Journal of Threatened Taxa |
www.threatenedtaxa.org | 26 August 2021 | 13(9): 19302–19309
ISSN 0974-7907 (Online) | ISSN 0974-7893
(Print)
https://doi.org/10.11609/jott.6412.13.9.19302-19309
#6412 | Received 14 July 2020 | Final
received 15 July 2021 | Finally accepted 14 August 2021
Is habitat heterogeneity
effective for conservation of butterflies in urban landscapes of Delhi, India?
Monalisa Paul 1 & Aisha Sultana 2
1 University School of Environment
Management, Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha
University, Dwarka, New Delhi 110078, India.
2 Biodiversity Parks Program,
Centre for Environmental Management of Degraded Ecosystems, University of
Delhi, Delhi 110007, India.
1 monalisapaul28@gmail.com
(corresponding author), 2 aishasultana28@yahoo.com
Abstract: The present study which was
conducted in 2015–16 and 2016–17 emphasizes the nine different types of
habitats used by 40 listed butterflies in six different urban landscapes of
Delhi. Assessment of flowerbeds, grasses, hedges/crops/bushes, artificial
light, wet soil/damp patches/humus, trees, open spaces/grounds, bird droppings,
and roads/pavements/concrete spaces in conserving butterfly diversity in highly
urbanized landscapes by testing the hypothesis that diversity of butterflies
across all the habitats are similar, was the focal point of the study. Except
for the artificial light and the paved roads or concrete spaces, all other
habitats were natural in surroundings. The families Lycaenidae
and Nymphalidae had the largest habitat share (26%),
whereas the family Hesperiidae had the minimum share
(9%). Aravalli Biodiversity Park, New Delhi maintained the serenity of natural
ones. Species richness and diversity was the highest at flowerbeds and lowest
at the artificial light. The study highlights the choice of heterogeneous
habitats by city butterflies to integrate the concept of the urban green spaces
into a wide variety of urban development projects which in turn can help their
own sustenance.
Keywords: Community, diversity, ecology,
generalist, green space, heterogenous, lepidoptera,
protected, semi-urban.
Editor: Monsoon J. Gogoi,
Bombay Natural History Society, Mumbai, India. Date
of publication: 26 August 2021 (online & print)
Citation: Paul, M. & A. Sultana (2021). Is habitat heterogeneity
effective for conservation of butterflies in urban landscapes of Delhi, India? Journal of Threatened Taxa 13(9): 19302–19309. https://doi.org/10.11609/jott.6412.13.9.19302-19309
Copyright: © Paul & Sultana 2021. 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: Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University,
New Delhi through Indraprastha
Research Fellowship (IPRF) vide letter no. 1426/2013 is the
sole funding agency for this study.
Competing interests: The authors
declare no competing interests.
Author details: Dr. Monalisa Paul has completed her PhD from Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University, New Delhi and is
currently working as a research lead in an NGO “Envirovigyan”.
She focusses on the biotic interactions of Lepidoptera in urban landscapes of
Delhi. She also writes science fictions targeting the plight of the wildlife
amidst rising urbanization. Dr. Aisha Sultana is working as
Wildlife-Ecologist under Biodiversity parks Programme,
University of Delhi. She has 20 years of experience in this field with more
than 15 years of professional experience in restoration of degraded ecosystems
of Delhi through developing Biodiversity Parks. Her interests focus on
population ecology, conservation and restoring degraded habitats of wild
animals.
Author contributions: MP—research design, data
collection, drafting manuscript, methodology design, critical review, revisions
at different stages, editing. AS—conceptualization, data analysis and
interpretation, map preparation, drafting manuscript, critical review, editing,
revisions at different stages.
Acknowledgements: We thank Guru Gobind
Singh Indraprastha University, New Delhi for financial assistance through
Indraprastha Research Fellowship vide letter no. 1426/2013 and Indian
Agricultural Research Institute, Pusa, New Delhi for
giving the permission to conduct the research in their agricultural fields. We
also thank Dr. M. Shah Hussain of Aravalli
Biodiversity Park, New Delhi for his help. A special mention to Mr. Manish
Joshi, Ms. Mandeep Kaur, Ms. Shubhi Malik and Mr.
