Journal of Threatened
Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | 26 November 2022 | 14(11): 22105–22117
ISSN 0974-7907
(Online) | ISSN 0974-7893 (Print)
https://doi.org/10.11609/jott.7511.14.11.22105-22117
#7511 | Received 09
June 2021 | Final received 06 October 2022 | Finally accepted 23 October 2022
Diversity patterns and
seasonality of hawkmoths (Lepidoptera: Sphingidae)
from northern Western Ghats of Maharashtra, India
Aditi Sunil Shere-Kharwar
1, Sujata M. Magdum 2, G.D. Khedkar 3 &
Supriya Singh Gupta 4
1,4 HPT Arts & RYK Science
College, College Road, Nashik, Maharashtra 422005, India.
2 KTHM College, Gangapur Road,
Nashik, Maharashtra 422002, India.
3 Paul Hebert Centre for DNA Barcoding
and Biodiversity Studies, BAMU, Aurangabad, Maharashtra 431004, India.
1 adushere@gmail.com, 2 sujata_magdum@yahoo.com,
3 gdkhedkar@gmail.com, 4 singhguptasupriya@gmail.com
(corresponding author)
Editor: Jatishwor Singh Irungbam, Sphingidae Museum, Pribram, Czech
Republic. Date of
publication: 26 November 2022 (online & print)
Citation: Shere-Kharwar,
A.S., S.M. Magdum, G.D. Khedkar
& S.S. Gupta (2022). Diversity patterns and
seasonality of hawkmoths (Lepidoptera: Sphingidae)
from northern Western Ghats of Maharashtra, India. Journal of Threatened Taxa 14(11): 22105–22117. https://doi.org/10.11609/jott.7511.14.11.22105-22117
Copyright: © Shere-Kharwar 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: The present work
was partially funded by University Grants Commission, Government of India [File No. 41-172/2012 (SR), dated 26/06/2012].
Competing interests: The authors
declare no competing interests.
Author details: Dr Aditi
Sunil Shere Kharwar is working as assistant
professor at Department of Zoology,
HPT Arts and RYK College affiliated
to Savitribai Phule Pune University. She was principal investigator for the UGC Project that funded the
present research. Her area of research is related to molecular taxonomy,
diversity, and ecological studies of moth. Dr Sujata Magdum is working as assistant professor at
Department of Zoology, KTHM
College affiliated to Savitribai Phule Pune University. Her research interest includes
lepidopteran taxonomy and toxicological studies. Dr G.D. Khedkar
is professor at Department of Zoology,
Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathwada University and
director, Paul Hebert Centre for DNA Barcoding and Biodiversity
Studies, Babasaheb Ambedkar
Marathwada University. He expertise in molecular systematics. Dr Supriya Singh Gupta works as associate professor at Department of Zoology, HPT Arts and RYK College affiliated to Savitribai Phule
Pune University. Her area of research includes systematics and toxicology.
Author contributions:
ASK and SM
were involved in project
design. Data collection and
analysis were performed by ASK, GDK and SM. ASK and SSG were involved
in manuscript preparation.
Acknowledgements: We are grateful to University
Grants Commision, New Delhi for providing funds to
carry out molecular analysis. The authors are thankful to Dr Archana Patil for helping in preparing map. We would also like to
thank Dr Ian Kitching for confirming the moth identifications. We are forever
indebted to Dr Paul D N Hebert for his support and encouragement.
Abstract: As most of the biodiversity
studies report the abundance and enlist the species, there is severe data
deficiency in understanding the diversity patterns. The present study was
designed to carry out periodic diversity assessments to understand the trends
in diversity patterns of hawk moths. The study was carried out in the northern
Western Ghats in Nashik district. Seven
sampling stations were identified and periodic visits to these places were
carried out over the span of five years (2011–2015). A total of 463 moths were
recorded belonging to 18 species, represented by 10 genera. A new record from
Western Ghat, Theretra
sumatrensis (Joicey
& Kaye 1917) is reported for the first time along with its DNA barcode. Six
diversity indices (four alpha diversity indices and two beta diversity indices)
were employed to understand the diversity dynamics. Whittaker’s plot was
generated using the rank abundance suggesting high species evenness for all
sampling stations. Maximum diversity was observed during Monsoon. Wani was the most diverse sampling station throughout the
study period (Shannon’s Index = 2.7132±0.060; Simpson’s Index = 0.9273±0.006;
Brillouin’s Index = 2.252±0.089; Fisher’s alpha = 10.9472±1.685). Beta
diversity was assessed with the help of Dice’s coefficient and Jaccard’s
similarity index. Hence, we recommend rigorous periodic diversity assessments
to generate adequate information about diversity that expedites conservational
strategies’ pace.
Keywords: DNA barcode, moth diversity, new
report, range extension, species abundance, Sphingidae.
Abbreviations: CH—Chandwad;
IG—Igatpuri; KL—Kalwan;
NC—Nashik City; PT—Peint; TM—Triambakeshwar;
WN—Wani.
Introduction
Insecta, being the most diverse class of
Kingdom Animalia, rules the planet with their existence in all habitats. The
adaptive features of this group of organisms allowed their natural selection in
due course of evolution. Insects have existed since the Silurian period,
approximately 420 mya (Misof
et al. 2014). Currently, insects account for almost half of the known species
on the earth (Chapman 2009). The tropical climate of India provides a conducive
environment for a variety of insects. According to Murugan,
80% of insects from India are endemic (Murugan 2006).
