Department of Zoology, Shivramji Moghe Arts, Commerce and Science College, Kelapur (Pandharkawada),Yavatmal, Maharashtra (India)

Corresponding author email: ramzan_virani@yahoo.co.in

Article Publishing History

INTRODUCTION

Pandharkawada forest division is situated in Yavatmal District of Indian state of Maharashtra.  This area lies at south eastern part of the district, located between the geographical confines of east longitude 78°14′ and 79°13′ East and 19°45′ and 20°20′ North, spread over the area of  655.336 sq. km. The climatic condition of this area is characterized by a hot summer, well-distributed rainfall during the south-west monsoon season and generally dry weather during rest of the year. The cold season is from December to February (Yavatmal Gazetteer 2019). Area constitutes honey comb pattern with compact patches of vegetation, meadows, open-scrubs, waterbodies and seasonal wetlands intersperse with agriculture. These varied ecosystems show great utility for conservation of biological diversity. Varied habitats and seasonal variation in floral composition of this dry deciduous forest attract verities of insect species. The diversity of insects plays an important role in the terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems by providing ecosystem services such as pollination, pest control, nutrient decomposition, and maintenance of ecosystem (Koh and Sodhi 2004; Losey and Vaughan 2006). Among insects, butterflies are the most attractive elements of the universe. They perform prominent roles in pollination (Tiple et al., 2006; Tiple 2018).

Adult butterflies are dependent on nectar and pollen as their food while the caterpillars are dependent on specific host plants for foliage (Nimbalkar et al., 2011), this facilitate pollination. Butterflies are considered as the best indicators of the health of any kind of ecosystem. They bear a history of long-term co-evolution with plants.  (Thomas 2005; Bonebrake et al., 2010). Butterflies are therefore treated as an important model group to study ecology of any landscape and its conservation status (Watt and Boggs 2003; Ehrlich and Hanski 2004; Mukherjee et al., 2015). Temperature and relative humidity are the important factors in distribution and assemblage of Butterfly species (Gupta et al., 2019 )

Many butterfly species are vulnerable due to the habitat loss caused by modern agricultural practices and urbanisation, other major negative impacts are due to the widely increasing global environmental change. In the view of this changing scenario to ensure essential ecosystem services rendered by butterflies, it is essential to document these ecologically important vividly hued winged beauties. This study is design to estimation butterfly diversity in the Pandharkawada forest division, Maharashtra, India. This will work as biological instrument in devising sustainable conservation strategies for these beautiful creatures and to understand their role in maintaining ecological dynamics of this landscape.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Study Area:Study was conducted at Shibla Forest (canopy covered with associated grassy belts), Gopalpur Nursery (Forest Nursery), Shindola Forest (Scrub with Sandy Soil), Nilgiri Ban (Eco-Park), Saykheda (Water Reservoir and Seasonal Wetland). Ecological conditions of every study site are different than other.

Survey method :The butterflies were observed and photographed in the sampling sites for a period of 1 year between January 2019 and December 2019. During the survey, an efficient protocol was adopted. The survey was made using a “Pollard Walk” method (Pollard 1977; Pollard and Yates 1993) with necessary modifications. Study area was visited twice a month/Study site from morning 8 AM to afternoon 11 AM during good weather periods.

Species identification :After detection, a specimen was photographed (Nikon D7100; Nikon Inc., Tokyo, Japan) and identified with the help of visible structural features. For identification and comparative studies of observed specimens, keys and methods suggested by Evans (1932), Wynter-Blyth (1957), Haribal (1992), Kunte (2000) and Kehimkar (2008) were adopted.

Data analysis :Species occurrence analysis was carried out by Microsoft excel program with using the following formulas. Relative Dominance (RD) of species was calculated as [RD=Ni × 100/Nt] where, Ni is number of individuals of species and Nt is total number of individuals all species (Basavarajappa 2006; Joshi 2014). Relative Occurrence (RO) of family was calculated as [RO= Ns × 100/Nt] where, Ns is number of species of each family and Nt is total number of all species (Basavarajappa 2006; Joshi 2014). Mean percent occurrence (M%) for month was calculated as [M% = Nm × 100 /Nt] where, Nm is number of individuals in each month and Nt is total number of individuals during complete study tenure (Basavarajappa 2006; Joshi and Tantarpale 2016). The mean values of the pooled species occurrence data were used to calculate the monthly diversity and to categorize the local status of species.

