NAT. NAT. HIST. B皿 L. SIAM Soc. 49: 177-188 ， 2001

PHYSICAL EFFECTS ON DIVERSITY AT TON NGA CHANG WILDLIFE SANCTUARY ，SOUTHERN

Kantamaht Boonvanno 1

ABSτ 'R ACT

Fifty-three Fifty-three genera 叩 d 98 of but 旬rflies (Le pidoptera) were collected at Ton Nga Chang Chang W i1 dlife Sanctuary ，Song 凶 la Pr ovince ，from September 1999 to August 2∞o. 百le S戸 C 加 ens were collec 飴dwi 血 aeri a1 nets and hanging baited- 回 ps a1 0ng 釘加総出.Nymp ha1 idae and and Satyridae were 血e best 胞 presen 旬 d fi 剖 ni1i es. 百 e most abundant species was Melan;t;s leda leda leda (L innaeus) (Satyridae). 百 e highest diversity was found in April (Shannon-Weiner 泊dex ，H = 3.4 1) ， and the lowest in November (H = 1. 08). 百lere were no si 伊 ificant correla- tions tions among physic a1 factors (humidity ，rainf a1 1 and 闘 nperatu 隠) and the to ta1 number of individu a1 s or species. Morl 回 ver ，butterfly numbers were not related to rainf a1 1in any fam i1 y. However ，humidity was si 伊 fican t1 y negatively correlated with 恥 individu a1 numbers of Nymph a1 idae ，and temperature was positively correlated with the individu a1 numbers of and and .

Keywords: Keywords: ，diversity ，Le pidoptera ，wea 由民 Shannon-Weiner index ，Songkhla

INTRODUCTION

Arthr opods 釘 'e good indicators of habitat biodiversity because 出ey respond quickly to to environment aI changes ， and are a highly diverse taxon. Le pidoptera (butterflies and moths) 紅 e the second largest order of 加 d most 釘 e easily identified ，m 北 ing themp 釘 ticularly useful for biodiversity surveys (COLL 町 S AND THOMAS ， 1989; E 悶iARD T， 1985; 1985; HILL ET AL. ， 1995; KREMEN ， 1994; MlTTL ER ET AL. ， 1995; SPARROW ET AL. ， 1994). Butterflies Butterflies occur 泊 a very wide range of situations but are particularly characteristic of humid tropical forests ， in which the majority of known species occ 町. Two important measures measures of diversity are species richness (L 釧 DAU ET AL. ，1999) 佃 d relative abundance of of individu aI s (HAMMOND & MIL 日 R， 1998). Species richness is a critic aI variable in conservation conservation planning and naωr aI resource m 釦 agemen t. 百lis research provides data baseline with which future butterfly surveys may be compared. compared. Severallong-term monitoring aims 紅 'e: 1) to provide information on 白e rate and and sequence of speciesωmover in regenerating forest; 2) to an aI yze changes 泊 abundance butterflies; of butterflies; and 3) to detect 住ends which may affect their staωs. In a previous study (BOONV ANNO ET AL. ，2000) ，information was collected on fluctuations in diversity of and physic aI factors affecting butterflies at Ton Nga Chang Wildlife Sanctuary. 百lI s study was conducted conducted to ga 血er more information on butterfly diversity 泊 order to comp 紅 e with 出at of of the previous study as well as to accumulate data for long-term monitoring.

I百le Na 伽ra1 1五story Museum ，Faculty of Science ，Prin ce of Songkla University ， Hat Yai ，Song kh1 a 90112 ， Thailand. Thailand. E-m ai1: bk 初旬m a@ ra 悦 e.psu.ac. 血 Received Received 28 Dec ember 2000; accepted 3 August 200 1.

