Journal of Threatened Taxa |
www.threatenedtaxa.org | 26 March 2023 | 15(3): 22771–22790
ISSN 0974-7907
(Online) | ISSN 0974-7893 (Print)
https://doi.org/10.11609/jott.8138.15.3.22771-22790
#8138 | Received 10
August 2022 | Final received 23 February 2023 | Finally accepted 14 March 2023
Documenting butterflies with the
help of citizen science in Darjeeling-Sikkim Himalaya, India
Aditya Pradhan 1 ,
Rohit George 2 & Sailendra Dewan 3
1,2 Ashoka Trust for Research in
Ecology and the Environment, Regional Office Eastern Himalaya Northeast India,
NH 10, Tadong, East Sikkim, Sikkim 737102, India.
3 Department of Zoology, Sikkim
University, 5th Mile, Tadong, East Sikkim, Sikkim 737102, India.
1 aditya.pradhan@atree.org
(corresponding author), 2 rohit.george@atree.org, 3 dewansailendra1992@gmail.com
Abstract: The availability of information on the
distribution and occurrence of different species in a landscape is crucial to
developing an informed conservation and management plan, however such
information in the Himalaya is often limited. Citizen science, which builds on
the knowledge and interest of communities to contribute to science, can be a
solution to this problem. In this study, we used butterflies as a model taxon
in the Darjeeling-Sikkim Himalaya which shows how citizen science can aid in
documenting biodiversity. The study employed both citizen science, and
researcher-survey approaches to collect data, and the collective effort
resulted in 407 species, which is the highest by any study carried out in the
region. Results show that citizen science can be helpful as a supplementary
tool for data collection in biodiversity documentation projects, and can aid in
adding to the diversity and distribution records of species, including those
that are unique, rare, seasonal, and nationally protected. Citizen science
outreach was used to muster potential participants from the local community to
participate in the study. Thus, it is advisable for citizen science projects to
find means to recruit a larger pool of contributors, and citizen science
outreach can be key to their success.
Keywords: Biodiversity documentation, community
participation, data collection, outreach.
Editor: Pankaj Sekhsaria, Kalpavriksh Environmental
Action Group, Pune, India. Date of
publication: 26 March 2023 (online & print)
Citation: Pradhan, A., R. George & S. Dewan (2023). Documenting butterflies with the help
of citizen science in Darjeeling-Sikkim Himalaya, India. Journal of Threatened Taxa 15(3): 22771–22790. https://doi.org/10.11609/jott.8138.15.3.22771-22790
Copyright: © Pradhan et al. 2023. Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. JoTT allows unrestricted use, reproduction,
and distribution of this article in any medium by providing adequate credit to
the author(s) and the source of publication.
Funding This paper is an outcome of the project funded by the Ministry of
Environment, Forest and Climate Change, Government of India, through G.B. Pant National Institute of Himalayan Environment and Sustainable
Development, Uttarakhand under the National Mission on Himalayan Studies [grant
number: NMHS-2017/MG-01/477]. However, the funding agency had no role in study
design; in the collection, analysis and interpretation of
data; in the writing of the report; or in the decision to submit the article
for publication.
Competing interests: The authors declare no competing interests.
Author details: Aditya
Pradhan, senior researcher at Ashoka Trust for Research in Ecology and the Environment (ATREE), eastern
Himalaya-northeastern India. He is currently enrolled as a PhD candidate in the
Department of Zoology, University of Calcutta. He is very passionate about
biodiversity of Eastern Himalaya, and especially the Darjeeling-Sikkim
Himalaya. He has worked on various topics related to biodiversity conservation
and assessment in the socio-ecological landscapes of Darjeeling Sikkim
Himalaya, ranging from herpetofauna to ecosystem services for the last five years. He is currently working on woodpecker communities in the
differently-managed forests of Darjeeling Himalaya. Rohit George is a data manager and project coordinator at ATREE-Eastern Himalaya
and also promotes citizen science in northeastern India.
With over 12 years in biodiversity documentation, he also develops tools for
visualising CS data and using it for environmental education and awareness in
the region. Sailendra Dewan, his
research interest is exploring the effect of elevation and landscape heterogeneity in shaping the community assemblages of terrestrial
insect fauna in the Eastern Himalaya. He is currently working as a guest
faculty in the Department of Zoology, Sikkim University.
Author Contribution AP—conceptualization, methodology analysis,
organize CS events, data collection & curation, writing original draft;
RG—conceptualization, methodology, organize CS events, data collection &
curation, formal analysis, writing & review & editing; SD—data
collection, review & editing.
Acknowledgements: We acknowledge the support and encouragement from Dr. Bhoj Kumar
Acharya (associate professor, Department of Zoology, Sikkim University), Dr.
Sarala Khaling (regional director, ATREE Regional Office Eastern
Himalaya-Northeast India), Dr. Sunita Pradhan (visiting fellow, ATREE),
Dr. Basundhara Chettri (assistant professor, Department of Zoology, Sikkim
University), Mr. Vikram Pradhan (research associate at ATREE), Dr. V.J. Jins
(research associate at Department of Zoology, Sikkim University), and Arun Subba (Database Assistant, ATREE) who helped in making this work
successful at various stages of the study. We are grateful for the cooperation
and help received from the members of Panchayat (Village Council), Gaon Samaj
(Village Committee), other local institutions, and community
members. Lastly, we are extremely grateful to all the participants who
contributed as citizen scientists during the course of the project, this
publication would not have been possible without them.
INTRODUCTION
Citizen Science (CS), which is an
approach of involving the public in scientific research, has long been used to
supplement collection of data required to answer research questions (Spear et
al. 2017), or to document rare events in nature (Greenwood 2007). In recent
years there has been an increase in the trend of using CS as a tool in
research, documentation, and monitoring (Feldman et al. 2021), with a number of
projects using this approach to create awareness, and as a means to engage with
the local communities. This has been facilitated by the availability and
development of user-friendly applications on smartphones (Land-Zandstra et al.
2016), improved internet facilities, affordable rates for internet access, and
most importantly the growing popularity and the scope of CS activity (Curtis
2014). In addition, funding opportunities to implement CS related outreach
activities may also have positively influenced this sharp rise (Johnson et al.
2014). The biggest advantage of using CS as a data collection tool is the
assumption that vast amount of data can be collected by this approach, as the
citizen scientists that this approach targets are mostly local communities who
have yearlong access to areas not feasible for researchers to frequently survey
or monitor due to limited time & financial constraints (Dickinson et al.
2010).
Participants of CS projects can
consist of volunteers from all age-groups, different walks of life, and can be
involved in a variety of roles at different stages of the study (Tulloch et al.
2013; Theobald et al. 2015). CS projects can be used in almost every field of
research, ranging from marine science (van der Velde et al. 2017), to geography
(Trojan et al. 2019), and from astronomy (Odenwald 2018) to biology (Greenwood
2007). This wide range of usability of CS and engagement of enthusiastic
citizen scientists has enabled data collection over long periods, and covering
larger gradients (Poisson et al. 2020). The use of CS in biodiversity
documentation and monitoring is an example of one such long term CS engagement,
and this has been dominated by projects involving a few taxa (like birds,
butterflies, moths, and dragonflies), probably due to their aesthetic appeal
which interests a lot of citizens to participate and contribute (Callaghan et al.
2021). However, despite the interest and the willingness of the citizens to
participate and contribute in these projects, a major challenge that hinders
the progress of CS projects is the difficulty to incorporate CS data into a
research framework (Tulloch et al. 2013) due to the questionable issues
associated with the data in terms of accuracy and precision, spatial, temporal
resolution, robustness, and access (Hyder et al. 2015). Yet studies have shown
that data collected through CS can be crucial for both the scientific community
and decision makers (Paul et al. 2014).
Another challenge associated with
CS projects is that not everyone is motivated to contribute to these CS
projects due to lack of interest or material incentives (Land-Zandstra et al.
2016). The only benefit that the participants of these CS projects have is the
opportunity to contribute to the world of science, public information and
conservation (Silvertown 2009). Thus, CS projects that require large sample
sizes must assess and understand the shared interest and unique motivations
that drive their target citizen scientists to participate (Rotman et al. 2012;
Wright et al. 2015), and also find means to incite motivation in them to
participate (Schulwitz et al. 2021). This is where CS outreach comes into play.
CS outreach brings in interested people under one platform and enables them to
potentially participate in data collection (Silvertown 2009; Schulwitz et al.
2021). However, effectiveness of CS outreach needs to be tested rigorously in
different fields of research, in different localities, and in studies involving
different groups of participating volunteers.
As part of a project, “Key
ecosystem services and biodiversity components in socio-ecological landscapes
of Darjeeling-Sikkim Himalaya: deriving management & policy inputs and
developing mountain biodiversity information system”, an online Mountain
Biodiversity Database and Information System or MBDIS (www.mbdis.in) was
developed. A large part of the data in MBDIS came from CS activities
implemented by the project. MBDIS was developed to be a comprehensive and
interactive web-based database of biodiversity found in the Darjeeling-Sikkim
Himalaya, so that students, academicians, researchers and practitioners working
on biodiversity of the region could benefit from the information available
here. A major component of MBDIS was to train and muster the participation of
local community members to contribute photographic observations of biodiversity
on already existing web-based citizen science portals. Targeted to involve
local community members and nature enthusiasts from the region as citizen
scientists, the project aimed at engaging them to generate new point records of
biodiversity from the region, so as to create a baseline data that is
accessible to anyone working on or interested to learn about the biodiversity
of Darjeeling-Sikkim Himalaya.
The CS approach as a tool to
collect biodiversity information is still a relatively new concept in the
Himalaya, but has the potential to be an important tool in biodiversity
documentation (Devictor et al. 2010), as a large swathe of land falls outside
the protected area regime in human-modified and -dominated landscapes where the
communities are an important source of information. The Himalaya is one of the
richest places on earth in terms of species diversity, however these landscapes
are still poorly explored, and are vulnerable to increasing anthropogenic
pressures, land-use change, and climate change. Thus, developing informed
conservation and management plans require distribution and ecological
information on species (Tobler et al. 2008), which is relatively scarce in the
Himalaya.
The concept of CS is gaining
rapid popularity in India and it is estimated that more than 25 CS projects in
ecology are operational in India (Sharma 2019). Today in India, there are
numerous web-based citizen science projects where the citizens can make their
amateur contributions, for example India Biodiversity Portal, eBird India, and
iNaturalist, where citizens can contribute their precious observations in the
form of photographs or checklists. Thus, in recent years, there have been a
number of scientific publications based on use and outputs of CS from India.
These publications range from assessments of some CS projects (for example,
Vettakaven et al. 2016; Datta et al. 2018), trends based on CS data (for
example, Arjun & Roshnath 2018; State of India’s Birds 2020), to new
species descriptions and discoveries (for example, Kulkarni & Joseph 2015;
Jaiswara et al. 2022). Similarly, distribution and locality record available on
web-based CS platforms are cited and resulted in scientific publications (for
example, The Biodiversity Atlas - India projects have resulted in more than 20
publications). Thus, highlighting the potential and importance of data gathered
by citizen scientists in India.
Here, we present how CS can help
in biodiversity documentation by adding to the data collected by the
researchers. We also explore the effectiveness of CS outreach activities in
mustering the participation of local communities and nature enthusiasts in such
projects. The study uses butterfly observations as a proxy for this purpose,
the reasons being: (1) butterflies are one of the most popular taxa among the
local communities, (2) butterflies can be easily photographed by the local
communities using camera phones, and thus can be uploaded into citizen science
portals, (3) butterflies are one of the most diverse taxa in the
Darjeeling-Sikkim Himalaya with 691 species (Haribal 1992; Kamrakar et al.
