(Print)
doi: https://doi.org/10.11609/jott.5716.12.11.16521-16530
#5716 | Received 22 January 2020 | Final
received 13 July 2020 | Finally accepted 05 August 2020
Butterfly diversity in an organic
tea estate of Darjeeling Hills, eastern Himalaya, India
Aditya Pradhan 1 &
Sarala Khaling 2
1,2 Ashoka Trust for Research in
Ecology and the Environment, Regional Office Eastern Himalaya-Northeast India,
NH 10 Tadong, Gangtok,
Sikkim 737101, India.
1 aditya.pradhan@atree.org
(corresponding author), 2 sarala.khaling@atree.org
Editor: Monsoon J. Gogoi,
Bombay Natural History Society, Mumbai, India. Date
of publication: 26 August 2020 (online & print)
Citation: Pradhan, A. & S. Khaling (2020). Butterfly
diversity in an organic tea estate of Darjeeling Hills, eastern Himalaya,
India. Journal of Threatened Taxa 12(11): 16521–16530. https://doi.org/10.11609/jott.5716.12.11.16521-16530
Copyright: © Pradhan & Khaling 2020. Creative
Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
JoTT allows unrestricted use, reproduction,
and distribution of this article in any medium by providing adequate credit to
the author(s) and the source of publication.
Funding: This paper is an
outcome of the project funded by the
Ministry of Environment, Forest
and Climate Change, Government of India through G B Pant National Institute of Himalayan Environment and Sustainable Environment, Uttarakhand
under the National Mission
on Himalayan Studies [grant
number: NMHS-2017/MG-01/477].
Competing interests: The authors
declare no competing interests.
Author details: Aditya Pradhan is currently involved as a
Senior Project Fellow with Ashoka Trust for Research in Ecology and the
Environment, Regional Office Eastern Himalaya-Northeast India. He has keen
interest in biodiversity of Darjeeling-Sikkim Himalaya, and is currently
working on the assessment of ecosystem services in the socio-ecological
landscape of Darjeeling-Sikkim Himalaya. Sarala
Khaling is the Regional Director at Ashoka
Trust for Research in Ecology and the Environment, Regional Office Eastern
Himalaya-Northeast India. Trained as a wildlife biologist/ecologist Dr. Sarala Khaling, has worked for the past 15+ years in biodiversity
conservation and ecosystem services. Her research interests are looking at
drivers of change in human-modified landscapes and its impacts on biodiversity
and ecosystem services in Northeast India and North Bengal.
Author contribution: Funding for the study was
acquired by SK. The study was conceptualized and designed by AP and SK. Data
was collected and analyzed by AP. The manuscript was prepared and finalized by
AP and SK.
Acknowledgements: Support for the project was
provided by the National Mission on Himalayan Studies (NMHS), Ministry of
Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEF &
CC) implemented by G.B. Pant National Institute of Himalayan Environment &
Sustainable Development. We are grateful
to the management of Makaibari Tea Estate for
allowing us to undertake this study.
Support and help received from the rangers of the tea estate, and local
communities of Koilapani Village and Thapa Thali
Village of Makaibari Tea Estate is highly
appreciated. We thank Dr. Bhoj Kumar Acharya,
Department of Zoology, Sikkim University for suggestions which were invaluable
for the preparation of the manuscript.
We would also like to recognize the contributions of project field
assistants Mingma Tamang, Diwakar Gurung and Subash
Rai. Vikram
Pradhan, research associate at ATREE also provided support for the field work.
Abstract: The study was undertaken from
March–May 2019 to explore the butterflies in the human-modified tea dominated
landscape of Darjeeling Hills and understanding the diversity, community
structure, habitat specialization, and conservation status of butterflies in an
organic tea estate. Sampling was done in
the two representative ecosystems of tea plantation and secondary forest within
the study area. Altogether 71 species
and sub-species across 43 genera belonging to five families were recorded
during this study, of which seven are protected under the Wildlife (Protection)
Act of India, 1972.
Keywords: Lepidoptera, secondary forest,
species richness, tea plantation.
Abbreviations: TP—Tea Plantation, SF—Secondary
Forest, FI—Forest Interior, FE—Forest Edge, OL—Open Land.
INTRODUCTION
Tea plantation is one of the
important agro-ecosystems based on agroforestry
practices in tropical landscapes (Tscharntke et al.
2008). Tea estates in Darjeeling
practice shade tea cultivation which includes diverse shade trees of native
species (Chettri et al. 2018a). This
with surrounding forest patches have a high potential of maintaining
biodiversity (Lin et al. 2012; Sreekar et al. 2013;
Ahmed & Dey 2014) than monoculture tea
plantations (Soh et al. 2006) or abandoned tea plantations (Subasinghe
& Sumanapala 2014). Some studies conducted in monoculture tea
plantations have shown that tea plantations have lower potential to maintain
biodiversity when compared to forests (Ahmed & Dey
2014) and other agroforestry ecosystems such as home gardens (Yashmita-Ulman et al. 2016) but higher than Eucalyptus
plantation monocultures (Kottawa-Arachchi &
Gamage 2015) and agro-silviculture systems (Yashmita-Ulman et al. 2016).
