Journal of Threatened
Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | 26 February 2022 | 14(2): 20584–20596
ISSN 0974-7907
(Online) | ISSN 0974-7893 (Print)
https://doi.org/10.11609/jott.7021.14.2.20584-20596
#7021 | Received 23
December 2020 | Final received 21 November 2021 | Finally accepted 10 February
2022
Butterfly diversity and
composition at Chemerong Amenity Forest, Terengganu, Malaysia
Muhammad Hafiz Sulaiman 1,
Abdul Munir Mohd Zaki 2, Geok Chin Yap 3, Nur Atiqa
Aniruddin 4 & Ju Lian Chong 5
1–5 Faculty of Science & Marine
Environment, Universiti Malaysia Terengganu, 21030 Kuala Nerus, Terengganu,
Malaysia.
1* hspangoii@gmail.com, 2 abdulmunirmohdzaki@gmail.com,
3 yapgchin@gmail.com, 4 nuratiqa222@gmail.com, 5* julian@umt.edu.my
(*corresponding
authors)
Editor: Monsoon J.
Gogoi, Bombay Natural History Society, Mumbai, India. Date of publication: 26 February 2022 (online &
print)
Citation: Sulaiman, M.H., A.M.M. Zaki,
G.C. Yap, N.A. Aniruddin & J.L. Chong (2022). Butterfly diversity and
composition at Chemerong Amenity Forest, Terengganu, Malaysia. Journal of Threatened Taxa 14(2): 20584–20596. https://doi.org/10.11609/jott.7021.14.2.20584-20596
Copyright: © Sulaiman et al. 2022. 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: Universiti Malaysia Terengganu
[supporting the logistics of this study].
Competing interests: The authors declare no competing
interests.
Author details: Muhammad Hafiz Sulaiman is
a PhD student at the Faculty of Science and Environment, Universiti Malaysia
Terengganu (UMT). He obtained his MSc in ecology and is currently pursuing his
PhD in Wildlife Management, particularly on the conservation and management of
the Sunda Pangolin in Peninsular Malaysia.Abdul
Munir Mohd Zaki obtained his MSc from Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia
(UKM) on fruit fly behaviour for his MSc project and is currently pursuing his
PhD on Thysanoptera diversity associated with starfruit (Averrhoa carambola)
across Peninsular Malaysia at the Institute of Science Biology, Faculty of
Science, University of Malaya (UM). Yap
Geok Chin and Nur Atiqa Aniruddin
were former undergraduate students at the Faculty of Science and Marine
Environment, Universiti Malaysia Terengganu (UMT). Both studied butterfly
diversity for their undergraduate project respectively.Ju Lian Chong is currently based at the Faculty of Science
and Marine Environment, Universiti Malaysia Terengganu (UMT) as an Associate
Professor. She studies various species of fauna including pangolins,
lepidoptera and other mammals, on aspects of their ecology, biology and
populations to better understand the intricate interactions between organisms
and their ecosystem.
Author
contributions: All authors discussed the results and
contributed to the final manuscript. Muhammad Hafiz Sulaiman, Abdul Munir Mohd
Zaki and Chong Ju Lian wrote the manuscript with support from the rest of the
authors. Muhammad Hafiz Sulaiman and Chong Ju Lian conceived the original idea
for this paper and revised the main conceptual ideas, while Abdul Munir Mohd
Zaki, Yap Geok Chin and Nur Atiqa Aniruddin gave feedback to improve the paper.
Acknowledgements: The authors would like to
acknowledge Universiti Malaysia Terengganu for supporting the logistics of this
study and all who assisted in the sampling.
Abstract: A study of butterfly species
diversity was conducted in Chemerong Amenity Forest, Terengganu, Malaysia. A
total of 939 individuals from 198 butterfly species were obtained using
fruit-baited sweep nets and modified VanSomeren-Rydon cylinder traps. The
biodiversity of butterflies in the study area was considered high, with a
Shannon index (H’) of 4.1, Simpson’s index (DSimpson) of
0.042, and Margalef index (IMargalef) of 28.78. Individuals
within the community were not evenly distributed among the species (EShannon=
0776). Nymphalidae was found to be the most dominant family (48.5%), and Lexias
dirtea merguia was the most abundant species recorded with 114 individuals
(12%). From the total of eight species protected under Malaysia legislation,
one species Trogonoptera brookiana was also listed under CITES Appendix
II, while only one protected species Agatasa calydonia calydonia of the
family Nymphalidae (the brush-footed or four-footed) was considered rare. Other
rare species found in this study included Arhopala lucida, Curetis
saronis sumatrana, Miletus nymphis fictus of the family Lycaenidae
(the blues, coppers, & hairstreaks), Amathusia perakana perakana, Bassarona
teuta goodrichi, Elymnias saueri saueri, Elymnias nesaea, Mycalesis
horsfieldi hermana, Mycalesis distanti, Ypthima pandocus
tahanensis of the family Nymphalidae (the brush-footed or four-footed),
Celaenorrhinus ladana, Erionota
sybirita, Matapa aria, Matapa cresta, Matapa druna, Pseudokerana
fulger, Taractrocera ardonia, Taractrocera luzonensis, Telicota
linna, and Unkana mytheca mytheca of the family Hesperiidae (the
skippers). The dominance of family Nymphalidae may be due to several factors,
including high species diversity, widespread distribution and occurrence, as
well as the type of bait used in this study. Besides the Genting Highlands and
Taman Negara Johor Endau Rompin, butterfly species at Chemerong Amenity Forest
are more diverse than other study sites in Malaysia such as Gunung Serambu, Ulu
Gombak Forest Reserve, Setiu Wetlands, Kuala Lompat, Bukit Hampuan Forest
Reserve, Sungai Imbak Forest Reserve, Tabin Wildlife Reserve, and Ulu Senagang
Substation. Further investigation of aspects such as stratification
distribution patterns, host plants and forest dwelling species are recommended
for better understanding of butterfly communities in the Chemerong Amenity
Forest.
Keywords: Biodiversity indices,
butterflies, forest reserve, Lepidoptera, primary forest, tropical rainforest.
Introduction
Studies of butterflies have contributed greatly to the
understanding of their ecology, evolution, biogeography, conservation, and
usefulness as biodiversity indicators (Sekimura & Nijhout 2019). Knowledge
about tropical butterflies is, however, quite limited (Beck 2007; Koh 2007;
Bonebrake et al. 2010). In comparison with most temperate ecosystems, tropical
forests are characterized by extraordinarily high but poorly- inventoried
insect diversity (Bonebrake et al. 2010; Ballesteros-Mejia et al. 2013).
There are 1,182 recorded species of butterfly in
Malaysia (Wilson et al. 2015), with 117 being endemic (Tamblyn et al. 2006) and
1,038 species recorded in Peninsular Malaysia (Eliot & Kirton 2000).
Continuous monitoring of biodiversity over time is essential to identify
changes in species populations. For example, the tradition of recording and
monitoring of species occurrences and relative abundance by the Butterfly
Monitoring Scheme has provided evidence for declines and losses of some species
in the northern temperate zone (Pollard & Yates 1993), while a citizen
science project: the ‘Peninsular Malaysia Butterfly Count’ involved the general
public to obtain samples for DNA barcoding of butterflies for monitoring
communities in Peninsular Malaysia (Wilson et al. 2015).