Lepidoptera is one of the four
super radiations of the class Insecta and includes
butterflies and moths. Moths account for 85% of the lepidopteran population,
and the remaining 15 % are butterflies and skippers. Moths serve as food for a
variety of animals such as birds, bats, and praying mantis (Macgregor et al.
2015). The moth caterpillars are plant feeding, while the adult forms of the
moths may be nectar- feeding or fruit piercing (Reddy et al. 2005). Thus,
forming a major pest clade (Cho et al. 2008). Moreover, their association with
the plants makes them an integral part of the ecosystem. As a result, their
numbers and availability are a good indicator of ecosystem’s health (Thomas
2005).
Diversity studies of sphingid moths from India have been done and reported by
many taxonomists (Bell & Scott 1937; Roonwal
& Thapa 1963; Subalakmi 2008; Smetacek
& Kitching 2012; Chandra et al. 2013, 2014; Kitching et al. 2014; Pathania et al. 2014; Sondhi et
al. 2017; Melichar et al. 2018; Iyer
& Kitching 2019; Singh et al. 2021). E.C. Cotes and C. Swinhoe
conducted preliminary pioneering studies on Sphingid
moths (Cotes & Swinhoe 1889). Further substantial
work was done by Hampson (Hampson 1892). He reported 121 species of sphingid moths across India. Later, Bell & Scott (1937)
documented sphingid from the Indian sub-continent.
Almost three decades later, Roonwal & Thapa
(1963) enlisted sphingids from peninsular India. Sambath (2011) described documented sphingid
fauna from Dalma Wildlife Sanctuary, Jharkhand. Shubhalaxmi et al. (2011) described 45 hawk moths from
northern Western Ghats near Mumbai. Sphingid moths
from peninsular India were listed by Patil et al.
(2013). Chandra et al. (2013) reported sphingid
diversity from Veerangana Durgavati
Wildlife Sanctuary, Damoh, Madhya Pradesh. The sphingid fauna from Ladakh, Jammu
& Kashmir was reported by Smetacek & Kitching
(Kitching et al. 2014). Sondhi et al. (2017)
described a new species of Theretra Hubner from southern Western Ghats. Even though there are
many studies of moth diversity, there has been a meagre number of inventories
undertaken to focus primarily on the family Sphingidae.
Further, there has been one report of sphingid
diversity from the northern Western Ghats (Gurule
& Nikam 2013). However, this study did not focus
entirely on the diversity and dynamics of sphingid
moths.
The novelty of the present study
lay in the exclusivity and thoroughness attained to understand and analyze the
hawkmoth moth diversity. Hawkmoths account for a very low number (~1,400 global
species) than other giant moth families such as Erebidae
and Geometridae (van Nieukerken
et al. 2011); thus, get insufficient attention to the inventories. However, sphingids are known to be major pests but also good
pollinators (Madden 1944; Eisikowitch & Galil
1971; Nilsson et al. 1985; Danaher et al. 2019). Hence, their presence creates
a unique balance in the ecological niche. Also, these are some of the best
flyers amongst the moth community.
Material
& Methods
Study Area
The present study aimed to
analyze the diversity of sphingid moths from the
northern Western Ghats (Nashik district), Maharashtra, India. Nashik district
is located between 18.33–20.53 oN &
73.16–75.16 oE (Image 1). It covers
approximately 15,582 km2 and lies on the western edge of the Deccan
plateau. The Sahyadri Mountains lie in the western part of the district, while Wani and Chandwad hill ranges
cover the central part of the district. There are no ranges in the eastern part
of the district. Forest coverage is approximately 3,400 km2. The
forests are of mixed type, with Teak and Sissoo being
the significant trees. The forests are tropical moist deciduous, tropical dry
deciduous and tropical hill forest types. As per Koppen’s
climate classification, the study area is a tropical wet and tropical dry
climate with peak rains in July (McKnight 2017). The Western Ghats divides the
district into two parts: The western part lies in the rainfed region, while the
eastern part lies in the rain shadow region.
Collection & Identification
From 2011 to 2015, extensive
observation and collection were carried out. The study area was thoroughly
studied to finalize the sampling stations (Table 1). After the initial survey,
seven sampling stations were finalized. Table 2 describes the details of the
sampling stations and the collection events. Light traps or a simple
spreadsheet operated by fluorescent light (Compton 35 W; Philips tornado 27 W
130─320 V) were used. Collection set up was run from around 1900 h to 0500 h.
Inverter batteries were used for operating the lights.
According to Brehm & Axmacher (2006), adaptability and flexibility in collection
methods result in better collection and observations. Therefore, the collection
assembly type varied initially, and the best-suited method was followed based
on the collection conditions. However,
hawkmoths vibrate their wings, causing loss of wing scales in the light trap.
Moreover, all the observed specimens were not collected, and documentation of
moths was easier by spreadsheet setup. Hence, the spreadsheet method was
preferred over light traps. The sampling sites with large capture rates are
challenging to handle, which is a common experience shared by many
lepidopterists. In such situations, collecting, relaxing, and spreading of
specimens is arduous (Abang & Ak Karim 2002; Gurule & Nikam 2013).
Therefore, moths were observed, and the species abundance was calculated during
the collection visits. Unique moth specimens which could not be identified were
collected and brought back to the laboratory to investigate further. A small sample
size of moths was collected from each sampling station. Collected moth
specimens were spread on spreading boards and were oven-dried for 3─5 days
depending upon the size of the moth. The
digital documentation was carried out using Nikon 3200 DSLR. Photographs were
edited with the help of the software GIMP.