2021). Therefore, this paper also aims to add to the limited literature on
distribution, diversity, and status of butterflies in the Darjeeling-Sikkim
Himalaya.
METHODS AND MATERIALS
Study area
The study was conducted in
multiple sites across the Darjeeling-Sikkim Himalaya that fall outside the
protected areas (Figure 1), which are characterized by traditional agricultural
systems, historical tea plantations, and residential areas, interspersed by
differently-managed forests. The landscape is an integral part of the Eastern
Himalayan region of the Himalaya Biodiversity hotspot, and comprises the two
hill districts (Darjeeling & Kalimpong) of West Bengal, and the Himalayan
state of Sikkim in India. The region is also an important transboundary landscape
sharing its boundary with Nepal, Bhutan, and China. The elevation here ranges
250–>5000 m, and is traversed by three important river systems, Teesta,
Rangeet and Balasan.
Data collection
Data collected during the study
included GPS location, date, identity of the observer, photograph of the
observation, and/or the species identity of the butterfly observed. These were
collected by two different approaches: CS, and researcher surveys. Overall data
were collected until 15 February 2021, while researcher survey data were
collected between October 2018 and September 2021. Later, for comparative
analysis, CS data was filtered to match the survey-location and time period of
the researcher survey data.
Citizen Science Approach
In the
initial stages of the study, information on different local institutions (like
village council, clubs, committees, and local NGOs) actively working in the
region were collected to identify key informants and organize inception cum
awareness workshops in different villages (n = 22), prior to data collection.
These workshops were organized as community consultations with a purpose to
discuss the key components of the study, and also to seek coordination and
partnership with interested groups and local institutions (as done by Pradhan
& Khaling 2023). These partners were then approached in the later part of
the project to organize CS outreach events in the landscape. CS outreach
activities conducted during the study (n = 15) included CS workshops (n = 9),
butterfly walks (n = 4), and butterfly documentation events (n = 2), and these
were carried out in multiple locations across the study area (Figure 1).
CS
outreach activities were used to muster the participation of local community
members during data collection. Here, CS outreach refers to the workshops,
butterfly-walks, and online documentation events (discussed in following
paragraphs), that were organized with an aim to reach out to interested local
community members in different localities across the landscape. Data collected
using the CS approach included all observations uploaded on iNaturalist (www.inaturalist.org) (identified
up to species level) from within the study area. In all these activities, the
local communities were neither forced, nor paid in any way to contribute to the
documentation process. Hence, the participation mustered by the project was
fully dependent on personal interest of the local community.
CS workshops: These were
conducted in nine spatially different villages across the study area (Figure
1), targeting school students, teachers and community members, with an
objective to train them on how to photograph biodiversity and contribute their
observations to iNaturalist, which is an online citizen science platform. Each
of these workshops had a theory session, which was followed by a hands-on
session, where participants were taken for a short field visit, where they were
assisted with registration, and other technicalities associated with uploading
photographic observations they recorded in the field.
Butterfly walks: These were
organized in four different villages across the study area (Figure 1), with an
aim to muster participation of the local community members in documenting
butterflies in their respective villages. During this event, participants were taken
to a field location, where they were assisted by members of the research team
on how to photograph butterflies, and how to upload their observations on
iNaturalist. Each of these events lasted for 3–4 hours in the field.
Butterfly documentation events:
These events were organized during the Big Butterfly Month (a national
butterfly documentation event in India held during the month of September) of
2020 and 2021, where the local communities across the study area were supplied
with written and video instructions on how to photographically document
butterflies and contribute them to iNaturalist. The butterfly documentation
events were carried out through online medium due to COVID-19 related lockdown
and safety restrictions that were in place during this period in India. These
events were carried out across the entire landscape, and information about them
were spread through local contacts of the project team, and through social
media.
Researcher survey approach
Two researchers of the project
team conducted surveys to document butterflies in different sites across the
study area (Figure 1). All species of butterflies encountered by the
researchers in these locations were recorded along with their GPS coordinates.
Additionally, butterflies were photographed whenever possible to aid in
confirmation of species identities. Butterflies were identified using field
guides (Kehimkar 2016), and web-based resources (www.ifoundbutterflies.org). To
avoid confusion and double counts of the same species while data curation and
analyses, taxonomic nomenclature used by iNaturalist was followed during the
study.
Data Analysis
All the observations of
butterflies from the Darjeeling-Sikkim Himalaya currently available on
iNaturalist (accessed on 15 February 2023) were downloaded (n=5026) and those
that have been identified to species level (n = 3,746) were filtered out. Since
the two researchers conducting opportunistic surveys for this study are also
active on this CS platform, observations added (n = 564) by them were removed
from the final dataset, leaving only those records contributed by the local
communities (n = 3,182). Among these, 101 were added before our project began
(in October 2018), 1,291 during the project period, and 1,790 records after the
project period (after September 2021)
To create the researcher survey
dataset (data collected by the researchers), the researchers directly submitted
their data as excel sheets on MBDIS. The dataset contained a checklist of
species recorded in spatially different sites, and was also accompanied by
polygons of sampling locations in each study site.
A point-in- polygon analysis was
performed in QGIS to find out how many of the CS records from the study area
fell within the study site polygons (with a 500 m buffer). This was used to
compare the datasets created from the CS approach and researcher survey
approach. 294 CS observations were determined to fall within the study site
polygons.
A circular polygon of 1-km radius
was prepared around the workshop and butterfly walk locations, and CS records
within these polygons were taken to evaluate the extent to which local
communities participated in the outreach events. Similarly, to determine the
level of engagement resulting from the butterfly documentation events,
observations from the study area that were added on iNaturalist during the
online documentation events in September of 2020 & 2021 were tabulated.
To understand the distribution of
observations across the study area, and the level of engagement of individual
citizen scientists, the study area was divided into grids measuring 5x5km, and
the number of observations made in each grid, as well as the number of grids
covered by individual participants were enumerated.
RESULTS
CS and Researcher data
By a combined effort of CS and
researcher surveys, 331 species of butterflies across six families were
recorded from the socio-ecological landscapes of Darjeeling-Sikkim Himalaya
(407 species, including those contributed outside the study period) (Table 1).
Localities in the landscape from where these species were recorded can be seen
in Figure 1.
Eighty-six species of the total
recorded species of butterflies are protected in India, among which 12 species
are protected under schedule I and 74 species are protected under schedule II under
Wildlife Protection Act I972 (Amended through Wild Life (Protection) Amendment
Act, 2022). Of the protected species, 66
species (38 within the study period) were recorded by the citizen scientists,
while only 27 were recorded by the researchers.
The CS approach documented 1,717
observations resulting in 260 species belonging to six families within the
study period, which increases to 4,307 observations (357 species) when we
include records before and after the project period (Table 1). During the current
study, the most common species observed and submitted by the citizen scientists
from the study area was the Indian Tortoiseshell Aglais caschmirensis,
which was observed 54 times by 37 participants, Popinjay Stibochiona nicea
observed 31 times by 21 participants, Red Lacewing Butterfly Cethosia biblis,
28 times by 15 participants, Straight-banded Treebrown Lethe verma, 28
times by 22 participants and Punchinello Zemeros flegyas, 28 times by 22
participants. Similarly, the researcher survey approach was able to document
233 of the 265 species belonging to six families across the study area, during
the study period. Again, Indian Tortoiseshell was the most common species which
was observed in all sites surveyed by the researchers.
Among the 331 species that were
recorded during the study period, the CS dataset was found to have recorded 107
species that were unique from the researcher dataset, while 71 unique species
were recorded by the researcher survey. This may be due to the limited number
of sites that the researchers could survey within the study period, while CS
data were collected from a larger spatial area. A point in polygon analysis was
performed to compare the two datasets collected from the same study sites (with
a 500 m buffer) and from within the same time period. The results showed 427
observations made by 33 CS participants, which amounted to 131 species, with 32
species unique from the researcher data.
CS outreach and participation
One-hundred-and-seventy community
members participated as citizen scientists in the butterfly documentation
project on iNaturalist during the course of the current study. Forty
participants contributed to the database more than 10 times (Figure 2), with
the highest record of 178 submissions from the same participant (out of which
120 have been identified to species level, till date). A majority of the
citizen scientists in the current study, contributed their observations from a
limited number of spatial locations. Yet, a few participants appeared to record
and submit observations from multiple locations, with four participants
submitting their observations from more than 11 spatial locations (Figure 3).
Three-hundred-and-eighty
community members participated in nine CS workshops, while the four butterfly
walks and two online documentation events had participation of 63 and 81
community members, respectively. The workshops and walks yielded 84 and 492
observations respectively, while 1,187 observations were made during the online
documentation events.
The CS outreach during the study
in Darjeeling-Sikkim Himalaya resulted in 62.26% (amounting to 181 species) of
all CS observations made from the study area during the study period, with
15.11% (92 species) of these being recorded from sites after at least one CS
outreach event was organized, while 47.14% of observations (175 species) were
contributed during the butterfly documentation events (Table 1 & 2).
Results also show that the number of observations of butterflies contributed to
iNaturalist from Darjeeling-Sikkim Himalaya sharply increased during the study
period, and is still increasing even after the life of the project (Figure 4).
Since the end of the project, 144 users have contributed butterfly observations
from the region, of which 127 users joined iNaturalist after the end of the
project.
DISCUSSION
The use of citizen science
approaches in biodiversity documentation is gaining pace in both rural and
urban settings across the globe, with the most effective programs targeting to
engage local communities (Pandya 2012). However, the reliability of the CS
datasets is still a topic of discussion among the scientific community
(Chatzigeorgiou et al. 2016). The current study, which incorporates both
researcher and CS datasets, presents how CS approach in biodiversity
documentation adds to the data collected by the researchers.
Usefulness of CS in documenting
butterflies across Darjeeling-Sikkim Himalaya
The current study was conducted
in one of the global biodiversity hotspots and uses one of the most diverse
taxa here, the butterflies, for this purpose. Butterflies are one of the most
diverse taxa in the Himalaya, and Darjeeling-Sikkim Himalaya, where the study
was carried out, is a hotspot for
butterfly diversity, harboring 46% of all butterflies found in India (Sharma
et al. 2020). There have been numerous studies to document the diversity of
butterflies in these landscapes across both protected & non-protected
areas, however no single study has been able to report even close to 50% of its
butterfly diversity, the main challenges being the topographical, temporal,
logistical and financial constraints to carry out surveys at a larger scale.
This is where CS is very useful. The current study used the traditional
researcher survey approach (where the number of researchers carrying out
surveys, and number of sites that could be covered by them were limited due to
logistical and financial constraints), and the CS approach (where the main
challenge was to reach out to, and recruit as many potential citizen scientists
as possible). Thus, with a mixed approach, the study was able to document
approximately 48% (331 species) of total reported butterfly diversity from the
region, which is higher than that reported by any other study conducted in the
Darjeeling-Sikkim Himalaya till date, with the previous highest being 43% (268
species) recorded by Sharma et al. (2020). CS alone contributed 43% of the
total, while also recording 107 species that were unique from the researcher
dataset. The high number of unique, rare, seasonal, and nationally protected
butterflies observed by the citizen scientists in the current study, suggests
that CS can be an important tool when conducting distribution studies in data
deficient corners of the world, as supported by Amano et al. (2016). This is
also in line with other studies that suggest CS can effectively supplement data
collection in a documentation project of a large scale (Spear et al. 2017).