177 177 178 178 KANTAMAHT BOONVANNO

STUDY AREA

2 Ton Nga Chang Wildlife Sanctuary ，a 365 ・km protected area ， is located in the mountainous mountainous section of Songkhla and Satun Provinces. Twelve study sites were selected in in open areas within the tropical rain forest at 26 0- 500 m above mean sea leve l. τ'h ese sites were were located near the Forest Department headquarters which is at Ban Phru Chaba (2) village ， near the Ton (= Don) Nga Chang Waterfall ，on 仕le east side of the sanc 卸紅y. Five sites sites were within 1 km north and west of headquarters ， and 7 sites were on 血e east slopes of of Kh ao Ton Nga Chang mountain ，up to 2 km south of headqu 訂 ters. Th e 12 sites were within within the area of 100 0 13.8-14.6' E longitude ，6 0 55.5-57 .3' N latitude. A 0.5-km tr 佃 sect was established at each site. τ'h e plant community at the study sites areas is tall canopy forest typical of hillside and and valley. The dominant species of pl 加 ts were described in BOONVANNO ET AL. (2000). Data Data on the temperature ， humidity and rainfall were obtained for the Hat Yai Intemational Intemational Airport in the lowland about 10 km east of the sanctuary ，from the Meteorological Meteorological Dep 紅加len t. Th e total rainfall during 白e year between Sep t. 1999 and Aug. 2000 was 2305 mm.

METHODS

Collection Collection and Identification

A transect was placed in each study site to monitor cylindrical hanging fruit-baited traps traps for butterflies. Trapping was carried out from September 1999 to August 2000. Each transect transect was walked twice per month. Butterflies were captured in two ways: by handnet and and by modified Pollard's transect baited traps (SPARROW ET AL. ， 1994). Butter 曲目白at were were seen while walking tr 叩 sects were chased with a handnet ， although not all were caugh t. Twelve hanging traps baited with rotting fruits (pineapple ，mango and banana) were were set at 40 叩 intervals along each tr 如 sect and were hung on the tr 閃 at about 3m from the the ground. At each trapping site ，a 15 ・minute visual survey for capturing more butterflies seen seen was conducted within a 10-m radius of the trap after the traps had been emptied. Date ， location ，time ，species and number of individuals were recorded. The butterflies were identified identified by comparison with pictures in LEKAGUL ET AL. (1 977) and PlNRA TANA (1981 ， 1983 ，1985 ，1988 ， 1992 and 1996). Th e preserved specimens are deposited at the diumal Lepidoptera collection of the History Natural Museum ， Prince of Songkla U 凶versity ， Hat Yai ， Songkhla. Statistical Statistical Analysis

Data Data from netting and 回 pping were combined to assess species richness and abundance individuals. of individuals. Butterfly species diversity was calculated using the Shannon-Weiner index (H)， 叩 d correlation analysis of factors abiotic that are the average over all sites for each month associated with the total number of individuals ，number of species and number of individual individual butterflies in each family ， with the Spe 紅 man rank correlation using SPSS for Windows ，version 7.0. BUTTERFLY DIVERSITY AT TON NGA CHANG WTLDUFE SANCTUARY 179

Table I. A summary of the number of individuals and species of butterflies at Ton Nga Chang Wildlife Sanctuary, Songkhla Province.

Number of Number of Family individuals species Papilionidae 18 4 182 35 Danaidae 13 5 Amathusiidae 58 7 Satyridae 156 18 Pieridae 29 7 Ridionidae 6 3 Lycaenidae 33 16 Hesperiidae 3 3 Total 498 98

RESULTS

Species Richness, Abundance, and Diversity.

I collected 498 butterflies of 98 species in 9 families (Table 1) at Ton Nga Chang Wildlife Sanctuary. All species found in each family, from both hand netting and hanging traps, are shown in the Appendix 1. Fifty of the 498 individuals collected were singletons (species represented by only one individual). Nymphalidae and Satyridae were the most common families, whereas Hesperiidae and Ridionidae were the rarest. Libytheidae and Acraeidae were not found.

(/) Q) 150 T5 Q) a. ._(/) 100 .. 0 • • I- Q) 50 ~· .0 E z::J 0 ~

0 100 200 300 400 500 600

Cumulative total individuals

Figure I. The relationship between the cumulative number of butterfly species and the total number of indiv idu ­ als collected at Ton Nga Chang Wildlife Sanctuary. 日∞。 Table Table 2. Most common butterflies caught in each month at Ton Nga Chang Wildlife Sanctuary ， Songkhla Province.