All the specimens were identified
with the help of reference manuscripts (Barlow 1982; Holloway 1987; Haruta 1992, 1994, 1995; Inoue et al. 1997; Kendrick 2002;
Srivastava 2002; Gurule & Nikam
2013; Sondhi et al. 2017). Unique samples were
processed for molecular identification.
Along with the observation and
collection of moths, other metadata was also collected, such as time of
collection, altitude, the topography of the collection site, overall vegetation,
season, and overall rainfall. These metadata are known to affect the moth
availability and helps in understanding the ecological dynamics and intricate
patterns of moth abundance (Hardwick 1972; McGeachie
1989; Yela & Holyoak
1997; Mittelbach et al. 2007; Chen et al. 2009).
Molecular Identification
Total genomic DNA was isolated
using the modified phenol chloroform extraction method (Sperling et al. 1994).
The isolated DNA was amplified using readily available markers LCO 1490─HCO
2198. A total reaction mixture of 25 µl was prepared, comprising of 12.5 µl trehalose, 2.5 µl 10X reaction buffer, 1 µl of MgCl2,
2 µl of dNTP, 1 µl each of forward and reverse primer, 1.88 µl of water and 3
µl of DNA template. The thermal cycle included initial heating for DNA
denaturation at 94oC for 2 minutes. The next five cycles were at 94
oC
for 30 seconds followed by 45 oC for 1 minute and 30 seconds and final extension
at 72 oC
for 1 minute. The next 35 cycles were for 94 oC for 1 minute 30 seconds,
51 oC
for 1 minute and 30 seconds, and extension at 72 oC for 1 minute. PCR product
was cycle sequenced and sequencing was carried out in ABI 3130 sequencer. The
sequencer files were aligned and edited using Bioedit
and were converted to FASTA format. The FASTA files were uploaded on BOLD
(Barcode of life Data systems, https://boldsystems.org) (Ratnasingham
& Hebert 2007).
Diversity analysis
Four alpha diversity indices were
employed: Shannon’s, Simpson’s, Brillouin’s, and Fisher’s alpha. Beta diversity
was assessed with the help of two indices: Dice’s Coefficient and Jaccard’s
similarity index. These diversity indices were calculated using cumulative
abundance data, and all the calculations were performed using the software PAST
ver. 4.03.
Results
A total of 463 hawkmoths were
recorded over five years (2011---------–2015). These moths were identified into
18 species represented by three subfamilies and ten genera (Image 2). The most
diverse subfamily was Macroglossinae, represented by
12 species, and Theretra Hübner, 1819, was the most diverse genus comprising of
seven species. Table 3 depicts the systematic position, distribution, and
status of all the moths recorded.
T. sumatrensis
(Joicey & Kaye 1917), the Southern Spotted Hunter
Hawkmoth, was a unique record from this region and has not been previously
reported. As described by Joicey & Kaye, 1917, Theretra sumatrensis has
dull greyish-brown forewing. Black marks are present at the base. The post
medial line is faint and marked on veins as dashes. Diffused darker clouds are
present across the middle of the forewing. The hindwing is black with paler
margins. There is the presence of a distally pointed yellowish patch at the
anal angle. Sondhi
et al. 2017 have compared the habitus of other species of the genus Theretra and have confirmed the similarity between T.
boisduvalii and T. sumatrensis.
However, the two can be differentiated by the pattern of colouration
where T. boisduvalii is more greenish in colour with uniform suffusion while the latter is paler and
brownish in colour.
The species identification was
confirmed by DNA barcoding, and there is no published article describing its
presence in the entire Western Ghats. This species has been reported only from
the Himalayan region (Sondhi et al. 2017). Ballesteros-Mejia
et al. (2017) have created global distribution maps for sphingid
moths. Figure 1 shows the distribution
of T. sumatrensis according to
Ballesteros-Mejia et al. 2017 (https://mol.org/species/Theretra_sumatrensis).
Thus, we further extend the range of T. sumatrensis
to the Western Ghats, the specimens recorded at Wani
and Kalwan from Nashik District, Maharashtra, India.
Table 4 describes the details of sequences mined from BOLD and GenBank to
generate the neighbour-joining tree based on the K2P
model using mitochondrial COI gene. The NJ tree based on K2P model
indicated approximate species relationship within genus Theretra
(Figure 2).
Although the geographical expanse
of the present study was small, it exhibited great diversity (Image 1). The seven
sampling stations showed varied diversity patterns. The most diverse sampling
community was WN, where all the 18 species of moths were recorded, followed by
IG and CH, having seven species. Figure 3 describes the relative species
abundance at all sampling stations over five years (2011–2015). Figure 4
represents Whittaker’s plot for abundance.
It is clear from Figure 4A that the species richness and evenness for
sampling stations vary drastically. KL, TM, and PT show precisely the same
richness, while TM and PT have the same evenness. KL has the least evenness amongst all the
sampling stations. On the other hand, WN has maximum richness and evenness in
the entire study. Further, Whittaker’s plot is originally used to describe
species richness and evenness. In contrast, we have also utilized it to compare
our observations annually (Figure 4B). This figure helps clarify that
collection over five years showed nearly the same trend confirming that there
was no bias or error and the collection events were carried out randomly. We
want to support this further because the rigorous collection and increased
number of samples helped eliminate the errors. Figure 5 illustrates variations
in the four alpha diversity indices (Shannon’s, Simpson’s, Brillouin’s, and Fisher’s
alpha) at all the sampling stations over five years (2011–2015). Figures 6
& 7 are heatmaps elucidating the beta diversity amongst the seven sampling
stations.