Somnath Sahoo of Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha
University, New Delhi is indispensable for timely suggestions that helped to
improve the manuscript.
Introduction
Studies on urban biodiversity are
booming in recent years (Shwartz et al. 2014).
Urban ecology is an integral part of such studies, and urban areas have become
a research topic due to the recognition that conservation and management of
urban habitats and species pose particular challenges (McDonnell et al. 1997; Angold et al. 2006). Butterflies, being diurnal, have often
been the focus of urban ecosystems (Ramirez-Restrepo & McGregor-Fors 2017) because they are thought to react rapidly to
environmental changes due to their high mobility and short generation time
(McIntyre 2000). They are a fundamental part of urban ecology (Rebele 1994; McDonnell et al. 2009), providing important
ecosystem and helping people reconnect with nature (Soga & Gaston 2016).
Recent research has highlighted the positive role of urban green infrastructure
in terms of urban ecology and ecosystem services (De Groot et al. 2002; Tratalos et al. 2007), keeping butterflies in the pivotal
point of study as tropical butterflies are disappearing at the fastest rates
due to loss of suitable habitat (Brook et al. 2003; Koh 2007) especially in
southern Asia.
Delhi is the second largest
megacity in the world (Tickell & Ranasinha 2018)
and one of the largest contributors to the urban population (about 7.6%) of
India, with about 16.8 million inhabitants distributed over 1,485 km2 area
(Chandramouli & General 2011). Over the last two
decades, the population density has increased from nearly 9,340 people/km2
in 2001 to 11,297 persons/km2 in 2011. Rising urbanisation has a strong influence
over the butterfly diversity of the city (Paul & Sultana 2020). The present study was undertaken to
understand the importance of different habitat types in the urban landscape of
Delhi.
Methods
Study area
The study area is NCT (National
Capital Territory) of Delhi (Figure 1) 28.42 to 28.87 N and 76.83 to 77.35
E which lies in the northern India and
spreads over an area of 1,484 km2 (573 mi2). It borders
the Indian states of Uttar Pradesh to the east and Haryana in the north, west,
and south. Two prominent features of the geography of Delhi are the Yamuna
flood plains and Delhi ridge. The present study includes six sampling sites:
industrial area Mayapuri (MP) 28.64 N,77.13 E, Nehru
Park (NP), a city park 28.59 N,77.19 E, agricultural area IARI Pusa (PU) 28.64 N, 77.16 E, suburban residential and
institutional area Dwarka (DW) 28.59 N,77.02 E, Aravalli Biodiversity Park
(ABP) 28.56 N, 77.15 E restored degraded area as a biodiversity park, and a
city forest Northern ridge (NR) 28.69 N,77.22 E.
Data collection
The butterfly sampling was done
using the ‘Pollard walk’ method (Pollard et al. 1993). For each site, the
selection of transects was in a random stratified manner depending on the size
of the area. Each site was sampled once in a month and thrice in a season using
random stratified transects based on the dimensions of the area. At all the
sampling sites, three random transects of each 0.5–1 km was selected and every
transect was covered in one hour, but at the different time slots of the day:
1000–1200 h,1200–0200 h, and 0200–0400 h. Identification was done using the
field guides (Kehimkar 2013; Singh 2017; Smetacek 2017). The classification is based on Kunte et al. (2020). Butterflies were not collected but
only photographed for the identification. Field sampling was carried out
between April 2015 to March 2017. Data were collected in three distinct periods
each year, i.e., (a) pre-monsoon (mid-February to mid-June: comprises spring
and summer), (b) monsoon (mid-June to mid-September), and (c) post-monsoon
(mid-September to mid-February: comprises autumn and winter). Each site was
visited during ideal weather conditions only. Rainy and windy days were
avoided. Meteorological data for monthly rainfall and the diurnal temperature
were obtained from Regional Meteorological Department of the Indian
Meteorological Department, Delhi. Nine different habitats such as flowerbeds,
grasses, hedges/crops/bushes, artificial light, wet soil/damp patches/humus,
trees, open spaces/grounds, bird droppings, and roads/pavements/concrete spaces
were chosen at different landscapes of Delhi during this study.