However, the result is contrary to belief that professional surveys report more
endangered species and species of special interest for research (Galvan et al.
2021), and may be due to the limited number of professionals used in the
current study. The study also reiterates the fact that CS as the only data
collection tool (without the use of professionals) may not be able to fully
deliver the desired outcomes in a biodiversity documentation project (Pernat et
al. 2021).
The use of CS data (in breeding
ecology of birds, monitoring migration of birds, bird counts, etc.,) has
resulted in a number of publications in recent years (Donnelly et al. 2014;
Arjun & Roshnath 2018; State of India’s Birds 2020), thus providing
evidence on the usefulness of CS data in scientific studies. However, these
publications have often been criticized by the scientific community for using
CS data due to issues associated with their value and quality. Some of the
major challenges of incorporating CS in large projects include lack of
organized structure, haphazard coverage, repeat counts, and lack of
coordination (Rahmani et al. 2003). Yet, a number of studies have advocated
that these challenges can be resolved with better research design, adequate
training of citizen scientists, and ground truthing (Bird et al. 2014). Thus,
in light of these debates happening across the scientific community, this study
adds to the limited literature that supports the theory that large-scale
long-term monitoring of biodiversity can be answered through the CS approach.
This is especially true when the collection of data from a large area by
researchers alone, requires vast amounts of budget, time and effort (Dickinson
et al. 2010). However, success of these CS-based projects will depend on the
extent of volunteer engagement and training, also called CS outreach (Mason
& Arathi 2019).
CS outreach and participation
The current study used outreach
materials, theory sessions, field-based training, and online events, as a part
of CS outreach activities to overcome the challenges of recruiting citizen
scientists across a large spatial area. Here, CS outreach activities conducted
prior to data collection was found to be an important step in mustering the
participation of target citizen scientists, which in this study were the local
community members. Similar observations were made by Feldman et al. (2018). CS
outreach has been found to be effective in reaching out to, and generating
interest among the potential participants, and is thus useful in mustering
local participation (example van der Velde et al. 2017). Among the CS outreach
activities used in the current study, butterfly walks (which involved
field-based training) were found to be the most effective in mustering local
participation. Similar activities have been reported to be successful by other
studies (example Matteson et al. 2012). Additionally, online butterfly
documentation events which were supplemented with pinpoint instructions, were
found to be an effective outreach event capable of reaching out to a larger
number of participants across a larger spatial area, and they hugely
contributed to the final CS dataset. Online documentation events have also been
found to be hugely successful in acquiring large amounts of data elsewhere
(Moskowitz & Haramaty 2013), however these have been associated with the
highest number of dropouts, meaning the citizen scientists who participate in
these events eventually stop contributing once the event period is over
(Aristeidou et al. 2021). This suggests that such events are not helpful in
ensuring long term participation in science.
The outreach activities carried
out during the study was able to create awareness among the local community
members on the importance of biodiversity documentation, while also providing a
platform for them to contribute to science. The impact made by the study, and
the willingness of the participants to participate in such CS projects, can be
observed from the fact that the number of observations uploaded on iNaturalist
from the landscape sharply increased during the study period, and is still
increasing even after the life of the project. However, despite the observable
success of the CS outreach in terms of the number of observations, it was found
that a large portion of data were contributed by precious few participants,
while the majority contributed only a few records. This result exhibits a long
tail distribution, as has been reported by other similar CS projects (Segal et
al. 2015). Also, a select few participants were found to be contributing data
records from multiple locations, while an average participant would only
contribute data from a small area, suggesting that a participant is more
interested in documenting biodiversity from locality that is easily accessible
to the participant. This may also be due to the differences in levels of skill
sets and motivation (West et al. 2021). These further suggests the need to
reach out to a larger pool of citizen scientists from different corners of the
landscape when planning a similar biodiversity documentation project in future,
in order to find these precious few who can champion the documentation process,
further emphasizing that reaching out to the right audience makes an immense
difference to the success of a CS project.
Conservation implications
Developing informed conservation
and management plans require distribution and ecological information on species
(Tobler et al. 2008), which in the Himalayas are limited. The current study
shows how CS can contribute to adding important locality records of rare and
lesser known butterflies species, which would remain undocumented without local
participation. Thus, CS which effectively accentuates the potential of local
communities as knowledge partners, can be a solution to this challenge of
limited information on biodiversity. However, this requires good planning,
execution, and need for an efficient CS outreach program, has been suggested
here. CS outreach, apart from being a means to recruit citizen scientists as
data contributors, also has an immense potential in creating awareness, and can
be effective in bridging the gap between humans and nature. The role of
knowledge-building programs that promote CS, is important in creating positive
influence on attitudes and behavior towards biodiversity has also been recently
highlighted from the same landscape (Pradhan & Yonle 2022). This further adds
to the importance of CS in conservation.
Study
perspectives
The study presents how citizen
participation in a biodiversity documentation project can aid in adding to the
diversity and distribution records of different species, including those that
are unique, rare, seasonal, and nationally protected. In the current study, the
participation of the citizens was purely interest-based and depended on the
participant’s interest to learn and record biodiversity from his/her locality.
Through this study, the participants gained knowledge and awareness on the
local biodiversity, and were provided with a platform where he/she could
contribute important biodiversity data. Some of the citizen scientists whose
participation was acquired during the study period are still actively
contributing to the platform, which shows that they would participate and
contribute again. Thus, provided that similar future projects manage to reach
out to interested sections of the community, the citizens would be willing to
participate in such projects in the future.
Although the goal of the study
was to muster as many CS participants as possible from the study area, the
current study could only muster limited participation of local communities due
to logistical, financial, and time constraints. Also, limited internet
connectivity and lack of camera phones with a number of interested
participants, hindered the community participation. Hence, if similar studies
are carried out in future, CS outreach events that encourage the participation
of local communities and help reach out to interested participants, should be
organized in multiple locations, and in different seasons. These outreach
activities can also be planned in such a way that different events target
different potential groups, like students, teachers, farmers, nature guides,
etc. This would help in maximizing the number of participants, and thus will
maximize the number of observations from within the study area. Similarly,
gathering basic information about a participant like, gender, age, occupation,