Discussion
India shares 8.1% of global diversity on only
2.4% of the global land area resulting in diversity richness (Balasubramanian
2017). There are 12 mega biodiverse countries in the entire world, and India is
one of them. The present study area lies in the Western Ghats, which have been
declared World Heritage Site as it harbours humungous
diversity. Continuous inventories have proved to generate valuable information
and increased taxonomic knowledge (Janzen et al. 2009). Hence, we strongly
support and recommend continuous periodical assessments to understand the
diversity and its dynamics. The
incorporation of molecular tools has also encouraged young taxonomists to
indulge more. Moreover, diversity studies are necessary to understand the
species distribution and unfold the ecological dynamics. It is frequently
observed that diversity studies are reported with the species diversities,
which may or may not be combined with the diversity analysis. However, there
exist complex dynamics between the species and its environmental and ecological
surroundings. Understanding this can help to predict diversity for unassessed
areas and develop better conservation strategies. Thus, understanding diversity
becomes indispensable.
When diversity indices are
applied, interpreting species distribution becomes easier. The present study
calculated alpha and beta diversity indices for each sampling station to
understand the species distribution. Four indices were used to assess alpha
diversity (Shannon’s, Simpson’s, Brillouin’s, and Fisher’s alpha) and two to
study beta diversity (Dice’s Coefficient and Jaccard’s similarity index).
According to Barrantes & Sandoval (2009), using
multiple indices helps eliminate drawbacks of the individual index. Further,
the indices chosen in the present study focus on varied aspects of diversity.
Shannon’s Index describes species diversity. Maximum species diversity was
observed for WN (2.7132±0.060) and minimum diversity for TM (0.9683±0.185)
Figure 5A. When Shannon’s index is calculated, a weighted geometric mean of the
proportional abundances is employed. Thus, it reflects the logarithm of actual
diversity observed and is used frequently.
Simpson’s index uses the weighted
arithmetic mean or proportional abundances and describes species richness and
evenness. Thus, a high Simpson’s index suggests higher species richness and
evenness. The maximum value for Simpson’s index was calculated for WN
(0.9273±0.006) and minimum for TM (0.5978±0.086) (Figure 5B). this suggests
that the species richness at WN is definitely high and there is an evenness to
the species distribution too.
The following index calculated
was Brillouin’s index. According to Magurran, this
diversity index serves better when there is no surety for the randomness of the
sample (Magurran 1988). Thus, to eliminate any biases
raised unknowingly, we employed this index. The maximum value for this index
was calculated again for WN (2.252±0.089) and minimum for again Triambakeshwar TM (0.6056±0.136) (Figure 5C).
Lastly, Fisher’s alpha was the fourth alpha
diversity index employed. Fisher’s alpha has a good discriminating capability
in cases where sample sizes vary a lot. As the sample size for all the sampling
stations varied (Table 2), this index was used. Maximum value for this index
was calculated for WN (10.9472±1.685) and minimum for TM (3.5152±1.108) (Figure
5D). Thus, all the four alpha diversity indices confirm that maximum alpha
diversity was observed at WN and minimum at TM.
Dice’s coefficient and Jaccard’s
Similarity index were used to assess beta diversity indices. Beta diversity is
used to compare the similarity between two sampling points. The value for beta
diversity always lies between 0 and 1, and the level of similarity increases
with an increase in value. The sampling
points where the value is 0 indicate no common species between those sampling
points. On the other hand, when the value is 1, all the species were shared by
both sampling points. The maximum value was calculated for TM and PT (1) as
both the sampling stations shared all the species. Further, minimum values for
Dice’s coefficient and Jaccard’s similarity index were between WN & TM, PT
& NC (Dice’s coefficient = 0.2857; Jaccard’s Similarity Index = 1.666)
(Figure 6, 7). It is also clear from the figure that there was no difference in
the pattern; only the values of the indices varied slightly.
In the present study, the
seasonality of moths was also observed. It is quite conspicuous from Figure 8
that moth abundance is maximum during monsoon. During summers, almost the
majority of species are not found except Nephele
hespera (Fabricius,
1775), Agrius convolvuli (Linnaeus, 1758), and
Psilogramma vates
(Butler, 1875). However, all these individuals were observed
at almost the summer’s end and the monsoon’s beginning. In winters, moth abundance was observed but
not as much as during the monsoon. The probable reason for high moth abundance
during monsoon could be the conducive environment created at the time. The
temperatures decrease with an increase in relative humidity, which favours moths.
Conclusion
Alpha diversity indices strongly
support that high hawkmoth diversity is observed in the northern Western Ghats.
However, there is variation in the moth availability at different sampling
stations, reinforcing the knowledge that these organisms are sensitive to
changes and can be used as flagships. It was conspicuous that the moth
availability showed seasonal variations, and maximum diversity was observed
during monsoon.
We strongly recommend monitoring
the moth diversity throughout the year for a prolonged duration. These data
inputs would elaborate the knowledge of natural history information of the
moths and reinforce the need for further research on ecological and taxonomic
consequences of differences in the seasonal activity. Complete knowledge of the
distribution patterns of the individual species helps expound the reasons for
species’ availability in a peculiar area. When such results are combined with
other ecological parameters, a comprehensive database is created. Such complex
knowledge further helps in devising conservational strategies. Comprehensive
knowledge and stepwise incorporations of the natural history information would
lead to a deeper understanding of the complex dynamics of any ecological niche.