The diversity assessment enabled highlighting the observed species richness pattern of the butterfly species. The diversity indices were quantified with the help of PAST Version 1.60 software (Palaeontological Asso., Norway; Hammer et al., 2001). The species diversity was calculated using Shannon diversity index that calculated as [ ], where Pi is proportion of the first species which is given by Pi= ni/N (Magurran 1988); species richness was obtained by using Margalef equation [R= (S-1)/ log N], Where, R is Index of species richness, S is Total number of species and N is Total No. of individuals (Magurran, 1988); while Species equitability was determined by equation of Pielou [J= N₁/N₀] where N₁ is Number of abundant species in the sample and N₀ is Number of species in the sample (Hammer et al., 2001). The similarity association matrix upon which the cluster based was computed using the nearest neighbour pair linkage algorithm of Euclidean distance index for presence and absence data (Hammer et al., 2001). The differences between the diversity and evenness indices of with species occurrence among different study months were statistically analysed by using Analysis of variance (ANOVA). The statistical analyses were performed following Zar (1999) using the SPSS version 10 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, Il, USA; Kinnear and Gray 2000).

RESULTS  AND DISCUSSION

During this study, 103 butterfly species under five families were recorded in study area (Table 1). Based on value of butterfly relative dominance in study area, 28.155 % species was categorized as abundant species whereas 36.89 % species was common, 11.65 % species was frequent, 18.44 % was occasional, and 4.85 % species was rare (Figure 1). The maximum number of butterfly species were recorded under family Nymphalidae (34.95 %), Lycaenidae (27.18 %) followed by Pieridae (18.45 %), Hesperiidae (12.62 %) and Papilionidae (6.80 %) (Figure 2).

A dendrogram developed by Euclidean distance cluster analysis was observed to be multifaceted and showed variation in the level of similarity in the number of butterfly species in 12 months. The months with the minimum to moderate number of species belong to one cluster, whereas the rest of the months with moderate to maximum number of species formed another cluster (Figure 3). It appears that the butterfly abundance increased from monsoon to winter while decreased in the summer and pre-monsoon possibly due to the unavailability of nectar and the changes in temperature and humidity of the habitats concerned

Mean percent abundance of butterflies was significantly different (F = 145.5, df = 11, p < 0.05); Shannon diversity values of butterflies were significantly different (F= 189.2, df = 11, p < 0.05); species evenness among different months was significantly different (F= 196.3, df = 11, p < 0.05) while species richness among the study months was significantly different (F = 188.3, df = 11, p < 0.05). A trend in mean % abundance, Shannon diversity, species richness and species equitability showed the contradictory patterns (Figure 4).

Table 1. Diversity of Butterflies during January 2019 to December 2019 in the Pandharkawada Forest Division, Maharashtra, India