education, etc., would give meaningful insights into the attitude, behavior,
and motivation of the participating citizens.
CONCLUSION
CS can be an important tool to
fill the spatial gaps in global biodiversity information, and thus can have a
crucial role in the data deficient and poorly explored parts of the Himalaya, a
global biodiversity hotspot. The study found that conducting CS outreach
activities at the field-level prior to data collection, and online events that
have the potential to reach out to a larger pool of citizen scientists is
beneficial for the overall success of a CS project. The results of the current
study show that the CS approach can be a useful supplemental tool in collecting
distribution data, as citizen scientists (local communities in this study) have
yearlong access to sampling sites. Thus, the study advises other biodiversity
documentation projects in data deficient areas to try and accommodate the CS
approach in data collection. Finally, MBDIS that aims to incorporate both CS
and researcher data in the Darjeeling-Sikkim Himalaya can have immense
potential to bring together both the scientific as well as nature enthusiasts
of the region under one platform, thus creating an opportunity for the local
communities to contribute and learn about the biodiversity of the region.
Table 1. Checklist of all the
butterfly species recorded during the current study from Darjeeling-Sikkim
Himalaya, India.
|
|
Species |
Common name |
Family |
WPAA (2022) |
CS dataset |
RS dataset |
|
1 |
Abisara chela |
Spot Judy |
Riodinidae |
- |
# |
- |
|
2 |
Abisara echerius |
Plum Judy |
Riodinidae |
- |
* |
- |
|
3 |
Abisara fylla |
Dark Judy |
Riodinidae |
- |
*, PS, BW, WS, OE |
* |
|
4 |
Abisara neophron |
Tailed Judy |
Riodinidae |
- |
*, OE |
* |
|
5 |
Abrota ganga |
Sergeant-major |
Nymphalidae |
- |
# |
- |
|
6 |
Acraea issoria |
Yellow Coster |
Nymphalidae |
- |
*, PS, BW, WS, OE |
* |
|
7 |
Acraea terpsicore |
Tawny Coster |
Lycaenidae |
- |
# |
- |
|
8 |
Acupicta delicatum |
Dark Tinsel |
Lycaenidae |
Schedule II |
# |
- |
|
9 |
Acytolepis lilacea |
Lilac Hedge Blue |
Lycaenidae |
Schedule II |
- |
* |
|
10 |
Acytolepis puspa |
Common Hedge Blue |
Lycaenidae |
- |
*, PS, BW, WS |
* |
|
11 |
Aeromachus jhora |
Grey Scrub Hopper |
Hesperiidae |
- |
- |
* |
|
12 |
Aeromachus pygmaeus |
Pygmy Scrub Hopper |
Hesperiidae |
- |
- |
* |
|
13 |
Aeromachus stigmata |
Veined Scrub Hopper |
Hesperiidae |
- |
# |
- |
|
14 |
Aglais caschmirensis |
Indian Tortoiseshell |
Nymphalidae |
- |
*, PS, BW, WS, OE |
* |
|
15 |
Aglais ladakensis |
Ladakh Tortoiseshell |
Nymphalidae |
- |
- |
* |
|
16 |
Ampittia dioscorides |
Indian Bushopper |
Hesperiidae |
- |
# |
* |
|
17 |
Ancistroides nigrita |
Chocolate Demon |
Hesperiidae |
- |
* |
- |
|
18 |
Anthene emolus |
Common Ciliate Blue |
Lycaenidae |
- |
# |
- |
|
19 |
Appias albina |
Common Albatross |
Pieridae |
Schedule II |
- |
* |
|
20 |
Appias indra |
Plain Puffin |
Pieridae |
Schedule II |
# |
- |
|
21 |
Appias lalage |
Spot Puffin |
Pieridae |
- |
# |
* |
|
22 |
Appias libythea |
Striped Albatross |
Pieridae |
|
*, BW, OE |
* |
|
23 |
Appias lyncida |
Chocolate Albatross |
Pieridae |
Schedule II |
*, PS, OE |
* |
|
24 |
Appias wardii |
Lesser Albatross |
Pieridae |
|
- |
* |
|
25 |
Argynnis childreni |
Large Silverstripe |
Nymphalidae |
- |
*, PS, BW, OE |
* |
|
26 |
Argynnis hyperbius |
Tropical Fritillary |
Nymphalidae |
- |
*, PS, BW, WS, OE |
* |
|
27 |
Arhopala amantes |
Large Oakblue |
Lycaenidae |
- |
* |
- |
|
28 |
Arhopala bazalus |
Powdered Oakblue |
Lycaenidae |
- |
# |
- |
|
29 |
Arhopala centaurus |
Centaur Oakblue |
Lycaenidae |
- |
*, PS, BW, OE |
- |
|
30 |
Arhopala fulla |
Spotless Oakblue |
Lycaenidae |
- |
* |
- |
|
31 |
Arhopala khamti |
Luster Oakblue |
Lycaenidae |
- |
- |
* |
|
32 |
Ariadne merione |
Common Castor |
Nymphalidae |
- |
*, PS, BW, OE |
* |
|
33 |
Arnetta atkinsoni |
Black-tufted Bob |
Hesperiidae |
- |
- |
* |
|
34 |
Artipe eryx |
Green Flash |
Lycaenidae |
Schedule II |
# |
- |
|
35 |
Athyma cama |
Orange Staff Sergeant |
Nymphalidae |
- |
*, PS, BW, OE |
* |
|
36 |
Athyma jina |
Bhutan Sergeant |
Nymphalidae |
Schedule II |
# |
* |
|
37 |
Athyma nefte |
Colour Sergeant |
Nymphalidae |
- |
* |
- |
|
38 |
Athyma opalina |
Himalayan Sergeant |
Nymphalidae |
- |
*, PS, BW, OE |
- |
|
39 |
Athyma orientalis |
Elongated Sergeant |
Nymphalidae |
- |
*, BW, OE |
- |
|
40 |
Athyma perius |
Common Sergeant |
Nymphalidae |
- |
# |
* |
|
41 |
Athyma ranga |
Himalayan Blackvein Sergeant |
Nymphalidae |
Schedule II |
#, PS, BW |
- |
|
42 |
Athyma selenophora |
Staff Sergeant |
Nymphalidae |
- |
*, PS, BW, OE |
* |
|
43 |
Athyma zeroca |
Small Staff Sergeant |
Nymphalidae |
- |
# |
- |
|
44 |
Atrophaneura varuna |
Sylhet Common Batwing |
Papilionidae |
- |
* |
- |
|
45 |
Aulocera padma |
Great Satyr |
Nymphalidae |
- |
# |
- |
|
46 |
Auzakia danava |
Commodore |
Nymphalidae |
Schedule II |
*, PS, BW, OE |
- |
|
47 |
Baoris farri |
Paintbrush Swift |
Hesperiidae |
- |
# |
- |
|
48 |
Baoris pagana |
Figure-of-eight Swift |
Hesperiidae |
- |
* |
* |
|
49 |
Bibasis amara |
Small Green Awlet |
Hesperiidae |
- |
# |
- |
|
50 |
Bibasis gomata |
Pale Green Awlet |
Hesperiidae |
- |
* |
- |
|
51 |
Bibasis harisa |
Orange Awlet |
Hesperiidae |
- |
#, PS, BW |
- |
|
52 |
Bibasis jaina |
Common Orange Awlet |
Hesperiidae |
- |
# |
- |
|
53 |
Bibasis vasutana |
Green Awlet |
Hesperiidae |
- |
*, OE |
- |
|
54 |
Borbo bevani |
Lesser Rice Swift |
Hesperiidae |
- |
- |
* |
|
55 |
Borbo cinnara |
Rice Swift |
Hesperiidae |
- |
*, PS, WS, OE |
- |
|
56 |
Byasa dasarada |
Great Windmill |
Papilionidae |
- |
*, OE |
* |
|
57 |
Byasa latreillei |
Rose Windmill |
Papilionidae |
- |
- |
* |
|
58 |
Byasa plutonius |
Pink-spotted Windmill |
Papilionidae |
Schedule I |
# |
- |
|
59 |
Byasa polyeuctes |
Common Windmill |
Papilionidae |
- |
*, PS, OE |
* |
|
60 |
Caleta elna |
Elbowed Pierrot |
Lycaenidae |
- |
*, PS, BW, OE |
* |
|
61 |
Callerebia hyagriva |
Brown Argus |
Nymphalidae |
Schedule II |
# |
- |
|
62 |
Caltoris philippina |
Philippine Swift |
Hesperiidae |
|
# |
- |
|
63 |
Capila lidderdali |
Ringed Dawnfly |
Hesperiidae |
- |
* |
- |
|
64 |
Capila zennara |
Pale Striped Dawnfly |
Hesperiidae |
- |
- |
* |
|
65 |
Castalius rosimon |
Common Pierrot |
Lycaenidae |
- |
* |
* |
|
66 |
Catapaecilma major |
Common Tinsel |
Lycaenidae |
Schedule II |
# |
* |
|
67 |
Catochrysops panormus |
Silver Forget-me-not |
Lycaenidae |
- |
- |
* |
|
68 |
Catochrysops strabo |
Forget-me-not |
Lycaenidae |
- |
# |
* |
|
69 |
Catopsilia pomona |
Lemon Emigrant |
Pieridae |
- |
*, OE |
* |
|
70 |
Catopsilia pyranthe |
Mottled Emigrant |
Pieridae |
- |
* |
* |
|
71 |
Celaenorrhinus badia |
Scarce Banded Flat |
Hesperiidae |
- |
- |
* |
|
72 |
Celaenorrhinus leucocera |
Common Spotted Flat |
Hesperiidae |
- |
*, PS, OE |
* |
|
73 |
Celaenorrhinus munda |
Himalayan spotted flat |
Hesperiidae |
- |
* |
* |
|
74 |
Celaenorrhinus pulomaya |
Multi-spotted Flat |
Hesperiidae |
- |
* |
* |
|
75 |
Celaenorrhinus putra |
Restricted Spotted Flat |
Hesperiidae |
- |
#, PS, BW |
- |
|
76 |
Celastrina argiolus |
Hill Hedge Blue |
Lycaenidae |
- |
* |
* |
|
77 |
Celastrina lavendularis |
Plain Hedge Blue |
Lycaenidae |
- |
* |
- |
|
78 |
Cephrenes trichopepla |
Yellow Palm Dart |
Hesperiidae |
- |
* |
- |
|
79 |
Cepora nadina |
Lesser Gull |
Pieridae |
Schedule II |
*, PS, OE |
* |
|
80 |
Cepora nerissa |
Common Gull |
Pieridae |
Schedule II |
*, PS |
* |
|
81 |
Cethosia biblis |
Red Lacewing |
Nymphalidae |
Schedule II |
*, PS, BW, WS, OE |
* |
|
82 |
Cethosia cyane |
Leopard Lacewing |
Nymphalidae |
- |
*, PS, BW, OE |
* |
|
83 |
Charaxes arja |
Pallid Nawab |
Nymphalidae |
- |
- |
* |
|
84 |
Charaxes bernardus |
Tawny Rajah |
Nymphalidae |
Schedule II |
# |
- |
|
85 |
Charaxes dolon |
Stately Nawab |
Nymphalidae |
Schedule II |
- |
* |
|
86 |
Charaxes marmax |
Yellow Rajah |
Nymphalidae |
Schedule II |
# |
- |
|
87 |
Cheritra freja |
Common Imperial |
Lycaenidae |
- |
*, PS, BW |
- |
|
88 |
Chersonesia risa |
Common Maplet |
Nymphalidae |
- |
*, PS, BW, OE |
* |
|
89 |
Chilades lajus |
Lime Blue |
Lycaenidae |
- |
# |
- |
|
90 |
Chitoria sordida |
sordid emperor |
Nymphalidae |
Schedule II |
# |
- |
|
91 |
Choaspes benjaminii |
Indian Awlking |
Hesperiidae |
- |
* |
- |
|
92 |
Chonala masoni |
Chumbi Wall |
Nymphalidae |
- |
- |
* |
|
93 |
Cigaritis lohita |
Long-banded Silverline |
Lycaenidae |
Schedule II |
*, OE |
* |
|
94 |
Cigaritis syama |
Club Silverline |
Lycaenidae |
- |
# |
- |
|
95 |
Cirrochroa aoris |
Large Yeoman |
Nymphalidae |
- |