Moreover, we cannot conserve what we do not know. Thus, we suggest extensive
taxonomic studies involving periodic assessments and statistical analysis to
monitor the diversity patterns, which would help devise customized
conservational strategies for different localities.
Table 1. Sampling stations with
their co-ordinates.
|
Name of sampling station |
Abbreviation |
Latitude |
Longitude |
|
Chandwad |
CH |
20°20'26.42"N |
74°15'10.18"E |
|
Igatpuri |
IG |
19°42'37.21"N |
73°34'42.56"E |
|
Kalwan |
KL |
20°25'12.49"N |
73°57'8.99"E |
|
Nashik City |
NC |
19°57'31.44"N |
73°49'47.01"E |
|
Peint |
PT |
20°15'33.42"N |
73°36'40.43"E |
|
Triambakeshwar |
TM |
19°59'6.19"N |
73°28'1.21"E |
|
Wani |
WN |
20°23'26.49"N |
73°54'25.79"E |
Table 2. Overview of inventory
visits and moth recorded.
|
Sampling station |
Symbol |
Inventory visits made between
2011–2015 |
Number of moths secorded |
||
|
Summer |
Monsoon |
Winter |
|||
|
Chandwad |
CH |
5 |
14 |
5 |
59 |
|
Igatpuri |
IG |
5 |
11 |
5 |
60 |
|
Kalwan |
KL |
5 |
11 |
5 |
43 |
|
Nashik City |
NC |
5 |
6 |
5 |
21 |
|
Peint |
PT |
5 |
6 |
5 |
15 |
|
Triambakeshwar |
TM |
5 |
9 |
5 |
24 |
|
Wani |
WN |
5 |
14 |
5 |
241 |
|
Grand Total |
463 |
||||
Table 3. Taxonomic position,
distribution, and status of hawkmoths from northern Western Ghats.
|
Family |
Sub-family |
Species |
Distribution |
Status |
|
Sphingidae |
Macroglossinae |
Daphnis nerii
(Linnaeus,
1758) |
CH, WN |
U |
|
Hippotion celerio (Linnaeus, 1758) |
CH, IG, KL, WN |
C |
||
|
Hippotion rosetta (Swinhoe, 1892) |
CH, IG, KL, NC, PT, TM, WN |
C |
||
|
Hyles livornica
(Esper,
1780) |
IG, KL, WN |
C |
||
|
Nephele hespera (Fabricius, 1775) |
IG, KL, NC, WN |
C |
||
|
Theretra alecto (Linnaeus, 1758) |
CH, IG, PT, TM, WN |
C |
||
|
Theretra castanea (Moore, 1872) |
WN |
R |
||
|
Theretra clotho (Drury, 1773) |
WN |
R |
||
|
Theretra gnoma (Fabricius, 1775) |
WN |
U |
||
|
Theretra nessus (Drury, 1773) |
WN |
U |
||
|
Theretra oldenlandiae (Fabricius,
1775) |
WN |
R |
||
|
Theretra sumatrensis (Joicey & Kaye, 1917) |
KL, WN |
U |
||
|
Smerinthinae |
Marumba dyras (Walker, 1856) |
WN |
U |
|
|
Polyptychus dentatus (Cramer, 1777) |
WN |
U |
||
|
Sphinginae |
Acherontia lachesis (Fabricius, 1775) |
WN |
U |
|
|
Acherontia styx (Westwood, 1847) |
IG, WN |
U |
||
|
Agrius convolvuli (Linnaeus, 1758)
|
CH, IG, KL, NC, PT, TM, WN |
C |
||
|
Psiligramma vates (Butler, 1875) |
CH, WN |
C |
Table 4. Sequences used to
generate Neighbour Joining Tree based on K2P model
for species from genus Theretra.
|
Species |
Sequence ID |
BIN |
Genbank Accession |
Source |
|
Theretra sumatrensis |
MOTH011-12 |
BOLD:ADG0374 |
MG783973 |
Present Study |
|
MOTH044-14 |
BOLD:ADG0374 |
MG783956 |
Present Study |
|
|
MOTH061-14 |
BOLD:ADG0374 |
MG783950 |
Present Study |
|
|
MOTH063-14 |
BOLD:ADG0374 |
MG783977 |
Present Study |
|
|
SPTVA370-07 |
BOLD:ABX5127 |
JN678600 |
Wilson et al. 2011 |
|
|
Theretra clotho |
SPHAP046-06 |
BOLD:AAB2442 |
- |
https://boldsystems.org |
|
Theretra gnoma |
SPTMA241-07 |
BOLD:AAE7656 |
JN678605 |
Wilson et al. 2011 |
|
Theretra alecto |
SPRBA164-08 |
BOLD:AAC6760 |
- |
https://boldsystems.org |
|
SOWC887-06 |
BOLD:AAC6760 |
- |
https://boldsystems.org |
|
|
SOWC888-06 |
BOLD:AAC6760 |
- |
https://boldsystems.org |
|
|
Theretra castanea |
SPHAP054-06 |
BOLD:AAW6578 |
JN678603 |
Wilson et al. 2011 |
|
Theretra oldenlandiae |
SPHAP068-06 |
BOLD:AAA4630 |
KJ168195 |
Rougerie et al. 2014 |
|
Theretra nessus |
SPTMB038-09 |
BOLD:AAB3024 |
GU704539 |
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/GU704539
|
|
SPHAP055-06 |
BOLD:AAB3024 |
KJ168203 |
Rougerie et al. 2014 |
|
|
Agrius convolvuli (out group) |
MOTH177-14 |
BOLD:AAA2393 |
MG783948 |
Shere 2018 |
For figures & images - - click here for
full PDF
Referencess
Abang, F. & C. Karim (2000). The larger moths (Lepidoptera: Heterocera) of the Crocker Range National Park, Sabah: a
preliminary checklist. A scientific journey through Borneo: the Crocker
Range National Park, Sabah: natural ecosystem and species components. ASEAN
Academic Press, London 147─56. http://www.arbec.com.my/pdf/art18julysep02.pdf
Balasubramanian,
A. (2017). Biodiversity
profile of India. Report Submitted to Centre for Advanced Studies in Earth Science
University of Mysore, Mysore, 11 pp.
