OPEN ACCESS The Journal of Threatened Taxa is dedicated to building evidence for conservaton globally by publishing peer-reviewed artcles online every month at a reasonably rapid rate at www.threatenedtaxa.org. All artcles published in JoTT are registered under Creatve Commons Atributon 4.0 Internatonal License unless otherwise mentoned. JoTT allows unrestricted use of artcles in any medium, reproducton, and distributon by providing adequate credit to the authors and the source of publicaton.

Journal of Threatened Taxa Building evidence for conservaton globally www.threatenedtaxa.org ISSN 0974-7907 (Online) | ISSN 0974-7893 (Print)

Article diversity in human-modified ecosystems of southern , the ,

Prem Kumar Chetri, Kishor Sharma, Sailendra Dewan & Bhoj Kumar Acharya

26 April 2018 | Vol. 10 | No. 5 | Pages: 11551-11565 10.11609/jot.3641.10.5.11551-11565

For Focus, Scope, Aims, Policies and Guidelines visit htp://threatenedtaxa.org/index.php/JoTT/about/editorialPolicies#custom-0 For Artcle Submission Guidelines visit htp://threatenedtaxa.org/index.php/JoTT/about/submissions#onlineSubmissions For Policies against Scientfc Misconduct visit htp://threatenedtaxa.org/index.php/JoTT/about/editorialPolicies#custom-2 For reprints contact

Publisher & Host Partners Member

Threatened Taxa

Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | 26 April 2018 | 10(5): 11551–11565 Article Butterfly diversity in human-modified ecosystems of southern Sikkim, the eastern Himalaya, India

Prem Kumar Chetri 1, Kishor Sharma 2, Sailendra Dewan 3 & Bhoj Kumar Acharya 4 ISSN 0974-7907 (Online) ISSN 0974-7893 (Print) 1,2,3,4 Department of Zoology, School of Life Sciences, Sikkim University, Tadong, Gangtok, Sikkim 737102, India 1 Present address: Forest, Environment and Wildlife Management Department, Government of Sikkim, Deorali, OPEN ACCESS Sikkim 737102, India 1 [email protected], 2 [email protected], 3 [email protected], 4 [email protected] (corresponding author)

Abstract: Understanding wild biodiversity of agroecosystems and other human dominated landscapes are crucial for the management and conservaton of biological resources. Here, we studied the diversity, abundance, similarity and functonality of buterfies in diferent human modifed ecosystems in southern Sikkim, the Eastern Himalaya. The study was conducted from January 2015 to May 2015 by covering three habitat types namely, farm-based agroforestry, large cardamom-based agroforestry and adjacent natural forest ecosystem. We followed point count method along the transect to collect data on buterfies in the study area. A total of 911 individual buterfies representng six families and 44 species were recorded during the present study in southern Sikkim. Species richness and abundances of buterfies were signifcantly diferent among the systems. While diversity and abundance were higher in forest patches, each system harbored unique species assemblages with low similarity between habitats. The informaton on larval host were available for 41 buterfy species which depended on 128 species belonging to 27 families. The buterfy community was dominated by oligophagous II (19 species) followed by polyphagous (11 species), monophagous (8 species) and oligophagous I (3 species). Similarly, generalist feeders had higher species and abundance compared to specialist feeders. Specialist species were confned to forest habitat, whereas generalist species were mostly restricted to cultvated systems. The fndings of the study highlighted the need for conservaton of traditonally managed agroecosystems in order to conserve buterfies and other associated biodiversity.

Keywords: Agroecosystems, buterfy, conservaton, eastern Himalaya; host plants.

DOI: htp://doi.org/10.11609/jot.3641.10.5.11551-11565 | ZooBank: urn:lsid:zoobank.org:pub:3C98090F-8CB7-40D4-9592-A37C23BA1E37

Editor: Sanjay Sondhi, Titli Trust, Dehradun, India. Date of publicaton: 26 April 2018 (online & print)

Manuscript details: Ms # 3641 | Received 08 July 2017 | Final received 23 March 2018 | Finally accepted 04 April 2018

Citaton: Chetri, P.K., K. Sharma, S. Dewan & B.K. Acharya (2018). Buterfy diversity in human-modifed ecosystems of southern Sikkim, the eastern Himalaya, India. Journal of Threatened Taxa 10(5): 11551–11565; htp://doi.org/10.11609/jot.3641.10.5.11551-11565

Copyright: © Chetri et al. 2018. Creatve Commons Atributon 4.0 Internatonal License. JoTT allows unrestricted use of this artcle in any medium, reproducton and distributon by providing adequate credit to the authors and the source of publicaton.

Funding: This manuscript is an outcome of the M.Sc. dissertaton of the frst author.

Competng interests: The authors declare no competng interests.

Author Details: Prem Kumar Chettri holds MSc (Zoology) from Sikkim University and currently works at the Forest, Environment and Wildlife Management Department, Government of Sikkim. He has a keen interest on biodiversity of Sikkim Himalaya with special focus on buterfies and plants. Kishor Sharma is a PhD scholar at the Department of Zoology, Sikkim University. His research interests are to understand the diversity and distributon paterns of birds and buterfies in the agroecosystem-forest gradient of Sikkim Himalaya. Sailendra Dewan is a PhD scholar at the Department of Zoology, Sikkim University. His research focuses on distributon patern and phylogeny of buterfies along elevaton gradients in the Sikkim Himalaya. Bhoj Kumar Acharya is a faculty in the Department of Zoology, Sikkim University, Gangtok. His research interests are to understand the large-scale ecological paterns with partcular emphasis on species richness, abundance and distributon paterns along ecological gradients in the Himalaya.

Author Contributon: Study designed by BKA, PKC, KS; data collected by PKC, KS; analyzed the data by KS, PKC, SD, BKA and PKC, KS, SD, BKA wrote the manuscript.

Acknowledgements: We thank Vice Chancellor, Sikkim University, Dean, School of Life Sciences and Head, Department of Zoology, Sikkim University for facilites to undertake this research, and faculty members of Zoology Department, Sikkim University for cooperaton and insightul discussion. We also thank PCCF cum Secretary, Chief Wildlife Warden and Principal Research Ofcer, Forests, Environment and Wildlife Management Department, Government of Sikkim for grantng permission to carry out the study. Support received from local communites of Ralong Village is highly appreciated.

11551 Buterfy diversity in human modifed ecosystems of southern Sikkim Chetri et al.

INTRODUCTION forests sites. In Cameroon, however, Bobo et al. (2006) reported a signifcant decline of buterfy richness and Increased rates of deforestaton and forest abundance from secondary forests and agroforestry degradaton over the past century have resulted in sites towards near primary forests and annual crop sites signifcant biological atriton globally (Barlow et al. and high species turn over along the gradient of land 2007; Primack 2014). Due to ever-increasing human conversion but with loss of range-restricted and forest populaton and subsequent conversion of primary species. The studies in tropical regions have reported forests for agricultural expansion, many species have decline in buterfy species richness with increasing lost their potental habitat leading to local extrpaton. management intensity (Mas & Dietsch 2003; Francesconi For example, a large percentage of red-listed species has et al. 2013). Schulze et al. (2010) highlighted the been threatened by agricultural intensifcaton (Norris importance of human-modifed habitats for conservaton 2008). The increasing pressures on the environment by of overall biodiversity across all major tropical regions. humans necessitate preservaton of natural areas crucial Along a gradient from open to forest habitats, species’ for the persistence of biological diversity. habitat preferences signifcantly relates to populaton There is a growing concern that, loss of biodiversity trends; drastc decline of open-habitat species and will result in declining ecosystem services (Kunte 2000; moderate increase of forest species (Herrando et al. Kremen et al. 2002; Hooper et al. 2005; Tscharntke et al. 2016). Endemicity and larval host plant specifcity have 2005). In agroecosystems, natural biodiversity provides been reported as signifcant predictors of vulnerability to a variety of ecosystem services such as pollinaton, habitat disturbance for buterfies (Posa & Sodhi 2006). recycling of nutrients, regulaton of microclimate and Studies on buterfy communites in India have local hydrological processes, suppression of pests and focused mostly on protected areas or forest ecosystems detoxifcaton of noxious chemicals, securing crop (Uniyal & Mathur 1998; Uniyal 2004, 2007; Barua 2007; protecton and soil fertlity, etc. (Alteri 1999; Lal 2004; Barua et al. 2010; Singh 2010, 2017; Sengupta & Ghorai Montagnini & Nair 2004). Most species, which primarily 2013; Sethy et al. 2014; Acharya & Vijayan 2015; Chetri inhabit forests, also interact with agroecosystems and 2015; Sondhi & Kunte 2016). A few ecological studies have a large proporton of the total species of the region are reported the buterfy communites in agroecosystems likely to be encountered in agroecosystems (Pimentel et in India, mostly from the Western Ghats region (Kunte al. 1992). The management of these agricultural systems 1997; Kunte et al. 1999; Shahabuddin & Ali 2001; Dolia can dramatcally afect overall levels of biodiversity, as et al. 2008; Mone et al. 2014). The natural vegetaton well as the sustenance of partcular species. Additonally, types harbor greater diversity than human-modifed understanding biodiversity of agroecosystems and habitats but home gardens and agricultural felds other human dominated landscapes is crucial for the display distnct species compositon (Kunte et al. 1999). management and conservaton of biological resources. In Distance to protected area and percentage canopy cover the eastern Himalaya, it has been suggested to formulate infuenced abundance and richness of buterfies in the planning for land use based on buterfy-forest type Western Ghats (Dolia et al. 2008). High buterfy diversity associatons, by considering forest sub-types as units of including legally protected species has been reported in conservaton (Singh 2017). agri-hortcultural ecosystems (Das et al. 2016) and also Buterfy has been used as an indicator taxa to assess in tea and cofee plantatons (Bora & Meitei 2014; Mone the health of diferent land use systems (Schulze et al. et al. 2014). 2004b). Many studies have recorded higher diversity of Generally, the eforts to preserve biodiversity have buterfies in agroecosystems, e.g. in USA (Meehan et al. focused on establishment of protected area network 2012), (Lien & Yuan 2003), Costa Rica (Horner- (PAN) that consttute about 13% of terrestrial lands Devine et al. 2003) and Japan (Kitahara 2004; Kitahara globally and amounts to one-third of the agricultural et al. 2008). Buterfy community is signifcantly afected lands (38% land cover globally) (Venter et al. 2014; World by habitat loss and modifcaton, and anthropogenic Bank 2017). Protected areas around the world not only disturbances (Perfecto et al. 2003; Bobo et al. 2006; Posa conserve and safeguard biodiversity but also provide & Sodhi 2006). In central Sulawesi, Schulze et al. (2004a) essental beneft to local people such as protectng found a steady decline in buterfy species diversity water supplies, food, medicines as well as traditonal from natural forest, to old secondary forest, secondary values, landscape and sustenance for livelihoods. forests, agroforestry systems and maize feld sites but no But the establishment of protected area in human- signifcant diference between natural and old secondary modifed landscape is not feasible which necessitates