Data analysis
The relationships of complex
habitats were depicted using Venn diagram (Figure 2). ‘∩’ symbol denotes
intersection between two independent habitats which will include the common
species between them. Hedges, crops, and bushes had been clubbed together under
a same category (H) because they constitute a collective green cover
irrespective of their usage in terms of urban greenery. Likewise, roads,
pavements and concrete spaces had been put together in a single group (R) as
well as wet soil, damp patches, and humus (W) had been grouped together.
Data analyses were carried out in
two phases. First, to quantify the diversity of butterfly assemblage at nine
different habitats, the following diversity indices, viz., Simpson index of
diversity (1 – D) (Romos et al. 2006), Shannon-Wiener
index (H′) (Henderson 2005; Romos et al. 2006), and
Shannon J or evenness index (Henderson 2005; Romos et
al. 2006; were calculated using Microsoft Excel 2010.
The second phase of analysis
involves statistical interpretation of data. Shapiro-Wilk test and
Kolmogorov-Smirnov test were used to check the normality of the data. Further a
null hypothesis was proposed that the diversity of butterflies across all nine
habitats is similar, i.e., H1= H2= H3= H4= H5= H6= H7= H8= H9, to check the
variance between the habitats. ANOVA test was applied over the data set using
the software SPSS 23.0 to check the null hypothesis and further post hoc
Dunnett T3 test was conducted to check exactly where the difference lies as the
variances were not equal for all habitats.
Results
With 11,943 overall sightings, 40
species of butterflies belonging to 30 genera and five families were recorded
in nine different habitats (Table 1). The results are summarized in a Venn
diagram (Figure 2). The groups of butterflies which lie at the innermost zone
exploit the maximum number of habitats as compared to the butterflies lying at
the outer periphery. Lycaenidae and Nymphalidae families have 26% of the total share and Hesperiidae family has the least share of 9%. Hypolimnas misippus (Schedule
I) despite it is widespread in India, Euploea core
(Schedule IV) though this schedule has little or no importance, and Cepora nerissa (Schedule II)
though its subspecies dapha which is
found in northeastern India, is only legally
protected (Table 1).
Catochrysops strabo, Leptotes
plinius, Talicada
nyseus, Tarucus
nara, Spindasis
vulcanus, & Zizeeria
karsandra (family Lycaenidae)
and Junonia lemonias
& J. hiertha (family Nymphalidae)
are the species of butterflies which are placed at the core of the habitat
ellipses, indicate that these species choose up to a maximum of six different
habitats. Intricate overlapping of the habitats suggests wide range of habitat
usage by a species of butterfly.
Flowerbeds alone carry 15% of the
total habitat share (Table 2), followed by grasses with 10%, while 2.5% was
observed overlapping among various habitats such as hedges, flowerbeds, trees,
grasses, and wet soil. Melanitis leda (rice crop pest) is the single candidate for the
artificial light source, having 2.5% of the independent share, which accidently
got noticed during another type of field study at dusk. Overall, the result
showed that the generalists can exploit a greater number of habitats compared
specialists found only at selected sites. Dwarka has all the nine habitats, and
the other five study sites are missing one or more of them (Table 3).
Similarly, out of all the nine habitats, bird droppings, trees, grasses, open
spaces, damp patches/wet soil/humus and crops/hedges/bushes were found in all
six urban locations. Diversity indices for the habitats are shown in Table 4.
The highest values for Simpson diversity index (0.96), Shannon-Wiener index
(3.42), and Shannon evenness (0.94) were for the flowerbeds. The artificial
light had just one species Melanitis leda, hence all diversity indices were 0.
Difference in
the butterfly diversity between habitats was tested using ANOVA (SPSS version
23.0) where habitats were treated as independent variables and butterfly
frequency as a dependent variable. This test showed that there was a
statistically significant difference in butterfly diversity among nine habitats
(F= 8.41, d.f.= 8, 450, p= 0.000). With p value
</=0.05, it furthers rejects the null hypothesis of similar diversity of
butterflies across all the nine habitats, hereby confirming the alternate
hypothesis of considerable variation of butterfly diversity among habitats.