Ballesteros-Mejia,
L., I.J. Kitching, W. Jetz & J. Beck (2017). Putting insects on the map:
Near-global variation in sphingid moth richness along
spatial and environmental gradients. Ecography
40(6): 698─708. https://doi.org/10.1111/ecog.02438
Barlow, H.S.
(1982). An
introduction to the Moths of South-East Asia. Malayan Nature Society,
Malaysia, 305 pp.
Barrantes, G. & L. Sandoval (2009). Conceptual and statistical
problems associated with the use of diversity indices in ecology. International
Journal of Tropical Biology 57(3): 451─460. https://doi.org/10.15517/rbt.v57i3.5467
Bell, T.R.
& L.F.B. Scott (1937). The Fauna of British India, including Ceylon and
Burma. Moths, Vol. 5, Sphingidae. Taylor & Francis, United
Kingdom, 537 pp.
Brehm, G.
& J. Axmacher (2006). A comparison of manual and automatic
moth sampling methods (Lepidoptera: Arctiidae, Geometridae) in a rain forest in Costa Rica. Entomological
Society of America 35(3): 757─764.
https://doi.org/10.1603/0046-225X-35.3.757
Chandra, K.,
J. Kumar, S. Sambath & B. Mitra
(2014). A catalogue
of the hawk-moths of India (Lepidoptera: Sphingidae).
Bionotes 16(2): 37─47.
Chandra, K.,
R. Pandey, R. Bhandari & S. Sambath (2013). Diversity of hawk moths
(Lepidoptera: Sphingidae) in Veerangana
Durgavati Wildlife Sanctuary, Damoh,
Madhya Pradesh. Biological Forum 5(1): 73─77.
Chapman, A.D.
(2009). Numbers of
Living Species in Australia and the World (2nd ed.) A Report
for the Australian Biological Resources Study September 2009. Australian
Biodiversity Information Services, Toowoomba. Downloaded on 27 July 2017.
http://www.environment.gov.au/node/13866
Chen, I.C.,
H.J. Shiu, S. Benedick, J.D. Holloway, V.K. Chey,
H.S. Barlow, J.K. Hill & C.D. Thomas (2009). Elevation increases in moth
assemblages over 42 years on a tropical mountain. Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 106(5):
1479─1483. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0809320106
Cho, S., A.
Mitchell, C. Mitter, J. Regier,
M. Matthews & R. Robertson (2008). Molecular phylogenetics of heliothine moths (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae:
Heliothinae), with comments on the evolution of host
range and pest status. Systematic Entomology 33(4): 581─594.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-3113.2008.00427.x
Cotes, E.C.
& C.C. Swinhoe (1889). A Catalogue of Moths of
India. Part I- VI: Sphinges, Bombyces,
Noctues, Pseudo- Deltoids and Deltoids, Geometrites, Pyrales, Crambites, Tortrices and Addenda. Orders of trustees of
Indian Museum, Calcutta, India, 40 pp.
Danaher,
M.W., C. Ward, L.W. Zettler & C.V. Covell (2019).
Pollinia
Removal and Suspected Pollination of the Endangered Ghost Orchid, Dendrophylax lindenii
(Orchidaceae) by Various Hawk Moths (Lepidoptera: Sphingidae): Another Mystery Dispelled. Florida
Entomologist 102(4): 671─683. https://doi.org/10.1653/024.102.0401
Eisikowitch, D. & J. Galil (1971). Effect of Wind on the Pollination
of Pancratium maritimum L. (Amaryllidaceae) by Hawkmoths (Lepidoptera: Sphingidae). Journal of Animal Ecology 40(3):
673─678. https://doi.org/10.2307/3444
Gurule, S.A. & S.M. Nikam (2013). The moths (Lepidoptera: Heterocera)
of northern Maharashtra: a preliminary checklist. Journal of Threatened Taxa
5(12): 4693─4713. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.11609/JoTT.o2555.4693-713
Hampson, G.F.
(1892). The Fauna of
British India including Ceylon and Burma, Moths volume 1. Taylor and Francis, London,
United Kingdom, 527 pp.
Hardwick,
D.F. (1972). The influence
of temperature and moon phase on the activity of the Noctuid moths. The
Canadian Entomologist 104(11): 1767─1770.
Haruta, T. (1992). Sphingidae, pp. 83–92. In: Haruta, T. (ed.). Moths of Nepal, Part
1. Tinea Vol.
13 (Supplement 2). The Japanese Heterocerists’
Society, Tokyo. i─xvii, 1─122pp., 1─32 plts.