11552 Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | 26 April 2018 | 10(5): 11551–11565 Buterfy diversity in human modifed ecosystems of southern Sikkim Chetri et al. the preservaton of existng wild biodiversity in the of 17–270C, minimum temperature of 02–210C and agricultural systems and surrounding forest patches with mean annual rainfall of 162cm. Sikkim is a part of the the involvement of local communites. The PAN in the eastern Himalaya, which fall under one among the 35 Himalayan region is mostly confned to the high elevaton global biodiversity hotspots (Conservaton Internatonal areas and there is poor coverage of PAN at low to mid 2017). Despite its small geographical area (7,096km2), elevatons although these areas are rich in biodiversity Sikkim is one of the richest Indian states in terms of (Chetri et al. 2008; Shrestha et al. 2010; Acharya et al. biodiversity harboring around 43% mammals, 45% birds, 2011; Bhardwaj et al. 2012; Acharya & Sharma 2013). 50% buterfies and 11% fowering plants of the Indian The low to mid elevaton areas are represented by subcontnent (Acharya & Sharma 2013). The total forest mosaic landscape of cultvated systems and forests. The cover of Sikkim is 3,389km2, which accounts for 47.46% management of these cultvated systems in Sikkim are of the total geographical area of the state. both traditonal (Sharma 2009; Sharma & Acharya 2013) We selected three representatve ecosystem types for and organic (Bhuta 2015). the present study (Table 1) which are described below: The previous studies on buterfies of Sikkim have been conducted in PAN or forest ecosystems (Haribal Farm-Based Agroforestry System (FAS) 1992; Acharya & Vijayan 2015; Chetri 2015). Rai et al. Farm based agroforesty system is important land use (2012), however, reported the rediscovery of two very practce in hilly terrains. It is primarily an agri-silvicultural rare species protected under Schedule I of Indian Wildlife system comprising home gardens and livestock rearing (Protecton) Act 1972 from human-modifed ecosystems (Sharma 2009). A variety of crops such as maize, potato, of Sikkim. PAN coverage in Sikkim is almost 31 % of millet, beans, pulses, peas and cabbage are cultvated the total geographical area of the state comprising one in this system. Dominant tree species that occur in the natonal park and seven wildlife sanctuaries. With the system are Schima wallichii, Alnus nepalensis, Albizia excepton of Kitam Bird Sanctuary (geographical area spp., Terminalia myriocarpa, Acer campbelli, Castanopsis of 6km2), there is no PAN coverage below 1,500m in hystrix, etc. the state. Occurrence of high species richness, narrow elevaton range of most species and absence of PAs at Large Cardamom-based Agroforestry System (LCAS) low to mid-elevaton has pointed a way for extension of Large cardamom-based agroforestry is a traditonal conservaton eforts to these elevaton sites (Acharya & farming system basically practced in mountain areas Vijayan 2015). Since the areas below 2,000m are almost especially in , , Sikkim and Darjeeling. entrely inhabited by people and the major chunk of forests Large cardamom is an important cash crop grown as fall under private holdings, conservaton can be achieved an understory perennial crop predominantly under the only through the involvement of the local community as shade of Himalayan alder Alnus nepalensis (Sharma suggested for mountainous areas (Kollmair et al. 2005). 2009; Sharma et al. 2016). Other shade tree species such Hence, the present study was undertaken to understand as Albizia spp., Terminalia myriocarpa, Acer campbelli, the biodiversity conservaton value of agroecosystems Castanopsis spp., Echinocarpus dasycarpus, Eurya in Sikkim by assessing the buterfy diversity in three acuminata, Juglans regia, Quercus lamellosa, Quercus representatve human-modifed ecosystems: farm- spicata, Rhus insignis, Symplocos theifolia, Viburnum based agroforestry systems and large cardamom-based cordifolium, Zanthoxylum sp. etc also occur in this system. agroforestry system along with adjoining natural forest in southern Sikkim, the eastern Himalaya, India. Natural Forest Systems (NFS) The cultvated systems are encircled by small patches of natural forests where the local community MATERIALS AND METHODS depends on fuel wood and catle fodder. The main type of vegetaton in Ralong is temperate broad-leaved Study area forests which comprises tree species such as Michelia The study was conducted at Ralong Village (27.310N spp., Pteris villosa, Quercus lamellosa, Rhus insignis, & 88.330E) in southern Sikkim located in the eastern Quercus thomsonii, Quercus spicata, Symplocos theifolia, Himalaya, India (Fig. 1; Table 1). The village is situated Zanthoxylum sp., Echinocarpus dasycarpus, between 1,800m and 2,100m elevaton with a total sikkimensis, Albizia procera, Beilschmiedia roxburghiana, geographical area of around 5km2. The region has a cool Eurya acuminata, Ficus hookeri, etc. temperate type of climate with a maximum temperature

Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | 26 April 2018 | 10(5): 11551–11565 11553 Buterfy diversity in human modifed ecosystems of southern Sikkim Chetri et al.

Figure 1. Map showing sampling sites in three diferent ecosystems located at Ralong, southern Sikkim, eastern Himalaya.

Study design and sampling were taken and identfed using various resources The study was designed to cover three representatve including ifoundbuterfies.org (Kunte et al. 2017). We ecosystem types available in the present study area (FAS, completed a total of 27 transect visit (nine in each of the LCAS and NFS). Depending upon the availability of suitable study system) totaling 270 point counts. No collecton of plots and accessibility, we established transect each of buterfy specimens was done during this study in Sikkim. 1km length in all the three study systems (Table 1; Fig. 1). Along the transects permanent points were established Data Analysis which were spaced 100m apart making 10 points per Community parameters such as species richness, transect. We covered equal area (approximately one abundance, Shannon-Weiner diversity index and hectare) in all the three ecosystem types. evenness were calculated for total samples as well We followed point count methods along the transect as each habitat type following Magurran & McGill for sampling buterfies in the study area following Pollard (2011). Species richness was considered as the total (1977) and Acharya & Vijayan (2015). We conducted fve number of species observed and species abundance minutes count within 5m radius in each point recording as number of individual buterfies counted during the the identty and abundances of buterfies. The sampling sampling. The diversity was analyzed using Shannon- of buterfies was done by uniformly covering all the Wiener diversity index (H′) = – Σ pilnpi; where pi = points from January to May 2015. Sampling was done proporton of total sample belonging to ith species, ln= on clear sunny days in the morning from 10:00 hrs to natural logarithm (Shannon & Weaver 1949). Similarly, 13:00 hrs when the actvity of buterfies remains at evenness was calculated using the formula: Evenness its highest. The buterfies were identfed at the wing (J) = H′/Hmax where Hmax= lnS, S = number of species, H′ = based on photographic plates given in Haribal (1992), Shannon–Wiener Diversity (Pielou 1969). Based on the Kehimkar (2008) and Sondhi et al. (2013). In cases where observaton, we also estmated non-parametric species instant identfcaton was not possible, photographs richness estmators using the sofware EstmateS version

11554 Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | 26 April 2018 | 10(5): 11551–11565 Buterfy diversity in human modifed ecosystems of southern Sikkim Chetri et al.

Table 1. Details of transects established for sampling buterfies in farm-based agroforestry system (FAS), large cardamom-based agroforestry system (LCAS) and natural forest system (NFS) of Ralong, southern Sikkim, eastern Himalaya.