Therefore, it is vital to monitor and assess the
current status of local biodiversity comprehensively as an action link to the
conservation approach and priorities (Green et al. 2003).
Deforestation, together with human population growth
increase, have substantial effects on global biodiversity (McKee et al. 2003.
Wittmeyer et al. 2008), especially in southeastern Asia. For example, Singapore
has recently lost most of its biodiversity due to massive development
(Castelletta et al. 2000; Brook et al. 2003; Sodhi et al. 2004; Hau et al.
2005; Sodhi et al. 2010). This concern was also felt in other southeastern
Asian countries including Malaysia, which have had high terrestrial degradation
in recent years (Sodhi et al. 2010). This is quite worrying as habitat loss is
the main cause of butterfly extinction, and diversity is being lost before we
can quantify or understand it (Checa et al. 2009).
In the state of Terengganu, butterfly inventory and
monitoring were first carried out by Fleming (1975) and also Corbet &
Pendlebury (1992). Since then, there have been few studies of butterfly status
in the state of Terengganu, and there are deficient sources and publications on
this subject (Tamblyn et al. 2006; Yap et al. 2018). Therefore, the diversity
and composition of butterfly at the Chemerong Amenity Forest was investigated.
The study site chosen for this study was opportune, as it is proclaimed to be
an undisturbed tropical rainforest which houses myriads of flora and fauna
species. The results of this study will provide a baseline data on butterflies
in the Chemerong Amenity Forest.
Materials and Methods
Study Site
The research was conducted at Chemerong Amenity Forest
(4.651667, 103.001389) located in the Pasir Raja Forest Reserve, Dungun,
Terengganu, Malaysia. It is considered as an undisturbed area with pristine
forest. The Chemerong Amenity Forest encompassing of at least 292 ha area and
is categorized as a hill dipterocarp forest (Forestry Department of Peninsular
Malaysia 2022). This area is blessed with various flora and fauna and is rich
with a variety of dicotyledonous plants, namely, Dipterocarpaceae, Rubiaceae,
and Euphorbiaceae together with monocotyledonous species such as Zingiberaceae
and Palmae (Faridah-Hanum et al. 2006). The amenity forest is well known for
the Lata Chemerong waterfall, which is about 305 m in height and the presence
of the Malaysia’s largest and oldest Cengal tree Neobalanocarpus heimii
with a height of 65 m, girth of 16.75 m and the estimated age of at least 1,300
years old.
The Chemerong Amenity Forest mainly consists of
primary forest. However, due to the status of the area as an amenity forest,
the local authority has built several facilities for administration and
ecotourism such as an office, cafeteria, toilet, prayer room, camping site,
hall, and garden. Various trees and floristic plants were also planted at
surrounding areas as decoration. Moreover, a walking trail has also been built
in the forest to facilitate tourists to reach the waterfall area.
Data Collection
Sweep sampling method, baits method, and modified
VanSomeren-Rydon cylinder trap was utilised to investigate butterfly diversity
and composition in Chemerong Amenity Forest from July 2010 to January 2011 (14
days sampling) and August 2011 to January 2012 (10 days sampling). The study
was conducted once a month for two days, one-night sampling per effort.
Different collection methods have been used to
increase the species diversity of butterflies caught. For instance, some
members of subfamily Charaxinae and Nymphalinae tend to be trapped in the
canopy, while Morphinae and Satyrinae in the understory (De Vries 1988).
Butterfly collecting was conducted from 0830 h to 1100 h and from 1500 h to
1800 h. Sweep sampling method was conducted by walking in the forest interior,
along the trails and garden area at the visitors’ complex, and sighted
butterflies were captured using sweep net. Baits method on the other hand, was
conducted by luring the butterflies using bait that consisted of a mixture of
rotten fruits of banana, papaya, apple, orange, and pineapples. The bait was
placed on the forest floor at several selected spots such as near the trails,
forest fringe and at the forest interior. Lured butterflies were then captured
using sweep net.
Butterflies were sampled using modified
VanSomeren-Rydon cylinder trap, baited with rotten banana following the method
of Rydon (1964). However, the original structure of PVC bait case used by Rydon
(1964) was replaced with a plastic plate. To reduce the damage to the trapped
samples on a rainy day caused by raindrops, a transparent plastic-sheet was
used to cover the top of each trap.
Ten traps were used for each sampling attempts and was
positioned about 1 m to 4 m above ground at 10 different selected spots, at the
interior of the forest and forest edges. The traps were checked and mixed with
fresh baits daily in the morning between 0830 h and 1000 h, and in the evening
between 1700 h and 1830 h. The bait was renewed daily by mixing the old bait together
with the fresh baits in order to produce the homogenous odour of rotten banana.
All butterflies were captured by hand through the zipped part of the trap
whilst either resting on the netting or hanging from the cone part of the trap.
The butterflies were then killed by using the pinching technique and kept in
triangle envelopes. Only butterflies caught using the traps and by sweep net
were recorded for this study.
Identification
The samples were identified into species taxon by
referring to Otsuka (2001), Corbet & Pendlebury (1992), and Fleming (1975).
Revisions were also made by referring to van der Poorten & van der Poorten
(2020).
Data Analysis
The diversity, evenness and species richness indices of
butterfly communities were assessed and pooled over for two years. Shannon
diversity index (H’) was applied as a measure of species abundance and
richness to quantify diversity of butterfly species. The Shannon diversity
index formula is shown below:
where (ni) is the number of individuals of one
particular species found in the community, (N) is the total number of
individuals for all species found in the community, (ln) is the natural
log and (Σ) is the sum of the calculations.
Next, as a tool to measure species dominance, Simpson’s
index (DSimpson) was used while Margalef index (IMargalef)
was used to determine species richness, evenness and dominance. The equation
for Simpson’s index is as follows:
Where (ni) is the number of individuals found for
particular species in the community, (N) is the total number of
individuals for all species found in the community and (Σ) is the sum of the
calculations.
For Margalef index (IMargalef), the
equation is as follows:
Where (S) is the total number of species and (N)
is the total number of individuals found for all species.
To measure equitability or evenness of spread of
individuals for each species of butterflies, Shannon evenness index (EShannon)
was applied based on the following equation:
Where (ni) is the number of individuals found for
particular species in the community, (N) is the total number of
individuals for all species found in the community, (ln) is the natural
log and (Σ) is the sum of the calculations. If the value obtained in EShannon
approaching zero, the distribution of individuals in each species is considered
highly similar or even. However, if the value approaches 1, the community did
not have evenly distributed number of individuals for each species.
Whittaker plot or a rank abundance curve (RAC) was also
generated by using excel to show the relative species abundance, richness and
evenness.