In dividual numbers per month (* =peak month) Rank Species Total J F M A M J J A S 。 N D leda (Li nnaeus) 28* 11 6 2 3 5 2 。。2 61 2 dunya dunya Doubleday 6 7 4 5 3 8* 4 8* 4 2 53 3 Mycalesis oroatis ustulata Di stant 5 5 3 2 。 10* 4 3 。。2 35 4 Euthalia teuta gup ω(deNiceville) 。。3 5 3 11* 4 。。。。 27 5 Neorina lowii neophyta (Fruhstorfer) 。3 。4 3 4 3 6* 。。。 24 6 Zeuxidia amethystus amethystus Butler 6* 。3 。 2 。 2 3 2 21 7 merguia (Tytler) 7* 。。2 。3 。 7* 。。。。 19 Prothoe Prothoe franck uniformis Butler 3* 3* 3* 3* 2 3* 。。。。 19 相内〉 Z4 9 。。。 。。 。。。。 Appias nero galba Wallace 2 8* 6 16 〉玄〉国 10 10 Euthalia evelina comp ω(Fruhstorfer) 。。。。 6* 。。。。 9 amythaon 。。。2 4* 。2 。。。。 9 4回 Doubleday Doubleday 002 〈〉 ZZO BUTIERFLY DIVERSITY AT TON NGA CHANG WILDLIFE SANCTUARY 181

The 11 most abundant species and their monthly counts are given in Table 2. The most abundant speci 巴s was Melanitis leda leda (Linnaeus) (Satyridae) (Table 2) ， with 61 individuals. individuals. It was most abundant in February ， but was not found in September and Octobe r. Euthalia Euthalia dunya duny α(Doubleday) (Nymphalidae) ，th 巴 n巴xt most abundant sp 巴cies ，was found all year round. Another important fami ly of butterfly was Amathusiida 巴 (Tabl 巴 1) which was found frequently but not in high numbers. Nine of the 11 species had peaks in numbers b巴tween May and August ， whereas none of the common speci 巴s had peaks during September to December (Table 2). Among the 11 most common species ， only 4 species (Melanitis (Melanitis leda ， Euthalia dunya ， Euthalia teuta ，and Lexias (Euthalia) dirte α) were also among the 10 most common butterflies of the previous study. The rate of accumulation of sp 巴cies (S) against the cumulative total of individua ls (的 collected collected is shown in Fig. 1. Total species richness (ST) of butterflies was 98. Above about 340 individuals ， the rate of accumulation of individuals was very slow. The spec i es diversity index calculated using th 巴 Shannon-Weiner equation (H) is shown in Fig. 2 . The maximum value was observed in April (H = 3 .4 1) and the lowest in November (H = 1. 08) .

Relationship Relationship between Physical Factors and Butter t1 y Numbers

Month ly values of humidity ，rainfall and temperature ar 巴 shown in Appendix 2. From Table Table 3，none of the physical factors (humidity ，rainfall and temperature) was significantly correlated correlated with the total numb 巴r of individuals 0 1' the total number of species of butterflies caught caught per month. Humidity was significantly negativ 巴ly cOITe l ated with the numb 巴r of individual individual butterflies in Nymphalidae (r -0.69 ，P < 0.05) ，and temperature was s = significantly significantly positively correlated with th 巴 numbers of Pieridae (r 0.58 ，P < 0.05) and s = Lycaenidae Lycaenidae (r 0.69 ，P < 0.05). However ， there was no ev id ence of a cOITelation between s = rainfall rainfall and butter fI y numbers for any family

ω》《 ち C 一 h- 4 一回」 ω 3 〉一万』 ω コ一旬〉2 ωc 一ω 〉〉 'cocc。

悶工 ω Sept Oct Nov De c Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug

Month

Figure Figure 2. Species diversity index of butterfly calculated by Shannon-Weiner equation from September 1999 - August August 2000 182 182 KANr AMAHT BOONVANNO

Table Table 3. Correlation between bu 悦 rfly abundance and species richness and physical factors ， using using the Speannan rank correlation coefficient (r s).

Physical Physical factor: rs rs -value Humidity (%) Rainfall (mm) Temperature (q Total Total individuals --0 .50 (P=0.10) --0.4 7 (P= 0.13) 0.4 3 (P=0.16) Species Species --0 .21 (P =O .51) --0 .28 (P =O .38) 0.52 (P=0.08) No. No. individuals in Papilionidae Papilionidae --0 .53 (P=0.08) --0 .17 (P=0.61) 0.22 (P=0 .4 9)