Large cardamom-based agroforesary Habitat type Farm-based agroforestry system Natural forest system system Michelia spp., Pteris villosa, Quercus Schima wallichii, Alnus nepalensis, Alnus nepalensis, Albizia spp., lamellosa, Rhus insignis, Quercus Dominant vegetaton Albizia spp., Terminalia myriocarpa, Terminalia myriocarpa, Acer thomsonii, Quercus spicata, Acer campbelli, Castanopsis hystrix campbelli, Castanopsis hystrix Symplocos theifolia. Elevaton (m) 1700–1900 1700–2100 1700–2100

Lattude 27.34490N 27.33150N 27.33480N

Longitude 88.34050E 88.33660E 88.33720E Sampling efort 90 90 90 (No. of points covered) Time devoted 9 9 9 for sampling (in days)

9.1.0 (Colwell 2013). Using the various estmators and only, Openland+forest edge and Openland only) following observed richness, species accumulaton curves were Kitahara (2004). generated for all the three systems. Among the non- Informaton on larval host plant for each of the parametric estmators Chao1, Jackknife 1 and Jackknife species observed in the present study was obtained 2 were preferred because the data was represented by from diferent standard references (Haribal 1992; Kunte many rare species (singletons and doubletons); these 2000; Kehimkar 2008; Tiple 2012; Sengupta et al. 2014; estmators are less sensitve to the patchiness of the Kunte et al. 2017) and feld observatons. The larval species distributon and variability in the probability of host specifcity of buterfy community was assessed by encountering species (Colwell & Coddington 1994). To classifying them into monophagous (one species of larval understand the species similarity among the systems, host plant), oligophagous I (>1 species of larval host Morisita-Horn similarity index were calculated using plant within only one genus in a family), oligophagous II EstmateS version 9.1.0 (Colwell 2013). (larval host plant in >1 genus but within a single family) Variaton in species richness and abundances of and polyphagous (multple species of larval host plant buterfies among systems was tested using one way in several plant families) following standard methods ANOVA. Pair wise multple comparisons based on (Stefan-Dewenter & Tscharntke 1997; Kitahara 2004; Tukey’s HSD was also conducted to assess the signifcant Kitahara et al. 2008). diference in the species and abundance of buterfies per point among the three systems. In order to understand the species-abundance patern of buterfy community, RESULTS we tested the four distributon model (geometric, log series, truncated log-normal and MacArthur’s broken Species richness, diversity and abundance stck) to describe the species–abundance distributon We observed 911 individual buterfies representng patern of ecological community (see Magurran & McGill 44 species and six families during this study in southern 2011). Sikkim. Species richness, abundance, diversity and We computed relatve percentages of buterfies evenness of buterfies difered among the three systems (both species richness and abundance) in each category (Table 2). Species richness was highest in NFS (32 species, (buterfy family, habitat specializaton and larval host 72.7%), followed by FAS (24 species, 54.5%) and least in plant specifcity). We also assessed the number of larval LCAS (20 species, 45.5%). Out of the total abundance of host plants (family and species) for all the six buterfy buterfies, about 52% were observed in FAS and the rest family, and buterfy species: host plant species rato. (48%) in other two systems. But species per point was Informaton on habitat specializaton for each of signifcantly higher in the FAS compared to other two the species observed in the study area was obtained systems (One way ANOVA: F 2, 267 = 65.432; P≤0.01) (Table from Wynter-Blyth (1957), Haribal (1992), Kunte (2000) 2; Fig. 2a). Similarly, there was a signifcant variaton and Kehimkar (2008). Each buterfy species was then in abundance per point of buterfies among the three classifed into fve habitat specializaton classes (Forest systems (One way ANOVA: F2, 267 = 85.917; P≤0.01) with interior only, Forest interior + Forest edge, Forest edge highest value in FAS (5.2±2.0) and the lowest in LCAS

Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | 26 April 2018 | 10(5): 11551–11565 11555 Buterfy diversity in human modifed ecosystems of southern Sikkim Chetri et al.

(Table 2; Fig. 2b). The pair-wise multple comparisons species were observed. In terms of relatve abundance based on Tukey’s HSD test showed signifcant diference (%), however, the most abundant family in all the three in species per point and abundance per point among all systems (FAS, LCAS, NFS) was Pieridae (42.4%, 44.1%, the system pairs (Table 3). Both evenness and Shannon- 41.9%), followed by (35.9%, 26.8%, 29.1%) Weiner diversity index was highest in the forest system and Lycaenidae (21.5%, 26.8%, 19.4%). Abundance of compared to other systems (Table 2). was highest in NFS (7.8%) which declined in The species accumulaton curve almost approached FAS (0.2%) and LCAS (0.6%). an asymptote in FAS and LCAs but stll rising in NFS indicatng likelihood of detecton of additonal species Species similarity and community structure from the study area (Fig. 3). It indicates that there was a Among the 44 species, eight species (18.2%) were probability of encountering few additonal species in NFS common to all the three habitats, whereas 20 species with the increasing sampling efort. (45.5%) were exclusively observed in a single habitat (10 in NFS, fve each in FAS and LCAS) (Table 2). FAS Family wise distributon shared 17 species with NFS and 10 species with LCAS. The observed buterfies belonged to six families LCAS shared 13 species with NFS. Based on the pair-wise namely, Hesperiidae, Papilionidae, Lycaenidae, Morisita-Horn similarity index value it is observed that all Riodinidae, Pieridae and Nymphalidae. The buterfy three systems harbored unique assemblages of species families difered among the three systems both in terms with low similarity between sites (Table 4). of species richness and abundance (Fig. 4). Buterfies belonging to all the six families were observed in LCAS Abundance patern and NFS but species from Hesperiidae and Papilionidae Out of the total 911 individuals buterfies, Indian families were absent in FAS. In terms of relatve species Cabbage White was the most abundant species and richness, Nymphalidae was the most dominant family in consttuted 32.5% of the total buterfies followed by FAS (50%) with twelve species, followed by Lycaenidae Metallic Cerulean (16.8 %) and Indian Tortoiseshell (29.2%) with seven species, Pieridae (16.7%) with four (10.6%). species and Riodinidae (4.2%) with one species. Similarly, Among the four models of species-abundance Nymphalidae (45%) with nine species, Lycaenidae (25%) distributon patern, data on buterfies of the present with fve species, Pieridae (15%) with three species and study showed best ft to truncated log normal model as Papilionidae, Hesperiidae and Riodinidae (5% each) with there was no signifcant diference between observed one species each were observed in LCAS. In the NFS, and expected number of species in each abundance class Nymphalidae (53.1%) with 17 species, Lycaenidae (15.6%) (χ2= 3.61; p = 0.60; df = 5). The abundance distributon with fve species, Pieridae (12.5%) with four species, patern showed that community is dominated by a few Riodinidae (9.4%) with three species and Papilionidae abundant and many rare species (Fig. 5). (3.1%) with one species and Hesperiidae (6.3%) with two

Figure 2. Box-plot showing species per point (a) and abundance per point (b) of buterfy community in farm-based agroforestry system (FAS), large cardamom-based agroforestry system (LCAS) and natural forest system (NFS) of Ralong, southern Sikkim, eastern Himalaya.

11556 Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | 26 April 2018 | 10(5): 11551–11565 Buterfy diversity in human modifed ecosystems of southern Sikkim Chetri et al.

Table 2. Species richness, abundance, diversity and evenness of buterfy observed in farm-based agroforestry system (FAS), large cardamom- based agroforestry system (LCAS) and natural forest system (NFS) of Ralong, southern Sikkim, eastern Himalaya.

Parameters FAS LCAS NFS Total

Species richness 24 20 32 44

Abundance 474 179 258 911

Species per point (Mean± SD) 3.2±1.0 1.4±1.1 2.3±0.9 2.3±1.2

Abundance per point (Mean± SD) 5.2±2.0 2.0±1.7 2.7±1.4 3.3±2.2

Diversity (H’) 2.18 2.07 2.59 2.4

Evenness (J) 0.67 0.69 0.74 0.70

Habitat exclusive species 5 5 10 20

Table 3. ANOVA and multple comparison based on Tukey’s HSD for species per point and abundance per point of buterfy community among farm-based agroforestry system (FAS), large cardamom-based agroforestry system (LCAS) and natural forest system (NFS) of Ralong, southern Sikkim, eastern Himalaya. **: signifcant at p≤0.01.