Haruta, T. (1994). Sphingidae,
pp. 154–158. In: Haruta, T. (ed.). Moths of Nepal, Part
3. Tinea Vol.
14 (Supplement 1). The Japanese Heterocerists’
Society, Tokyo. i─xvii,
1171 pp., 65─96 plts
Haruta, T. (1995). Sphingidae, pp. 89. In: Haruta,
T. (ed.). Moths of Nepal, Part 4.
Tinea Vol. 14 (Supplement
2). The Japanese Heterocerists’ Society,
Tokyo, i-xviii, 206 pp., 97─128 plts
Holloway,
J.D. (1987). The Moths of
Borneo: Part 3; Laciocampidae, Eupterotidae,
Bombycidae, Brahmaedidae, Saturniidae, Shingidae. Malayan Nature Society, Kuala
Lumpur (Southdene), Malaysia, 199 pp.
Inoue, H.,
R.D. Kennett & I.J. Kitching (1997). Moths of Thailand. Vol. 2
(Sphingidae). Brothers of St. Gabriel in
Thailand, Bangkok, 149 pp
Iyer, G. & I.J. Kitching (2019). A preliminary study of the
hawkmoth diversity (Lepidoptera: Sphingidae) of
Kanyakumari District, Tamil Nadu, India. Journal of Threatened Taxa
11(5): 13592─13604. https://doi.org/10.11609/JOTT.4694.11.5.13592-13604
Janzen, D.H.,
W. Hallwachs, P. Blandin,
J.M. Burns, J.M. Cadiou, I. Chacon, T. Dapkey, A.R. Deans, M.E. Epstein, B. Espinoza, J.G. Franclemont, W.A. Haber, M. Hajibabaei,
J.P.W. Hall, P.D.N. Hebert, I.D. Gauld, D.J. Harvey,
A. Hausmann, I.J. Kitching & J.J. Wilson (2009). Integration of DNA barcoding into
an ongoing inventory of complex tropical biodiversity. Molecular Ecology
Resources 9(1): 1─26. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1755-0998.2009.02628.x
Joicey, J.J. & W.J. Kaye (1917). XXXIV.—New species and forms of Sphingidae. Annals and Magazine of Natural History
20(118): 305─309.
Kendrick,
R.C. (2002). Moths (Insecta: Lepidoptera) of Hong Kong. PhD Thesis. University
of Hong Kong, Xavi+660pp.
Kitching,
I.J., R.C. Kendrick & P. Smetacek (2014). A list of Hawkmoth Species
(Lepidoptera: Sphingidae) of India, Nepal, Bhutan and
Sri Lanka Including their Common Names. Downloaded on 1 June 2021.
http://flutters.org/home/docs/Hawkmoths_of_India_et_al.pdf.
Macgregor,
C.J., M.J.O. Pocock, R. Fox & D.M. Evans (2015). Pollination by nocturnal
Lepidoptera, and the effects of light pollution: A review. Ecological
Entomology 40(3): 187–198. https://doi.org/10.1111/een.12174
Madden, A.H.
(1944). The external
morphology of the adult Tobacco Hornworm (Lepidoptera, Sphingidae).
Annals of the Entomological Society of America 37(2): 145─160.
https://doi.org/10.1093/aesa/37.2.145
Magurran, A.E. (1988). Choosing and interpreting
diversity measures, pp. 61─80. In: Magurran, A.E. Ecological
Diversity and Its Measurement. Princeton University Press, New Jersey,
United States of America, 179 pp. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-7358-0_4
McGeachie, W.J. (1989). The effects of moonlight
illuminance, temperature and wind speed on light-trap catches of moths. Bulletin
of Entomological Research 79(2): 185─192.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007485300018162
McKnight,
T.L. & D. Hess (2017). Climate and climate change: climate classification, 206─226. In: McKnight,
T.L. & D. Hess (12th ed.)
Physical geography: a landscape appreciation Pearson Education,
Inc. United States of America, 688 pp.
Melichar, T., J. Haxaire,
M. Řezáč & H.B. Manjunatha
(2018). A field guide
to hawkmoths (Lepidoptera: Sphingidae) of the State
of Karnataka India. Ekologické Centrum Orlov 1─110.
Misof, B., S. Liu, K. Meusemann, R.S. Peters, T. Flouri,
R.G. Beutel, O. Niehuis
& M. Petersen (2014). Phylogenomics resolves the timing and pattern
of insect evolution. Science 346(6210): 763─768. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1257570
Mittelbach, G.G., D.W. Schemske,
H.V. Cornell, A.P. Allen, J.M. Brown, M.B. Bush, S.P. Harrison, A.H. Hurlbert, N. Knowlton, H.A. Lessios,
C.M. McCain, A.R. McCune, L.A. McDade, M.A.
McPeek, T.J. Near, T.D. Price, R.E. Ricklefs, K. Roy, D.F. Sax & M. Turelli
(2007). Evolution
and the latitudinal diversity gradient: speciation, extinction and
biogeography. Ecology Letters 10(4): 315─331.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2007.01020.x
Murugan, K. (2006). Biodiversity of insects. Current
Science 91(12): 1602─1603.