In Darjeeling, tea plantation
started in 1841 (Darjeeling Tea 2020).
The first tea garden was established in 1856 by the Kurseong
and Darjeeling Tea Company. Currently,
there are 87 tea estates covering an area of 17,542 hectares of land (Datta 2010) or 20% of the land of Darjeeling Hills; 51 of
the 87 tea estates in Darjeeling have been certified organic (data collected
from Tea Research Association, Darjeeling).
While a few studies have been undertaken to explore the diversity of
birds in the tea landscapes of the region (Ahmad & Yahya 2010; Chettri et
al. 2018a), no studies on butterflies has been undertaken till date.
Butterflies play an important
role in supporting global food supply as pollinators (Losey & Vaughan 2006;
Lindström et al. 2018) and are considered to be good
indicators of ecosystem health, as they are very sensitive to small
environmental variations and changes in forest structures (Pollard 1977). This taxon is vulnerable due to their response
to changing habitat, climatic conditions, land-use patterns, and management
intensity (Thomas 2005; Rundolf et al. 2008; Zingg et al. 2018).
Butterflies of Darjeeling-Sikkim
Himalaya has attracted eminent naturalists and entomologists since the 19th
century. In recent years, systematic
studies on butterflies have increased in Sikkim (Acharya & Vijayan 2011,
2015; Chettri 2015; Chettri et al. 2018b; Sharma et al. 2020), however, only a
few studies (Roy et al. 2012; Sengupta et al. 2014) have been conducted in
Darjeeling hills (including Kalimpong). A total of
689 species have been reported to occur in Darjeeling-Sikkim Himalaya (Haribal 1992), which is 51.76% of total butterfly species
recorded in India (Varshney & Smetacek 2015; Kehimkar 2016).
The organic tea estates of
Darjeeling are expected to maintain a higher richness of butterflies as lower
use of chemical insecticides and weedicides have been reported to have a
positive impact on the diversity and abundance of butterflies (Rands & Sotherton 1986; Rundlof
et al. 2008; Muratet & Fontaine 2015). Thus, the study aims to explore the
conservation potential of butterflies in the human-modified tea dominated
landscape by understanding the diversity, community structure, habitat
specialization, and conservation status of butterflies in an organic tea estate
of Darjeeling Hills. The study makes an
effort to compare the species richness of tea plantation with that of the
secondary forest, thus providing insights on species assemblages within the two
representative ecosystems of a typical tea estate in Darjeeling, West
Bengal. The study further adds to the
limited existing literature on butterflies of Darjeeling Hills, Eastern
Himalaya.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Study Area
This study was conducted in Makaibari Tea Estate in the Kurseong
sub-division of Darjeeling District, West Bengal, India (Figure 1A–C). It has an area of 248 hectares, of which 70%
is covered by forest, which acts as a barrier to the scorching winds from the
plains of Bengal (Makaibari 2020). The tea estate was established in 1859 and
became the first tea estate to be certified organic in 1988 (Makaibari 2020). The
entire tea estate located in an elevation range of approximately 400–1,100 m
practices organic tea cultivation and is one of the lowest elevation tea
estates of Darjeeling hills.
Two representative ecosystem
types were selected for the present study (Image 1–6):
Tea Plantation (TP): Tea plantation represents an
area where small-leaved Chinese variety of tea, Camelia sinensis
var. sinensis that reaches a height of 0.5–1 m
are grown (Datta 2010) with uniformly interspaced
shade trees that include Schima wallichii, Cryptomeria japonica, Albizia procera, Alnus nepalensis, Syzygium nervosum, Exbucklandia populnea,
Eurya japonica, Ficus
religiosa, and Ficus
benghalensis (Chettri
et al. 2018a).
Secondary Growth Forest (SF): Makaibari
Tea Estate has areas covered with a semi evergreen forest where tea is not
planted. This forest acts as a
barrier/wind break and also has numerous water bodies. Vegetation in these areas is dominated by
species consisting of Acer oblongum, Schima walichi, Shorea robusta, Terminalia myriocarpa, Eriobotrya bengalensis, Magnolia pterocarpa,
Acer campbelli, Tetrameles nudiflora, Prunus nepalensis, Bombax
ceiba, and mixed bamboo groves.
Study Design and Sampling
Eight trails were selected as
transects (four each) in two representative ecosystem types (Figure 1B–C). The transects were approximately 1km in
length and approximately 3m in width.