Dunnett T3 test showed the pairwise comparisons of the habitats which rejected
the null hypothesis (Table 5). Diversity in artificial light was significantly
different with the flower beds, grass, hedges, and even with the
roadside/pavements. Similarly, differences in the diversity among bird
droppings, grasses, and flowerbeds are significant too. Butterfly diversity in trees
was not significantly different from any other habitats (Table 5).
Discussion
Habitat heterogeneity is an
important factor for the survival and reproduction of butterflies (Nielsen et
al. 2014; Sing et al. 2016). Danaus chrysippus,
being a generalist species thrived very well in the disturbed habitats and has
shown successful colonization in West Africa (Larsen 2005). Generalist species tend to survive better in
an urban ecosystem compared with specialist species (Lizée
et al. 2015). The species which can extract multiple habitats are best in
sustaining themselves in heterogeneous topography (Dapporto
& Dennis 2013; Slancarova et al. 2014). Melanitis leda,
among the forty listed butterflies, is the only one active during dusk and
attracted to artificial light. It is also a rice pest; hence most were found in
the rice fields at IARI Pusa during opportunistic
search. Eurema hecabe
is not a very strong flier and prefers open dry areas and thorny vegetation
patches. Belenois aurota
and Catopsilia pomona
are fond of sun and flowers hence, their habitat ranges from meadows to
gardens to damp patches (Kehimkar 2013).
Increasing urbanization brings
challenges from environmental impacts. With the outbreak of COVID-19, as the
sky and air are getting unadulterated by the automobile pollutants, there are
chances for the more specialist species to cope with the changing environment.
With further division of COVID-19 hotspot zones into red (areas where large
outbreaks and symptoms of corona infection were seen), orange (areas where no
new cases were registered in the last 14 days), and green (non- infected areas
of the country) the chances of reviving city butterflies increase manifold.
Dwarka came under red zone according to the list of Delhi government containment
areas, 2020. Hence, further investigation at the various sectors of Dwarka
pertaining to different habitats of butterflies could be an interesting
comparative study. Dwarka is a sub city which is planned in a way to
accommodate surplus population of one million people by building residential
societies that constitute 49% of total land use distribution. Hence, because of
semi-urban developments, man-made habitats like paved roads or concrete spaces
came along with the natural habitats. Similarly, Mayapuri,
an industrial and commercial landscape has all the eight habitats except for
the flowerbeds which are very prominent in attracting the butterflies for nectaring. Aravalli Biodiversity Park on the other end has
been a protected area which minimizes the usage of non-natural manifestations
to protect the serenity of the place. It is rich with lush green native
vegetation and native nectar rich flowers suitable to act as butterfly
attractants. Northern ridge being a city forest also share the similar kind of
environment as of Aravalli Biodiversity Park but due to human encroachment and
trespassing, flowerbeds were missing. IARI Pusa is an
agricultural setup where crops were abundant. Seasonal flower beds of the
ongoing crops were regularly seen. Concrete spaces were completely curtailed.
Likewise, Nehru Park is a city park in the heart of Lutyen’s
Delhi. Though, lush green grass sheets and other eight habitats were suitably
present, but flower beds were completely missing from such a park. Park
adoption schemes by Delhi Developmental Authority (DDA) in 2019 envisages
adoption of certain DDA parks by willing agencies for development and
maintenance as per the norms of urban green belt. Municipal Corporation of
Delhi (MCD) reports Delhi to have 18,000 parks constituting 20% of green cover
that is further planned to increase to 33% in coming years. Hence, preservation
of natural landscapes adjoining the city will likely to be crucial for
effective urban butterfly conservation (Koh & Sodhi
2004). A well-researched land use planning should be done to ensure
sustainability of urban green spaces and the habitats.
Conclusion
During a two-year survey and
examination of Lepidoptera from Delhi, it is enigmatic to know about the
habitats supporting butterflies in urban ecosystem. This lockdown effect is an
opportunity not only for the butterfly experts but also for the amateurs to
cultivate a butterfly garden at home. This will not only act as a screen free
time (no use of electronic device like laptops, mobile phones or television
sets) to the youngsters but also prove to be a quality family time to engage
with the nature. Further investigations with respect to ecology of butterflies
and urban habitats could enlarge the vision of conservation of butterfly
communities and help in implementing stern government policies to regulate
irresponsible conducts. Therefore, it is not only the prime responsibility of
the civic bodies of the city to increase green cover of Delhi but also the
residents to glorify terrace gardening, window nurseries and verandah horticulture, keeping in mind the requirements of
nectar plants for adult butterflies as well as the larval host plants for the
sustenance of this magnificent lepidopteran group in urban nooks of Delhi.