Results
Butterfly composition
We recorded a total of six families, 198 species and
939 individuals (Table 1). The most abundant family (Nymphalidae), included 577
(61.4%) individuals, followed by Hesperidae 161 (17.1%) individuals, Pieridae
131 (14%) individuals, Lycaenidae 46 (4.9%) individuals, Papilionidae 15 (1.6%)
individuals, and Riodinidae 9 (1%) individuals (Figure 1). The richest genus
was Mycalesis (9 species), followed by Arophala, Neptis,
and Eurema (8 species), Tanaecia (7 species), Amathusia
and Ypthima (6 species), Graphium (5 species), and Euthalia,
Lexias, Charaxes and Athyma (4 species).
Diversity indices analysis
The diversity of butterflies in the Chemerong Amenity
Forest recorded a reading of 0.042 for Simpson’s index and 4.1 for
Shannon-Weiner index with the evenness or equitability of 0.776. These readings
indicate that butterfly community in the Chemerong Amenity Forest have very
high diversity, yet the equitability of the species can be considered
relatively low. However, for the species richness, Margalef index was 28.78 which
indicates high species presence in the study site. Figure 2 summarizes the rank
abundance curve for six butterfly families at Chemerong which showed that most
of the butterfly species from different families were low ranking species where
the number of individuals caught were nearly similar with majority of the
butterfly species categorized in low ranking species (106 species or 53.5%)
being singletons.
Five species of butterfly were ranked as high-ranking
species or dominant species namely Lexias dirtea merguia (syn. maga),
Lexias pardalis dirteana, Ypthima newboldi, Cephrenes acalle niasicus, Ypthima
heubneri, Ypthima pandocus corticaria, Eurema ada iona, and Ragadia
makuta siponta. These dominant species contributed 48% (456 individuals) of
the total individuals caught in this study.
Discussion
The dominancy by the family Nymphalidae may be due to
the generally diverse group of butterfly species in this family. The
Nymphalidae contains 7,200 species occurring in all habitats and continents
except Antarctica (DeVries 1987; Shields 1989), with 281 species recorded in
Malaysia (van der Poorten & van der Poorten 2020). In addition, the use of
fruit baits as attractants such as rotting banana, papaya, apple, orange and
pineapple were found to successfully attract the Lexias butterflies
which contributed 22.9% of the total individuals caught in this study. This was
supported by Owen (1975), who reported that the baits were effective only for
certain genera.
Furthermore, the usage of rotten fruits especially
banana as bait have been practiced by many researchers to trap fruit-feeding
butterflies (e.g., Hamer et al. 2006; Barlow et al. 2007; Bonebrake & Sorto
2009; Sáfián et al. 2010). As the strong odour of fermenting fruits can likely
be detected at long distances, and in forest environments, it probably forms a
reliable cue for locating a fruit fall by these species (Molleman et al. 2005).
In addition, as Nymphalidae is categorized under the
fruit-feeding butterflies’ guild, the usage of rotten fruits as bait was
felicitous which was manifested through the high number of captured individuals
and species. However, although fruit-feeding butterflies are defined as those
species attracted to fruit bait, this does not mean that fruits are the main
food source for all the species in this guild (Molleman et al. 2005). For
instance, most tropical Satyrinae are exclusively fruit-feeders, but Charaxinae
and Apaturinae are attracted to both fruit and rotting animal matter and
excrement (Fermon et al. 2000). Furthermore, fruit-feeding butterflies
(including nymphalids) are among the longest-lived Lepidoptera (Molleman et al.
2008). Therefore, longevity and ability to exploit various food resources may
be the reasons why family Nymphalidae was the dominant family in this study.
Besides Lexias species, a high number of Cephrenes
acalle niasicus was also caught in this study. One of the reasons which may
have contributed to this might be due to the landscape of the study site where
ornamental plants such as the Poison bulb Crinum asiaticum and White
buttercup Turnera subulata were planted at the garden area around the
visitor complex. These ornamental plants were some of the plants observed to be
frequently visited by many butterfly species and eventually contributed to the
ease in capturing C. accelle and other fast flyer butterfly species.
Other vegetation structures such as meadows, shrubs,
grass and lower ground plants were found to be frequently visited by some
butterfly genera, namely: Ypthima, Eurema, Jamides, and Zizeeria.
These butterflies were easily captured at areas close to ground as they
obtained protection from winds because of their weaker flight ability. In
addition, open areas which offer more light penetration is deemed one of the
most visited area by the butterflies to bask under the sun for energy (Van Lien
& Yuan 2003). This is proven that, although the developed area and garden
area is limited, the occurrence of various surrounding landscape with an array
of flora is believed to serve as important habitats for different butterfly
species (Asmah et al. 2016; Toivonen 2017).
There were eight species of butterflies categorized as
protected under Malaysian legislation, the Wildlife Conservation Act 2010 which
were recorded in this study namely Agatasa calydonia calydonia (Glorious
Begum), Charaxes athamas athamas (Common Nawab), Charaxes athmamas
uraeus, Charaxes bernadus crepax (Tawny Rajah), Charaxes echo
echo, Idea hypermnestra linteata (Malayan Tree Nymph), Prothoe
franck uniformis (Blue Begum), and Trogonoptera brookiana albescens
(Rajah Brooke).
For Agatasa calydonia calydonia (Glorious
Begum), it is also considered to be rare in the Malay Peninsula. The two
individuals recorded in this study were females and was captured using fruit
bait. As for the Charaxes recorded, all were singletons except for C.
bernadus crepax (2 individuals). All individuals were males, and were
caught using fruit baits as they are difficult to capture while in flight.
For Idea hypermnestra linteata (Malayan
Tree Nymph), this species was only seen at some specific trees in the sampling
site. Additionally, based on our observation, they are commonly found to be in
a group and were caught during mating. Due to their rarity, we speculate that
the abundance of this species may depend on its host distribution. Furthermore,
the life cycle of this species might also contribute to its rare occurrence as
the adults naturally die after laying eggs. Although I. hypermnestra
linteata has relatively slow flight abilities (Otsuka 2001), it was not an
easy task to capture them as they can fly up to very tall trees.
As for Prothoe franck uniformis (Blue Begum),
11 individuals of this species were caught during our study with most caught
being females (n= 9). Based on our observation, they are strongly attracted to
the fruit bait, which is in agreement with Corbet & Pendlebury (1992) whom
reported the females to be often seen on fruit bait or on sap from a damaged
tree trunk.
The Trogonoptera brookiana albescens
(Rajah Brooke) population have been reported to be plunging, but the exact
status of the population is unknown (Phon & Kirton 2010). The species was
rarely observed in this study and only the males were captured. This is since
only the males exhibited puddling behaviour by which they tend to aggregate at
moist places along forest paths and riverbanks to drink water from which
nutrients are obtained (Phon & Kirton 2010). The females by contrast, are
forest dwellers and can only be sighted during mating season. This sex
disparity is supported by Corbet & Pendlebury (1992). This species is also
listed under the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of
Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) Appendix II where the trade in this species is
closely regulated.