Common Name	Scientific Name	Relative Dominance	Local      Status	IUCN  Status	WPA Status
Family: Papilionidae
Tailed Jay	Graphium agamemnon (Linnaeus, 1758)	1.163	Common	NE
Common Jay	Graphium doson (Felder and Felder, 1864)	1.098	Common	NE
Common rose	Pachliopta aristolochiae (Fabricius, 1775)	0.994	Common	LC	Sch.I
Crimson rose	Pachliopta hector (Linnaeus, 1758)	0.941	Common	NE
Lime Butterfly	Papilio demoleus (Linnaeus, 1758)	1.321	Abundant	NE
Common Mormon	Papilio polytes (Linnaeus, 1758)	1.237	Abundant	NE
Spot Swordtail	Graphium nomius (Esper, 1793)	0.599	Occasional	NE
Family: Pieridae
Common Albatross	Appias albino (Fabricius, 1775)	1.039	Common	NE	Sch.II
Indian Pioneer	Belenois aurota (Fabricius, 1793)	1.407	Abundant	NE
Common Emigrant	Catopsilia pomona (Fabricius, 1775)	1.220	Abundant	NE
Mottled Emigrant	Catopsilia pyranthe (Linnaeus, 1758)	0.920	Common	NE
Common Gull	Cepora nerissa (Fabricius, 1775)	1.368	Abundant	NE	Sch.II
Small salmon Arab	Colotis amata (Butler, 1870)	0.604	Occasional	NE
Large Salmon Arab	Colotis fausta (Olivier, 1804)	0.531	Occasional	NE
Crimson Tip	Colotis danae (Fabricius, 1775)	0.578	Occasional	NE
Small Orange Tip	Colotis etrida (Boisduval, 1836)	1.051	Common	NE
White Orange Tip	Ixias Marianne (Cramer, 1775)	1.024	Common	NE
Yellow Orange Tip	Ixias pyrene (Linnaeus, 1764)	0.712	Occasional	NE
Common Jezebel	Delias eucharis (Drury, 1773)	1.114	Common	NE
One Spot Grass Yellow	Eurema andersoni (Moore, 1865)	1.148	Common	LC
Three Spot Grass Yellow	Eurema blanda (Boisduval, 1836)	1.003	Common	NE
Small Grass Yellow	Eurema brigitta (Stoll, 1780)	1.131	Common	LC
Common Grass Yellow	Eurema hecabe (Linnaeus, 1758)	1.294	Abundant	NE
Spotless Grass Yellow	Eurema laeta (Boisduval, 1836)	1.359	Abundant	NE
Psyche	Leptosia nina (Fabricius, 1793)	0.703	Occasional	NE
Common Wanderer	Pareronia valeria (Cramer, 1776)	1.116	Common	NE
Family: Nymphalidae
Tawny Castor	Acraea violae (Fabricius, 1775)	0.976	Common	NE
Angled Castor	Ariadne ariadne (Linnaeus, 1763)	1.157	Common	NE
Common Castor	Ariadne merione (Cramer, 1779)	1.077	Common	NE
Common Sergeant	Athyma perius (Linnaeus, 1763)	0.502	Occasional	NE
Plain Tiger	Danaus chrysippus (Linnaeus,1758)	1.389	Abundant	NE
Striped Tiger	Danaus genutia (Cramer, 1779)	1.270	Abundant	NE
Common Crow	Euploea core (Cramer, 1780)	1.439	Abundant	LC
Double Branded crow	Euploea Sylvester (Fabricius, 1793)	0.490	Occasional	NE
Baronet	Euthalia nais (Cramer, 1779)	0.935	Common	NE
Common Baron	Euthalia aconthea (Cramer, 1777)	0.304	Rare	NE
Great Eggfly	Hypolimnas bolina (Linnaeus, 1758)	1.065	Common	NE
Danaid Eggfly	Hypolimnas misippus (Linnaeus, 1764)	0.959	Common	NE	Sch.II
Peacock Pansy	Junonia almana (Linnaeus, 1758)	1.312	Abundant	LC
Grey Pansy	Junonia atlites (Linnaeus, 1763)	1.056	Common	NE
Yellow Pansy	Junonia hierta (Fabricius, 1775)	1.110	Common	LC
Chocolate Pansy	Junonia iphita (Cramer, 1779)	0.970	Common	NE
Lemon Pansy	Junonia lemonias (Linnaeus, 1758)	1.184	Abundant	NE
Blue Pansy	Junonia orithya (Linnaeus, 1764)	1.418	Abundant	NE
Common Evening Brown	Melanitis leda (Linnaeus, 1758)	1.249	Abundant	NE
Dark Evening Brown	Melanitis phedima (Cramer, 1780)	0.724	Occasional	NE
Common Bush Brown	Mycalesis perseus (Fabricius, 1775)	0.947	Common	NE
Dark Brand Bush Brown	Mycalesis mineus (Linnaeus, 1758)	0.788	Frequent	NE
Common Sailer	Neptis hylas (Linnaeus, 1764)	0.929	Common	NE
Common Leopard	Phalanta phalantha (Drury, 1773)	1.032	Common	LC
Blue Tiger	Tirumala limniace (Cramer, 1775)	1.213	Abundant	NE