Sampling was carried out twice in each transect during the pre-monsoon season
from March to May 2019 on clear sunny days mostly between 09:00–15:00 h when
butterfly activity is at its highest.
Butterflies were sampled using the transect walk method (Pollard 1977;
Acharya & Vijayan 2015) along the selected transects.
Following Kitahara
(2004), points along transects were divided into three habitat classes: Forest
Edge (FE), Open land (OL), and Forest Interior (FI). Points with forest on both sides were
considered as FI sites, points with forest on one side and open land on the
other as FE sites, and a point with open land on both sides as OL sites. Here open land refers to areas which do not
have canopy cover in both TP and SF transects, and these represented either tea
plantation sites or degraded forest sites.
Butterflies were photographed and
identified using standard field guide (Kehimkar
2016), and online web resources (www.ifoundbutterflies.org). Species that could not be identified were
photographed and shown to experts for identification. An effort was made to use the latest
nomenclature and common names as far as possible as per Varshney & Smetacek (2015), Kehimkar (2016),
and website on Indian butterflies (www.ifoundbutterflies.org).
RESULTS
A total of 71 species across 43
genera belonging to five families, were recorded in the Makaibari
Tea Estate during this study (Table 1).
The observed butterflies belonged to five families (Figure 2) namely, Hesperiidae (five genera, seven species), Papilionidae (three genera, nine species), Lycaenidae (seven genera, eleven species), Pieridae (nine genera, 12 species) and Nymphalidae
(20 genera, 32 species). As shown in
Table 1, Nymphalidae (40.81%) with 20 species, Lycaenidae (20.40%) with 10 species, Pieridae
(12.24%) with six species, Papilionidae (6.12%) with
three species, and Hesperiidae (12.24%) with six
species were observed in TP. In the SF, Nymphalidae (53.48%) with 23 species, Lycaenidae
(4.65%) with two species, Pieridae (18.60%) with
eight species, Papilionidae (20.93%) with nine
species and Hesperiidae (2.32%) with one species were
observed (Images 7–16).
The species richness was higher
in TP area (49 species, 69.01%) than in SF (43 species, 60.56%). Among the 71 species recorded, 21 species
were common to both the habitats, while the rest were exclusively observed
either in TP or SF (Figure 3). Among the
21 common species, 11 belonged to family Nymphalidae,
six to Pieridae, three to Papiloinidae,
and one to Lycaenidae.
Based on habitat classification
along each transect, butterflies were observed to utilize all the three habitat
classes, with the highest diversity recorded in forest edges (44 species),
followed by open land (38 species), and forest interior (29 species). A number of recorded species (26 out of 71
species) , however, were observed to utilize more than one habitat class (Table
1).
Out of the 71 species of
butterflies observed in the present study, seven (one species under Schedule I,
three species under Schedule II, and three species under Schedule IV) species,
namely, Jamides caerulea,
Lampides boeticus,
Euploea klugii klugii, Euploea mulciber, Neptis sankara, Melanitis zitenius gokala, and Papilio bootes are
protected in India under the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 (Table 1). Two among these were observed in both TP and
SF, while the remaining five were observed only in one of the two
representative ecosystem types (two each in TP and SF). Among the protected species four species
belonged to Nymphalidae, two to Lycaenidae, and one to Papilionidae
(Table 1).
Based on the categorization of Kehimkar (2016), four of the 71 species observed in the
present study were rare (Table 1).
Himalayan Spotted Flat Celaenorrhinus munda
This species was observed in a FE
site (26.856°N & 88.254°E) in SF-transect at an elevation of 870m in
March. The site is close to human
settlements, and the observed individual was seen feeding on the nectar of
Azalea flowers. These butterflies are
known to prefer forests at elevations of up to 2,000m (Kehimkar
2016).
Scarce Banded Flat Celaenorrhinus badia
This species was observed in an
OL site (26.851°N & 88.248°E) in TP-transect at an elevation of 790m in
May. The observed individual was perched on the underside of a leaf of a shrub
within the tea plantation area. These butterflies have been observed in forests
of up to 500m (Kehimkar 2016).
Royal Cerulean Jamides caerulea
This species was observed in an
OL site (26.851°N & 88.246°E) in TP-transect at an elevation of 780m in
April. The observed individual was seen feeding on the nectar of a flowering
herb within the tea plantation area. These butterflies have been observed in
forests of up to 500m (Kehimkar 2016).
Krishna Peacock Papilio krishna
This species was observed in a FI
site (26.857°N & 88.255°E) in SF-transect at an elevation of 920m in
May. The observed individual was seen
basking on a leaf within the forest.
These butterflies have been observed in forests of up to 900–3,000 m (Kehimkar 2016).