Table 1. List of 40 butterflies
with their respective habitats.
|
|
Scientific name |
Habitats visited |
WPA 1972 Schedules |
IUCN Status |
|
1 |
Borbo cinnara (Wallace, 1866) |
G |
_ |
NA |
|
2 |
Hasora chromus(Cramer, 1780) |
G |
_ |
NA |
|
3 |
Pelopidas mathias (Fabricius, 1798) |
F, H |
_ |
NA |
|
4 |
Spialia galba (Fabricius, 1793) |
G |
_ |
NA |
|
5 |
Suastus gremius Fabricius, 1798 |
G |
_ |
NA |
|
6 |
Catochrysops strabo Fabricius, 1793 |
B, F, G, H, O, W |
_ |
NA |
|
7 |
Leptotes plinius (Fabricius, 1793) |
B, F, G, H, O, W |
_ |
NA |
|
8 |
Spindasis vulcanus (Fabricius, 1775) |
B, F, G, H, O, W |
_ |
NA |
|
9 |
Talicada nyseus Guerin–Méneville, 1843 |
F, G, H, O, R, W |
_ |
NA |
|
10 |
Tarucus nara (Kollar, 1848) |
F, G, H, O, R, W |
_ |
NA |
|
11 |
Zizeeria karsandra (Moore, 1865) |
F, G, H, O, R, W |
_ |
NA |
|
12 |
Acraea terpsicore
(Linnaeus,1758) |
F |
_ |
NA |
|
13 |
Ariadne merione (Cramer, 1777) |
G, H |
_ |
NA |
|
14 |
Danaus chrysippus (Linnaeus, 1758) |
F, G, H, O, R |
_ |
LC |
|
15 |
Danaus genutia
(Cramer,
1779) |
F, G, H, O, R |
_ |
NA |
|
16 |
Euploea core (Cramer, 1780) |
F |
Schedule IV |
LC |
|
17 |
Junonia almana (Linnaeus, 1758) |
F |
_ |
LC |
|
18 |
Junonia hierta (Fabricius, 1798) |
F, G, H, O, R, W |
_ |
LC |
|
19 |
Junonia lemonias (Linnaeus,
1758) |
F, G, H, O, R, W |
_ |
NA |
|
20 |
Junonia orithya (Linnaeus, 1758) |
F, W |
_ |
NA* |
|
21 |
Hypolimnas misippus (Linnaeus, 1764) |
F |
Schedule I |
NA |
|
22 |
Melanitis leda (Linnaeus, 1758) |
A, H |
_ |
NA |
|
23 |
Tirumala limniace
Cramer,
1775 |
F, W |
_ |
NA |
|
24 |
Vanessa cardui (Linnaeus, 1758) |
F |
_ |
LC |
|
25 |
Graphium doson Felder & Felder, 1864 |
F, W |
_ |
NA |
|
26 |
Pachliopta aristolochiae (Fabricius,
1775) |
F, W |
_ |
LC |
|
27 |
Papilio demoleus Linnaeus1758 |
G, H, T, W |
_ |
NA* |
|
28 |
Papilio polytes Linnaeus 1758 |
F, W |
_ |
NA |
|
29 |
Belenois aurota (Fabricius, 1793) |
F, W |
_ |
NA |
|
30 |
Catopsilia pomona Fabricius, 1775 |
F, G, H, T, W |
_ |
NA |
|
31 |
Catopsilia pyranthe Linnaeus, 1758 |
F, G, H, O, R |
_ |
NA |
|
32 |
Cepora nerissa (Fabricius, 1775) |
F, H, W |
Schedule II |
NA |
|
33 |
Colotis etrida (Boisduval, 1836) |
F |
_ |
NA |
|
34 |
Colotis fausta Olivier, 1801 |
H, T |
_ |
LC |
|
35 |
Eurema hecabe (Linnaeus, 1758) |
F, H, W |
_ |
NA |
|
36 |
Eurema brigitta (Cramer, 1780) |
F, H, W |
_ |
LC |
|
37 |
Eurema laeta Boisduval, 1836 |
F, H, W |
_ |
NA |
|
38 |
Ixias pyrene Linnaeus, 1764 |
F, W |
_ |
NA |
|
39 |
Ixias marianne
Cramer,
1779 |
F, W |
_ |
NA |
|
40 |
Pieris canidia
(Sparrman, 1768) |
G, H |
_ |
NA |
F—Flowerbeds | G—Grass |
H—Hedges/Crops/Bushes | A—Artificial light | W—Wet soil/Damp patches/Humus |
T—Tree | O—Open spaces | B—Bird droppings | R—Roads/Pavements/Concrete spaces
Scheduled under Indian Wildlife Protection Act,1972-
Schedule I and II: Absolute protection with the highest penalty | Schedule III
and IV: Protection with low penalty.