This study also recorded other rare species such as Arhopala
lucida, Curetis saronis sumatrana, Miletus nymphis fictus of
the family Lycaenidae (the blues, coppers, & hairstreaks), Amathusia
perakana perakana, Bassarona teuta goodrichi, Elymnias saueri
saueri, Elymnias nesaea, Mycalesis horsfieldi hermana, Mycalesis
distanti, Ypthima pandocus tahanensis of the family Nymphalidae (the
brush-footed or four-footed), Celaenorrhinus ladana, Erionota sybirita, Matapa aria,
Matapa cresta, Matapa druna, Pseudokerana fulger, Taractrocera
ardonia, Taractrocera luzonensis, Telicota linna, and Unkana
mytheca mytheca of the family Hesperiidae (the skippers).
Although both Arhopala lucida and Bassarona
teuta goodrichi are common in Langkawi but they are considered to be rare
in the Malay Peninsula (van der Poorten & van der Poorten 2020). Similarly,
the two Mycalesis species are listed as rare, being uncommon to other
parts of the Malay Peninsula although M. horsfieldi hermana is found in
the Tioman group of islands and along the east coast of Johor while M.
distanti is more common in Kedawi. Telicota linna is another species
listed as not common to the Malay Peninsula.
For montane species, Miletus nymphis cresta is
recorded as a rare montane species while Ypthima pandocus tahanensis was
recorded from Gunung Tahan at elevation of 1650m (van der Poorten & van der
Poorten 2020). Pseudokerana fulgur restricted to Neomalaya, is another
very rare species which is usually observed in the hills.
As for Amathusia perakana perakana, it is a
rare species that is only found in primary forest while Erionata sybirita
and Unkana mytheca mytheca are very rare species that are confined in
lowland forest. For both Elymnias saueri saueri and Elymnias nesaea,
these are rare species that are restricted to heavy forest as their habitat
(van der Poorten & van der Poorten 2020).
For the Matapa species, M. aria (Common
Redeye) is listed by van der Poorten & van der Poorten (2020) as being not
common in the Malay Peninsula, occurring in lowland primary and secondary
forests, while M. cresta and M. druna are rare in the Malay
Peninsula lowlands.
As for the other rare species, according to van der
Poorten & van der Poorten (2020), Curetis saronis sumatrana has only
been recorded on the edges of mangrove swamps in Singapore, while Celaenorrhinus
ladana is very rare with its recorded range being only the Malay Peninsula
and Borneo. Both Taractrocera ardonia and T. luzonensis are also
rarely recorded in the Malay Peninsula.
Two major factors are believed to impose great
pressure on butterfly populations, namely, habitat loss and an extraordinarily
high demand for butterflies by collectors and commercial dealers (Phon &
Kirton 2010), especially for T. brookiana albescens. Habitat loss due to
timber industries and conversion of extensive area of natural forest for
agricultural activities and urbanization, shrink the habitat as well as
diminish the host and nectar-plants of this and many other butterfly
species.
Comparison of the Shannon-Weiner index results for
this study with Kuala Lompat which consists of primary forest located in the
Krau Wildlife Reserve, Pahang showed that the diversity of butterfly species in
Chemerong Amenity Forest (H’= 4.1) was higher than Kuala Lompat (H’=
3.87) (Nur Afny Syazwany & Amirrudin, 2014) (H’= 3.37) and (H’=
3.37) (Zaidi & Abin 1991). Furthermore, the results of butterfly diversity
recorded in the Chemerong Amenity Forest (939 individuals from 198 species)
were also highest as compared to other study sites in Malaysia namely Gunung
Serambu, Sarawak (377 individuals from 97 species) (Pang et al. 2016), Ulu
Gombak Forest Reserve, Selangor (194 individuals from 28 species) (Min 2014),
Setiu Wetlands, Terengganu (350 individuals from 45 species) (Tamblyn et al.
2006), Kuala Lompat, Pahang (302 individuals from 90 species) (Nur Afny
Syazwany & Amirrudin 2014), Bukit Hampuan Forest Reserve, Sabah (42
species) (Chung et al. 2013), Sungai Imbak Forest Reserve, Sabah (174 species)
(Jalil et al. 2008), Tabin Wildlife Reserve (136 species) (Akinori et al. 2001)
and Ulu Senagang Substation (147 species) (Haruo et al. 2012) yet lower than
what was recorded from Genting Highlands, Pahang (2,876 individuals from 214
species) (Min 2014) and Taman Negara Johor Endau Rompin (349 species).
Based on the comparison with other studies, the
Chemerong Amenity Forest environment can accommodate more diverse species of
butterflies. This can be proven if the sampling period was extended and the
study site not only focuses on the lowlands (not more than 200 m above sea
level) but includes different elevations (more than 200m above sea level).
Nevertheless, Chemerong can be considered as pristine forest and the
introduction of certain ornamental plants in the garden area plays an important
role as attractant for the various species of butterflies such as Papilio
memnon agenor, Catopsilia pomona pomona, and many Hesperiidae
butterflies.
Conclusion and Recommendations
In general, short-term sampling with limited manpower
and equipment was considered satisfactory, although it only provides a snapshot
of the butterfly community present in the Chemerong Amenity Forest. The
presence of endangered butterfly species which are protected under the
Malaysian Wildlife Conservation Act 2010 increases the conservation value of
the Chemerong Amenity Forest as a forest reserve in Malaysia. A much longer
term sampling is strongly recommended to further observe and examine butterfly
species at different elevations, across different seasonality and years, as
well as further exploration of forest canopy to reveal more species in that
stratum. The rapid loss of primary forest habitats and the growth of oil palm
plantations in many areas of Malaysia as well as in the state of Terengganu
underline the urgency with which this work needs to be undertaken.
Table 1. List of butterfly species recorded in
Chemerong Amenity Forest, Terengganu, Malaysia.