F2, 267 P Multple comparisons Mean diference P

Species per point 65.432 0.000** FAS vs LCAS 0.000** 1.744 FAS vs NFS 0.911 0.000**

LCAS vs NFS -0.833 0.000** Abundance per 85.917 0.000** FAS vs LCAS 0.000** point 3.256 FAS vs NFS 2.522 0.000**

LCAS vs NFS -0.733 0.000**

Table 4. Species similarity of buterfies between three systems declined from FAS towards NFS through LCAS and their at Ralong, southern Sikkim, eastern Himalaya. The fgures below relatve abundance was highest in FAS and least in LCAS. diagonal represent the pair-wise Morisita-Horn species similarity index and corresponding value above diagonal represents the total Species richness of open land only was least in NFS and species shared by the two systems. FAS - farm-based agroforestry increased about four and fve tmes, respectvely in LCAS system; LCAS - large cardamom-based agroforestry system; NFS - natural forest system. and FAS. Their abundances were also least in NFS which increased around two tmes in FAS and LCAS. Habitats FAS LCAS NFS FAS - 10 17 Larval host plant specifcity LCAS 0.49 - 13 Out of 44 species observed in the present study, NFS 0.642 0.362 - informaton on larval host plant could be obtained only for 41 species representng 897 individuals. These 41 species depended on 128 plant species (belonging to 27 Habitat specializaton families) as larval host plant (Appendix I; Table 5). The Buterfies under diferent habitat specializaton buterfy community was dominated by oligophagous II classes showed distnct patern in the three ecosystems (19 species; 46.3%) followed by polyphagous (11 species; (Fig. 6). As expected, forest interior species, both in terms 26.8%) and monophagous (8 species; 19.5%) and least of species richness (4.2-25%) and abundance (0.4-12.0%), for oligophagous I (3 species; 7.3%) (Figure 7). In terms of were highest in NFS which declined slightly in LCAS but abundance oligophagous II (57.9%) showed the highest sharply in FAS. Forest interior + forest edge species were value followed by polyphagous (25.2%), oligophagous I absent in FAS and LCAS and recorded only in NFS with low (12.5%) and minimum for monophagous (4.55%). species richness (1.2%) and abundance (6.3%). Buterfies considered as generalist feeder The species richness of forest edge only species were (Polyphagous + Oligophagous II) showed high richness highest in NFS which declined by about 25% in LCAS and (30 species; 73.2%) compared to specialist feeder 50% in FAS. Similarly, their abundance was also highest in (monophagous + oligophagous I) (11 species; 26.8%). NFS which declined by about 50% in LCAS and four tmes Similar trend was observed in terms of buterfy in FAS. Species richness of openland + forest edge species populatons. Monophagous and oligopahgous species

Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | 26 April 2018 | 10(5): 11551–11565 11557 Buterfy diversity in human modifed ecosystems of southern Sikkim Chetri et al. Species richness

Sampling efort Figure 3. Species accumulaton curve of buterfies based on observed species (Sobs) and non-parametric estmators (Chao 1, Jack 1 and Jack 2) in farm-based agroforestry system (FAS), large cardamom- based agroforestry system (LCAS) and natural forest system (NFS) of Figure 4. Bar diagram showing the relatve species richness (a) and Ralong, southern Sikkim, the eastern Himalaya. abundance (b) of diferent families of buterfies in farm-based agroforestry system (FAS), large cardamom-based agroforestry system (LCAS) and natural forest system (NFS) of Ralong, southern Sikkim, eastern Himalaya.

DISCUSSION

During this study a total of 44 species belonging to six families of buterfies were recorded from three ecosystems in southern Sikkim, the eastern Himalaya. These species comprise 6.38% species of the buterfies reported from Sikkim (Haribal 1992). The total species Figure 5. Whitaket Plot (rank-abundance distributon) for total observed during this study was low which may be because sample of buterfies in Ralong, southern Sikkim, eastern Himalaya. of number of reasons, e.g., the study was conducted in a small geographical area and for a short tme span (fve months; winter and pre-monsoon season) and did not were restricted to NFS, whereas oligophagous II and cover the monsoon and post monsoon seasons when the polyphagous were mostly confned to cultvated systems buterfies are most abundant in India (Kunte et al. 1999; (Fig. 7). Acharya & Vijayan 2015; Chetri 2015). Nonetheless, this study explored the potentality of cultvated systems in harboring buterfies in an important part of global

11558 Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | 26 April 2018 | 10(5): 11551–11565 Buterfy diversity in human modifed ecosystems of southern Sikkim Chetri et al.

Figure 6. Habitat specializaton of the buterfy communites in terms of (a) relatve species richness (%) and (b) relatve abundance (%) in farm-based agroforestry system (FAS), large cardamom-based agroforestry system (LCAS) and natural forest system (NFS) of Ralong, South Sikkim, eastern Himalaya. FI (Forest interior only), FI+FE (Forest interior + Forest edge), FE (Forest edge only), FE + OL (Forest edge + Openland), OL (Openland only).

intensifcaton leads to homogenizaton of buterfy community (Ekroos et al. 2010) with species assemblage shifing from specialist to generalist (Börschig et al. 2013). Some studies reported poor representaton of buterfies in farmland habitats (Schulze et al. 2004b; Fitzherbert et al. 2006; Vu 2009); however, many studies have found higher diversity of buterfies in agro-ecosystems (Horner-Devine et al. 2003; Lien & Yuan 2003; Bobo et al. 7 8 2 1 2006; Dolia et al. 2008; Kitahara et al. 2008). Nymphalidae was the most dominant family in terms of species richness. Similar patern of dominance of Nymphalidae in the buterfy communites have been reported in other studies conducted in forests and human-modifed ecosystems (Uniyal 2007; Vu 2013; Acharya & Vijayan, 2015; Chetri 2015; Nandakumar et al. 2015; Das et al. 2016; Singh 2017). The buterfy communites in all the three habitats showed distnct species assemblage with very low similarity and high turnover rate between them. It indicates the importance of cultvated systems in

Figure 7. Larval host specifcity of buterfy communites in terms conservaton of unique buterfy assemblages. The low of (a) relatve species richness and (b) relatve abundance in similarity among systems refect the uniqueness of each farm-based agroforestry system (FAS), large cardamom-based habitat in terms of quality, resource availability and agroforestry system (LCAS) and natural forest system (NFS) of Ralong, southern Sikkim, eastern Himalaya. their distributon patern specifc to the preference of buterfies (Blair & Launer 1997). Species abundance distributon patern of buterfy biodiversity hotspot of the Himalaya. fted to truncated lognormal distributon showing no Species richness and diversity of buterfy were high signifcant diference in observed and expected number in the forest system as compared to other systems. It is of species in each abundance classes. This is an indicaton expected because forests system comprised undisturbed of the rather stabilized ecological community (Magurran patch of vegetaton with tall trees and abundant fowering & McGill 2011). plants which provide favorable habitat to the buterfies. Forest habitat harbored large number of specialist Buterfy community is signifcantly afected by habitat species (monophagous and forest interior), whereas loss and modifcaton (Perfecto et al. 2003; Bobo et al. cultvated systems mostly harbored open habitat 2006; Chetri 2010). Land use change and agricultural and generalist species (open land and polyphagous).

Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | 26 April 2018 | 10(5): 11551–11565 11559 Buterfy diversity in human modifed ecosystems of southern Sikkim Chetri et al.

Table 5. Analysis of the larval host plants of the buterfies observed in Ralong, southern Sikkim, eastern Himalaya

Buterfy Host plant Host plant Rato (buterfy species: host Buterfy family species family species plant species) Hesperiidae 2 2 3 0.67

Lycaenidae 6 6 19 0.32

Nymphalidae 25 20 75 0.33

Papiliondae 1 1 4 0.25

Pieridae 4 4 22 0.18

Riodinidae 3 1 3 1.00

Total 41* 27 128 0.32

*Data for larval host plant were not available for three species (two for Lycaenidae and one for Nymphalidae family)

Similar trend was reported in the Himalaya (Bhardwaj local communites and managed without further loss of et al. 2012), Western Ghats (Kunte et al. 1999; Dolia biodiversity. Further studies designed to assess diverse et al. 2008) and elsewhere (Francesconi et al. 2013; taxa sampled across all the four seasons (winter, pre- Herrando et al. 2016). Specialist and rare species are monsoon, monsoon and post monsoon) in a long term mostly encountered in forests and metric decreases with basis undertaking large geographical area, large elevaton increasing forest habitat disturbance levels (Mayfeld range, diverse ecosystems covering the larval and adult et al. 2005; Vu 2013). Conversely, common species stage would provide beter insights on the importance of increase with growing forest habitat disturbance levels. cultvated systems in conservaton of biodiversity. Buterfy community is mostly determined by the larval host plants (Kitahara 2004; Barua 2007; Kitahara et al. 2008; Sengupta et al. 2014), nectar plants (Barua 2007; REFERENCES Sengupta & Ghorai 2013), plant species richness, herb Acharya, B.K., N. Sanders, L. Vijayan & B. Chetri (2011). Elevatonal and shrub density (Bhardwaj et al. 2012), tree species gradients in bird diversity in the eastern Himalaya: an evaluaton of richness and density (Chetri 2010; Acharya & Vijayan distributon paterns and their underlying mechanisms. PLoS ONE 2015). Habitat specialist species confned to NFS were 6:e29097; htp://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0029097 Acharya, B.K. & G. Sharma (2013). Forests and biodiversity in Sikkim, mostly from Papilionidae and Hesperiidae families. pp. 42–70. In: Kharel, S. & J. Bhuta (eds.). Gazeteer of Sikkim. Home Papilionids have been reported as very sensitve to loss Department, Government of Sikkim, Gangtok. Acharya, B.K. & L. Vijayan (2015). Buterfy diversity along the elevaton of primary forest habitat and land use change (Barua et gradient of eastern Himalaya, India. Ecological Research 30(5): 909– al. 2010). 919; htp://doi.org/10.1007/s11284-015-1292-0 Alteri, M.A. (1999). The ecological role of biodiversity in agroecosystems. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 74(1): 19– 31; htp://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-8809(99)00028-6 CONCLUSION Barlow, J., T.A. Gardner, I.S. Araujo, T.C. Ávila-Pires, A.B. Bonaldo, J.E. Costa, M.C. Esposito, L.V. Ferreira, J. Hawes, M.I.M. Hernandez, M.S. Hoogmoed, R.N. Leite, N.F. Lo-Man-Hung, J.R. Malcolm, M.B. This short-term study on buterfies of Ralong, southern Martns, L.A.M. Mestre, R. Miranda-Santos, A.L. Nunes-Gutjahr, Sikkim indicated the signifcance of cultvated systems W.L. Overal, L. Parry, S.L. Peters, M.A. Ribeiro-Junior, M.N.F. and human infuenced landscapes for conservaton of da Silva, C. da Silva Mota & C.A. Peres (2007). Quantfying the biodiversity value of tropical primary, secondary, and plantaton buterfies and other biodiversity elements. Most of the forests. Proceedings of the Natonal Academy of Sciences 104(47): studies on biodiversity are focused on forests, and areas 18555–18560; htp://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0703333104 outside the protected areas are not given due importance Barua, K.K. (2007). Diversity and habitat selecton of Papilionidae in a protected forest reserve in , Northeast India. Doctoral thesis. from the conservaton point of view. This study refects University of Gotngen, Gotngen, Germany, 273pp. that although the forest is richer in terms of species, Barua, K.K., J. Slowik, K.S. Bobo & M. Muehlenberg (2010). there are many species which occur only in the cultvated Correlatons of rainfall and forest type with papilionid assemblages in Assam in northeast India. Psyche 2010: 1–10; htp://doi. systems. Hence, for the conservaton of these species org/10.1155/2010/560396 cultvated systems should be given due consideraton Bhardwaj, M., V.P. Uniyal, A.K. Sanyal & A.P Singh (2012). Buterfy in conservaton programs. Original remnant patches of communites along an elevatonal gradient in the Tons valley, Western : Implicatons of rapid assessment for forest and natve vegetaton among agricultural felds can conservaton. Journal of Asia-Pacifc Entomology 15(2): 207–217; be retained in consultaton with various stakeholders and htp://doi.org/10.1016/j.aspen.2011.12.003