Nymph a1i dae -0 .69 (P=O.OI) 事 --0 .27 (P=0 .4 0) 0.4 1 (P =O .18) Oanaidae Oanaidae --0 .38 (P=0.22) --0 .31 (P=0.33) 0.44 (P=0.15) Am athusiidae 0.05 (P=0.88) 0.09 (P=0.78) 0.34 (P =0.28) Satyridae Satyridae --0 .37 (P =O .24) --0.4 1 (P=0.18) 0.31 (P=0.33) Pieridae Pieridae --0 .22 (P=0.50) --0 .17 (P =O .59) 0.58 (P=0.05) * Riodinidae Riodinidae --0 .08 (P=0.80) --0 .05 (P=0.88) 0.18 (P=0.58) Lycaenidae Lycaenidae --0 .17 (P=0.59) --0 .41 (P=0.19) 0.69 (P =0.01) * Hesperiidae Hesperiidae 0.25 (P=0 .4 3) --0 .31 (P=0.33) 0.03 (P=0.93)

*Con 芭lation is significant at 血e 0.05 level (2 ・tailed)

DISCUSSION

Species Species Richne 団， Abundance and Diversity

百 le diversity of butterflies collected du 由理由e one ye 紅 of 血is s旬dy ，compris 加g 98 species species and 53 genera in 9 families ，was low compared to 白紙 reported in BOONV ANNO Er AL. (2000). In血 at s加 dy 147 species and 77 genera 泊 9 families were found. It is possible 白at the butterfly habitats were more degraded. Sampling intensity (number of baited baited traps ，length of 佐ansects) was higher in 由is study than in the previous one; however ， only only maωre forest habitat was sampled in 也is study ， whereas disturbed forest habitats were were included 泊血e previous one. In血 e previous study ， only 71 species were found 泊 “ dense forest" habita t. Many species found 泊 the previous study were not found 泊血.e present s伽 dy.Of 出e 98 species found ， only 53 had been found previously and 45 were new. Thi s shows 血at long-term long-term surveys of all habitats 釘 'e ne 四 ssary to detect all the species at a given site. In In both studies the families Li bytheidae and Acraeidae were missing. It is possible 白紙 the the sp 切 ies of these families ar ち too small and rare 泊 the study area to be detected. Nymphalidae Nymphalidae were the most dominant group ， followed by Saψidae. Nymphalidae is 出e1 紅 gest family of butterflies. Nymphalids can often be found sunning themselves while satyrids satyrids usually have a slow ， jerky flight and stay close to the ground; hence ，they 釘 e easier easier to catch. 百le sa 旬rid Melanitis leda leda ，a widespread species (1 也LL Er AL. ， 2001) 泊 this s加 dy ，is active only at dusk and dawn (LEKAG 肌訂AL. ， 1977; P町 RATANA ，1988) ， and and has a peak of emergence 泊 Febru 釘 y. It was not found in September and October ， when it passes through its intmature stages. BUITERFL Y DIVERS 汀 Y AT TON NGA CHANG WILDLIFE SANCTUARY 183

百le t 'O tal species richness (ST) 'O f butterflies (98 in this study) is a straightf 'O rward measure 'O f diversity ， but if the survey time were pr 'O l'O nged the curve w 'O uld c'O ntinue t 'O creep creep upwards as new species are added t 'O the list. Hence ，the 佐ue species richness is still higher 血 an the number caught ， as the cumulative c町 ves sh 'O ws n 'O sign 'O f leveling 'O ff c 'O mpletely.

Wh en a diverse fauna is sampled it is always f'O und that a few species 釘 'e represented by al 'O t 'O f individuals and a large number 'O f species 釘 'e represented by 'O ne 'O ra few individuals. 百lese relative abundances are c'O nsidered in the diversity index. From the Shann 'O n-Weiner equati 'O n， the m 'O nthly species index value was maximal in Apri l.官 lere is is n 'O 'O bvi 'O us reas 'O nf 'O r 出is. H 'O wever ，it may depend 'O n 出e fl 'O wering 'O f the h 'O st plants 白紙 affect butterflies feeding 'O n nect 訂 and 'O ther bi 'O tic fact 'O rs. N 'O vember had the l'O west species species index. Perhaps during 出is time m 'O st butterflies were 泊 the immature rather 白m adult adult stages. In c'O mp 釘 is 'O n with the previ 'O us sωdy ，t 'O tal diversity did n'O t peak in 出e same m 'O nths exactly. Th e maximum diversity 泊 the previ 'O us study was 'O bserved in February (H= 3.2) and 血 el 'O west in September (H = 1.72). M 'O re study 'O f what influences diversity is is needed.