DISCUSSION
During this study, 10.30% of the
total butterflies reported from Darjeeling-Sikkim Himalaya (Haribal
1992) were recorded from the two representative ecosystems in Makaibari Tea Estate, Darjeeling Hills. Moreover, the present study only provides
pre-monsoon diversity of butterflies and did not cover the monsoon and
post-monsoon seasons when the butterflies are most abundant in India (Kunte et al. 1999; Acharya & Vijayan 2015; Chettri
2015). Thus the total number of
butterflies found in the area may be much higher than what is reported in this
study.
The highest number of encountered
species belonged to Nymphalidae, which is the most
dominant family in the tropical region, including the forests and
human-modified systems of Darjeeling-Sikkim Himalaya (Acharya & Vijayan
2015; Chettri 2015; Chettri et al. 2018b; Sharma et al. 2020). This suggests that the trend is followed even
in tea estates.
The study conducted in the
pre-monsoon season showed a rich diversity of butterflies within a small
spatial gradient. This was expected as
shade-tea cultivation with surrounding forest patches are reported to have the
potential to maintain biodiversity (Lin et al. 2012; Sreekar
et al. 2013; Ahmed & Dey 2014; Bora & Meitei
2014), as is the case with the present study area. Furthermore, the study area is a certified
organic tea estate, uses no chemical pesticides or insecticides (Makaibari 2020), and was thus expected to maintain a higher
richness of butterflies owing to its organic farming strategy (Rands & Sotherton 1986; Rundlof
et al. 2008; Muratet & Fontaine 2015). Thus the findings of the study add to the
existing literature on retention of high biodiversity, and conservation
potential of butterflies in organic agroecosystems of the region (Rundlof et al. 2008; Sharma et al. 2020).
The results showed that the
butterfly communities in the two representative ecosystems showed assemblage of
different species with low similarity, with approximately 70.42% of the total
recorded species (22 in SF and 28 in TP) being recorded exclusively in either
of the two systems. This suggests that
the two systems are unique from one another in terms of quality and resource
availability (Blair & Launer 1997), and are
equally important for the conservation of butterflies.
Species richness of butterfly was
slightly higher in the tea plantation system than the secondary forest system.
It was not expected as forest systems provide favorable
habitat to the butterflies (Chettri et
al. 2018b). Makaibari
Tea Estate, however, practices shade-tea cultivation, along with surrounding
forest which covers a major portion (70%) of total area (Makaibari
2020). Thus, tea plantation sites
in the study area are enclosed by forests on all sides, allowing easy entry to
forest specialist species into the tea plantation system. This was further highlighted by the fact that
a number of recorded species (26 out of 71 species) were observed to utilize
more than one habitat class. Moreover,
it should be noted that tea plantation systems have more open areas, which
allow more butterflies to bask around, perch, patrol, and perform mud-puddling.
SF and TP both harbored habitat specialist species (63.38% of all species
recorded), of which 28 species were either forest edge or forest interior
species (Table 1), suggesting the importance of secondary forest for
conservation of butterflies in a tea landscape, which is in line with the
findings of other similar studies (Lin et al. 2012; Sreekar
et al. 2013; Ahmed & Dey 2014). In India, a similar trend has been reported from
other human-modified landscapes in the Himalaya (Chettri et al. 2018b; Sharma
et al. 2020) and forests of Western Ghats (Kunte et
al. 1999). The number of specialists is
inversely proportional to the level of disturbance in forest habitats (Mayfield
et al. 2005; Vu 2013; Chettri et al. 2018b), which suggests that the forest
habitat in the study area has experienced very less disturbance over the years.
The study also shows that seven
of the 71 encountered butterflies are protected under the Wildlife Protection
Act of India, 1972, thus Makaibari Tea Estate can be
considered to be an important site for the conservation of butterflies.
CONCLUSION
The study highlighted the
potential of an organic tea estate surrounded by forest in the conservation of
butterflies in Darjeeling Hills, Eastern Himalaya. The study showed that tea plantation systems
and secondary forest systems near natural forest area of Darjeeling are equally
important in the conservation of butterflies along with natural forest. In the Darjeeling-Sikkim Himalaya, few recent
studies have provided information on butterflies from different parts of Sikkim
(Acharya & Vijayan 2011, 2015; Kunte 2010; Rai et
al. 2012; Chettri et al. 2018b; Dewan et al. 2018; Sharma et al. 2020),
however, very few studies have been conducted in Darjeeling (including Kalimpong) Hills (Roy et al. 2012; Sengupta et al.
2014). Thus, the findings of the study
add to the limited existing literature on butterflies of Darjeeling Hills,
especially in a tea estate area. Further
studies are needed to establish baseline data of butterflies in present-day
Darjeeling Hills, and our study is an attempt to understand the butterfly
diversity in a tea estate of Eastern Himalaya.