11560 Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | 26 April 2018 | 10(5): 11551–11565 Buterfy diversity in human modifed ecosystems of southern Sikkim Chetri et al.

Bhuta, D.T. (2015). Sikkim Organic Mission “Journey of a fully organic H. Setälä, A.J. Symstad, J. Vandermeer & D.A. Wardle (2005). state”. Department of Food Security & Agriculture Development and Efects of biodiversity on ecosystem functoning: A Consensus of Hortculture and Cash Crops Development, Government of Sikkim, current knowledge. Ecological Monographs 75(1): 3-35; htp://doi. 287pp. org/10.1890/04-0922 Blair, R.B. & A.E. Launer (1997). Buterfy diversity and human land use: Horner-Devine, M.C., G.C. Daily, P.R. Ehrlich & C.L. Boggs (2003). species assemblages along an urban gradient. Biological Conservaton Countryside biogeography of tropical buterfies. Conservaton 80(1): 113–125; htp://doi.org/10.1016/S0006-3207(96)00056-0 Biology 17(1): 168-177; htp://doi.org/10.1046/j.1523- Bobo, K.S., M.Waltert, H. Fermon, J. Njokagbor & M. Mühlenberg 1739.2003.01310.x (2006). From forest to farmland: Buterfy diversity and habitat Kehimkar, I. (2008). The Book of Indian Buterfies. Bombay Natural associatons along a gradient of forest conversion in Southwestern History Society, Oxford University Press, Mumbai, 497pp. Cameroon. Journal of Insect Conservaton 10(1): 29–42; htp://doi. Kitahara, M. (2004). Buterfy community compositon and org/10.1007/s10841-005-8564-x conservaton in and around a primary woodland of Mount Fuji, Bora, A. & L.R. Meitei (2014). Buterfy fauna (Order: ) in central Japan. Biodiversity and Conservaton 13(5): 917–942; htp:// fve major tea gardens of Sivasagar District, Assam, India. Biological doi.org/10.1023/B:BIOC.0000014462.83594.58 Forum - An Internatonal Journal 6(2): 7–15. Kitahara, M., M. Yumoto & T. Kobayashi (2008). Relatonship of Börschig, C., A.M Klein, H. von Wehrden & J. Krauss (2013). Traits buterfy diversity with nectar plant species richness in and around of buterfy communites change from specialist to generalist the Aokigahara primary woodland of Mount Fuji, central Japan. characteristcs with increasing land-use intensity. Basic and Applied Biodiversity and Conservaton 17(11): 2713–2734; htp://doi. Ecology 14(7): 547–554; htp://doi.org/10.1016/j.baae.2013.09.002 org/10.1007/s10531-007-9265-4 Chetri, N. (2010). Cross-taxon congruence in a trekking corridor of Kollmair, M., G.S. Gurung, K. Hurni & D. Maselli (2005). Mountains: Sikkim Himalaya: Surrogate analysis for conservaton planning. Special places to be protected? An analysis of worldwide Journal for Nature Conservaton 18: 75–88; htp://doi.org/10.1016/j. nature conservaton eforts in mountains. Internatonal Journal jnc.2009.03.003 of Biodiversity Science and Management 1: 1–9; htp://doi. Chetri, N. (2015). Distributon of buterfies along a trekking corridor org/10.1111/j.1469-1795.2007.00143.x in the Khangchendzonga Biosphere Reserve, Sikkim, Eastern Kremen, C., N.M. Williams & R.W. Thorp (2002). Crop pollinaton from Himalayas. Conservaton Science 3(1): 1–10; htp://doi.org/10.3126/ natve bees at risk from agricultural intensifcaton. Proceedings of cs.v3i1.13767 the Natonal Academy of Sciences 99(26): 16812–16816; htp://doi. Chetri, N., B. Shakya, R. Thapa & E. Sharma (2008). Status of a org/10.1073/pnas.262413599 protected area system in the Hindu Kush-Himalayas: An analysis of Kunte, K.J. (1997). Seasonal paterns in buterfy abundance and species PA coverage. The Internatonal Journal of Biodiversity Science and diversity in four tropical habitats in northern Western Ghats. Journal Management 4(3): 164–178; htp://doi.org/10.3843/Biodiv.4.3:4 of Biosciences 22(5): 593–603; htp://doi.org/10.1007/BF02703397 Colwell, R.K. (2013). EstmateS: Statstcal estmaton of species richness Kunte, K. (2000). Buterfies of Peninsular India. Universites Press and shared species from sample (Version 9.1.0). User guide and (Hyderabad) and Indian Academy of Sciences (Bangalore), 272pp. applicaton available at htp://viceroy.eeb.uconn.edu/estmates/ Kunte, K., A. Joglekar, U. Ghate & P. Pramod (1999). Paterns of Colwell, R.K. & J.A. Coddington (1994). Estmatng terrestrial buterfy, birds and tree diversity in the Western Ghats. Current biodiversity through extrapolaton. Philosophical transactons of Science 77(4): 577–586. Royal Society London B: Biological Sciences 345: 101–118. Kunte, K., S. Sondhi & P. Roy (2017). Buterfies of India, version 2.28. Conservaton Internatonal (2017). Hotspots. Targeted investment Indian Foundaton for Buterfies, htp://www.ifoundbuterfies.org/ in nature’s most important places. Conservaton Internatonal. Accessed on 5 July 2017. Downloaded from htp://www.conservaton.org Accessed on 15 Lal, R. (2004). Agricultural actvites and the global carbon cycle. September 2017. Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems 70(2): 103–116; htp://doi. Das, M., H. Mishra & J. Saikia (2016). Diversity and species richness of org/10.1023/B:FRES.0000048480.24274.0f buterfy in an Agri-Hort habitat in Assam, India. The Bioscan 11(2): Lien, V.V. & D. Yuan (2003). The diferences of buterfy (Lepidoptera, 801–805. Papilionoidea) communites in habitats with various degrees Dolia, J., M.S. Devy, N.A. Aravind & A. Kumar (2008). Adult buterfy of disturbance and alttudes in tropical forests of Vietnam. communites in cofee plantatons around a protected area in the Biodiversity and Conservaton 12(6): 1099–1111; htp://doi. Western Ghats, India. Conservaton 11(1): 26–34; htp://doi. org/10.1023/A:1023038923000 org/10.1111/j.1469-1795.2007.00143.x Magurran, A.E. & B.J. McGill (2011). Biological Diversity: Fronters in Ekroos, J., J. Heliölä & M. Kuussaari (2010). Homogenizaton of Measurement and Assessment. Oxford University Press, 368pp. Lepidopteran communites in intensively cultvated agricultural Mas, A.H. & T.V. Dietsch (2003). An index of management landscapes. Journal of Applied Ecology 47(2): 459–467; htp://doi. intensity for cofee agroecosystems to evaluate buterfy species org/10.1111/j.1365-2664.2009.01767.x richness. Ecological Applicatons 13(5): 1491–1501; htp://doi. Fitzherbert, E., T. Gardner, T.R.B. Davenport & T. Caro (2006). Buterfy org/10.1890/01-5229 species richness and abundance in the Katavi ecosystem of western Mayfeld, M.M., M.E. Boni, G.C. Daily & D. Ackerly (2005). Species Tanzania. African Journal of Ecology 44(3): 353–362; htp://doi. and functonal diversity of natve and human-dominated plant org/10.1111/j.1365-2028.2006.00655.x communites. Ecology 86(9): 2365–2372; htp://doi.org/10.1890/05- Francesconi, W., P.K.R. Nair, D.J. Levey, J. Daniels & L. Cullen (2013). 0141 Buterfy distributon in fragmented landscapes containing Meehan T.D., J. Glassberg & C. Graton (2012). Buterfy community agroforestry practces in Southeastern Brazil. Agroforestry Systems structure and landscape compositon in agricultural landscapes of 87(6): 1321–1338; htp://doi.org/10.1007/s10457-013-9640-y the central United States. Journal of Insect Conservaton 17(2): 411– Haribal, M. (1992). The Buterfies of Sikkim Himalaya and their natural 419; htp://doi.org/10.1007/s10841-012-9523-y history. Sikkim Nature Conservaton Foundaton, Gangtok, 217pp. Mone, S., K.M. Kusha, D. Jathanna, M. Ali & A. Goel (2014). Comparison Herrando, S., L. Brotons, M. Anton, F. Páramo, D. Villero, N. Titeux, of insect biodiversity between organic and conventonal plantatons Q. Javier & C. Stefanescu (2016). Assessing impacts of land in Kodagu, , India. Journal of Threatened Taxa 6(9): 6186– abandonment on Mediterranean biodiversity using indicators based 6194; htp://doi.org/10.11609/JoTT.o3778.6186-94 on bird and buterfy monitoring data. Environmental Conservaton Montagnini, F. & P.K.R. Nair (2004). Carbon sequestraton: An 43(1): 69–78; htp://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-8809(99)00028-6 underexploited environmental beneft of agroforestry systems. Hooper, D.U., F.S. Chapin III, J.J. Ewel, A. Hector, P. Inchaust, S. Agroforestry Systems 61(1): 281–395; htp://doi.org/10.1023/ Lavorel, J.H. Lawton, D.M Lodge, M. Loreau, S. Naeem, B. Schmid, B:AGFO.0000029005.92691.79

Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | 26 April 2018 | 10(5): 11551–11565 11561 Buterfy diversity in human modifed ecosystems of southern Sikkim Chetri et al.

Nandakumar, M.K., V.V Sivan, J.P Joseph, M.M Jithin & M.K.R. Sharma, G. (2009). Agro-ecological diversity, ecosystem services and Narayanan (2015). Buterfy species diversity and abundance in impacts of climate change in the Indigenous Farming Systems of the Manikkunnumala forest of Western Ghats, India. Internatonal Sikkim Himalayas. Journal of Hill Research 22(2): 68–85. Journal of Advanced Research 3(1): 206–211. Sharma, G. & B.K. Acharya (2013). Agriculture systems and management Norris, K. (2008). Agriculture and biodiversity conservaton: opportunity diversity, pp. 225–259. In: Kharel, S., & J. Bhuta (eds.). Gazeteer of knocks. Conservaton Leters 1(1): 2–11; htp://doi.org/10.1111/ Sikkim. Gangtok, Sikkim: Home Department, Government of Sikkim. j.1755-263X.2008.00007.x Sharma, G., U. Partap, E. Sharma, G. Rasul & R.K. Avasthe Pielou, E.C. (1969). An Introducton to Mathematcal Ecology. Wiley, (2016). Agrobiodiversity in the Sikkim Himalaya: sociocultural New York, 286pp. signifcance, status, practces, and challenges. ICIMOD Working Pimentel, D., U. Stachow, D.A. Takacs, H.W. Brubaker, A.R. Dumas, J.J. Paper. Kathmandu: Internatonal Centre for Integrated Mountain Meaney, J.A.S. O’Neil, D.E. Onsi & D.B. Corzilius (1992). Conserving Development (ICIMOD). biological diversity in agricultural/forestry systems. BioScience 42: Shrestha, U. B., S. Shrestha, P. Chaudhary & R.P. Chaudhary (2010). 354–362; htp://doi.org/10.2307/1311782 How representatve is the protected areas system of Nepal? Posa, M.R.C. & N.S. Sodhi (2006). Efects of anthropogenic land Mountain Research and Development 30(3): 282–294; htp://doi. use on forest birds and buterfies in Subic Bay, Philippines. org/10.1659/MRD-JOURNAL-D-10-00019.1 Biological Conservaton 129: 256–270; htp://doi.org/10.1016/j. Singh, A.P. (2010). Buterfy diversity in tropical moist deciduous Sal biocon.2005.10.041 forests of Ankua Reserve Forest, Koina Range, Saranda Division, Perfecto, I., A. Mas, T. Dietsch & J. Vandermeer (2003). Conservaton West Singhbhum District, Jharkhand, India. Journal of Threatened of biodiversity in cofee agroecosystems: a tri-taxa comparison in Taxa 2(9): 1130–1139; htp://doi.org/10.11609/JoTT.o2274.1130-9 southern Mexico. Biodiversity and Conservaton 12: 1239–1252; Singh, A.P. (2017). Buterfies associated with major forest types htp://doi.org/10.1023/A:1023039921916 in (Eastern Himalaya), India: Implicatons for Pollard, E. (1977). A method for assessing changes in the abundance ecotourism and conservaton planning. Journal of Threatened Taxa of buterfies. Biological Conservaton 12: 116–134; htp://doi. 9(4): 10047–10075; htp://doi.org/10.11609/jot.2765.9.4 org/10.1016/0006-3207(77)90065-9 Sondhi, S., K. Kunte, G. Agavekar, R. Lovalekar & K. Tokekar (2013). Primack, R.B. (2014). Essentals of Conservaton Biology. Sinauer Buterfies of the Garo Hills. Samrakshan Trust, New Delhi, Titli Trust, Asssociates, Inc., Publishers Sunderland, Massachusets, USA, 603pp. Dehradun, and Indian Foundaton for Buterfies, Bengaluru, 200pp. Rai, S., K.D. Bhuta & K. Kunte (2012). Recent sightngs of two very Sondhi, S. & K. Kunte (2016). Buterfies (Lepidoptera) of the Kameng rare buterfies, margaritae Elwes, 1882 and Nepts nycteus Protected Area Complex, western Arunachal Pradesh, India. Journal de Nicéville, 1890, from Sikkim, eastern Himalaya, India. Journal of of Threatened Taxa 8(8): 9053–9124; htp://doi.org/10.11609/ Threatened Taxa 4(14): 3319–3326; htp://doi.org/10.11609/JoTT. jot.2984.8.8.9053-9124 o2965.3319-26 Stefan-Dewenter, I. & T. Tscharntke (1997). Early succession of Schulze, C.H., I. Stefan-Dewenter & T. Tscharntke (2004a). Efects buterfy and plant communites on set-aside felds. Oecologia 109: of land use on buterfy communites at the rain forest margin: A 294–302; htp://doi.org/10.1007/s004420050087 case study from Central Sulawesi, pp. 281–297. In: Gerold, G., M. Tiple, A.D. (2012). Buterfy species diversity, relatve abundance Fremerey, & E. Guhardja (eds.). Land Use, Nature Conservaton and status in Tropical Forest Research Insttute, Jabalpur, Madhya and the Stability of Rainforest Margins in Southeast Asia. Springer, Pradesh, Central India. Journal of Threatened Taxa 4(7): 2713–2717; Berlin, Heidelberg. htp://doi.org/10.11609/JoTT.o2656.2713-7 Schulze, C.H., M. Waltert, P.J.A. Kessler, R. Pitopang, D. Veddeler, Tscharntke, T., A.M. Klein, A. Kruess, I. Stefan‐Dewenter & C. Thies M. Mühlenberg, S.R. Gradstein, C. Leuschner, I. Stefan-Dweneter (2005). Landscape perspectves on agricultural intensifcaton and & T. Tscharntke (2004b). Biodiversity indicator groups of tropical biodiversity - ecosystem service management. Ecology Leters 8(8): land-use systems: comparing plants, birds, and . Ecological 857–874; htp://doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2005.00782.x Applicatons 14(5): 1321–1333; htp://doi.org/10.1890/02-5409 Uniyal, V.P. (2004). Buterfies of Nanda Devi Natonal Park - a World Schulze, C.H., S. Schneeweihs & K. Fiedler (2010). The potental of heritage site. The Indian Forester 130(7): 800–804. land-use systems for maintaining tropical forest buterfy diversity, Uniyal, V.P. (2007). Buterfies in the Great Himalayan Conservaton pp. 73–96. In: Tscharntke, T., C. Leuschner, E. Veldkamp, H. Faust, Landscape in Himachal Pradesh, Western Himalaya. Entomon 32(2): E. Guhardja, & A. Bidin (eds.). Tropical Rainforests and Agroforests 119–127. under Global Change: Ecological and Socio-economic Valuatons. Uniyal, V.P. & P.K. Mathur (1998). Diversity of buterfies in the Great Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. Himalayan Natonal Park, Western Himalaya. Indian Journal of Sengupta, P. & N. Ghorai (2013). On the plant-buterfy interacton in Forestry 21: 150–155. the surroundings of the upper Neora Valley Natonal Park, a sub- Venter, O., R.A. Fuller, D.B. Segan, J. Carwardine, T. Brooks, S.H.M. tropical broad leaved hill forest in the eastern Himalayan landscape Butchart & J.E.M. Watson (2014). Targetng global protected area of , India. NEBIO 4(4): 21–30. expansion for imperiled biodiversity. PLoS Biology 12(6): e100189; Sengupta, P., K.K. Banerjee & N. Ghorai (2014). Seasonal diversity of htp://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1001891 buterfies and their larval food plants in the surroundings of upper Vu, L.V. (2009). Diversity and similarity of buterfy communites in fve Neora Valley Natonal Park, a sub-tropical broad leaved hill forest diferent habitat types at Tam Dao Natonal Park, Vietnam. Journal of in the eastern Himalayan landscape, West Bengal, India. Journal of Zoology 277: 15–22; htp://doi/10.1111/j.1469-7998.2008.00498.x Threatened Taxa 6(1): 5327–5342; htp://doi.org/10.11609/JoTT. Vu, L.V. (2013). The efect of habitat disturbance and alttudes on the o3446.5327-42 diversity of buterfies (Lepidoptera: Rhopalocera) in a tropical forest Sethy, J., S. Behera & N.S. Chauhan (2014). Species diversity of of Vietnam: results of a long-term and large-scale study. Russian buterfies in south-eastern part of Namdapha Tiger Reserve, Entomological Journal 22(1): 51–65. Arunachal Pradesh, India. Asian Journal of Conservaton Biology 3(1): World Bank (2017). Agriculture land (% of land area). The World Bank, 75–82. Washington, DC. htp://data.worldbank.org/indicator/AG.LND.AGRI. Shahabuddin, G. & R. Ali (2001). Impacts of land use change on forest ZS accessed on 27 September 2017. buterfy communites in the Western Ghats of Southern India. Wynter-Blyth, M.A (1957). Buterfies of the Indian Region. The Bombay Journal of Tropical Forest Science 13(3): 434–449. Natural History Society, Bombay, India, 523pp. Shannon, C.E. & W. Weaver (1949). The Mathematcal Theory of Communicaton. The University of Illinois Press, Illinois, 144pp.