*, PS, BW, WS, OE |
* |
|
96 |
Cirrochroa surya |
Little Yeoman |
Nymphalidae |
- |
* |
- |
|
97 |
Cirrochroa tyche |
Common Yeoman |
Nymphalidae |
- |
*, OE |
* |
|
98 |
Coladenia agni |
Conjoin-spotted Pied Flat |
Hesperiidae |
- |
# |
- |
|
99 |
Colias croceus |
Clouded Yellow |
Pieridae |
- |
- |
* |
|
100 |
Colias fieldii |
Dark Clouded Yellow |
Pieridae |
- |
* |
- |
|
101 |
Colias stoliczkana |
Orange Clouded Yellow |
Pieridae |
- |
* |
- |
|
102 |
Ctenoptilum vasava |
Tawny Angle |
Hesperiidae |
- |
# |
- |
|
103 |
Cupido argiades |
Tailed Cupid |
Lycaenidae |
- |
# |
- |
|
104 |
Curetis acuta |
Angled Sunbeam |
Lycaenidae |
- |
*, PS, BW, OE |
- |
|
105 |
Curetis bulis |
Bright Sunbeam |
Lycaenidae |
- |
* |
* |
|
106 |
Cyrestis thyodamas |
Common Map |
Nymphalidae |
- |
*, PS, BW, OE |
* |
|
107 |
Danaus chrysippus |
Plain Tiger |
Nymphalidae |
- |
* |
* |
|
108 |
Danaus genutia |
Striped Tiger |
Nymphalidae |
- |
*, OE |
* |
|
109 |
Delias acalis |
Red Breast Jezebel |
Pieridae |
- |
# |
* |
|
110 |
Delias agostina |
Yellow Jezebel |
Pieridae |
- |
* |
* |
|
111 |
Delias belladonna |
Hill Jezebel |
Pieridae |
- |
*, PS, BW, OE |
* |
|
112 |
Delias descombesi |
Red-spot Jezebel |
Pieridae |
- |
*, PS, WS, OE |
* |
|
113 |
Delias hyparete |
Painted Jezebel |
Pieridae |
- |
*, OE |
- |
|
114 |
Delias pasithoe |
Red-based Jezebel |
Pieridae |
- |
*, PS, BW, WS, OE |
* |
|
115 |
Dercas verhuelli |
Tailed Sulphur |
Pieridae |
- |
- |
* |
|
116 |
Deudorix epijarbas |
Cornelian |
Lycaenidae |
Schedule I |
# |
- |
|
117 |
Discophora sondaica |
Common Duffer |
Nymphalidae |
Schedule I |
*, BW |
- |
|
118 |
Dodona adonira |
Striped Punch |
Riodinidae |
Schedule II |
# |
- |
|
119 |
Dodona dipoea |
Lesser Punch |
Riodinidae |
Schedule II |
*, OE |
* |
|
120 |
Dodona egeon |
Orange Punch |
Riodinidae |
Schedule II |
* |
* |
|
121 |
Dodona eugenes |
Tailed Punch |
Riodinidae |
- |
*, PS, OE |
- |
|
122 |
Dodona ouida |
Darjeeling Mixed Punch |
Riodinidae |
- |
* |
* |
|
123 |
Doleschallia bisaltide |
Autumn Leaf |
Nymphalidae |
Schedule II |
*, PS, BW, OE |
* |
|
124 |
Elymnias hypermnestra |
Common Palmfly |
Nymphalidae |
- |
* |
- |
|
125 |
Elymnias malelas |
Spotted Palmfly |
Nymphalidae |
Schedule II |
*, PS, BW, OE |
* |
|
126 |
Elymnias patna |
Blue-striped Palmfly |
Nymphalidae |
- |
* |
* |
|
127 |
Elymnias vasudeva |
Jezebel Palmfly |
Nymphalidae |
Schedule II |
# |
- |
|
128 |
Enispe euthymius |
Red Caliph |
Nymphalidae |
- |
* |
- |
|
129 |
Ethope himachala |
Dusky Diadem |
Nymphalidae |
- |
*, OE |
- |
|
130 |
Euchrysops cnejus |
Gram Blue |
Lycaenidae |
Schedule II |
# |
- |
|
131 |
Euploea algea |
Long-branded Blue Crow Butterfly |
Nymphalidae |
- |
- |
* |
|
132 |
Euploea core |
Common Crow |
Nymphalidae |
- |
*, PS, OE |
* |
|
133 |
Euploea klugii |
King Crow |
Nymphalidae |
- |
# |
* |
|
134 |
Euploea midamus |
Blue-spotted Crow |
Nymphalidae |
Schedule II |
# |
- |
|
135 |
Euploea mulciber |
Striped Blue Crow |
Nymphalidae |
- |
*, PS, BW, WS, OE |
* |
|
136 |
Euploea sylvester |
Double-branded Crow |
Nymphalidae |
- |
- |
* |
|
137 |
Eurema andersoni |
One-spot Grass Yellow |
Pieridae |
- |
*, BW, OE |
- |
|
138 |
Eurema blanda |
Three-spotted Grass Yellow |
Pieridae |
- |
*, PS, BW, WS, OE |
* |
|
139 |
Eurema brigitta |
Small Grass Yellow |
Pieridae |
- |
*, BW, OE |
* |
|
140 |
Eurema hecabe |
Common Grass Yellow |
Pieridae |
- |
*, PS, BW, OE |
* |
|
141 |
Eurema laeta |
Spotless Grass Yellow |
Pieridae |
- |
*, WS |
* |
|
142 |
Eurema simulatrix |
Changeable Grass yellow |
Pieridae |
- |
- |
* |
|
143 |
Euripus nyctelius |
Courtesan |
Nymphalidae |
Schedule II |
*, PS, BW, OE |
- |
|
144 |
Euthalia aconthea |
Common Baron |
Nymphalidae |
- |
*, PS, OE |
* |
|
145 |
Euthalia alpheda |
Streaked Baron |
Nymphalidae |
- |
* |
- |
|
146 |
Euthalia durga |
Blue Duke |
Nymphalidae |
- |
*, PS, BW, OE |
* |
|
147 |
Euthalia lubentina |
Gaudy Baron |
Nymphalidae |
- |
# |
- |
|
148 |
Euthalia monina |
Powdered Baron |
Nymphalidae |
- |
* |
* |
|
149 |
Euthalia nara |
Bronze Duke |
Nymphalidae |
Schedule II |
*, OE |
* |
|
150 |
Euthalia phemius |
White-edged Blue Baron |
Nymphalidae |
- |
*, PS, BW, OE |
* |
|
151 |
Euthalia sahadeva |
Green Duke |
Nymphalidae |
- |
*, OE |
* |
|
152 |
Euthalia telchinia |
Blue Baron |
Nymphalidae |
Schedule I |
*, PS, BW, OE |
* |
|
153 |
Flos areste |
Tailless Plushblue |
Lycaenidae |
Schedule II |
# |
- |
|
154 |
Flos fulgida |
Shining Plushblue |
Lycaenidae |
- |
* |
- |
|
155 |
Gandaca harina |
Tree Yellow |
Pieridae |
- |
* |
* |
|
156 |
Gangara thyrsis |
Giant Redeye |
Hesperiidae |
- |
* |
- |
|
157 |
Gerosis phisara |
White-banded Flat |
Hesperiidae |
- |
- |
* |
|
158 |
Gerosis sinica |
White Yellow-breasted Flat |
Hesperiidae |
- |
# |
- |
|
159 |
Graphium agamemnon |
Tailed Jay |
Papilionidae |
- |
*, PS, BW, OE |
- |
|
160 |
Graphium antiphates |
Five-bar Swordtail |
Papilionidae |
- |
* |
- |
|
161 |
Graphium doson |
Common Jay |
Papilionidae |
- |
# |
- |
|
162 |
Graphium eurous |
Six-bar Swordtail |
Papilionidae |
- |
* |
- |
|
163 |
Graphium eurypylus |
Great Jay |
Papilionidae |
Schedule II |
# |
- |
|
164 |
Graphium macareus |
Lesser Zebra |
Papilionidae |
- |
- |
* |
|
165 |
Graphium sarpedon |
Common Bluebottle |
Papilionidae |
Schedule II |
*, PS, BW, OE |
* |
|
166 |
Graphium xenocles |
Great Zebra |
Papilionidae |
- |
*, OE |
- |
|
167 |
Halpe porus |
Moore's Ace |
Hesperiidae |
- |
# |
- |
|
168 |
Halpe zema |
Dark Banded Ace |
Hesperiidae |
- |
*, PS, BW, OE |
- |
|
169 |
Hasora badra |
Common Awl |
Hesperiidae |
- |
# |
- |
|
170 |
Hebomoia glaucippe |
Great Orange Tip |
Pieridae |
- |
*, PS, OE |
* |
|
171 |
Heliophorus brahma |
Golden Sapphire |
Lycaenidae |
- |
*, PS, BW, WS, OE |
* |
|
172 |
Heliophorus epicles |
Purple Sapphire |
Lycaenidae |
- |
*, PS, BW, OE |
* |
|
173 |
Heliophorus ila |
Restricted Purple Sapphire |
Lycaenidae |
- |
*, PS, BW, OE |
- |
|
174 |
Heliophorus indicus |
Dark Sapphire |
Lycaenidae |
- |
# |
* |
|
175 |
Heliophorus moorei |
Azure Sapphire |
Lycaenidae |
- |
*, OE |
* |
|
176 |
Heliophorus tamu |
Powdery Green Sapphire |
Lycaenidae |
- |
* |
* |
|
177 |
Hestina persimilis |
Siren |
Nymphalidae |
Schedule II |
# |
- |
|
178 |
Hestinalis nama |
Circe |
Nymphalidae |
- |
*, PS, BW, OE |
* |
|
179 |
Horaga onyx |
Common Onyx |
Lycaenidae |
Schedule II |
# |
- |
|
180 |
Hypolimnas bolina |
Great Eggfly |
Nymphalidae |
- |
*, PS, BW, OE |
* |
|
181 |
Hypolycaena erylus |
Common Tit |
Lycaenidae |
- |
* |
* |
|
182 |
Hypolycaena kina |
Blue Tit |
Lycaenidae |
- |
*, PS, OE |
- |
|
183 |
Hypolycaena othona |
Orchid Tit |
Lycaenidae |
Schedule I |
* |
- |
|
184 |
Iambrix salsala |
Chestnut Bob |
Hesperiidae |
- |
*, PS, OE |
* |
|
185 |
Ideopsis vulgaris |
Glassy Blue Tiger |
Nymphalidae |
- |
- |
* |
|
186 |
Issoria gemmata |
Gem Silverspot |
Nymphalidae |
- |
- |
* |
|
187 |
Issoria issaea |
Himalayan Queen Fritillary |
Nymphalidae |
- |
* |
- |
|
188 |
Issoria lathonia |
Queen of Spain Fritillary |
Nymphalidae |
Schedule II |
- |
* |
|
189 |
Ixias marianne |
White Orange Tip |
Pieridae |
- |
# |
* |
|
190 |
Ixias pyrene |
Yellow Orange Tip |
Pieridae |
- |
*, PS |
* |
|
191 |
Jamides alecto |
Metallic Caerulean |
Lycaenidae |
- |
*, PS, BW, OE |
* |
|
192 |
Jamides bochus |
Dark Cerulean |
Lycaenidae |
- |
* |
- |
|
193 |
Jamides caerulea |
Royal Cerulean |
Lycaenidae |
Schedule II |
- |
* |
|
194 |
Jamides celeno |
Common Caerulean |
Lycaenidae |
- |
*, WS, OE |
* |
|
195 |
Jamides elpis |
Glistening Cerulean |
Lycaenidae |
- |
- |
* |
|
196 |
Jamides pura |
White Cerulean |
Lycaenidae |
Schedule II |
- |
* |
|
197 |
Junonia almana |
Peacock Pansy |
Nymphalidae |
- |
# |
* |
|
198 |
Junonia atlites |
Grey Pansy |
Nymphalidae |
- |
# |
* |
|
199 |
Junonia iphita |
Chocolate Pansy |
Nymphalidae |
- |
*, PS, BW, WS, OE |
* |
|
200 |
Junonia lemonias |
Lemon Pansy |
Nymphalidae |
- |
*, PS, BW, OE |
* |
|
201 |
Junonia orithya |
Blue Pansy |
Nymphalidae |
- |
* |
* |
|
202 |
Kallima inachus |
Orange Oakleaf |
Nymphalidae |
- |
*, PS, BW, WS, OE |
* |
|
203 |
Kaniska canace |
Blue Admiral |
Nymphalidae |
- |
*, PS, OE |
- |
|
204 |
Lampides boeticus |
Pea Blue |
Lycaenidae |
Schedule II |
*, PS |
* |
|
205 |
Lasippa tiga |
Malayan Lascar |
Nymphalidae |
- |
* |
- |
|
206 |
Lebadea martha |
Knight |
Nymphalidae |
- |
* |
- |
|
207 |
Leptosia nina |
Psyche |
Pieridae |
- |
*, PS, BW, OE |
* |
|
208 |
Leptotes plinius |
Zebra Blue |
Lycaenidae |
- |
*, PS, BW, OE |
* |
|
209 |
Lestranicus transpectus |
White-banded Hedge Blue |
Lycaenidae |