Nilsson,
L.A., L. Jonsson, L. Rason & E. Randrianjohany (1985). Monophily
and pollination mechanisms in Angraecum arachnites Schltr. (Orchidaceae) in a guild of long-tongued hawkmoths (Sphingidae) in Madagascar. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 26(1): 1─19.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1095-8312.1985.tb01549.x
Pathania, P., S. Sharma & A. Gill
(2014). Hawk moths
(Lepidoptera: Sphingidae) from North-West Himalaya
along with collection housed in National PAU Insect museum, Punjab Agricultural
University. Biological Forum 6(1): 120─127.
http://search.proquest.com/openview/63b8d69e0c96d9c4236a3435dbbc4ccc/1?pq-origsite=gscholar
Patil, R.R., K. Ghorepade
& M. Chandaragi (2013). Notes on Hawk Moths
(Lepidoptera—Sphingidae) in the Karwar-Dharwar transect, peninsular India: a tribute to TRD Bell
(1863-1948). Colemania 33: 1─16.
http://indiabiodiversity.org/biodiv/content/documents/623.pdf
Ratnasingham, S. & P.D.N. Hebert (2007). Barcoding, BOLD: The Barcode of
Life Data System (www.barcodinglife.org). Molecular Ecology Notes 7:
355─364. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-8286.2006.01678.x
Reddy,
G.V.P., Z.T. Cruz, J. Bamba & R. Muniappan (2005). Host adaptation of the fruit
piercing moth, Eudocima fullonia.
Physiological Entomology 30(4): 398─401.
Roonwal, M.L. & R.S. Thapa (1963). Lepidoptera (contd.) Suborder Heteroneura— (Contd.), Superfamily Sphingoidea
(Family Sphingidae), pp. 455–463. In Systematic
Catalogue of the main identified entomological collection at the Forest
Research Institute, Dehra Dun. Parts 22–38. Orders Neuroptera,
Mecoptera, Trichoptera and
Lepidoptera. Indian Forester 121(4): 189─540.
Rougerie, R., I.J. Kitching, J. Haxaire, S.E. Miller, A. Hausmann & P.D. Hebert (2014). Australian Sphingidae–DNA
barcodes challenge current species boundaries and distributions. PloS one 9(7): e101108.
Sambath, S. (2011). Studies on the Sphingid fauna (Lepidoptera: Heterocera:Sphingidae)
of Dalma Wildlife Sanctuary, Jharkhand. Records of
the Zoological Survey of India 111(1): 25─30.
Shere, A.A. (2018). Taxonomical study of family Sphingidae and Noctuidae
(Lepidoptera: Heterocera) using DNA barcoding from
Nashik district. PhD Thesis. Savitribai Phule Pune University, University of
Hong Kong, viii+173pp.
Shubhalaxmi, V., R.C. Kendrick, A. Vaidya,
N. Kalagi & A. Bhagwat (2011). Inventory of moth fauna (lepidoptera: Heterocera) of the
northern Western Ghats, Maharashtra, India. Journal of the Bombay Natural
History Society 108(3): 183─205.
Singh, N., J.
Ahmad & K. Chandra (2021). An updated checklist of Sphingidae
(Lepidoptera) from Great Nicobar Island with a new species record from India. Records
of the Zoological Survey of India 121(3): 375─381.
https://doi.org/10.26515/rzsi/v121/i3/2021/157648
Smetacek, P. & I.J. Kitching (2012). The hawkmoths of Ladakh, Jammu & Kashmir, India (Lepidoptera: Sphingidae). Nachrichten
des Entomologischen Vereins
Apollo (NF) 32: 113─115.
Sondhi, Y., I.J. Kitching, D.N. Basu & K. Kunte (2017). A new species of Theretra Hübner
(Lepidoptera: Sphingidae) from the southern Western
Ghats, India. Zootaxa 4323(2): 185─196.
https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.4323.2.2
Sperling,
F.A.H., G.S. Anderson & D.A. Hickey (1994). A DNA-Based Approach to the
Identification of Insect Species Used for Postmorten
Interval Estimation. Journal of Forensic Science 39(2): 418─427.
Srivastava,
A. (2002). Taxonomy of
moths in India.
International Book Distributors, Dehradun, India, 334 pp.
Subalakmi, V. (2008). New record of hawkmoth Sataspes tangalica
L. Hauxwellii (Lepidoptera: Sphingidae)
from Sanjay Ghandhi National Park, Mumbai, India. Journal
of Bombay Natural History Society 105(2): 226─227.
Thomas, J.A.
(2005). Monitoring
change in the abundance and distribution of insects using butterflies and other
indicator groups. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B:
Biological Sciences 360(1454): 339─357.
https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2004.1585
van Nieukerken, E.J., L. Kaila, I.J. Kitching, N.P. Kristensen,
D.C. Lees, J. Minet, C. Mitter,
M. Mutanen, J.C. Regier, T.J.
Simonsen, N. Wahlberg, S.H. Yen, R. Zahiri, D. Adamski, J. Baixeras,
D. Bartsch, B.Å. Bengtsson, J.W. Brown & A. Zwick (2011). Order Lepidoptera Linnaeus,
1758. In: Zhang, Z.-Q. (Ed.) Animal biodiversity: An outline of higher-level
classification and survey of taxonomic richness. Zootaxa
3148(1): 212. https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.3148.1.41
Wilson, J.J.,
R. Rougerie, J. Schonfeld,
D.H. Janzen, W. Hallwachs, M. Hajibabaei,
I.J. Kitching, J. Haxaire & P.D. Hebert (2011). When species matches are unavailable
are DNA barcodes correctly assigned to higher taxa? An assessment using sphingid moths. BMC Ecology 11(1): 1–14.
Yela, J.L. & M. Holyoak (1997). Effects of moonlight and other metereological factors on light and bait trap catches of
Noctuid Moths (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae). Environmental
Entomology 26(6): 1283─1290. https://doi.org/10.1093/ee/26.6.1283