IUCN Red List Status: NA—Not yet
been assessed | NA*— Not Applicable | LC—Least Concern
Table2. Overlapping of habitats
and their percentage of share.
|
Butterfly habitats |
No. of butterfly species |
% Share |
|
F |
6 |
15.0% |
|
G |
4 |
10.0% |
|
F∩W |
8 |
20.0% |
|
H ∩ A |
1 |
2.5% |
|
H ∩ G |
2 |
5.0% |
|
H∩T |
1 |
2.5% |
|
H∩F |
1 |
2.5% |
|
H∩F∩W |
4 |
10.0% |
|
H∩T∩G∩W |
1 |
2.5% |
|
H∩T∩G∩W∩F |
1 |
2.5% |
|
R∩O∩G∩H∩F |
3 |
7.5% |
|
B∩H∩O∩G∩W∩F |
3 |
7.5% |
|
R∩O∩W∩G∩H∩F |
5 |
12.5% |
F—Flowerbeds | G—Grass |
H—Hedges/Crops/Bushes | A—Artificial light | W—Wet soil/Damp patches/Humus |
T—Tree | O—Open spaces | B—Bird droppings | R—Roads/Pavements/Concrete spaces |
∩—Intersection/overlapping of two or more habitats.
Table 3. Distribution of habitats
across urban landscapes of Delhi.
|
Urban Landscapes |
Dwarka (DW) |
IARI Pusa
(PU) |
Nehru Park (NP) |
Mayapuri (MP) |
Northern Ridge (NR) |
Aravalli Biodiversity Park
(ABP) |
|
Habitats |
||||||
|
Tree |
√ |
√ |
√ |
√ |
√ |
√ |
|
Flower beds |
√ |
√ |
X |
x |
X |
√ |
|
Grass |
√ |
√ |
√ |
√ |
√ |
√ |
|
Open Spaces |
√ |
√ |
√ |
√ |
√ |
√ |
|
Roads/Pavements/ Concrete spaces |
√ |
X |
√ |
√ |
X |
X |
|
Damp patches/ Wet soil/Humus |
√ |
√ |
√ |
√ |
√ |
√ |
|
Artificial light |
√ |
√ |
√ |
√ |
X |
X |
|
Crops/ Hedges/ Bushes |
√ |
√ |
√ |
√ |
√ |
√ |
|
Bird Droppings |
√ |
√ |
√ |
√ |
√ |
√ |
|
Total number of butterflies
recorded per site |
3050 |
1456 |
1298 |
630 |
967 |
4542 |
Table 4. Various diversity
indexes for the habitats.
|
Diversity indices |
F |
G |
H |
A* |
W |
T |
O |
B |
R |
|
Shannon' |
3.42 |
3.3 |
3.23 |
0 |
3.08 |
2.75 |
2.84 |
2.37 |
3.03 |
|
Shannon J |
0.94 |
0.92 |
0.93 |
0 |
0.94 |
0.88 |
0.94 |
0.87 |
0.91 |
|
Simpson 1-D |
0.96 |
0.95 |
0.95 |
0 |
0.95 |
0.92 |
0.93 |
0.91 |
0.93 |
F—Flowerbeds | G—Grass | H—Hedges/Crops/Bushes |
A—Artificial light | W—Wet soil/Damp patches/Humus | T—Tree, O—Open spaces |
B—Bird droppings | R—Roads/Pavements/Concrete spaces | A*—Artificial light had
only single species reported hence the diversity index is 0.