The Relationship between Physical Factors and Butterfly Numbers

h 出is study ，n 'O ne 'O f the physical fact 'O rs was significantly related t'O血 et 'O tal number 'O f individuals 'O r species richness. 百lis result is c 'O nsistent with that 'O f BOONV ANNO ET AL. (2000) ， but it c 'O ntrasts with YOUNG (1982) ，POLLARD (1 988) ，POLLARD ET AL. (1 993) AND Moss & POLL 組 D (1 993). It may reflect 血 e differences between tr 'O pical and temperate climate climate pattems. Envir 'O nmental fluctuati 'O n 泊 temperate c 'O untries is relatively greater and may have m 'O re severe effects 'O n the abundance and species richness 'O f butterflies. Humidity and rainfall were negatively c 'O rrelated wi 血 the number individuals and species species in P 'O llard's studies (POLLARD ， 1988; POLLARD ET AL. ， 1993). F 'O r humidity ， this study study sh 'O ws p紅 'allel results with respect t 'O the number 'O f Nymphalidae. Our results c 'O ntrast with with the f'O rmer sωdy (BOONVANNO ET AL. ， 2000) in which numbers 'O f hesperid butterflies were p 'O sitively c 'O rrelated with humidity. Perhaps hesperids can shelter themselves 合om rainfall rainfall 'O r high humidity by f'O lding . h 由e previ 'O us study (BOONV ANNO ET AL. ，2000) ，peri 'O ds 'O f very heavy rain resulted in in signific 佃 tly increased m 'O rtality 'O f butterfly adults in 出e Amathusiidae and Satyridae. In deed ， the numbers 'O f individuals and species 'O f butterflies sh 'O uld be reduced by high rainfall rainfall (YOUNG ，1982) ， as adu 1t emergence is suppressed by rain. In the present study ， h'O wever ， the lack 'O f significant c'O rrelati 'O ns between rainfall and numbers 'O f butterflies indicated 出at rainfall did n'O t have an imp 'O rt 佃 t influence 'O n butterfly numbers. Temperature Temperature was p 'O sitively c 'O rrelated with the numbers 'O f individuals and species 'O f Pieridae Pieridae and Lycaenidae. This result is in agreement with s'O me 'O ther field research (POLLARD ， 1988; POLLARDET AL. ， 1993). Butterflies 'O fthese families 'O ften sun themselves. High temperature als 'O facilitates 'O vip 'O siti 'O n，c 'O urtship behavi 'O r，and larval devel 'O pmen t. In In additi 'O n， temperature indirectly affects the gr 'O wth 'O ff 'O'O d plants (POLLARD ， 1988). Th is study w 邸 t'O'O sh 'O rt f'O r an analysis 'O fp 'O pulati 'O n trends; l'O ng term m 'O nit 'O ring is is needed f'O rm 'O re accurate inf 'O rmati 'O n. Furtherm 'O re ，additi 'O nal w 'O rk is needed t 'O c'O mpare Lepid 'O ptera diversity am 'O ng general categ 'O ries 'O f vegetati 'O n types within f'O rested ec 'O systems ，t 'O pr 'O vide better baseline data. Butterfly-pl 釦 trelati 'O nship 訂 'e theref 'O re being studied studied t 'O fu 託her '0町 understanding 'O f bi 'O tic effects 'O n butterfly numbers and diversity. 184 184 KANTAMAHT BOONVANNO

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

1 would like to 血ank Chief of Ton Nga Chang Wildlife Sanctuary for permitt 加gme to work and collect butterflies. 1 would particularly like to thank Mr Vira Samalee of 出e Meteorological Department for useful meteorological data. Further 血創 lks are due to 組 onymous referees whose comments 血at led to considerable improvement of the tex t. 百le Faculty of Science ，Prin ce of Son 酔la Univ 釘 sity ，白 1組 cially supported 曲is research.