Table 1. Checklist of butterflies
recorded in Makaibari Tea Estate.
|
Common name |
Scienntific name |
Family |
*Ecosystem type |
#Habitat |
Wildlife (Protection) Act,
1972 |
Status cate-gory (Kehimkar 2016) |
|
Chestnut Bob |
Iambrix salsala |
Hesperiidae |
TP |
FE |
|
Common |
|
Common Red Eye |
Matapa aria |
Hesperiidae |
TP |
FE |
|
Common |
|
Common Small Flat |
Sarangesa dasahara |
Hesperiidae |
TP |
FE |
|
Common |
|
Common Spotted Flat |
Celaenorrhinus leucocera |
Hesperiidae |
TP |
FE |
|
Common |
|
Detached Dart |
Potanthus trachala |
Hesperiidae |
TP |
FE |
|
Common |
|
Himalayan Spotted Flat |
Celaenorrhinus munda |
Hesperiidae |
SF |
FE |
|
Rare |
|
Scarce Banded Flat |
Celaenorrhinus badia |
Hesperiidae |
TP |
OL |
|
Rare |
|
Royal Cerulean |
Jamides caerulea |
Lycaenidae |
TP |
OL |
Schedule II |
Rare |
|
Silver Forget-me-not |
Catochrysops panormus |
Lycaenidae |
TP |
OL |
|
Uncommon |
|
Forget-me-not |
Catochrysops strabo |
Lycaenidae |
TP |
OL |
|
Common |
|
Purple Sapphire |
Heliophorus epicles |
Lycaenidae |
TP, SF |
OL + FE + FI |
|
Common |
|
Common Cerulean |
Jamides celeno |
Lycaenidae |
TP |
FE |
|
Common |
|
Pea Blue |
Lampides boeticus |
Lycaenidae |
TP |
OL |
Schedule II |
Common |
|
Bhutya Lineblue |
Prosotas bhutea |
Lycaenidae |
SF |
OL |
|
Uncommon |
|
Tailless Lineblue |
Prosotas dubiosa |
Lycaenidae |
TP |
OL |
|
Common |
|
Common Lineblue |
Prosotas nora |
Lycaenidae |
TP |
OL |
|
Common |
|
Pale Grass Blue |
Pseudozizeeria maha |
Lycaenidae |
TP |
OL |
|
Common |
|
Dark Grass Blue |
Zizeeria karsandra |
Lycaenidae |
TP |
OL |
|
Common |
|
Banded Treebrown |
Lethe confusa |
Nymphalidae |
SF |
FE + FI |
|
Common |
|
Blue King Crow |
Euploea klugii klugii |
Nymphalidae |
SF |
FI |
Schedule IV |
Uncommon |
|
Striped Blue Crow |
Euploea mulciber |
Nymphalidae |
SF |
FI |
Schedule IV |
Common |
|
Broad-banded Sailer |
Neptis sankara |
Nymphalidae |
TP |
OL + FE |
Schedule I |
Uncommon |
|
Brown King Crow |
Euploea klugii kollari |
Nymphalidae |
SF |
FE + FI |
|
Common |
|
Chestnut Tiger |
Parantica sita |
Nymphalidae |
TP, SF |
OL + FE + FI |
|
Uncommon |
|
Chocolate Pansy |
Junonia iphita |
Nymphalidae |
TP |
OL + FE |
|
Common |
|
Chocolate Tiger |
Parantica melaneus |
Nymphalidae |
TP, SF |
OL + FE + FI |
|
Common |
|
Clear Sailer |
Neptis clinia susruta |
Nymphalidae |
TP, SF |
FE |
|
Uncommon |
|
Common Crow |
Euploea core |
Nymphalidae |
TP, SF |
OL + FE + FI |
|
Common |
|
Common Jester |
Symbrenthia lilaea |
Nymphalidae |
SF |
FE |
|
Common |
|
Common Lascar |
Pantoporia hordonia |
Nymphalidae |
SF |
FI |
|
Common |
|
Common Sailer |
Neptis hylas |
Nymphalidae |
TP, SF |
OL + FE + FI |
|
Common |
|
Common Three Rings |
Ypthima asterope |
Nymphalidae |
TP, SF |
OL + FE + FI |
|
Common |
|
Dark Evening Brown |
Melanitis phedima |
Nymphalidae |
TP, SF |
FE + FI |
|
Uncommon |
|
Glassy Tiger |
Parantica aglea |
Nymphalidae |
TP, SF |
OL + FE + FI |
|
Common |
|
Great Evening Brown |
Melanitis zitenius gokala |
Nymphalidae |
TP |
FE |
Schedule II |
Uncommon |
|
Himalayan Sailer |
Neptis mahendra |
Nymphalidae |
TP, SF |
FE |
|
Uncommon |
|
Indian Fritillary |
Argyrnnis hyperbius |