11562 Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | 26 April 2018 | 10(5): 11551–11565 Buterfy diversity in human modifed ecosystems of southern Sikkim Chetri et al.

Appendix I. Buterfies observed in three ecosystems of southern Sikkim, eastern Himalaya including their habitat, larval host specifcity and larval host plant. Number represents the abundances of buterfies observed during the study.

Larval host Larval host plants species and Species Scientfc name FAS LCAS NFS Total $Habitat specifcity family Hesperiidae Common Small Sarangesa dasahara Asystasia macrocarpa 1 - - 2 2 FI Monophagous Flat Moore, 1866 (Acanthaceae) Notocrypta feisthamelii Curcuma aromatca, Hedychium 2 Spoted Demon - 2 2 4 FI Oligophagous II Boisduval, 1832 acuminatum (Zingiberaceae) Lycaenidae Heliophorus moorei 3 Azure Sapphire 5 1 3 9 FE + OL - - Hewiston, 1856 Butea monosperma, Crotolaria Common Jamides celeno Cramer, spp., Derris indica, Pongamia 4 - 6 - 6 OL Oligophagous II Cerulean 1775 pinnata, Xylia xylocarpa (Fabaceae) Butea monosperma, Crotalaria albida, Crotalaria ferruginea, Jamides bochus Stoll 5 Dark Cerulean 1 - 3 4 FE + OL Oligophagous II Crotalaria mucronata, Pongamia 1782 pinnata, Xylia xylocarpa (Fabaceae) Heliophorus brahma Polygonum nepalense, Rumex 6 Golden Sapphire 4 - 1 5 FE Oligophagous II Moore 1857 nepalensis (Polygonaceae) Megisba malaya 7 Malayan - 2 - 2 FE Monophagous Allophylus cobbe (Sapindaceae). Horsfeld, 1828 Metallic Jamides alecto Felder, Boesenbergia rotunda, Eletaria 8 76 38 34 148 OL Oligophagous II Cerulean 1860 cardamomum (Zingiberaceae) Strobilanthes capitatus, Strobilanthes roseus, Pseudozizeeria maha 9 Pale Grass blue 7 1 - 8 OL Polyphagous Strobilanthes thomsoni Kollar, 1844 (Acanthaceae); Oxalis corniculata (Oxalidaceae) Butea minor, Crotalaria albida, Lampides boetcus 10 Pea Blue 7 - 9 16 FE + OL Oligophagous II Crotalaria ferruginea, Crotolaria Linnaeus, 1767 mucronata (Fabaceae) Jamides pura Moore, 11 White Cerulean 2 - - 2 OL - - 1886 Nymphalidae Banded Lethe confusa Aurivillis, 12 - - 1 1 FI Monophagous Poa annua (Poaceae) Treebrown 1898 Calotropis gigantea, Calotropis Tirumala limniace 13 Blue Tiger 2 - 1 3 OL + FE Oligophagous II procera, Asclepias curassaviva Cramer, 1775 (Apocynaceae) Common Mycalesis perseus Apluda mutaca, Elusine coracan, 14 2 - 4 6 FI Oligophagous II Bushbrown Fabricius, 1775 Oryza sp., Sorghum sp.(Poaceae) Barleria prionits (Acanthaceae); Euploea core Carmer, Nerium odorum (Apocynaceae); 15 Common Crow 1 - - 1 OL + FE Polyphagous 1780 Ficus benghalensis, Ficus religiosa (Moraceae) Bombax ceiba (Malvaceae); Elaeocarpus lanceifolius Nepts hylas Linneaus, (); Dalbergia 16 Common Sailer 4 - 5 9 OL + FE Polyphagous 1758 sissoo, Dalbergia stpulacea (Fabaceae); Grewia sapida (Malvaceae) Asclepias curassavica, Danaus genuta Cramer, 17 Common Tiger - 3 3 6 OL + FE Oligophagous II Ceropegia lawii, Ceropegia spp. 1779 (Apocynaceae) Lopantherum spp., Dark-brand Mycalesis mineus 18 - - 3 3 FE Oligophagous II Pogonontherum spp., Bushbrown Linneaus, 1758 Microstegium spp. (Poaceae) Ceropegia bulbosa, Cryptolepis Parantca aglea Stoll, 19 Glassy Tiger - 1 - 1 FI Oligophagous II buchananii, Tylophora carnosa, 1782 (Apocynaceae) Great Evening Melanits zitenius Herbst, Bambusa arundinacea, 20 - 1 - 1 FI Oligophagous II Brown 1796 Ochlandra sp. (Poaceae)

Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | 26 April 2018 | 10(5): 11551–11565 11563 Buterfy diversity in human modifed ecosystems of southern Sikkim Chetri et al.

Larval host Larval host plants species and Species Scientfc name FAS LCAS NFS Total $Habitat specifcity family Mentha longifolia (Lamiaceae); Buddleja asiatca (Buddlejaceae); Argynnis childreni Gray, 21 Great Silverstripe 2 - - 2 OL Polyphagous Viola difusa, Viola serpens, Viola 1831 tricolor (Violaceae); Rubus niveus (Rosaceae) Populus gamblei, Populus Green Sumalia daraxa 22 - 4 2 6 FE Oligophagous II glauca, Salix tetrasperma, Salix Commodore Doubleday, 1848 salwinensis (Salicaceae) Himalayan Ypthima sakra Moore, 23 4 - 8 12 FE Monophagous Digitaria ciliaris (Poaceae) Fivering 1857 Symbrenthia brabira Debregeasia longifolia, 24 Himalayan Jester - - 1 1 FI Oligophagous II Moore, 1872 Elatostema grande (Urtcaceae) Tagetes patula, Zinnia sp. (Asteraceae); Antrrhinum majus Argynnis hyperbius (Plantaginaceae); Fagopyrum sp. 25 Indian Fritllary 4 - - 4 OL Polyphagous Linnaeus, 1763 (Polygonaceae); Viola difusa, Viola serpens, Viola tricolor (Violaceae) Digitalis purpurea (Plantaginaceae); Urtca dioica, Indian Red Herbst, Boehmeria difusa, Boehmeria 26 14 2 - 16 OL Polyphagous Admiral 1794 glomerulifera, Boehmeria pendulifora, diversifolia (Urtcaceae) Indian caschmirensis Urtca dioica, Urtca parvifora 27 68 20 17 105 OL Oligophagous I Tortoiseshell Kollar, 1844 (Urtcaceae) aoris 28 Large Yeoman - - 1 1 FI Monophagous Hydnocarpus sp. (Achariaceae) Doubleday, 1847 Strobilanthes cuspidatus (Acanthaceae); Prunus persica Doyere, 29 Orange Oakleaf - - 1 1 FI+FE Polyphagous (Rosaceae); Polygonum orientale 1840 (Polygonaceae); Girardinia diversifolia (Urtcaceae) Artemisia sp., Blumea sp., Echinops echinatus, Gnaphalium afne, Gnaphalium sp. (Asteraceae); Zornia difusa, Vanessa cardui Linnaeus, Zornia gibbosa (Fabaceae); 30 Painted Lady 49 13 15 77 OL + FE Polyphagous 1758 Argemone mexicana (Papaveraceae); Boehmeria difusa, Debregeasia bicolor, Girardinia diversifolia (Urtcaceae) Asclepias curassavica, Calotropis Danaus chrysippus 31 Plain Tiger - - 1 1 OL + FE Oligophagous II gigantea, Cryptolepis buchananii, Linnaeus, 1758 Ceropegia sp. (Apocynaceae) Viola difusa (Violaceae); Himalayan 32 Issoria isaeea Gray, 1846 13 1 5 19 OL + FE Polyphagous Taraxacum ofcinale Queen Fritllary (Asteraceae) Passifora Cethosia biblis Drury, cochinchinensis, Passifora 33 Red Lacewing - - 2 2 FI+FE Oligophagous I 1770 moluccana, Passifora sp. (Passiforaceae) Scarce Lethe siderea Marshall, 34 - 3 - 3 FI - - Woodbrown 1880 Straight-banded 35 Lethe verma Kollar, 1884 - - 5 5 FI Monophagous Arundinaria aristata (Poaceae) Treebrown Boehmeria sp., Pouzolzia hirta Acraea issoria Hubner, 36 Yellow Coster 7 - - 7 OL + FE Polyphagous (Urtcaceae); Buddleja asiatca 1881 (Buddlejaceae) Papilionidae Zanthoxylum armatum, Common Papilio bianor Cramer, Zanthoxylum achanthopodium, 37 - 1 1 2 OL + FE Oligophagous II Peacock 1777 Clausena sp., Citrus spp. (Rutaceae)