Commander	Moduza procris (Cramer, 1777)	1.140	Common	NE
Painted Lady	Synthia cardui (Linnaeus, 1764)	0.911	Common	NE
Joker	Byblia ilithyia (Drury, 1773)	0.902	Common	NE
Common Three Ring	Ypthima asterope (Klug, 1832)	1.143	Common	NE
Large Three Ring	Ypthima nareda (Kirby, 1871)	0.831	Frequent	LC
Common Four Ring	Ypthima huebneri (Kirby, 1871 )	0.782	Frequent	LC
Common Five Ring	Ypthima baldus (Fabricius, 1793)	0.791	Frequent	NE
Anomalous Nawab	Polyura agrarian (Linnaeus, 1764)	0.674	Occasional	NE
Common Nawab	Polyura athamas (Drury, 1773)	0.481	Occasional	NE	Sch.II
Black Rajah	Charaxes solon (Fabricius, 1793)	0.546	Occasional	NE	Sch.II
Towny Rajah	Charaxes bernardus (Fabricius, 1793)	0.680	Occasional	NE	Sch.II
Family: Lycaenidae
Pointed Ciliate Blue	Anthene lycaenina (C. Felder, 1868)	0.758	Frequent	NE	Sch.II
Large Oak Blue	Arphopala amantes (Hewitson, 1862)	0.368	Rare	NE
Dull Babool Blue	Azanus uranus (Butler, 1886)	0.795	Frequent	NE
Bright Babool Blue	Azanus ubaldus (Stoll, 1782)	1.023	Common	NE
Lime Blue	Chilades lajus (Stoll, 1780)	1.430	Abundant	NE
Gram Blue	Euchrysops cnejus (Fabricius, 1798)	1.199	Abundant	NE	Sch.II
Pea Blue	Lampides boeticus (Linnaeus, 1767)	1.229	Abundant	NE	Sch.II
Zebra Blue	Leptotes plinius (Fabricius, 1793)	1.377	Abundant	NE
Dingy Line Blue	Petrelaea dana (de Niceville, 1884)	1.033	Common	NE
Tailless Line Blue	Prosotas dubiosa (Semper, 1879)	1.018	Common	NE	Sch.II
Common Line Blue	Prosotas nora (Felder, 1860)	1.125	Common	NE
Guava Blue	Virachola isocrates (fabricius, 1793)	0.659	Occasional	NE	Sch.I
Dark Grass Blue	Zizeeria karsandra (Moore, 1865)	1.258	Abundant	NE
Lesser Grass Blue	Zizina otis (Fabricius, 1787)	1.181	Abundant	NE
Tiny Grass Blue	Zizula hylax (Fabricius, 1775)	1.318	Abundant	NE
Plum Judy	Abisara echerius (Moore, 1901)	0.688	Occasional	NE
Common Pierrot	Castalius rosimon (Fabricius, 1775)	0.786	Frequent	NE	Sch.I
Forget-Me-Not	Catochrysops strabo (Fabricius, 1793)	1.282	Abundant	NE
Plains Cupid	Luthrodes pandava (Horsfield, 1829)	0.864	Frequent	NE
Indian cupid	Cupido lacturnus (Godart, 1824)	0.985	Common	NE
Grass Jewel	Freyeria trochylus (Freyer, 1845)	1.344	Abundant	NE
Common Cerulean	Jamides celeno (Cramer, 1775)	1.359	Abundant	NE
Indian Red Flash	Rapala airbus (Fabricius, 1787)	0.305	Rare	NE
Slate Flash	Rapala manea (Hewitson, 1863)	0.229	Rare	NE
Common Silverline	Spindasis vulcanus (Fabricius, 1775)	0.755	Frequent	NE
Common Shot Silverline	Spindasis ictis  (Hewitson, 1865)	0.567	Occasional	NE
Rounded Pierrot	Tarucus extricates (Kollar, 1848)	1.175	Abundant	NE
Peacock Royal	Tajuria cippus (Fabricius, 1775)	0.163	Rare	NE	Sch.II
Family: Hespiridae
Brown awl	Badamia exclamationis (Fabricius, 1775)	1.338	Abundant	LC
Plain Banded Awl	Hasora vita (Cramer, 1780)	0.792	Frequent	NE	SchIV
Bevan’s Swift	Borbo bevani (Moore, 1878)	0.534	Occasional	NE
Rice swift	Borbo cinnara (Wallace, 1866)	1.427	Abundant	NE
Blank Swift	Caltoris kumara (Moore, 1878)	0.543	Occasional	NE
Small branded swift	Pelopidas mathias (Fabricius,1798)	1.226	Abundant	NE
Conjoined Swift	Pelopidas conjuncta (Moore, 1878)	0.878	Common	NE
Paintbrush Swift	Baoris farri (Moore, 1878)	0.810	Frequent	NE	SchIV
Common Straight Swift	Parnara guttatus (Bremer and Gray, 1853)	1.104	Common	LC
Indian Palm bob	Suastus gremius (Fabricius, 1798)	0.896	Common	NE
Dark Palm-Dart	Telicota ancilla (Moore, 1878)	1.045	Common	NE
Indian skipper	Spialia galba (Fabricius, 1793)	0.751	Frequent	LC
Grass Demon	Udaspes folus (Cramer, 1775)	0.635	Occasional	NE