|
Taxon |
Scientific name |
No. of individuals |
Voucher code |
|
Hesperiidae |
|
|
|
|
Hesperiinae |
Ancistroides armatus armatus |
1 |
UMT/8/2012 |
|
|
Ancistroides gemmifer gemmifer |
1 |
UMT/4/2012 |
|
|
Ancistroides nigrita maura |
4 |
UMT/34/2012 |
|
|
Arnetta verones |
1 |
UMT/61/2012 |
|
|
Astictopterus jama jama |
7 |
UMT/95/2012 |
|
|
Baoris oceia |
1 |
UMT/113/2012 |
|
|
Caltoris brunnea caere
|
1 |
UMT/120/2012 |
|
|
Cephrenes acalle niasicus |
65 |
UMT/130/2012 |
|
|
Erionota acroleuca apicalis |
3 |
UMT/131/2012 |
|
|
Erionota sybirita |
3 |
UMT/1/2012 |
|
|
Gangara lebadea lebadea (syn. glandulosa) |
1 |
UMT/77/2012 |
|
|
Gangara thyrsis thyrsis |
1 |
UMT/78/2012 |
|
|
Hidari doesoena doesoena |
1 |
UMT/157/2012 |
|
|
Hyarotis microsticta microsticta |
1 |
UMT/158/2012 |
|
|
Iambrix salsala salsala |
4 |
UMT/2/2012 |
|
|
Iambrix stellifer |
1 |
UMT/3/2012 |
|
|
Isma guttulifera kuala |
1 |
UMT/171/2012 |
|
|
Isma miosticta |
6 |
UMT/172/2012 |
|
|
Isma umbrosa umbrosa |
1 |
UMT/173/2012 |
|
|
Koruthaialos rubecula rubecula |
5 |
UMT/24/2012 |
|
|
Koruthaialos sindu sindu |
4 |
UMT/96/2012 |
|
|
Matapa aria |
1 |
UMT/18/2012 |
|
|
Matapa cresta |
2 |
UMT/144/2012 |
|
|
Matapa druna |
1 |
UMT/156/2012 |
|
|
Notocrypta clavata clavata (syn. devadatta) |
1 |
UMT/183/2012 |
|
|
Notocrypta curvifascia corinda |
1 |
UMT/184/2012 |
|
|
Parnara bada bada |
1 |
UMT/35/2012 |
|
|
Pelopidas agna agna |
4 |
UMT/5/2012 |
|
|
Pelopidas assamensis |
1 |
UMT/17/2012 |
|
|
Pelopidas conjunctus |
4 |
UMT/99/2012 |
|
|
Polytremis lubricans lubricans |
4 |
UMT/146/2012 |
|
|
Potanthus juno juno |
1 |
UMT/165/2012 |
|
|
Potanthus omaha omaha (syn. maesoides) |
3 |
UMT/10/2012 |
|
|
Pseudokerana fulgur |
1 |
UMT/32/2012 |
|
|
Psolos fuligo fuligo |
3 |
UMT/170/2012 |
|
|
Tagiades lavata |
1 |
UMT/132/2012 |
|
|
Taractrocera ardonia sumatrensis (syn. lamia) |
5 |
UMT/133/2012 |
|
|
Taractrocera luzonensis zenia |
2 |
UMT/134/2012 |
|
|
Telicota linna |
1 |
UMT/164/2012 |
|
|
Telicota besta bina |
2 |
UMT163/2012 |
|
|
Unkana ambasa batara |
6 |
UMT/193/2012 |
|
|
Unkana mytheca mytheca (syn. harmachis; standingeri) |
1 |
UMT59/2012 |
|
Pyrginae |
Celaenorrhinus ladana |
2 |
UMT/9/2012 |
|
Riodinidae |
|
|
|
|
|
Abisara saturata kausambioides |
3 |
UMT/98/2012 |
|
|
Paralaxita telesia lyclene |
2 |
UMT/115/2012 |
|
|
Stiboges nymphidia nymphidia |
1 |
UMT/159/2012 |
|
|
Taxila haquinus haquinus |
1 |
UMT/160/2012 |
|
|
Zemeros emesoides emesoides |
1 |
UMT/114/2012 |
|
|
Zemeros flegyas albipunctus |
1 |
UMT/175/2012 |
|
Lycaenidae |
|
|
|
|
Theclinae |
Arhopala aedias |
1 |
UMT/186/2012 |
|
|
Arhopala antimuta antimuta (syns. davisonii; tana) |
1 |
UMT/22/2012 |
|
|
Arhopala lurida |
2 |
UMT/14/2012 |
|
|
Arhopala major major (syn. catori) |
1 |
UMT/15/2012 |
|
|
Arhopala normani |
1 |
UMT/79/2012 |
|
|
Arhopala centaurus nakula |
1 |
UMT/80/2012 |
|
|
Arhopala tropaea |
1 |
UMT/81/2012 |
|
|
Arhopala wildeyana wildeyana |
1 |
UMT/60/2012 |
|
|
Drupadia ravindra moorei |
1 |
UMT/30/2012 |
|
|
Eooxylides tharis distanti |
1 |
UMT/11/2012 |
|
|
Megisba malaya sikkima (syn. velina) |
1 |
UMT/23/2012 |
|
|
Surendra vivarna amisena |
1 |
UMT/33/2012 |
|
Curetinae |
Curetis saronis sumatrana |
1 |
UMT/162/2012 |
|
|
Curetis sperthis sperthis |
1 |
UMT/145/2012 |
|
Lycaeninae |
Rachana jalindra burbona |
1 |
UMT/16/2012 |
|
Polyommatinae |
Acytolepis puspa lambi |
1 |
UMT/7/2012 |
|
|
Catochrysops strabo strabo (syn. riama) |
1 |
UMT/57/2012 |
|
|
Jamides celeno aelianus |
2 |
UMT/58/2012 |
|
|
Jamides elpis pseudelpis |
4 |
UMT/118/2012 |
|
|
Jamides zebra lakatti |
1 |
UMT/119/2012 |
|
|
Prosotas nora superdates |
1 |
UMT/117/2012 |
|
|
Zizeeria karsandra |
5 |
UMT/161/2012 |
|
|
Zizina otis lampa |
12 |
UMT/185/2012 |
|
Miletinae |
Allotinus horsfieldi permagnus (syn. nessus) |
1 |
UMT/36/2012 |
|
|
Miletus nymphis fictus |
1 |
UMT/135/2012 |
|
Poritiinae |
Simiskina pharyge deolina |
1 |
UMT/174/2012 |
|
Nymphalidae |
|
|
|
|
Charaxinae |
Agatasa calydonia calydonia |
2 |
UMT/13/2012 |
|
|
Charaxes athamas athamas |
1 |
UMT/101/2012 |
|
|
Charaxes athamas uraeus |
1 |
UMT/21/2012 |
|
|
Charaxes bernadus crepax |
2 |
UMT/6/2012 |
|
Charaxes echo echo |
1 |
UMT/97/2012 |
|
|
Doleschallia bisaltide pratipa |
1 |
UMT/102/2012 |
|
|
Prothoe franck uniformis |
11 |
UMT/191/2012 |
|
|
Amathusiinae |
Amathusia friderici holmanhunti f. utana |
1 |
UMT/147/2012 |
|
|
Amathusia ochraceofusca ochraceofusca |
6 |
UMT/148/2012 |
|
|
Amathusia perakana perakana |
1 |
UMT/12/2012 |
|
|
Amathusia phidippus phidippus f. chersias |
1 |
UMT/116/2012 |
|
|
Amathusia phidippus phidippus f. gunneryi |
2 |
UMT/129/2012 |
|
|
Amathusia sp. |
4 |
UMT/100/2012 |
|
|
Amathuxidia amythaon dilucida |
4 |
UMT/31/2012 |
|
|
Amathuxidia sp. |
1 |
UMT/37/2012 |
|
|
Discophora sondaica despoliata |
2 |
UMT/40/2012 |
|
|
Discophora timora perakensis |
2 |
UMT/128/2012 |
|
|
Faunis canens arcesilas [syn. taraki] |
6 |
UMT/177/2012 |
|
|
Faunis gracilis |
1 |
UMT/178/2012 |
|
|
Faunis kirata |
1 |
UMT/179/2012 |
|
|
Thaumantis klugius lucipor |
1 |
UMT/48/2012 |
|
|
Thaumantis noureddin noureddin |
2 |
UMT/192/2012 |
|
|
Zeuxidia amethystus amethystus |
2 |
UMT149/2012 |
|
|
Zeuxidia doubledayi doubledayi (syn. chersonesia) |
4 |
UMT/150/2012 |
|
|
Zeuxidia sp. |
1 |
UMT/151/2012 |
|
Limenitidinae |
Athyma nefte subrata (syns. urvasi; nivifera) |
2 |
UMT/39/2012 |