11564 Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | 26 April 2018 | 10(5): 11551–11565 Buterfy diversity in human modifed ecosystems of southern Sikkim Chetri et al.

Larval host Larval host plants species and Species Scientfc name FAS LCAS NFS Total $Habitat specifcity family Pieridae Acacia gageana, Acacia pennata, Albizia procera, Caesalpinia Common Grass Eurema hecabe Linnaeus, sp., Cassia fstula, Cassia 38 2 5 9 16 OL + FE Oligophagous II Yellow 1758 mimosoides, Cassia siamea, Cassia tora, Moullava spicata, Pithelobium dulce (Fabaceae) Dendrophthoe falcata, Loranthus Delias eucharis Drury, longiforus, Loranthus elastcus, 39 Common Jezebel 1 - 1 2 OL + FE Oligophagous II 1773 Scurrula sp. and Viscum sp. (Loranthaceae) Dark Clouded Colias feldii Menetries Trifolium repens, Indigofera sp. 40 56 9 17 82 OL + FE Polyphagous Yellow ,1855 (Fabaceae); Rubus sp. (Rosaceae) Rorippa dubia, Rorippa indica, Indian Cabbage Pieris canidia Linneaus, 41 142 65 81 288 OL + FE Oligophagous II Brassica juncea, Sisymbrium sp. white 1786 (Brassicaceae) Riodinidae Abisara fylla Westwood, 42 Dark Judy - - 15 15 FI Monophagous Maesa chisia (Myrsinaceae) 1851 Zemeros fegyas Maesa chisia, Maesia indica, 43 Punchinello 1 - 4 5 FE Oligophagous I Bosiduval, 1836 (Myrsinaceae) adonira 44 Striped Punch - 1 1 2 FE Monophagous Maesa chisia (Myrsinaceae) Hewitson, 1866 Total species 24 20 32 44 richness Total abundance 474 179 258 911

$ Habitat specializaton: FI (Forest interior only), FI+FE (Forest interior + Forest edge), FE (Forest edge only), FE + OL (Forest edge+ Openland), OL (Openland only). FAS- farm-based agroforestry system; LCAS- large cardamom-based agroforestry system; NFS- natural forest. Data source: Haribal 1992; Kunte 2000; Barua 2007; Kunte et al. 2017; Kehimkar 2008; Tiple 2012; Sengupta et al. 2014; and feld observatons. Figures indicate the number of individual buterfies observed during the study.

Threatened Taxa

Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | 26 April 2018 | 10(5): 11551–11565 11565 OPEN ACCESS The Journal of Threatened Taxa is dedicated to building evidence for conservaton globally by publishing peer-reviewed artcles online every month at a reasonably rapid rate at www.threatenedtaxa.org. All artcles published in JoTT are registered under Creatve Commons Atributon 4.0 Internatonal License unless otherwise mentoned. JoTT allows unrestricted use of artcles in any medium, reproducton, and distributon by providing adequate credit to the authors and the source of publicaton.

ISSN 0974-7907 (Online); ISSN 0974-7893 (Print)

April 2018 | Vol. 10 | No. 5 | Pages: 11551–11702 Date of Publicaton: 26 April 2018 (Online & Print) www.threatenedtaxa.org DOI: 10.11609/jot.2018.10.5.11551-11702

Artcle Report of the early winter migrants and resident birds in an inland wetland near Tundi Camp, Bajana, Gujarat Buterfy diversity in human-modifed ecosystems of southern Sikkim, the -- Abhishek Chaterjee, Sudeshna Ghoshal, Soumyajit Chowdhury & eastern Himalaya, India Pinakiranjan Chakrabart, Pp. 11652–11658 -- Prem Kumar Chetri, Kishor Sharma, Sailendra Dewan & Bhoj Kumar Acharya, 11551–11565 The frst report of two thread-legged assassin bugs (Hemiptera: Reduviidae: Emesinae) from India -- Balasaheb V. Sarode, Swapnil S. Boyane & Hemant V. Ghate, Pp. 11659– Communicatons 11664

Contrastng human perceptons of and attudes towards two threatened Water striders, the genus Cylindrostethus Mayr (Insecta: Heteroptera: small carnivores, Lycalopex fulvipes and Leopardus guigna, in rural Gerridae) from India with a new record communites adjacent to protected areas in Chile -- E. Eyarin Jehamalar, Kailash Chandra & G. Srinivasan, Pp. 11665–11671 -- I. Sacristán, A. Cevidanes, F. Acuña, E. Aguilar, S. García, M.J. López, J. Millán & C. Napolitano, Pp. 11566–11573 The invasive aphid Pterochloroides persicae (Cholodkovsky, 1899) (Hemiptera: Aphidoidea: Lachninae) recorded on important fruit trees in Sightng trend of the Indian Skimmer (Charidiformes: Laridae: Rynchops Valley, India albicollis Swainson, 1838) in Natonal Chambal Gharial Sanctuary (1984– -- Govindasamy Mahendiran, Shahid Ali Akbar & Mudasir Ahmad Dar, 2016) refectng on the feasibility of long-term ecological monitoring Pp. 11672–11678 -- L.A.K. Singh & R.K. Sharma, Pp. 11574–11582

Comparatve cross-sectonal survey on gastrointestnal parasites of captve, Notes semi-captve, and wild Elephants of Sri Lanka Anemone trullifolia and Berberis angulosa as new records to the fora of -- Nirupama Abeysekara, R.P.V. Jayanthe Rajapkse & R.S. Rajakaruna, the western Himalaya, India Pp. 11583–11594 -- Ishwari Dat Rai, Gajendra Singh & Gopal Singh Rawat, Pp. 11679–11682

Notes on fairy orchids (Magnoliopsida: Asparagales: Orchidaceae: Short Communicatons Oberonia) of Sri Lanka: revision in regional distributon and documentaton on vegetatve propagaton The extncton of Faure’s Broom Adenocarpus faurei Maire (Leguminosae) in -- Menaka Ariyarathne & Deepthi Yakandawala, Pp. 11683–11685 Algeria -- Mohamed Djamel Miara, Mohammed Ait Hammou & Jah Skipper, Additonal reports of solitary poter wasps (Hymenoptera: Vespidae: Pp. 11595–11598 Eumeninae) in Bhutan -- Tshering Nidup, Wim Klein, P. Girish Kumar & Phurpa Dorji, Pp. 11686– Conservaton assessment of two rare gingers (Zingiberaceae) from Dampa 11696 Tiger Reserve, Mizoram, India -- Pankaj Kumar & Priya Singh, Pp. 11599–11605 On the occurrence of the rare Long-nosed Stargazer Ichthyscopus lebeck (Bloch & Schneider, 1801) (Uranoscopidae) in the coastal waters of New records of bats (Mammalia: Chiroptera) from Assam, northeastern Visakhapatnam, India India with a distributon list of bat fauna of the state -- Govinda Rao Velamala & Muddula Krishna Naranji, Pp. 11697–11700 -- Ananda Ram Boro, Prasanta Kumar Saikia & Utam Saikia, Pp. 11606–11612

On the birds of Marivan County, western Iran: an update Correcton -- Fatah Zarei, Seyed Naseh Hosseini, Jalal Pezeshk, Loghman Maleki & Hamid Reza Esmaeili, Pp. 11613–11617 Corrigendum - Buterfy host plant Monograph, P. 11701

Nestng patern of birds in Jahangirnagar University Campus, -- Israt Jahan, Sajeda Begum, Mohammad Mostafa Feeroz, Delip Kumar Das & Miscellaneous Ashis Kumar Data, Pp. 11618–11635 Member Natonal Biodiversity Authority An annotated checklist of the birds of the upper Siang region, Arunachal Pradesh, India -- Anirban Data-Roy, Vivek Ramachandran & Karthik Teegalapalli, Pp. 11636– 11651

Publisher & Host

Partners

Threatened Taxa