RE 四 RENCES

BOONVANNO ，K. ， S. WATANASIT ，AND S. PERMKAM. 2000. Butterfly diversity at Ton Nga-Chang Wildlife Sanc- 制釘y，Son! 酎叫 a Pro vince ，Southem 百lailand. Science 26: 105-110. COLLINS ，N. M. ，馴 o J. A. THOMAS. 1989. The Conservation ollnsects and their Habitats. Academic Pre ss ， London. London. pp. 412 -4 17. E Rl弘 RDT ，A. 1985. Diumal Le pidoptera: sensitive indicators of cultiv 蹴 d and abandoned grassland. Journal 01 Applied Applied Ecology 22: 84 9-8 61. HAMMOND ， P. C. ，ANO J. C. M 払凶R. 1998. Comparison of 血 .e biodiversity of Le pidoptera w I'曲泊白 ree forested ecosys 飽ms. Conservation Biology and Biodiversi. η91: 323-328. E世比， J. K. ，K. C. HAMER ， L. A. LA ，田， ANO W. M. T. BANHAM. 1995. Effects of selective logging on 回 pical forest forest b凶 erflies on Buru ，In donesia. Journal 01 Applied Ecology 32: 754 ー760. HIu.， HIu.， J. K. ，K. C. HAMER ，J. TANGAH ，. ANO M. DAW ∞.0.200 1. Ecology of tropical bu 陶泊ies 泊 rainforest gaps. Oecologia Oecologia 128: 29 4- 302. KRE~狙N ， C. 1994. Biological inventory using t紅 'get taxa: ac ぉ e study of 血e butter 也ies ofMadagωC 紅'. Ecologi- cal cal Applications 4: 407 ・-4 22. LANDAU ，D. D. PROWELL ，AND C. E. C 成 LTON. 1999. In tensive versus long- 飽rm sampling to access lepidopteran diversity 泊 a southem mixed mesophytic fores t. Conservation Biology and Biodiversi. か92: 435 -441. LEKAG 札， B. ，K. ASKINs ，J. NABHITABHA :r A，ANO A. SAMRUAOKIT. 1977. Field Guide to the Butteiflies 01 1'. 加 i- land. land. Kurusapha Pre ss ， Bangkok. 2活o pp. MITTLER ， T. E. ， F. J. RA ∞'VSKY ，釧 oV.H.R 回 H. 1995. Butterfly conservation and management. Annual Review 01 01 Entomology 40: 57 -8 3. Moss ，D. ，AND E. PO 比 ARD. 1993. Calculation of collated indices of abundance of butterflies based on mo 凶to 児 d sites. sites. Ecological Entomology 18: 77 -8 3. P 削RATANA ，A. 198 1. Butte ポ'ies in Thailand. Vo l. 4. Vir 拙 am Pre ss ，B 釦 gkok. 216 pp. 一一一 1983. Butte ポ'ies in Thailand. Vo l. 2. Vira 曲am Pre ss ，Ban 依.ok. 71 pp. 一一一 1985. Butte ポies in Thailand. Vo l. 5. V 凶曲m 針ess ， Bangkok. 152 pp. 一一 1988. Butteiflies in Thailand. Vo l. 6. Vira 由am Pr ess ， Bangkok. 61 pp. 一一一 1992. Butteiflies in Thailand. Vo l. 1. Viratham pr 官民 Bangkok. 79 pp. 一一一 1996. Butteiflies in Thailand. Vo l. 3. V 国首lam 昨ess ， Bangkok. 140 pp. POLLARO ， E. 1988. Tempera 加re ，rainfall 組 d but 町 fly numbers. Journal 01 Applied Ecology 25: 819 -8 28. PO 比ARO ，E. ， C. A. M. VAN SWAAY ，釧 o T. J. YATES. 1993. Changes in butterfly numbers 担 Britain and 臨 Netherlands ，19909 1. Ecological Entomology 18: 93- 94. SPARROW ，H. R. ， T. D. SISK ， P. R. EH 即 CH ，. ANO D. D. MURPHY. 1994. Techniques and guidelines for monitoring Neotropical Neotropical butterflies. Conservation Biology 8: 800-8 09. Yo 開 G，A. M. 1982. Population Biology 01 Tropicallnsects. Plenum Pre ss ，Lo ndon. pp. 28 9- 377. BU TfE RFLY DIVERSITY AT TON NGA CHANG WILDLIFE SANCTUARY 185

Appendix Appendix 1. Ann otated list of butterfly species at Ton Nga Chang Wildlife Sanctuary from from September 1999 to August 2000. (N: New record when compared with the the previous survey) Month of Family Family Scientific name Individuals occurrence Papilionidae Papilionidae 1. Graphium agamemnon agamemnon 2 Linnaeus Linnaeus 2. 2. Papilio polytes romulus Cramer 8 2，4，5，8 3. 3. Papilio nephelus chaon Westwood 7 8-10 N 4. Papilio mahadeva Moore 5 Total Total 18 Nymphalidae Nymphalidae 1. Lexias dirtea merguia (Tytler) 19 1，4，6，8 2. 2. dirteana (Corbet) 4 1-3 3. 3. Lexias pardalis jadeitina Fruhstorfer 2 4. 4. malayana Fruhstorfer 12 5. 5. Euthalia dunya dunya (Doubleday) 53 1-12