Nymphalidae |
TP |
OL + FE |
|
Common |
|
Indian Tortoiseshell |
Aglais caschmirensis |
Nymphalidae |
TP |
OL |
|
Common |
|
Large Yeoman |
Cirrochroa aoris |
Nymphalidae |
SF |
FI |
|
Common |
|
Lemon Pansy |
Junonia lemonias |
Nymphalidae |
TP |
OL + FE |
|
Common |
|
Leopard Lacewing |
Cethosia cyane |
Nymphalidae |
SF |
FI |
|
Common |
|
Autumn Leaf |
Doleschallia bisaltide |
Nymphalidae |
TP |
FE |
|
Uncommon |
|
Orange Staff Sergeant |
Athyma cama |
Nymphalidae |
SF |
FI |
|
Uncommon |
|
Plain Tiger |
Danaus chrysippus |
Nymphalidae |
SF |
FI |
|
Common |
|
Popinjay |
Stibochiona nicea |
Nymphalidae |
TP, SF |
OL + FE + FI |
|
Common |
|
Powdered Baron |
Euthalia monina |
Nymphalidae |
SF |
FE |
|
Common |
|
Small Jewel Four-Ring |
Ypthima singala |
Nymphalidae |
TP |
OL |
|
Uncommon |
|
Straight-banded Treebrown |
Lethe verma |
Nymphalidae |
SF |
FE |
|
Common |
|
Yellow Coster |
Acraea issoria |
Nymphalidae |
TP, SF |
OL + FE + FI |
|
Common |
|
Black Prince |
Rohana parisatis |
Nymphalidae |
TP |
OL |
|
Common |
|
Common Birdwing |
Troides helena |
Papilionoidae |
SF |
FE |
|
Uncommon |
|
Common Bluebottle |
Graphium sarpedon |
Papilionoidae |
SF |
OL |
|
Common |
|
Common Mormon |
Papilio polytes |
Papilionoidae |
SF |
FE |
|
Common |
|
Common Peacock |
Papilio bianor |
Papilionoidae |
TP, SF |
FE + FI |
|
Uncommon |
|
Krishna Peacock |
Papilio krishna |
Papilionoidae |
SF |
FI |
|
Rare |
|
Paris Peacock |
Papilio paris |
Papilionoidae |
SF |
FE |
|
Uncommon |
|
Red Helen |
Papilio helenus |
Papilionoidae |
TP, SF |
OL + FE |
|
Common |
|
Tailed Redbreast |
Papilio bootes |
Papilionoidae |
TP, SF |
OL + FE + FI |
Schedule II |
Uncommon |
|
Yellow Helen |
Papilio nephelus |
Papilionoidae |
SF |
FI |
|
Uncommon |
|
Chocolate Albatross |
Appias lyncida |
Pieridae |
TP, SF |
OL + FE + FI |
|
Uncommon |
|
Common Grass Yellow |
Eurema hecabe |
Pieridae |
TP |
OL |
|
Common |
|
Common Gull |
Cepora nerissa |
Pieridae |
TP |
OL |
|
Common |
|
Great Orange Tip |
Hebomoia glaucippe |
Pieridae |
TP |
FE |
|
Common |
|
Indian Cabbage White |
Pieris canidia |
Pieridae |
TP, SF |
OL + FE + FI |
|
Common |
|
Large Cabbage White |
Pieris brassicae |
Pieridae |
TP, SF |
OL + FE |
|
Common |
|
Lesser Gull |
Cepora nadina nadina |
Pieridae |
TP, SF |
OL + FE + FI |
|
Uncommon |
|
Psyche |
Leptosia nina |
Pieridae |
TP |
OL |
|
Common |
|
Red Base Jezebel |
Delias pasithoe |
Pieridae |
SF |
FE + FI |
|
Uncommon |
|
White Orange Tip |
Ixias marianne |
Pieridae |
TP, SF |
OL + FE |
|
Common |
|
Yellow Jezebel |
Delias agostina |
Pieridae |
SF |
FI |
|
Uncommon |
|
Yellow Orange Tip |
Ixias pyrene |
Pieridae |
TP, SF |
OL + FE + FI |
|
Common |
*Ecosystem type: TP = Tea
Plantation; SF = Secondary Forest.
#Habitat specialization: FI
(Forest interior only), FI+FE (Forest interior + Forest edge), FE (Forest edge
only), FE + OL (Forest edge+ Openland), OL (Openland only), OL + FE + FI (Open Land + Forest interior +
Forest edge).
For figures
& images - - click here
REFERENCES
Acharya, B.K. & L. Vijayan (2015). Butterfly diversity along the elevation gradient of
Eastern Himalaya, India. Ecological Research 30(5): 909–919.