- |
# |
- |
|
210 |
Lethe chandica |
Angled Red Forester |
Nymphalidae |
- |
*, PS, BW, OE |
- |
|
211 |
Lethe confusa |
Banded Treebrown |
Nymphalidae |
- |
*, PS, BW, WS, OE |
* |
|
212 |
Lethe dakwania |
White-wedged Woodbrown |
Nymphalidae |
- |
* |
- |
|
213 |
Lethe dura |
Scarce Lilacfork |
Nymphalidae |
Schedule I |
*, WS |
* |
|
214 |
Lethe goalpara |
Large Goldenfork |
Nymphalidae |
- |
# |
- |
|
215 |
Lethe isana |
Common Forester |
Nymphalidae |
Schedule II |
* |
* |
|
216 |
Lethe kansa |
Bamboo Forester |
Nymphalidae |
- |
*, PS, BW, OE |
* |
|
217 |
Lethe latiaris |
Pale Forester |
Nymphalidae |
Schedule II |
# |
* |
|
218 |
Lethe maitrya |
Barred Woodbrown |
Nymphalidae |
- |
* |
* |
|
219 |
Lethe mekara |
Red Forester |
Nymphalidae |
- |
# |
- |
|
220 |
Lethe nicetella |
Small Woodbrown |
Nymphalidae |
Schedule II |
* |
- |
|
221 |
Lethe portlandia |
Southern Pearly-eye |
Nymphalidae |
- |
* |
- |
|
222 |
Lethe serbonis |
Brown Forester |
Nymphalidae |
Schedule II |
* |
* |
|
223 |
Lethe sidonis |
Common Woodbrown |
Nymphalidae |
- |
*, PS, OE |
* |
|
224 |
Lethe sinorix |
Tailed Red Forester |
Nymphalidae |
Schedule II |
* |
* |
|
225 |
Lethe sura |
Lilacfork |
Nymphalidae |
- |
# |
* |
|
226 |
Lethe verma |
Straight-banded Treebrown |
Nymphalidae |
- |
*, PS, BW, WS, OE |
* |
|
227 |
Libythea myrrha |
Club Beak |
Nymphalidae |
- |
- |
* |
|
228 |
Loxura atymnus |
Yamfly |
Lycaenidae |
- |
*, OE |
- |
|
229 |
Luthrodes pandava |
Plains Cupid |
Lycaenidae |
- |
# |
- |
|
230 |
Matapa aria |
Common Redeye |
Hesperiidae |
- |
* |
* |
|
231 |
Meandrusa lachinus |
Brown Gorgon |
Papilionidae |
Schedule II |
*, PS |
- |
|
232 |
Megisba malaya |
Malayan |
Lycaenidae |
Schedule II |
*, OE |
- |
|
233 |
Melanitis leda |
Common Evening Brown |
Nymphalidae |
- |
*, PS, BW, OE |
* |
|
234 |
Melanitis phedima |
Dark Evening Brown |
Nymphalidae |
- |
*, PS, BW, OE |
* |
|
235 |
Melanitis zitenius |
Great Evening Brown |
Nymphalidae |
Schedule II |
*, PS, BW |
* |
|
236 |
Mimathyma ambica |
Indian Purple Emperor |
Nymphalidae |
- |
# |
* |
|
237 |
Mimathyma chevana |
Sergeant Emperor |
Nymphalidae |
Schedule II |
- |
* |
|
238 |
Moduza procris |
Commander |
Nymphalidae |
- |
*, PS |
- |
|
239 |
Mooreana trichoneura |
Yellow Flat |
Hesperiidae |
- |
*, PS, BW, OE |
- |
|
240 |
Mycalesis anaxias |
White-bar Bushbrown |
Nymphalidae |
Schedule II |
*, PS, BW, OE |
* |
|
241 |
Mycalesis francisca |
Lilacine Bushbrown |
Nymphalidae |
- |
*, OE |
* |
|
242 |
Mycalesis intermedia |
Intermediate Bushbrown |
Nymphalidae |
- |
- |
* |
|
243 |
Mycalesis mineus |
Dark-branded Bushbrown |
Nymphalidae |
- |
*, PS, BW, OE |
* |
|
244 |
Mycalesis perseus |
Dingy Bushbrown |
Nymphalidae |
- |
*, PS, BW, OE |
* |
|
245 |
Mycalesis visala |
Long Brand Bushbrown |
Nymphalidae |
- |
*, OE |
* |
|
246 |
Nacaduba kurava |
Transparent 6-line Blue |
Lycaenidae |
- |
- |
* |
|
247 |
Nacaduba pactolus |
Large Four Lineblue |
Lycaenidae |
Schedule II |
- |
* |
|
248 |
Neocheritra fabronia |
Pale Grand Imperial |
Lycaenidae |
Schedule II |
# |
- |
|
249 |
Neope armandii |
Yellow Labyrinth |
Nymphalidae |
- |
# |
- |
|
250 |
Neope bhadra |
Tailed Labyrinth |
Nymphalidae |
- |
* |
* |
|
251 |
Neope pulaha |
Veined Labyrinth |
Nymphalidae |
Schedule II |
* |
- |
|
252 |
Neope yama |
Dusky Labyrinth |
Nymphalidae |
Schedule II |
# |
- |
|
253 |
Neorina hilda |
Yellow Owl |
Nymphalidae |
Schedule II |
*, PS, OE |
- |
|
254 |
Neptis ananta |
Yellow Sailer |
Nymphalidae |
- |
*, PS, OE |
- |
|
255 |
Neptis clinia |
Southern Sullied Sailer |
Nymphalidae |
- |
# |
* |
|
256 |
Neptis hylas |
Common Sailer |
Nymphalidae |
- |
*, PS, BW, OE |
* |
|
257 |
Neptis mahendra |
Himalayan Sailer |
Nymphalidae |
- |
- |
* |
|
258 |
Neptis miah |
Small Yellow Sailer |
Nymphalidae |
- |
- |
* |
|
259 |
Neptis nashona |
Less Rich Sailer |
Nymphalidae |
Schedule II |
*, PS, BW |
- |
|
260 |
Neptis nata |
Sullied Brown Sailer |
Nymphalidae |
- |
*, PS, WS |
- |
|
261 |
Neptis pseudovikasi |
False Dingy Sailer |
Nymphalidae |
- |
# |
- |
|
262 |
Neptis sankara |
Broad-banded Sailer |
Nymphalidae |
Schedule II |
- |
* |
|
263 |
Neptis sappho |
Pallas' Sailer |
Nymphalidae |
- |
*, PS, WS, OE |
* |
|
264 |
Neptis soma |
Cream-spotted Sailor |
Nymphalidae |
Schedule II |
*, PS, BW, OE |
* |
|
265 |
Niphanda cymbia |
Small Pointed Pierrot |
Lycaenidae |
Schedule II |
# |
- |
|
266 |
Notocrypta curvifascia |
Restricted Demon |
Hesperiidae |
- |
*, PS, BW, OE |
* |
|
267 |
Notocrypta feisthamelii |
Spotted Demon |
Hesperiidae |
- |
*, OE |
* |
|
268 |
Notocrypta paralysos |
Common Banded Demon |
Hesperiidae |
- |
* |
- |
|
269 |
Odontoptilum angulata |
Chestnut Angle |
Hesperiidae |
- |
* |
- |
|
270 |
Oriens gola |
Common Dartlet |
Hesperiidae |
- |
*, OE |
* |
|
271 |
Oriens goloides |
Smaller Dartlet |
Hesperiidae |
- |
# |
- |
|
272 |
Orinoma damaris |
Tigerbrown |
Nymphalidae |
- |
*, OE |
* |
|
273 |
Orsotriaena medus |
Medus Brown |
Nymphalidae |
- |
*, PS, WS, OE |
* |
|
274 |
Orthomiella pontis |
Straightwing Blue |
Lycaenidae |
Schedule II |
#, PS |
- |
|
275 |
Pachliopta aristolochiae |
Common Rose Swallowtail |
Papilionidae |
- |
*, PS, OE |
* |
|
276 |
Pachliopta hector |
Crimson Rose Swallowtail |
Papilionidae |
- |
# |
- |
|
277 |
Pantoporia hordonia |
Common Lascar |
Nymphalidae |
- |
*, PS, OE |
* |
|
278 |
Pantoporia sandaka |
Extra Lascar |
Nymphalidae |
- |
# |
- |
|
279 |
Papilio agestor |
Tawny Mime Swallowtail |
Papilionidae |
- |
# |
- |
|
280 |
Papilio alcmenor |
Redbreast Swallowtail |
Papilionidae |
- |
*, BW, OE |
- |
|
281 |
Papilio arcturus |
Blue Peacock Swallowtail |
Papilionidae |
- |
*, PS, OE |
* |
|
282 |
Papilio bianor |
Common Peacock |
Papilionidae |
- |
*, BW, OE |
* |
|
283 |
Papilio bootes |
Tailed Redbreast |
Papilionidae |
Schedule II |
- |
* |
|
284 |
Papilio castor |
Common Raven |
Papilionidae |
- |
# |
- |
|
285 |
Papilio clytia |
Common Mime Swallowtail |
Papilionidae |
Schedule II |
*, PS, OE |
- |
|
286 |
Papilio demoleus |
Lime Swallowtail |
Papilionidae |
- |
# |
- |
|
287 |
Papilio helenus |
Red Helen Swallowtail |
Papilionidae |
- |
*, PS, BW, OE |
* |
|
288 |
Papilio krishna |
Krishna peacock |
Papilionidae |
Schedule I |
*, PS, BW, OE |
* |
|
289 |
Papilio machaon |
Old World Swallowtail |
Papilionidae |
- |
- |
* |
|
290 |
Papilio memnon |
Great Mormon Swallowtail |
Papilionidae |
- |
*, PS, BW, OE |
* |
|
291 |
Papilio nephelus |
Yellow Helen |
Papilionidae |
- |
*, PS, BW, WS, OE |
* |
|
292 |
Papilio paris |
Paris Peacock Swallowtail |
Papilionidae |
- |
*, PS, BW, OE |
* |
|
293 |
Papilio polytes |
Common Mormon Swallowtail |
Papilionidae |
- |
*, PS, BW, OE |
* |
|
294 |
Papilio protenor |
Spangle Swallowtail |
Papilionidae |
- |
*, PS, OE |
* |
|
295 |
Papilio slateri |
Blue Striped Mime Swallowtail |
Papilionidae |
Schedule II |
* |
- |
|
296 |
Parantica aglea |
Glassy Tiger |
Nymphalidae |
- |
*, PS, BW, WS, OE |
* |
|
297 |
Parantica melaneus |
Chocolate Tiger |
Nymphalidae |
- |
*, OE |
* |
|
298 |
Parantica pedonga |
Pedong Tiger |
Nymphalidae |
- |
* |
- |
|
299 |
Parantica sita |
Chestnut Tiger |
Nymphalidae |
- |
*, PS, OE |
* |
|
300 |
Parasarpa dudu |
White Commodore |
Nymphalidae |
Schedule II |
*, PS, BW, OE |
- |
|
301 |
Parasarpa zayla |
Bicolor Commodore |
Nymphalidae |
- |
*, PS, OE |
* |
|
302 |
Pareronia avatar |
Pale Wanderer |
Pieridae |
Schedule II |
# |
- |
|
303 |
Parnara bada |
Oriental Straight Swift |
Hesperiidae |
- |
*, PS, OE |
- |
|
304 |
Parnassius hardwickii |
Common Blue Apollo |
Papilionidae |
- |
* |
* |
|
305 |
Pedesta masuriensis |
Mussoorie Bush Bob |
Hesperiidae |
- |
* |
- |
|
306 |
Pedesta pandita |
Brown Bush Bob |
Hesperiidae |
- |
* |
* |
|
307 |
Pelopidas agna |
Little Branded Swift |
Hesperiidae |
- |
# |
- |
|
308 |
Pelopidas assamensis |
Great Swift |
Hesperiidae |
- |
* |
- |
|
309 |
Pelopidas conjuncta |
Conjoined Swift |
Hesperiidae |
- |
- |
* |
|
310 |
Pelopidas mathias |
Small Branded Swift |
Hesperiidae |
- |
*, BW, OE |
- |
|
311 |
Petrelaea dana |
Dingy Lineblue |
Lycaenidae |
- |
* |
- |
|
312 |
Phalanta alcippe |
Small Leopard |
Nymphalidae |
Schedule II |
* |
- |
|
313 |
Phalanta phalantha |
Common Leopard |
Nymphalidae |
- |
- |
* |
|
314 |
Pieris brassicae |
Large White |
Pieridae |
- |
* |
* |
|
315 |
Pieris canidia |
Indian Cabbage White |
Pieridae |
- |
*, PS, BW, WS, OE |
* |
|
316 |
Pieris melete |
Asian Green-veined White |
Pieridae |
- |
- |
* |
|
317 |
Pieris rapae |
Cabbage White |
Pieridae |
- |
- |
* |
|
318 |
Polytremis discreta |
Himalayan Swift |
Hesperiidae |