|
|
Athyma pravara helma |
1 |
UMT/49/2012 |
|
|
Athyma reta moorei |
1 |
UMT/167/2012 |
|
|
Athyma sinope sinope |
1 |
UMT/166/2012 |
|
|
Bassarona teuta goodrichi (syn. johorensis) |
1 |
UMT/76/2012 |
|
|
Euthalia phemius phemius (syns ipona; corbeti) |
1 |
UMT/104/2012 |
|
|
Euthalia kanda marana |
2 |
UMT/190/2012 |
|
|
Euthalia merta (syn. simplex) |
2 |
UMT/137/2012 |
|
|
Euthalia monina monina (syn. ramada; perakana) |
5 |
UMT/138/2012 |
|
|
Lasippa heliodore dorelia |
2 |
UMT/20/2012 |
|
|
Lasippa tiga camboja |
2 |
UMT/50/2012 |
|
|
Lebadea martha malayana (syn. koenigi) |
1 |
UMT/51/2012 |
|
|
Lexias canescens pardalina |
3 |
UMT/52/2012 |
|
|
Lexias cyanipardus sandakana (syn. johorensis) |
3 |
UMT/53/2012 |
|
|
Lexias dirtea merguia (syn. maga) |
114 |
UMT/28/2012 |
|
|
Lexias pardalis dirteana (syn. erici) |
95 |
UMT/103/2012 |
|
|
Neptis cliniodes gunongensis |
1 |
UMT/126/2012 |
|
|
Neptis duryodana neisa |
1 |
UMT/63/2012 |
|
|
Neptis hylas papaja (syn. mamaja) |
1 |
UMT/125/2012 |
|
|
Neptis leucoporos cresina |
1 |
UMT/152/2012 |
|
|
Neptis magadha charon |
1 |
UMT/41/2012 |
|
|
Neptis nata gononata |
1 |
UMT/42/2012 |
|
|
Neptis omeroda omeroda |
1 |
UMT/46/2012 |
|
|
Neptis soma pendleburyi |
1 |
UMT/127/2012 |
|
|
Tanaecia aruna aruna (syns. robertsii, satapana) |
8 |
UMT/47/2012 |
|
|
Tanaecia flora flora (syn. maclayi) |
1 |
UMT/71/2012 |
|
|
Tanaecia godartii picturatus |
5 |
UMT/72/2012 |
|
|
Tanaecia iapis puseda (syn. cocyta) |
6 |
UMT/73/2012 |
|
|
Tanaecia munda waterstradti |
5 |
UMT/74/2012 |
|
|
Tanaecia palguna consanguinea |
9 |
UMT/45/2012 |
|
|
Tanaecia pelea pelea (syns. pulsara; supercilia) |
4 |
UMT/56/2012 |
|
Heliconiinae |
Cethosia hypsea hypsina |
2 |
UMT/153/2012 |
|
|
Cirrochroa orissa orissa |
1 |
UMT/139/2012 |
|
|
Vindula erota chersonesia |
1 |
UMT/187/2012 |
|
Nymphalinae |
Chersonesia rahria rahria |
1 |
UMT/38/2012 |
|
|
Cyrestis themire themire (syn. periander) |
1 |
UMT/176/2012 |
|
|
Dophla evelina compta |
9 |
UMT/136/2012 |
|
|
Hypolimnas bolina bolina |
1 |
UMT/44/2102 |
|
|
Hypolimnas anomala anomala |
1 |
UMT/29/2012 |
|
|
Junonia atlites atlites |
1 |
UMT/55/2012 |
|
|
Junonia iphita horsfieldi |
1 |
UMT/82/2012 |
|
|
Junonia orithya wallacei |
7 |
UMT/83/2012 |
|
Satyrinae |
Elymnias saueri saueri |
1 |
UMT/105/2012 |
|
|
Elymnias hypermnestra tinctoria |
3 |
UMT/106/2012 |
|
|
Elymnias nesaea lioneli |
1 |
UMT/107/2012 |
|
|
Melanitis leda leda |
2 |
UMT/108/2012 |
|
|
Mycalesis fuscum fuscum |
3 |
UMT/109/2012 |
|
|
Mycalesis horsfieldi hermana |
2 |
UMT/110/2012 |
|
|
Mycalesis distanti |
2 |
UMT/19/2012 |
|
|
Mycalesis maianeas maianeas |
1 |
UMT/43/2012 |
|
|
Mycalesis mineus macromalayana |
3 |
UMT/54/2012 |
|
|
Mycalesis mnasicles perna |
1 |
UMT/124/2012 |
|
|
Mycalesis orseis nautilus |
1 |
UMT/140/2012 |
|
|
Mycalesis perseoides |
1 |
UMT168/2012 |
|
|
Mycalesis sp. |
1 |
UMT/169/2012 |
|
|
Neorina lowii neophyte |
1 |
UMT/197/2012 |
|
|
Ragadia makuta siponta |
19 |
UMT/102/2012 |
|
|
Xanthotaenia busiris busiris |
1 |
UMT/64/2012 |
|
|
Ypthima newboldi |
77 |
UMT/65/2012 |
|
|
Ypthima fasciata torone |
4 |
UMT/66/2012 |
|
|
Ypthima heubneri |
39 |
UMT/67/2012 |
|
|
Ypthima horsfieldii humei |
2 |
UMT/68/2012 |
|
|
Ypthima pandocus corticaria (syn. emporialis) |
25 |
UMT/69/2012 |
|
|
Ypthima pandocus tahanensis |
3 |
UMT/70/2012 |
|
Danainae |
Danaus melanippus hegesippus |
1 |
UMT/90/2012 |
|
|
Euploea mulciber mulciber |
1 |
UMT/195/2012 |
|
|
Euploea radamanthus radamanthus (syn. diocletianus) |
4 |
UMT/196/2012 |
|
|
Idea hypermnestra linteata |
6 |
UMT/198/2012 |
|
|
Ideopsis similis persimilis |
1 |
UMT/154/2012 |
|
|
Ideopsis vulgaris macrina |
1 |
UMT/155/2012 |
|
Apaturinae |
Rohana parisatis siamensis |
1 |
UMT/189/2012 |
|
Papilionidae |
|
|
|
|
Papilioniae |
Graphium agamemnon agamemnon |
1 |
UMT/26/2012 |
|
|
Graphium antiphates alcibiades (syn. itamputi) |
1 |
UMT/94/2012 |
|
|
Graphium eurypylus mecisteus |
1 |
UMT/91/2012 |
|
|
Graphium evemon eventus (syn. orthia) |
1 |
UMT/92/2012 |
|
|
Graphium sarpedon luctatius |
1 |
UMT/93/2012 |
|
|
Losaria doubledayi doubledayi |
1 |
UMT/121/2012 |
|
|
Losaria neptunus neptunus |
1 |
UMT/122/2012 |
|
|
Papilio demolion demolion |
2 |
UMT/180/2012 |
|
|
Papilio iswara iswara |
2 |
UMT/182/2012 |
|
|
Papilio memnon agenor |
1 |
UMT/181/2012 |
|
|
Graphium antiphates alcibiades (syn. itamputi) |
1 |
UMT/94/2012 |
|
|
Trogonoptera brookiana albescens |
3 |
UMT/188/2012 |
|
Pieridae |
|
|
|
|
Pierinae |
Appias indra plana |
1 |
UMT/194/2012 |
|
|
Appias lyncida vasava |
7 |
UMT/142/2012 |
|
|
Appias paulina distanti |
1 |
UMT/143/2012 |
|
|
Delias hyparete metarete |
3 |
UMT/27/2012 |
|
Coliadinae |
Catopsilia pomona pomona |
2 |
UMT/141/2012 |
|
|
Eurema ada iona |
22 |
UMT/87/2012 |
|
|
Eurema andersonii andersonii |
16 |
UMT/88/2012 |
|
|
Eurema blanda blanda (syn. snelleni) |
11 |
UMT/89/2012 |
|
|
Eurema hecabe hecabe (syn. contubernalis) |
2 |
UMT/86/2012 |
|
|
Eurema lacteola lacteola |
13 |
UMT/62/2012 |
|
|
Eurema sari sodalis |
14 |
UMT/84/2012 |
|
|
Eurema simulatrix tecmessa |
10 |
UMT/85/2012 |
|
|
Eurema nicevillei nicevillei |
14 |
UMT/112/2012 |
|
|
Gandaca harina distanti |
10 |
UMT/123/2012 |
|
|
Parenonia valeria lutescens |
3 |
UMT/111/2012 |
|
|
Saletara panda distanti |
2 |
UMT/25/2012 |
|
Total |
Species= 198 |
939 |
|
References
Akinori, N., S. Toyohei, H.