Acharya, B.K. & L. Vijayan
(2011). Butterflies of Sikkim with
reference to elevational gradient in species, abundance, composition,
similarity and range size distribution, pp. 207–222. In: Arawatia,
M.L. & S. Tambe (eds.) Biodiversity of Sikkim:
Exploring and Conserving A Global Hotspot. IPR Department, Govt of Sikkim, Gangtok, India, 542pp.
Ahmad K. & H.S.A. Yahya
(2010). Winter diversity of birds in Makaibari Tea Estate, Kurseong,
Darjeeling, India. Indian Forester 136(1): 69–87.
Ahmed, A. & M. Dey (2014). A
checklist of winter birds community in different habitat types of Rosekandy Tea Estate of Assam, India. Journal of
Threatened Taxa 6(2): 5478–5484. https://doi.org/10.11609/JoTT.o3246.5478-84
Blair, R.B. & A.E. Launer (1997). Butterfly diversity and human land use: species
assemblages along an urban gradient. Biological Conservation 80(1):
113–125. http://doi.org/10.1016/S0006-3207(96)00056-0
Chettri, A., K. Sharma, S. Dewan
& B.K. Acharya (2018a). Bird
diversity of tea plantations in Darjeeling Hills, Eastern Himalaya, India. Biodiversitas 19: 1066–1073.
Chettri, N. (2015). Distribution of butterflies along a trekking corridor
in the Khangchendzonga Biosphere Reserve, Sikkim,
Eastern Himalayas. Conservation Science 3(1): 1–10. http://doi.org/10.3126/cs.v3i1.13767
Chettri, P.K., K. Sharma, S. Dewan
& B.K. Acharya (2018b). Butterfly
diversity in human-modified ecosystems of southern Sikkim, the eastern
Himalaya, India. Journal of Threatened Taxa 10(5): 11551–11565. http://doi.org/10.11609/jott.3641.10.5.11551-11565
Darjeeling Tea (2020). Assessed at http://darjeeling.gov.in/darj-tea.html Assessed on 9 January 2020.
Datta, T.K. (2010). Darjeeling Tea in India, pp. 113–159. In: Lecoent, A., E. Vandecandelaere
& J.J. Cadilhol (eds.) Quality linked to the
geographical origin and geographical indications: lessons learned from six case
studies in Asia, RAP Publication 2010/04. Food and Agriculture Organization
of the United Nations Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific, Bangkok, 188pp.
Dewan, S., B.K. Acharya & S. Ghatani (2018). A new record of the lesser-known butterfly Small Woodbrown Lethe nicetella
de Nicéville, 1887 (Lepidoptera: Nymphalidae:
Satyrinae) from Kangchendzonga
National Park, Sikkim, India. Journal of Threatened Taxa 10(6):
11775–11779. https://doi.org/10.11609/jott.3987.10.6.11775-11779
Haribal, M. (1992). The Butterflies of Sikkim Himalaya and their natural
history. Sikkim Nature Conservation
Foundation, Gangtok, 217pp.
IUCN (2017). The IUCN Red List of threatened species. Version
2017-3. Accessed at http://www.iucnredlist.org. Accessed on 14 September 2019.
Kehimkar, I. (2016). Butterflies of India. Bombay Natural History Society, Mumbai.
Kitahara, M. (2004). Butterfly community composition and conservation in
and around a primary woodland of Mount Fuji, central Japan. Biodiversity and
Conservation 13(5): 917–942. http://doi.org/10.1023/B:BIOC.0000014462.83594.58
Kottawa-Arachchi, J.D. & R.N. Gamage (2015). Avifaunal diversity and bird community responses to
man-made habitats in St. Coombs Tea Estate, Sri Lanka. Journal of Threatened
Taxa 7(2): 6878–6890. https://doi.org/10.11609/JoTT.o3483.6878-90
Kunte, K. (2010). Rediscovery of the federally protected Scarce Jester
Butterfly Symbrenthia silana
de Niceville, 1885 (Nymphalidae: Nymphalinae)
from the Eastern Himalaya and Garo Hills, northeastern
India. Journal of Threatened Taxa 2(5): 858–866. http://doi.org/10.11609/JoTT.o2371.858-66
Kunte, K., A. Joglekar, U. Ghate & P. Pramod (1999). Patterns of butterfly, birds and tree diversity in the
Western Ghats. Current Science 77(4): 577–586.
Kunte, K., S. Sondhi & P. Roy
(2020). Butterflies of India, v. 2.70. Indian Foundation for Butterflies. https://www.ifoundbutterflies.org/.
Assessed on 20 January 2020.
Lin N., T.T. Nam & J. Perera (2012).
Response of birds to different management types of tea cultivation in a
forest-agriculture landscape, pp. 12–20. In: Harrison R., L.L. Shi, & J.X.
Liu (eds.) Proceedings of the Advanced Field Course in Ecology and
Conservation-XTBG 2012, 74pp
Lindström, S., B. Klatt, H. Smith & R. Bommarco
(2018). Crop management affects
pollinator attractiveness and visitation in oil seed rape. Basic Application
Ecology 26: 82–88.
