A study to find out the diversity of butterflies at the Indian Institute of Forest Management (IIFM), Bhopal, was carried out over a period of six months from October 2013 to March 2014. A total of 55 butterfly species belonging to 5 families, namely, Hesperiidae (7 species), Papilionidae (4 species), Pieridae (10 species), Lycaenidae (13 species), and Nymphalidae (21 species), were recorded (with photographic record) during the study from three different habitats of campus: open scrub, dry deciduous, and urbanized habitat. Shannon diversity indices and Pielou’s evenness index were calculated for all the habitats. Shannon index was found to be highest for open scrub (3.76). Out of 54 species, Eurema brigitta was the most dominant species followed by Eurema hecabe, Junonia lemonias, and Phalanta phalantha. Dominance of these species can be explained by the presence of their larval and host plants in the campus. 1. Introduction Butterflies are one of the most conspicuous species of Earth’s biodiversity. Being extremely responsive to any changes in their environment, namely, temperature, humidity, light, and rainfall patterns [1–4], these insects are identified as useful bioindicators. They have different requirements for different habitat types for mating, breeding, and nectaring and are, thus, in sync with the diversity and quality of their habitats. The present study aims to examine the diversity and distribution of butterflies across three different habitats, namely, dry deciduous, open scrub, and urbanized habitat. A checklist of butterfly species is also provided. 2. Materials and Methods 2.1. Study Area The study was done in Indian Institute of Forest Management, Bhopal (23.208371°N and 77.384417°E), from July 2012 to March 2013. The location of campus, built on a hill at an elevation of about 556？m and surrounded by water on three sides, along with the wide range of climatic conditions that it passes through brings in diverse structure of habitats. The major types of vegetation included grasslands, open scrub forest, and dry deciduous forest and bamboo groves. The study was conducted in 12 transects (each approximately 300 to 500？m long) covering an area of 93-hectare campus. For our study, transects were divided into three habitats according to general landscape attributes and vegetation present there. The chief habitat types were as follows: (1) open scrub, (2) dry deciduous, and (3) urbanized habitat. 2.2. Butterfly Survey The survey of butterfly was done using Pollard walk method [5, 6] from 8 am to 10 am. The butterflies were observed within
References
[1]
D. D. Murphy and S. B. Weiss, “A long-term monitoring plan for a threatened butterfly,” Conservation Biology, vol. 2, pp. 367–374, 1988.
[2]
H. R. Sparrow, T. D. Sisk, P. R. Ehrlich, and D. D. Murphy, “Techniques and guidelines for monitoring neotropical butterflies,” Conservation Biology, vol. 8, no. 3, pp. 800–809, 1994.
[3]
K. Spitzer, J. Jaro？, J. Havelka, and J. Lep？, “Effect of small-scale disturbance on butterfly communities of an Indochinese montane rainforest,” Biological Conservation, vol. 80, no. 1, pp. 9–15, 1997.
[4]
T. Brereton, D. B. Roy, I. Middlebrook, M. Botham, and M. Warren, “The development of butterfly indicators in the United Kingdom and assessments in 2010,” Journal of Insect Conservation, vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 139–151, 2011.
[5]
E. Pollard, “A method for assessing changes in the abundance of butterflies,” Biological Conservation, vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 115–134, 1977.
[6]
E. Pollard, D. O. Elias, M. J. Skelton, and J. A. Thomas, “A method of assessing the abundance of butterflies in Monks Wood National Nature Reserve in 1973,” Entomologist’s Gazette, vol. 26, pp. 79–88, 1975.
[7]
I. Kehimkar, The Book of Indian Butterflies, Bombay Natural History Society, 2008.
[8]
A. E. Magurran, Ecological Diversity and Its Measurement, Chapman & Hall, London, UK, 1988.
[9]
E. C. Pielou, An Introduction to Mathematical Ecology, vol. 286, John Wiley, New York, NY, USA, 1969.
[10]
A. D. Tiple, A. M. Khurad, and R. L. H. Dennis, “Butterfly diversity in relation to a human-impact gradient on an Indian university campus,” Nota Lepidopterologica, vol. 30, no. 1, pp. 179–188, 2007.
[11]
K. Spitzer, V. Novotny, M. Tonner, and J. Leps, “Habitat preferences, distribution and seasonality of the butterflies (Lepidoptera, Papilionoidea) in a montane tropical rain forest, Vietnam,” Journal of Biogeography, vol. 20, no. 1, pp. 109–121, 1993.
[12]
J. Hill, K. Hamer, J. Tangah, and M. Dawood, “Ecology of tropical butterflies in rainforest gaps,” Oecologia, vol. 128, no. 2, pp. 294–302, 2001.
[13]
K. C. Hamer, J. K. Hill, L. A. Lace, and A. M. Langan, “Ecological and biogeographical effects of forest disturbance on tropical butterflies of Sumba, Indonesia,” Journal of Biogeography, vol. 24, no. 1, pp. 67–75, 1997.
[14]
B. Wood and M. P. Gillman, “The effects of disturbance on forest butterflies using two methods of sampling in Trinidad,” Biodiversity and Conservation, vol. 7, no. 5, pp. 597–616, 1998.
[15]
R. B. Blair, “Birds and butterflies along an urban gradient: surrogate taxa for assessing biodiversity?” Ecological Applications, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 164–170, 1999.
[16]
M. K. Saikia, J. Kalita, and P. K. Saikia, “Ecology and conservation needs of nymphalid butterflies in disturbed tropical forest of eastern Himalayan biodiversity hotspot, Assam, India,” International Journal of Biodversity Conservation, vol. 1, no. 8, pp. 231–250, 2009.