Schedule IV |
# |
- |
|
319 |
Polytremis eltola |
Yellow-spot Swift |
Hesperiidae |
- |
*, BW, OE |
* |
|
320 |
Polyura athamas |
Common Nawab |
Nymphalidae |
Schedule II |
*, OE |
* |
|
321 |
Polyura bharata |
Indian Nawab |
Nymphalidae |
- |
* |
- |
|
322 |
Polyura eudamippus |
Great Nawab |
Nymphalidae |
- |
*, PS, BW |
- |
|
323 |
Pontia edusa |
Eastern Bath White |
Pieridae |
- |
* |
- |
|
324 |
Poritia hewitsoni |
Common Gem |
Lycaenidae |
Schedule II |
*, PS, BW |
- |
|
325 |
Potanthus confucius |
Chinese Dart |
Hesperiidae |
- |
* |
- |
|
326 |
Potanthus omaha |
Lesser Dart |
Hesperiidae |
- |
*, PS, BW |
- |
|
327 |
Potanthus trachala |
Detached Dart |
Hesperiidae |
- |
- |
* |
|
328 |
Prioneris thestylis |
Spotted sawtooth |
Pieridae |
- |
*, PS |
* |
|
329 |
Prosotas aluta |
Banded Lineblue |
Lycaenidae |
Schedule II |
- |
* |
|
330 |
Prosotas bhutea |
Bhutya Lineblue |
Lycaenidae |
- |
# |
* |
|
331 |
Prosotas dubiosa |
Tailless Line Blue |
Lycaenidae |
- |
*, PS, BW, WS, OE |
* |
|
332 |
Prosotas nora |
Common Line Blue |
Lycaenidae |
- |
*, PS, OE |
* |
|
333 |
Prosotas pia |
Margined Lineblue |
Lycaenidae |
- |
- |
* |
|
334 |
Pseudergolis wedah |
Tabby |
Nymphalidae |
- |
*, PS, BW, OE |
* |
|
335 |
Pseudoborbo bevani |
Bevan's Swift |
Hesperiidae |
- |
*, OE |
- |
|
336 |
Pseudocoladenia dan |
Fulvous Pied Flat |
Hesperiidae |
- |
*, PS, BW, OE |
* |
|
337 |
Pseudozizeeria maha |
Himalayan Pale Grass Blue |
Lycaenidae |
- |
*, PS, BW, OE |
* |
|
338 |
Rachana jalindra |
Banded Royal |
Hesperiidae |
- |
- |
* |
|
339 |
Rapala manea |
Slate Flash |
Lycaenidae |
- |
*, PS, OE |
- |
|
340 |
Rapala nissa |
Common Flash |
Lycaenidae |
- |
* |
* |
|
341 |
Rapala pheretima |
Copper Flash |
Lycaenidae |
- |
*, PS |
- |
|
342 |
Rapala rectivitta |
Shot Flash |
Lycaenidae |
Schedule II |
* |
- |
|
343 |
Rapala tara |
Assam Flash |
Lycaenidae |
- |
# |
- |
|
344 |
Remelana jangala |
Chocolate Royal |
Lycaenidae |
Schedule II |
# |
- |
|
345 |
Rhaphicera moorei |
Small Tawny wall |
Nymphalidae |
- |
* |
- |
|
346 |
Rhaphicera satricus |
Large Tawny wall |
Nymphalidae |
- |
#, PS |
* |
|
347 |
Rohana parisatis |
Black Prince |
Nymphalidae |
- |
*, PS, BW, OE |
* |
|
348 |
Sarangesa dasahara |
Common Small Flat |
Hesperiidae |
- |
*, PS, BW, OE |
* |
|
349 |
Sephisa chandra |
Eastern Courtier |
Nymphalidae |
Schedule I |
*, PS, BW, OE |
- |
|
350 |
Seseria sambara |
Notched Seseria |
Hesperiidae |
- |
*, OE |
- |
|
351 |
Sinthusa nasaka |
Narrow Spark |
Lycaenidae |
Schedule II |
# |
- |
|
352 |
Spalgis epius |
Apefly |
Lycaenidae |
- |
#, PS |
- |
|
353 |
Spialia galba |
Indian Skipper |
Hesperiidae |
- |
# |
- |
|
354 |
Spindasis zhengweilie |
Contguous Silverline |
Lycaenidae |
- |
- |
* |
|
355 |
Stibochiona nicea |
Popinjay |
Nymphalidae |
- |
*, PS, BW, WS, OE |
* |
|
356 |
Stichophthalma camadeva |
Northern Jungle Queen |
Nymphalidae |
- |
* |
* |
|
357 |
Suastus gremius |
Indian Palm Bob |
Hesperiidae |
- |
# |
- |
|
358 |
Sumalia daraxa |
Green Commodore |
Nymphalidae |
- |
*, PS, BW, OE |
* |
|
359 |
Surendra quercetorum |
Common Acacia Blue |
Lycaenidae |
- |
*, PS, BW, OE |
* |
|
360 |
Surendra vivarna |
Acacia Blue |
Lycaenidae |
- |
* |
- |
|
361 |
Symbrenthia brabira |
Yellow Jester |
Nymphalidae |
- |
# |
- |
|
362 |
Symbrenthia hypselis |
Himalayan jester |
Nymphalidae |
- |
*, PS, BW, WS, OE |
* |
|
363 |
Symbrenthia lilaea |
Common Jester |
Nymphalidae |
- |
*, PS, BW, WS, OE |
* |
|
364 |
Symbrenthia niphanda |
Bluetail Jester |
Nymphalidae |
Schedule II |
*, PS, WS, OE |
- |
|
365 |
Symbrenthia silana |
Scarce Jester |
Nymphalidae |
Schedule I |
* |
- |
|
366 |
Tagiades gana |
Suffused Snow Flat |
Hesperiidae |
- |
# |
- |
|
367 |
Tagiades litigiosa |
Water Snow Flat |
Hesperiidae |
- |
*, PS, OE |
* |
|
368 |
Tagiades menaka |
Dark-edged Snow Flat |
Hesperiidae |
- |
*, PS, BW, WS, OE |
* |
|
369 |
Tagiades parra |
Straight Snow Flat |
Hesperiidae |
- |
* |
- |
|
370 |
Tajuria diaeus |
Straightline Royal |
Lycaenidae |
Schedule II |
* |
- |
|
371 |
Tajuria maculata |
Spotted Royal |
Lycaenidae |
- |
* |
- |
|
372 |
Talicada nyseus |
Red Pierrot |
Lycaenidae |
- |
* |
- |
|
373 |
Tanaecia julii |
Common Earl |
Nymphalidae |
- |
*, PS, BW, WS, OE |
* |
|
374 |
Tanaecia lepidea |
Grey Count |
Nymphalidae |
Schedule II |
*, PS, WS, OE |
* |
|
375 |
Taraka hamada |
Forest Pierrot |
Lycaenidae |
- |
*, PS, WS |
* |
|
376 |
Tarucus ananda |
Dark Pierrot |
Lycaenidae |
- |
# |
- |
|
377 |
Teinopalpus imperialis |
Kaiser-i-Hind |
Papilionidae |
Schedule II |
* |
- |
|
378 |
Telicota ancilla |
Dark Palm Dart |
Hesperiidae |
- |
# |
- |
|
379 |
Telicota bambusae |
Dark Palm Dart |
Hesperiidae |
- |
*, PS, OE |
* |
|
380 |
Telinga malsara |
White-line Bushbrown |
Nymphalidae |
- |
*, PS, BW |
* |
|
381 |
Thaumantis diores |
Jungle Glory |
Nymphalidae |
- |
*, OE |
- |
|
382 |
Ticherra acte |
Blue Imperial |
Lycaenidae |
- |
*, PS, BW, OE |
* |
|
383 |
Tirumala limniace |
Blue Tiger Crow |
Nymphalidae |
- |
# |
* |
|
384 |
Tirumala septentrionis |
Dark Blue Tiger |
Nymphalidae |
- |
*, PS, BW, OE |
* |
|
385 |
Troides helena |
Common Birdwing |
Papilionidae |
- |
*, BW, OE |
* |
|
386 |
Udara dilecta |
Pale Hedge Blue |
Lycaenidae |
- |
*, PS, OE |
* |
|
387 |
Udaspes folus |
Grass Demon |
Hesperiidae |
- |
* |
* |
|
388 |
Vagrans egista |
Vagrant |
Nymphalidae |
- |
# |
- |
|
389 |
Vanessa atalanta |
Red Admiral |
Nymphalidae |
- |
- |
* |
|
390 |
Vanessa cardui |
Painted Lady |
Nymphalidae |
- |
*, PS, OE |
* |
|
391 |
Vanessa indica |
Indian Red Admiral |
Nymphalidae |
- |
*, PS, BW, WS, OE |
* |
|
392 |
Vindula erota |
Cruiser |
Nymphalidae |
- |
*, OE |
* |
|
393 |
Ypthima asterope |
Common Three Rings |
Nymphalidae |
- |
- |
* |
|
394 |
Ypthima avanta |
Jewel Five-ring |
Nymphalidae |
- |
# |
- |
|
395 |
Ypthima baldus |
Common Five-ring |
Nymphalidae |
- |
*, PS, BW, WS, OE |
* |
|
396 |
Ypthima horsfieldii |
Malayan Five-ring |
Nymphalidae |
- |
# |
- |
|
397 |
Ypthima huebneri |
Common Four-ring |
Nymphalidae |
- |
*, PS, WS, OE |
- |
|
398 |
Ypthima inica |
Lesser Three-ring |
Nymphalidae |
- |
# |
- |
|
399 |
Ypthima newara |
Newar Three Ring |
Nymphalidae |
- |
*, PS, BW, OE |
* |
|
400 |
Ypthima nikaea |
Mooreâs Fivering |
Nymphalidae |
- |
* |
- |
|
401 |
Ypthima parasakra |
Dubious Five-ring |
Nymphalidae |
- |
*, PS, OE |
- |
|
402 |
Ypthima sakra |
Himalayan Five-ring |
Nymphalidae |
- |
*, PS, OE |
* |
|
403 |
Zeltus amasa |
Fluffy Tit |
Lycaenidae |
- |
*, PS, BW, OE |
* |
|
404 |
Zemeros flegyas |
Punchinello |
Riodinidae |
- |
*, PS, BW, WS, OE |
* |
|
405 |
Zipaetis scylax |
Dark Catseye |
Nymphalidae |
- |
# |
- |
|
406 |
Zizeeria karsandra |
Dark Grass Blue |
Lycaenidae |
- |
# |
* |
|
407 |
Zizina otis |
Lesser Grass Blue |
Lycaenidae |
- |
# |
* |
CS—Citizen Science | RS—Researcher Survey | WPAA
(2022)—Wildlife (Protection) Amendment Act (2022) | -—unrecorded or unlisted |
*—recorded during the project period | #—recorded outside project period |
PS—recorded from a project site | BW—recorded after butterfly walks |
WS—recorded after workshop | OE—recorded during the online documentation event.
Table 2. Summary of the data
contributed following citizen science outreach events in terms of observations
contributed, species recorded, and participants, with respect to the overall data
collected by citizen science approach during the study in Darjeeling-Sikkim
Himalaya.
|
CS data collected |
Observations |
Species |
Participants |
|
Before the study period |
106 |
67 |
7 |
|
During the study period |
1,717 |
268 |
170 |
|
During the study period from
the researcher study sites |
427 |
131 |
33 |
|
From workshop locations after
the event |
80 |
50 |
20 |
|
From butterfly walk locations
after the event |
315 |
121 |
24 |
|
During online documentation
events |
912 |
236 |
74 |
|
After the study period |
2,484 |
287 |
144 |
For
figures - - click here for full PDF
References
Amano, T., J.D. Lamming & W.J. Sutherland (2016). Spatial
gaps in global biodiversity information and the role of citizen science. Bioscience
66(5): 393–400. https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biw022
Aristeidou, M., C. Herodotou, H.L. Ballard, A.N. Young, A.E. Miller, L.
Higgins & R.F. Johnson (2021). Exploring the participation of
young citizen scientists in scientific research: The case of iNaturalist. PloS
ONE 16(1): e0245682. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0245682
Arjun, C.P. & R. Roshnath (2018). Status of
Greater Flamingos Phoenicopterus roseus in Kerala. Indian BIRDS14(2):
43–45.