N 6. Euthalia rec 臼 monilis (Moore) 2 4 ，5 7. 7. Euthalia teuta goodrichi Distant 2 4 8. 8. Euthalia teu ω gupta (de Niceville) 27 1，4- 8 9. 9. (Fabricius) 4 N 10. Euthalia aかheda verena Fruhstorfer 4 1. 1 1. Euthalia evelina compta (Fruhstorfer) 9 1 ，4- 8 N 12. clinia susruta Moore 4 13. 13. Neptis hylas papaja Moore 2 1，3 N 14. Neptis harita harita Moore 2 5 15. 15. terpander robertsia Butler 5 1-3 ，7 N 16. iapis puseda (Moore) N 17. Tanaecia palguna consanguinea Distant 2 1， 11 18. 18. Tanaecia pelea pelea (Fabricius) 12

19. 19. Tanaecia j目ulii odilina Fruhstorfer 2 3，6 20. 20. Tanaecia aruna aruna (C.&R. Felder) 2 5，6 1. 21. Prothoe franck uniformis Butler 19 1-8

N 22. Athyma pravara helma (Fruhstorf 巴r) 3 1 ，3，4 23. 23. Cirrochroa orissa orissa C.& R. Felder 3 9 ， 10 24. 24. Cirrochroa tyche rotundata Butler 3 N 25. Cirrochroa emalea emalea 3 (Guerin-Meneville) (Guerin-Meneville) N 26. inachus siamensis Fruhstorfer 11 N 27. Cupha erymanthis lotis (Sulzer) 4 186 186 KANTAMAHT BOONVANNO

Month of Farnily Farnily Scientific name In dividuals occurrence occurrence N 28. Vagrans egista sinha (Koll 釘) 5 N 29. Paduca fasciata fasciata (C.& R. Felder) 4 N 30. Cethosia biblis biblis (Drury) 4 1，2，5 N 3 1. Cethosia biblis perakana Fruhstorfer 2 N 32. Junonia lemonias lemonias (Linnaeus) 8 N 33. Junonia iphi ωhorsfieldi Moore 2 N 34. Junonia atlites atlites (Linnaeus) 12 N 35. Rhinopalpa polynice eudoxia 10

(Guerin ・Meneville) 36. 36. Charaxes bernardus hierax C.& R. Felder 7 N 37. Cyrestis themire themire Honra 由 2 3，4 N 38. nyctelius nyctelius (Doubleday) 5 Total Total 182 Danaidae Danaidae N 1. aspasia aspasia Fabricius 2 1， 12 N 2. Parantica aglea melanoides Moore 9 3. 3. tulliolus ledereri C.&R. Felder 10 4. 4. Euploea algae limborgii Moore 3 8 5. 5. Idea lynceus lynceus Dn町 6 4，5，7 Tota! Tota! 13 athusiidae Am athusiidae 1. F aunis canens arcesilas Stiche! 8 2 ，3，5，6，8 2. 2. busiris busiris Westwood 3 14 ，9 3. 3. Zeuxidia amethystus amethystus But!er 21 1，5-8 ，10-- 12 4. 4. Zeuxidia amethystus masoni Moore 4 2-4 5. 5. Zet αidia doubledayi doubledayi 2 5 Westwood Westwood 6. 6. Zeuxidia aurelius aurelius Cramer 4 4 ，5，7 7. 7. Amathuxidia amythaon dilucida Honrath 6 2-4， 6， 12 8. 8. Amathuxidia amythaon amythaon 9 4--6， 8 Doubleday Doubleday 9. 9. Amathusia phidippus (Li nnaeus) 2 Total Total 58 Sat 戸idae 1. Mycalesis mineus macromalayana 5 Fruhstorfer Fruhstorfer N 2. Mycalesis orseis nautilus Butler 5 3. 3. Mycalesis oroatis surk 加 Marshall 5