Table 5. Pairwise comparison of
habitats at alpha =0.05.
|
Habitats |
Dunnett T3 value |
Significance value |
|
F and A |
5.227 |
p = 0.000 |
|
F and O |
3.57 |
p = 0.003 |
|
F and B |
4.609 |
p = 0.000 |
|
G and A |
4.661 |
p = 0.000 |
|
G and O |
3.003 |
p = 0.029 |
|
G and B |
4.042 |
p = 0.000 |
|
H and A |
3.74 |
p = 0.001 |
|
H and B |
3.122 |
p = 0.010 |
|
A and R |
4.205 |
p = 0.000 |
|
B and R |
3.586 |
p = 0.004 |
F—Flowerbeds | G—Grass | H—Hedges/Crops/Bushes | A—Artificial
light | W—Wet soil/Damp patches/Humus | T—Tree | O-Open spaces | B—Bird
droppings | R—Roads/Pavements/Concrete spaces | Significant values are marked
in red.
References
Angold, P.G., J.P. Sadler, M.O. Hill,
A. Pullin, S. Rushton, K. Austin, E. Small, B. Wood, R. Wadsworth, R. Sanderson
& K. Thompson (2006). Biodiversity in urban habitat patches. Science of the Total
Environment 360: 196–204. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2005.08.035
Brook, B.W.,
N.S. Sodhi & P.K.L. Ng (2003). Catastrophic extinctions follow
deforestation in Singapore. Nature 424(6947): 420–423. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature01795
Chandramouli, C. & R. General (2011). Census of India 2011.
Provisional Population Totals. Government of India, New Delhi, India,
409–413pp.
Dapporto, L. & R.L. Dennis (2013). The generalist–specialist
continuum: testing predictions for distribution and trends in British
butterflies. Biological Conservation 157: 229–236. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2012.09.016
De Groot,
R.S., M.A. Wilson & R.M. Boumans (2002). A typology for the
classification, description and valuation of ecosystem functions, goods, and
services. Ecological Economics 41(3): 393–408. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0921-8009(02)00089-7
Delhi Developmental
Authority (2019). DDA’s adoption of park policy. In: Systems Department of DDA. Accessed
15 April 2020. http://dda.org.in/ddaparksadoption/Home.aspx
Delhi
Government Health and Welfare Department (2020). COVID-19 hotspots in Delhi.
Accessed 31May 2020. http://health.delhigovt.nic.in/wps/wcm/connect/doit_health/Health/Home/Covid19/
Henderson,
P.A. (2005). Practical
methods in ecology. Blackwell Publishers, United Kingdom, 148pp.
Kehimkar, I. (2013). The Book of Indian
Butterflies. Bombay Natural History Society (BNHS), Oxford University
Press, New Delhi, India, 497pp.
Koh, L.P.
& N.S. Sodhi (2004). Importance of reserves,
fragments, and parks for butterfly conservation in a tropical urban
landscape. Ecological Applications 14: 1695–1708. https://doi.org/10.1890/03-5269
Koh, L.P.
(2007). Impacts of
land use change on South-east Asian forest butterflies: a review. Journal of
Applied Ecology 44: 703–713. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2664.2007.01324.x
Kunte, K., S. Sondhi
& P. Roy (2020). Butterflies of India, v. 2.86. Indian Foundation for Butterflies.
https://www.ifoundbutterflies.org/.Electronic version accessed 2 April 2020.
Larsen, T.B.
(2005). Butterflies
of West Africa. Apollo Books, Svendborg, Denmark,
595 pp.