Yoshiaki, M. Maryati & J.M. Fairus (2001). The butterflies (Lepidoptera: Rhopalocera) of Tabin
Wildlife Reserve, Sabah, Malaysia, II. Nature and Human Activities 6:
67–73. https://www.hitohaku.jp/publication/r-bulletin/Nature%20and%20Human%20Activities%20No.06%202001%20067-073%20optimized.pdf
Asmah, S., A. Ghazali, M. Syafiq,
M.S. Yahya, L.P. Tan, A.R. Norhisham, C.L. Puan, B. Azhar, D.B. Lindenmayer
(2016). Effects of polyculture and
monoculture farming in oil palm smallholdings on tropical fruit-feeding
butterfly diversity. Agricultural and Forest Entomology 19(1): 70–80. https://doi.org/10.1111/afe.12182
Ballesteros-Mejia, L., I.J.
Kitching, W. Jetz, P. Nagel & J. Beck (2013). Mapping the biodiversity of tropical insects: species
richness and inventory completeness of African sphingid moths. Global
Ecology and Biogeography 22(5): 586–595. https://doi.org/10.1111/geb.12039
Barlow, J., W.L. Overal, I.S. Araujo, T.A. Gardner & C.A. Peres
(2007). Quantifying the biodiversity
value of tropical primary secondary and plantation forests. Journal of
Applied Ecology 44: 1001–1012. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0703333104
Beck, J. (2007). The importance of amino acids in the adult diet of
male tropical rainforest butterflies. Oecologia 151: 741–747. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00442-006-0613-y
Bonebrake, T.C. & R. Sorto
(2009). Butterfly (Papilionoidea and
Hesperioidea) rapid assessment of a coastal countryside in El Salvador. Tropical
Conservation Science 2(1): 34–51. https://doi.org/10.1177/194008290900200106
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: 1831–1841.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2010.04.044
Brook, B.W., N.S. Sodhi &
P.K.L. Ng (2003). Catastrophic
extinctions follow deforestation in Singapore. Nature 424: 420–423. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature01795
Castelletta, M., N.S. Sodhi &
R. Subaraj (2000). Heavy
extinctions of forest avifauna in Singapore: lessons for biodiversity
conservation in Southeast Asia. Conservation Biology 14: 1870–1880. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1523-1739.2000.99285.x
Checa, M.F., A. Barragán, J.
Rodríguez & M. Christman (2009). Temporal abundance patterns of butterfly communities
(Lepidoptera: Nymphalidae) in the Ecuadorian Amazonia and their relationship
with climate. Annales de la Société Entomologique de France (Nouvelle série)
45(4): 470–486. https://doi.org/10.1080/00379271.2009.10697630
Chung, A.Y.C., S.K.F. Chew, R.
Majapun & R. Nilus (2013).
Insect diversity of Bukit Hampuan Forest Reserve, Sabah, Malaysia. Journal
of Threatened Taxa 5(10): 4461–4473. https://doi.org/10.11609/JoTT.o3243.4461-73
Corbet, A.S. & H.M. Pendlebury
(1992). The Butterflies of the Malay
Peninsula. 4th ed. Malayan Nature Society, Malaysia, 595 pp.
DeVries, P.J. (1987). The butterflies of Costa Rica and their natural
history. Princeton University Press, Princeton, USA, 288 pp.
Eliot, J. & L. Kirton (2000). Revisional notes and nomenclatural changes of some
Peninsular Malaysia butterflies. Malayan Nature Journal 54(2): 131–145.
DeVries, P.J. (1988). Stratification of fruit-feeding nymphalid butterflies
in a Costa Rican rainforest. Journal of Research on the Lepidoptera 26(1–4):
98–108.
Faridah-Hanum, I., S. Khamis, T.A.
Manap, S.E. Suterisno, Z.A Latifah, M.N. Mohamad, A.Z. Ibrahim & A. Latiff
(2006). An annotated checklist of seed
plants at Pasir Raja Forest Reserve. Siri Kepelbagaian Biologi Hutan: Gunung
Mandi Angin, Terengganu – Pengurusan, Persekitaran Fizikal, Kepelbagaian
Biologi dan Pelancongan Ekologi. (ed. by Muda, A., Jaafar, N., Sabran,
M.R., Md.-Som, J., Nizam, M.S. & Latiff, A.), pp. 114–154. Jabatan
Perhutanan Semenanjung Malaysia, Malaysia.
Fermon, H., M. Waltert, T.B.
Larsen, U. Dall’ Asta & M. Mühlenberg (2000). Effects of forest management on diversity and
abundance of fruit-feeding nymphalid butterflies in south-eastern Côte d’Ivoire.
Journal of Insect Conservation 4: 173–189. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1009638808635
Fleming, W.A. (1975). Butterflies of West Malaysia & Singapore.
Classey Publications, Berkshire, England, 180 pp.
Forestry Department of Peninsular
Malaysia (2022). Hutan Lipur Chemerong.
Accessed on 9 February 2022.
https://www.forestry.gov.my/en/terengganu/hutan-lipur-chemerong
Green, E.R., A. Balmford, P.R.