4. 4. Mycalesis oroatis ustulata Di stant 35 1-4， ι，8， 10 ， 12 BUTTERFLY DIVERSITY AT TON NGA CHANG WILDLIFE SANCTUARY 187

Munth of Family Family Scientific n釘 ne Individuals occurrence occurrence 5. 5. Mycalesis janardana sagittigera 2 1，2 Fruhstorfer Fruhstorfer N 6. Mycalesis anapita anapita Moore 7. 7. Mycalesis fusca fusca C.&R. Felder 7 2 ，6 ，7 ，9 N 8. Mycalesis distanti mucianus Fruhstorfer 2 9. 9. Ypthima baldus baldus Fabricius 6 1 ，2，4 N 10. Ypthima horsfieldii Moore 4 N 11. Ypthima yunosukei Aoki & Uemura 3 12. 12. Melanitis leda leda (Linnaeus) 61 1-8 ，11 ， 12 N 13. Melanitis zitenius auletes Fruhstorfer 14. 14. Melanitis phedima abdullae Distant 2 15. 15. Neorina lowii neophyta Fruhstorfer 24 2，4 ー9 N 16. Coelites epiminthia epiminthia Westwood 2 17. 17. Lethe europa malaya Corbet 2 8 18. 18. Rag α dia crisilda critol α us f. crisild α 7 1-3 ，5 ，7 ， 12 de de Nic 巴ville N 19. makuta sipon ωFruhstorfer 2 7 ， 12 Total Total 156 Pieridae Pieridae N 1. Eurema hecabe contubernalis Moore 2 1，3 2. 2. Eurema blanda silhetana Wallace 5 8 3. 3. Leptosia nina malayana Fruhstorfer 3 4. 4. Appias nero galba Wallace 16 4，5，8 5. 5. Appias albin α darada C.& R. Felder 3 5，8 N 6. Cepora iudith le αDoubleday 4 N 7. Saletara liberia distanti Butler 5 Total Total 29 Lycaenidae Lycaenidae N 1. Arhopa/a /urida Corbet 2 2. 2. Arhopala atosia jahara Corbet 6 4，5，8，9 N 3. Ar. 加'P a1a phanda phada Corbet 2 4 ， 4. 4. Arhop αiα democritus democritus 4 4 ，5 (Fabricius) (Fabricius) 5. 5. Arhopala cleander aphadantas Corbet 5 5 N 6. Arhopala psuedocentaurus nakula 5 (C.&R. (C.&R. Felder) N 7. Arhopala labuana Bethune-Baker 5 N 8. Arhopala buddha cooperi (Evans) 3 5 188 188 KANTAMAHT BOONVANNO

Month of Family Family Scientific name In dividuals occurrence occurrence

N 9. Arhopala arvina aboe de Ni 田 ville 5 N 10. malaccanus malaccanus (Rober) 3 4- 5 N 1 1. ethion ethion (Westwood) 4 N 12. Rapala pheretima (Hewitson) 4 N 13. Allotinus horsfieldi nessus Corbet 4 14. 14. Sithon nedymond ismarus Fruhstorfer 4 15. 15. Jamides pura pura (Moore) 5 16. 16. Jamides alecto agelades (Fruhstorfer) 5 Total Total 33 Hesperiidae Hesperiidae N 1. Calaenorrhinus aurivittatus cameroni 1 2 Distant Distant N 2. Tagiades parra gala Evans 10 N 3. Ancistroides armatus armatus H. Druce 3 Total Total 3 Riodinidae Riodinidae 1. Paralaxita orphna laocoon de Niceville 3 2 ，6 2. 2. Paralaxita telesia boulleti Fruhstorfer 2 3 ，4 3. 3. Stiboges nymphidia Bu t1 er 6 Total Total 6

Appendix Appendix 2. Weather data collected at Hat Yai In ternational Ai 中ort ，Song kh1 a Pr ovince ， for for September 1999-August 2000. Source: Meteorological Departmen t.

Month: Month: Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb M 釘 Apr May Jun Jul Aug Physical Physical factor Humidity Humidity (%) 94 .1 96.5 96.7 96.0 94.3 94.6 95.5 95.9 95 .3 95 .1 94.3 93.8 Temperature Temperature C C) 28 .1 27.9 26.9 25 .4 27.0 27.2 28.6 28 .5 28.7 28.0 28.5 28.2 Rainfall Rainfall (mm) 228 247 328 380 44 23 215 251 178 253 9 149 」一一 」