Figure 1: Relative occurrence of butterfly Species in Pandharkawada forest division

Figure 2: Relative dominance of butterfly families in the Pandharkawada forest division, Maharashtra, India

Figure 3: Dendrogram showing similarity in number of butterfly species composition among the studied month during January 2019 to December 2019

Figure 4: The values of the diversity indices in different months observed through the random sampling of butterflies in the Pandharkawada forest division, Maharashtra, India

The butterflies are the ecologically important creature that serves as indicators of environmental conditions (Stefanescu et al., 2004). Observations on the butterfly diversity provide the information about variations in the species richness and the abundance in relation with the vegetation along the landscape and the species interactions (Öckinger and Smith 2006; Öckinger et al 2006; Mutmainnah and Santosa 2019).

In this context, the diversity of Butterflies in the Pandharkawada forest division, Maharashtra, India was studied during January 2019 to December 2019. The study area was dominated by the dense vegetation with variety of plant species that host the butterfly populations. The earlier studies showed that heterogeneity of the habitats in terms of the available plant species supports the rich butterfly diversity (Kuussaari et al 2007; Mukherjee et al., 2015). Studies on the butterfly diversity in the forest landscape contrast to the urban and suburban regions show that the richness increased with the availability of the green space and the heterogeneity of the habitats in terms of the available plant species (Öckinger et al., 2009; Mukherjee et al., 2015). Consistent with these studies the present observation records a total of 103 species belonging to five families from study area.The maximum number of butterfly species was recorded under family Nymphalidae, Lycaenidae followed by Pieridae, Hesperiidae and Papilionidae. Among these 103 species Based on value of butterfly relative dominance in study area, 28.155 % species was categorized as abundant species whereas 36.89 % species was common, 11.65 % species was frequent, 18.44 % was occasional, and 4.85 % species was rare. The rare species recorded are Rapala airbus Rapala manea Tajuria cippus Euthalia aconthea Arphopala amantes.