Crane, G.M. Mace, J.D. Reynolds & R.K. Turner (2003). A framework for improved monitoring of biodiversity:
response to the world summit on sustainable development. Conservation
Biology 19: 56–65. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2005.00289.x
Hamer, K.C., J.K. Hill, S.
Benedick, N. Mustaffa, V.K. Chey & M. Maryati (2006). Diversity and ecology of carrion- and fruit-feeding
butterflies in Bornean rain forest. Journal of Tropical Ecology 22:
25–33. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0266467405002750
Haruo, T., S. Haruka, A. Naomi, K.
Tomomi & M. Nazirah (2012). Butterfly
collections from Ulu Senagang Substation area, Crocker Range Park, Tenom,
Sabah, Malaysia (Lepidoptera: Rhopalocera). Journal of Tropical Biology and
Conservation 9(2): 184–191.
Hau, B.C.H., D. Dudgeon & R.
T. Corlett (2005). Beyond
Singapore: Hong Kong and Asian biodiversity. Trends in Ecology and Evolution
20: 281–282. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2005.04.002
Jalil, M.F., H.H. Mahsol, N. Wahid
& A.H. Ahmad (2008). A
preliminary survey on the butterfly fauna of Sungai Imbak Forest Reserve, a
remote area at the centre of Sabah, Malaysia. Journal of Tropical Biology
and Conservation 4(1): 115–120.
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
McKee, J.K., P.W. Sciulli, C.D.
Fooce & T.A. Waite (2003).
Forecasting global biodiversity threats associated with human population
growth. Biological Conservation 115: 161–164. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0006-3207(03)00099-5
Min, K.C.H. (2014). Exploring the
diversity of butterflies (Lepidoptera) at different elevations at Genting
Highlands and the validity of Graphium species in Peninsular Malaysia. M.Sc.
dissertation. University of Malaya, viii+77 pp.
Molleman, F., M.E. Alphen, P.M.
Brakefield & B.J. Zwaan (2005). Preferences and food quality of fruit-feeding
butterflies in Kibale Forest, Uganda. Biotropica 37(4): 657–663.
Molleman, F., J. Ding, J.L. Wang,
B.J. Zwaan, J.R. Carey & P.M. Brakefield (2008). Adult diet affects lifespan and reproduction of the
fruit-feeding butterfly Charaxes fulvescens. Entomologia Experimentalis et
Applicata 129: 54–65. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1570-7458.2008.00752.x
Nur Afny Syazwani, A.Z. & A.
Amirrudin (2014). Checklist of
butterfly fauna at Kuala Lompat, Krau Wildlife Reserve, Pahang, Malaysia. Journal
of Wildlife and Parks 28: 63–72.
Otsuka, K. (2001). A Field Guide to the Butterflies of Borneo and
South East Asia. Borneo Book, Malaysia, 224 pp.
Owen, D.F. (1975). Estimating the abundance and diversity of
butterflies. Biological Conservation 8: 173–183. https://doi.org/10.1016/0006-3207(75)90061-0
Pang, S.T., A. Sayok & M.
Jenang (2016). Diversity of butterflies on
Gunung Serambu, Sarawak, Malaysia. Naturalists, Explorers and Field
Scientists in South-East Asia and Australasia (ed. by Das, I. & Tuen,
A.A), pp. 197–213. Springer International Publishing Switzerland.
Phon, C.K. & L.G. Kirton
(2010). Conservation of the Rajah Brooke’s
Birdwing, one of Malaysia’s natural wonders. Conservation Malaysia 10:
2–3.
Pollard, E. & T.J. Yates
(1993). Monitoring butterflies for ecology
and conservation. The British Butterfly Monitoring Scheme. Chapman &
Hall, London, 274 pp.
Rydon, A. (1964). Notes on the use of butterfly traps in East Africa. Journal
of the Lepidopterists’ Society 18(1): 51–58.
Sáfián, S., G. Csontos & D.
Winkler (2010). Butterfly community recovery in
degraded rainforest habitats in the Upper Guinean Forest Zone (Kakum forest,
Ghana). Journal of Insect Conservation 15: 351–359. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10841-010-9343-x
Sekimura, T. & F.H. Nijhout
(2019). Diversity and Evolution of
Butterfly Wing Patterns: An Integrative Approach. Springer Nature Singapore Pte
Ltd, Singapore, XII+312pp. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-4956-9
Shields, O. (1989). World numbers of butterflies. Journal of
Lepidopterists’ Society 43: 178–183.
Sodhi, N.S., L.P. Koh, B.W. Brook
& N.P.L. Ng (2004). Southeast
Asian biodiversity: an impending disaster. Trends in Ecology and Evolution
19: 654–660. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2004.09.006
Sodhi, N.S., M.R.C. Posa, M.L.
Tien, D. Bickford, L.P. Koh & B.W. Brook (2010). The state and conservation of Southeast Asian biodiversity.
Biodiversity Conservation 19: 317–328. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-009-9607-5
Tamblyn, A., C. Turner & P.
Raines (2006). Invertebrates-Butterflies. Malaysia
Tropical Forest Conservation Project Report of the Setiu Wetlands Phase: a
collaborative project between the Department of Wildlife and National Parks,
Malaysia (PERHILITAN) and Coral Cay Conservation (ed. by Tamblyn, A.,
Turner, C. & Raines, P), pp. 80–85. Coral Cay Conservation Ltd, London.
Toivonen, M., A. Peltonen, I.
Herzon, J. Heliölä, N. Leikola & M. Kuussaari (2017). High cover of forest increases the abundance of most
grassland butterflies in boreal farmland. Insect Conservation and Diversity
10: 321–330. https://doi.org/10.1111/icad.12226
Van der Poorten, G. & N. van der Poorten (2020). Corbet, A & Pendlebury, H.’s The Butterflies of
the Malay Peninsula
5th edition (2020), revised by George Michael van der Poorten &
Nancy van der Poorten. Malaysian Nature Society, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 492
pp.
Van Lien, V. & D. Yuan (2003). The differences of butterfly (Lepidoptera,
Papilionoidea) communities in habitats with various degrees of disturbance and
altitudes in tropical forests of Vietnam. Biodiversity and Conservation
12(6): 1099–1111. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1023038923000
Wilson, J., S. Jisming-See, G.
Brandon-Mong, A. Lim, V. Lim, P. Lee & K. Sing (2015). Citizen Science: The First Peninsular Malaysia
Butterfly Count. Biodiversity Data Journal 3: e7159. https://doi.org/10.3897/BDJ.3.e7159
Wittemyer, G., P. Elsen, W.T.
Bean, A.C.O. Burton & J.S. Brashares (2008). Accelerated human population growth at protected
area edges. Science 321: 123–126. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1158900
Yap, G.C., S.M. Hafiz & J.L.
Chong (2018). A preliminary butterfly
(Lepidoptera) checklist of the Terengganu National Park, Peninsular Malaysia. Malayan
Nature Journal 70(1): 67–70.
Zaidi, M.I. & S. Abin (1991). Fauna kupu-kupu: Kesan pembalakan dan penenggelaman.
The Fourth National Biology Symposium. Penerbit Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia,
Bangi, Malaysia.