Lizée, M.H., T. Tatoni & M. Deschamps-Cottin
(2015). Nested
patterns in urban butterfly species assemblages: Respective roles of plot
management, park layout and landscape features. Urban Ecosystems 19:
205–224. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11252-015-0501-5
McDonnell,
M.J., A.K. Hahs & J.H. Breuste
(2009). Ecology
of cities and towns: a comparative approach. Cambridge University Press,
United Kingdom, 746pp.
McDonnell,
M.J., S.T.A. Pickett, P. Groffman, P. Bohlen, R.V. Pouyat, W.C. Zipperer, R.W. Parmelee, M.M. Carreiro & K.
Medley (1997). Ecosystem
processes along an urban-to-rural gradient. Urban Ecosystems 1(1):
21–36. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-73412-5_18
McIntyre,
N.E. (2000). Ecology of
urban arthropods: a review and a call to action. Annals of the
Entomological Society of America 93: 825–835. https://doi.org/10.1603/0013-8746(2000)093[0825:EOUAAR]2.0.CO;2
Nielsen,
A.B., M.V.D. Bosch, S. Maruthaveeran & C.K.V.D.
Bosch (2014). Species
richness in urban parks and its drivers: A review of empirical evidence. Urban
Ecosystems 17: 305–327. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11252-013-0316-1
Paul, M.
& A. Sultana (2020). Studies on butterfly (Insecta: Lepidoptera)
diversity across different urban landscapes of Delhi, India. Current Science
118(5): 819–827.
Pollard, E.,
C.A.M. Van Swaay & T.J. Yates (1993). Changes in butterfly numbers in
Britain and The Netherlands, 1990–91. Ecological Entomology 18(1):
93–94. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2311.1993.tb01086.x
Ramirez-Restrepo,
L. & I. McGregor-Fors (2017). Butterflies in the city: a
review of urban diurnal Lepidoptera. Urban Ecosystems 20:
171–182. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11252-016-0579-4
Rebele, F. (1994). Urban ecology and special
features of urban ecosystems. Global Ecology and BiogeographyLetters
4(6): 173–187. https://doi.org/10.2307/2997649
Romos, S., R.K. Cowen, P. Re, A.A. Bordalo (2006). Temporal and Spatial
distribution of larval fish assemblages in the Lima estuary (Portugal). Estuarine, Coastal
and Shelf Science 66(1–2): 303–314. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecss.2005.09.012
Shwartz, A., A. Turbe,
R. Julliard, L. Simon & A.C. Prevot (2014).
Outstanding challenges for urban conservation research and action. Global
Environmental Change 28: 39–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2014.06.002
Sing, K.W.,
H. Dong, W.Z. Wang & J.J. Wilson (2016). Can butterflies cope with city
life? Butterfly diversity in a young megacity in Southern China. Genome 59:
751–761. https://doi.org/10.1139/gen-2015-0192
Singh, A.P.
(2017). Butterflies
of India, Om Books International, India,183pp.
Slancarova, J., J. Benes, M. Kristynek, P. Kepka & M. Konvicka (2014). Does the surrounding landscape
heterogeneity affect the butterflies of insular grassland reserves? A contrast
between composition and configuration. Journal of Insect Conservation 18(1):
1–12. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10841-013-9607-3
Smetacek, P. (2017). A Naturalist’s Guide to the
Butterflies of India, Pakistan, Nepal, Bhutan, Bangladesh, and Sri Lanka.
John Beaufoy Publishing Limited and Prakash Books, Delhi,
India,117 pp.
Soga, M.
& K.J. Gaston (2016). Extinction of experience: the loss of human- nature interactions. Frontiers
in Ecology and the Environment 14(2): 94–101. https://doi.org/10.1002/fee.1225
Tickell, A.
& R. Ranasinha (2018). Delhi: new writings on the
megacity. Journal of Post-Colonial Writings 54 (3): 297–306. https://doi.org/10.1080/17449855.2018.1461977
Tratalos, J., R.A. Fuller, P.H. Warren,
R.G. Davies & K.J. Gaston (2007). Urban form, biodiversity
potential and ecosystem services. Landscape and Urban Planning 83:308–317.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2007.05.003
Winter, S.
& G.C. Möller (2008). Habitats in lowland beech
forests as monitoring tool for nature conservation. Forest Ecology and
Management 255(3-4): 1251–1261. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2007.10.029