Bird, T., A. Bates, J. Lefcheck, N. Hill, R. Thomson, G. Edgar, R.
Stuart-Smith, S. Wotherspoon, M. Krkosek, J. Stuart-Smith, G. Pecl, N. Barrett
& S. Frusher (2014). Statistical solutions for error and bias in
global citizen science datasets. Biological Conservation 173: 144–154. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2013.07.037
Callaghan, C.T., A.G. Poore, M. Hofmann, C.J. Roberts & H.M. Pereira
(2021). Large-bodied birds are over-represented in unstructured citizen science
data. Scientific reports 11(1): 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-98584-7
Chatzigeorgiou, G., S. Faulwetter, T. Dailianis, V.S. Smith, P.
Koulouri, C. Dounas & C. Arvanitidis (2016). Testing
the robustness of Citizen Science projects: Evaluating the results of pilot
project COMBER. Biodiversity Data Journal 4: e10859. https://doi.org/10.3897%2FBDJ.4.e10859
Curtis, V. (2014). Online citizen science games: Opportunities
for the biological sciences. Applied & Translational Genomics 3(4):
90–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atg.2014.07.001
Datta, A., R. Naniwadekar, M. Rao, R. Sreenivasan & V. Hiresavi
(2018). Hornbill Watch: A citizen science initiative for Indian hornbills. Indian
BIRDS 14(3): 65–70.
Devictor, V., R.J. Whittaker & C. Beltrame (2010). Beyond scarcity:
citizen science programmes as useful tools for conservation biogeography. Diversity
and Distributions 16(3): 354–362. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1472-4642.2009.00615.x
Dickinson, J., B. Zuckerberg & D. Bonter (2010). Citizen
Science as an ecological research tool: challenges and benefits. Annual
Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics 41(1): 149–172. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-ecolsys-102209-144636
Donnelly, A., O. Crowe, E. Regan, S. Begley & A. Caffarra (2014). The role
of citizen science in monitoring biodiversity in Ireland. International
Journal of Biometeorology 58(6): 1237–1249. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00484-013-0717-0
Feldman, M.J., L. Imbeau, P. Marchand, M.J. Mazerolle, M. Darveau
& N.J. Fenton (2021). Trends and gaps in the use of citizen science
derived data as input for species distribution models: a quantitative review. PloS
ONE 16(3): e0234587. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0234587
Feldman, R.E., I. Žemaitė & A.J. Miller-Rushing (2018). How
training citizen scientists affects the accuracy and precision of phenological
data. International Journal of Biometeorology 62(8): 1421–1435. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00484-018-1540-4
Galván, S., R. Barrientos & S. Varela (2021). No bird
database is perfect: citizen science and professional datasets contain
different and complementary biodiversity information. Ardeola 69(1):
97–114. https://doi.org/10.13157/arla.69.1.2022.ra6
Greenwood, J.J. (2007). Citizens, science and bird
conservation. Journal of Ornithology 148(1): 77–124. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10336-007-0239-9
Haribal, M. (1992). The Butterflies of Sikkim
Himalaya and Their Natural History. Natraj Publishers, Dehradun,
217 pp.
Hyder, K., B. Townhill, L. Anderson, J. Delany & J. Pinnegar (2015). Can
citizen science contribute to the evidence-base that underpins marine policy? Marine
Policy 59: 112–120. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2015.04.022
Jaiswara, R., S. Sreebin, M. Monaal & T. Robillard (2022). A new
species of Indigryllus (Orthoptera, Gryllidae, Eneopterinae,
Xenogryllini) from Kerala, India, with first data on acoustics and natural
habitat. Zootaxa 5205(6): 532–546. https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5205.6.2
Johnson, M., C. Hannah, L. Acton, R. Popovici, K. Karanth & E.
Weinthal (2014). Network environmentalism: Citizen scientists as agents for
environmental advocacy. Global Environmental Change 29: 235–245. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2014.10.006
Karmakar, T., S.W. Lepcha, D.N. Basu & K. Kunte (2021). A new
species of Zographetus Watson, 1893 (Lepidoptera: Hesperiidae) from
Sikkim, eastern Himalaya, India. Zootaxa 5072(4): 373–379.
Kehimkar, I. (2016). Butterflies of India. Bombay Natural History
Society, Mumbai, 516 pp.
Kulkarni, S. & S. Joseph (2015). First
record of genus Siler Simon, 1889 (Araneae: Salticidae) from India. Journal
of Threatened Taxa 7(10): 7701–7703. https://doi.org/10.11609/JoTT.o4266.7701-3
Land-Zandstra, A.M., J.L. Devilee, F. Snik, F. Buurmeijer & J.M. van
den Broek (2016). Citizen science on a smartphone: Participants’
motivations and learning. Public Understanding of Science 25(1): 45–60. https://doi.org/10.1177/09636625156024
Mason, L. & S. Arathi (2019). Assessing
the efficacy of citizen scientists monitoring native bees in urban areas. Global
Ecology and Conservation 17: e00561. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gecco.2019.e00561
Matteson,
K.C., D.J. Taron & E.S. Minor (2012). Assessing citizen contributions
to butterfly monitoring in two large cities. Conservation Biology 26(3):
557–564. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2012.01825.x
Moskowitz, D.
& L. Haramaty (2013). National Moth Week-a new global citizen science project focused on
moths. Terrestrial Arthropod Reviews 6(3): 185–200.
Odenwald, S.
(2018). A citation
study of citizen science projects in space science and astronomy. Citizen
Science: Theory and Practice 3(2): 5. https://doi.org/10.5334/cstp.152
Pandya, R.E.
(2012). A framework
for engaging diverse communities in citizen science in the US. Frontiers in
Ecology and the Environment 10(6): 314–317. https://doi.org/10.1890/120007
Paul, K., M.
Quinn, M. Huijser, J. Graham & L. Broberg (2014). An evaluation of a citizen
science data collection program for recording wildlife observations along a
highway. Journal of Environmental Management 139:180–187. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2014.02.018
Pernat, N.,
H. Kampen, J.M. Jeschke & D. Werner (2021). Citizen science versus
professional data collection: Comparison of approaches to mosquito monitoring
in Germany. Journal of Applied Ecology 58(2): 214–223. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.13767
Poisson,
A.C., I.M. McCullough, K.S. Cheruvelil, K.C. Elliott, J.A. Latimore & P.A.
Soranno (2020). Quantifying
the contribution of citizen science to broad-scale ecological databases. Frontiers
in Ecology and the Environment 18(1): 19–26. https://doi.org/10.1002/fee.2128
Pradhan, A.
& R. Yonle (2021). Socio-ecological assessment of
squamate reptiles in a human-modified ecosystem of Darjeeling, Eastern
Himalaya. Human Dimensions of Wildlife 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/10871209.2021.1905114
Pradhan, A.
& S. Khaling (2023). Community priorities, values, and perceptions associated with ecosystem
services provided by the socio-ecological landscapes of Darjeeling-Sikkim
Himalaya. Regional Environmental Change 23(1): 36. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-023-02028-z
Rahmani, A.,
S. Laad & Z. Islam (2003). Status of the AWC in India and future development.
Newsletter of the Asian Waterbird Census, 4–5.
Rotman, D.,
J. Preece, J. Hammock, K. Procita, D. Hansen, C. Parr, D. Lewis & D. Jacobs
(2012). Dynamic
changes in motivation in collaborative citizen-science projects, pp. 217–226.
In: Proceedings of the ACM 2012 conference on computer supported cooperative
work.
Schulwitz,
S.E., G.C. Hill, V. Fry & C.J. McClure (2021). Evaluating citizen science
outreach: A case-study with The Peregrine Fund’s American Kestrel Partnership. PloS
ONE 16(3): e0248948. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0248948
Segal, A.,
Y.A. Gal, R.J. Simpson, V. Homsy, M. Hartswood, K.R. Page & M. Jirotka
(2015). Improving
productivity in citizen science through controlled intervention. Proceedings of
the 24th International Conference on World Wide Web, 331–337 pp.
Sharma D.C.
(2019). Citizen
science growing in India: Study. Down to Earth. https://www.downtoearth.org.in/news/science-technology/citizen-science-growing-in-india-study-66375.
Electronic version accessed on 15 April 2022.
Sharma, K.,
B.K. Acharya, G. Sharma, D. Valente, M.R. Pasimeni, I. Petrosillo & T.
Selvan. (2020). Land use
effect on butterfly alpha and beta diversity in the Eastern Himalaya, India. Ecological
Indicators 110: 105605. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2019.105605
Silvertown,
J. (2009). A new dawn
for citizen science. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 24(9): 467–471. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2009.03.017
State of
India’s Birds. (2020). State of India’s Birds: Range, trends and conservation status. The
State of India’s Birds Partnership, 50 pp.
Spear, D.M.,
G.B. Pauly & K. Kaiser. (2017). Citizen science as a tool for
augmenting museum collection data from urban areas. Frontiers in Ecology and
Evolution 5: 86. https://doi.org/10.3389/fevo.2017.00086
Theobald,
E.J., A.K. Ettinger, H.K. Burgess, L.B. DeBey, N.R. Schmidt, H.E. Froehlich, C.
Wagner, J.H.R. Lambers, J. Tewksbury, M.A. Harsch & J.K. Parrish (2015). Global change and local
solutions: Tapping the unrealized potential of citizen science for biodiversity
research. Biological Conservation 181: 236–244. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2014.10.021
Tobler
M.W., S.E. Carrillo-Percastegui, R.L. Pitman, R. Mares & G. Powell (2008).
An evaluation of camera traps for inventorying large-and medium-sized
terrestrial rainforest mammals. Animal Conservation 11(3): 169–178. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-1795.2008.00169.x
Trojan J., S.
Schade, R. Lemmens & B. Frantál (2019). Citizen science as a new
approach in geography and beyond: Review and reflections. Moravian
Geographical Reports 27(4): 254–264. https://doi.org/10.2478/mgr-2019-0020
Tulloch,
A.T., H. Possingham, L. Joseph, J. Szabo & T. Martin (2013). Realising the full potential of
citizen science monitoring programs. Biological Conservation 165: 128–138.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2013.05.025
van der
Velde, T., D.A. Milton, T.J. Lawson, C. Wilcox, M. Lansdell, G. Davis, G.
Perkeins & B.D. Hardesty (2017). Comparison of marine debris data
collected by researchers and citizen scientists: Is citizen science data worth
the effort? Biological conservation 208: 127–138. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2016.05.025
Vattakaven,
T., R.M. George, D. Balabsubramanian, M. Rejou-Mechain, G. Muthusankar, B.R.
Ramesh & R. Prabhakar (2016). India Biodiversity Portal: an integrated, interactive
and participatory biodiversity informatics platform. Biodiversity Data
Journal 4: e10279. https://doi.org/10.3897/BDJ.4.e10279
West, S.E.,
R.M. Pateman & A. Dyke (2021). Variations in the motivations of environmental
citizen scientists. Citizen Science: Theory and Practice 6(1): 1–18. https://doi.org/10.5334/cstp.370
Wright, D.R., L.G. Underhill, M.
Keene & A.T. Knight (2015). Understanding the motivations and satisfactions of
volunteers to improve the effectiveness of citizen science programs. Society
& Natural Resources 28(9): 1013–1029. https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920.2015.1054976