Losey, J.E. & M. Vaughan
(2006). The economic value of ecological
services provided by insects. Bioscience 56: 311–323.
Makaibari (2020). Healthy
Soil, Healthy Mankind. Assessed at http://www.makaibari.com/. Assessed on 9
January 2020.
Mayfield, M.M., M.E. Boni, G.C. Daily & D. Ackerly
(2005). Species and functional diversity
of native and human-dominated plant communities. Ecology 86(9):
2365–2372. https://doi.org/10.1890/05-0141
Muratet, A., & B. Fontaine (2015). Contrasting impacts of pesticides on butterflies and
bumblebees in private gardens in France. Biological Conservation 182:
148–154.
Pollard, E. (1977). A method for assessing changes in the abundance of
butterflies. Biological Conservation 12: 116–134. https://doi. org/10.1016/0006-3207(77)90065-9
Rai, S., K.D. Bhutia
& K. Kunte (2012). Recent sightings of two very rare butterflies,
Lethe margaritae Elwes,
1882 and Neptis nycteus
de Niceville, 1890, from Sikkim, eastern Himalaya, India. Journal of
Threatened Taxa 4(14): 3319–3326. https://doi.org/10.11609/JoTT.o2965.3319-26
Rands, M.R.W. & N.W. Sotherton (1986). Pesticide use on cereal crops and changes in the
abundance of butterflies on arable farmland in England. Biological
Conservation 36(1): 71–82.
Roy, U.S., M. Mukherjee, &
S.K. Mukhopadhyay (2012). Butterfly
diversity and abundance with reference to habitat heterogeneity in and around Neora Valley National Park, West Bengal, India. Our
Nature 10(1): 53–60.
Rundlof, M., J. Bengtsson & H.G. Smith (2008). Local and landscape effects of organic farming on
butterfly species richness and abundance. Journal of Applied Ecology 45:
813–820.
Sengupta, P., K., Banerjee &
N. Ghorai (2014). Seasonal diversity of butterflies and their larval
food plants in the surroundings of upper Neora Valley
National Park, a sub-tropical broad leaved hill forest in the eastern Himalayan
landscape, West Bengal, India. Journal of Threatened Taxa 6(1):
5327–5342. https://doi.org/10.11609/JoTT.o3446.5327-42
Sharma, K., B.K. Acharya, G.
Sharma, D. Valente, M.R. Pasimeni, I. Petrosillo & T. Selvan (2020). Land use effect on butterfly alpha and beta diversity
in the Eastern Himalaya, India. Ecological Indicators 105605. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2019.105605
Soh, M.C.K., N.S. Sodhi & S.L.H. Lim (2006). High sensitivity of montane bird communities to
habitat disturbance in Peninsular Malaysia. Biological Conservation
129(2): 149–166.
Sreekar, R., A. Mohan, S. Das, P. Agarwal & R. Vivek (2013).
Natural windbreaks sustain bird diversity in a tea-dominated landscape. PLoS One 8: e70379. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0070379
Subasinghe, K. & A.P. Sumanapala
(2014). Biological and functional
diversity of bird communities in natural and human modified habitats in
Northern Flank of Knuckles Mountain Forest Range, Sri Lanka. Biodiversitas 15 (2): 200–205.
The Wildlife (Protection) Act,
1972. Accessed at https://www.nbaindia.org/uploaded/Biodiversityindia/Legal/15.20Wildlife20(Protection)20Act,1972
Accessed on 14 September 2019.
Tscharntke, T., C.H. Sekercioglu, T.V.
Dietsch, N.S. Sodhi, P. Hoen & J.M. Tylianakis
(2008). Landscape constraints on
functional diversity of birds and insects in tropical agroecosystems. Ecology
89 (4): 944–951. https://doi.org/10.1890/07-0455.1
Varshney, R.K. & P. Smetacek (2015). A synoptic catalogue of the Butterflies of
India. Butterfly Research Centre, Bhimtal & Indinov Publishing, 261pp.
Vu, L.V. (2013). The effect of habitat disturbance and altitudes on the
diversity of butterflies (Lepidoptera: Rhopalocera)
in a tropical forest of Vietnam: results of a long-term and large-scale study. Russian
Entomological Journal 22(1): 51–65.
Yashmita-Ulman, M. Sharma & A. Kumar (2016). Agroforestry Systems as Habitat for Avian Species:
Assessing its role in conservation. Proceedings of Zoological Society
17:127–145. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12595-016-0198-3
Zingg, S., J. Grenz & J.Y.
Humbert (2018). Landscape-scale effects of land
use intensity on birds and butterflies. Agriculture, Ecosystem and
Environment 267: 119–128.