Out of these 103 butterfly species, 16 species specified under Indian Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 were encountered in good numbers. The butterflies Pachliopta hector Castalius rosimon and Virachola isocrates are placed in Schedule I Part IV, the species Appias albino, Cepora nerissa, Hypolimnas misippus, Polyura athamas, Charaxes bernardus, Anthene lycaenina, Charaxes solon, Euchrysops cnejus, Lampides boeticus. Prosotas dubiosa and Tajuria cippus are protected under Schedule II Part II, while Hasora vita and Baoris farri are categorized as Schedule IV. It is established that the butterfly abundance increased in monsoon as population is at its peak in June and July. It decreased in the summer and pre-monsoon possibly due to the unavailability of nectar and the changes in temperature and humidity of the habitats concerned, as temperature and relative humidity are the important factors in distribution and assemblage of butterfly species (Gupta et al., 2019)

Observations on the monthly variations of butterfly species encounter indicates peak from August to November and December while low from January to May. The present observations remain consistent with the records and views of the butterfly species in different parts of the world (Wilson et al 2004; Tiple et al., 2006; Sodhi et al., 2010; Tiple 2018). The number of species observed in the present study remained similar to the observations on the species in different parts of India bearing similar landscape patterns (Roy et al 2012; Harsh 2014; Saikia 2014; Mukherjee et al., 2015). As revealed through the present study, 103 butterfly species are available in different numbers across the study area. Dominance of the butterflies of the family Nymphalidae is similar to that observed in other parts of the world (Mutmainnah and Santosa 2019).

In parity with the species diversity observed in Pandharkawada Forest Division, Maharashtra, India, it may be assumed that the butterflies play diverse functional roles for the sustenance of the ecosystems. The richness in species composition in study area was also prominent in present investigation.  The availability of the vegetation, seasonal wetlands and allied factors render stability to the butterfly population and assemblages in the landscapes, these are possibly important contributors to the observed variations in the butterfly species recorded in the present study. The observations on the diversity of the butterflies in the study area suggested that the intensive conservation management is required to ensure sustenance of ecosystem services derived from the butterflies.

The present diversity study was confined to a limited area and selected habitats. There is, in the future, a chance of more species being reported because of few pockets and habitats in the studied area requiring more extensive exploration.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The author is thankful to Mrs. K.M. Abharna, Deputy Conservator of Forest, Pandharkawada Forest Division for giving permission and for extending support during the conduct of this study.

REFERENCES

Basavarajappa S. (2006) Avifauna of agro-ecosystem of Maidan area of Karnataka. Zoo’s Print Journal 21:2217-2219.

Bonebrake TC, Ponisio C, Boggs CL. et al.  (2010) More than just indicators: a review of tropical butterfly ecology and conservation. Biological Conservation 143:1831-1841.

Ehrlich PR, Hanski I. (2004) On the wings of checkerspots: a model system for population biology. Oxford: Oxford University Press. p. 408.

Evans WH. (1932) The identification of Indian butterflies. Bombay: Bombay Natural History Society. p. 464.

Gupta H., Tiwari C. and Diwakar S. (2019) Butterfly diversity and effect of temperature and humidity gradients on butterfly assemblages in a sub-tropical urban landscape. Tropical Ecology 60:150-158

Hammer Ø, Harper DAT, Ryan PD. (2001) Paleontological statistics software package for education and data analysis. Paleontologia Electronica 4:1-9.

Haribal M. (1992) The butterflies of Sikkim Himalayas and their natural history. Gangtok: Sikkim Nature Conservation Foundation (SNCF). p. 217.

Harsh S. (2014) Butterfly diversity of Indian institute of forest management, Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh, India. Journal of Insects 2014:1-4.

Joshi PS, Tantarpale VT. (2016) Diversity of Saurian fauna in the Buldhana district, Maharashtra, India. Journal of Asia-Pacific Biodiversity 9: 306-311

Joshi PS. (2014) Diversity and population dynamics of ophidian fauna from Buldhana District, Maharashtra, India. A thesis submitted to S.G.B. Amravati (India): Amravati University. pp. 1-260.

Kehimkar I. (2008) The book of Indian butterflies. Mumbai: Bombay Natural History Society and Oxford University Press. p. 497.

Kinnear PR, Gray CD. (2000) SPSS for windows made simple. Release 10. Sussex. UK: Psychology Press. p. 432.

Koh LP, Sodhi NS. (2004) Importance of reserves, fragments, and parks for butterfly conservation in a tropical urban landscape. Ecological Applications 14:1695-1708.

Kunte K.( 2000) Butterflies of Peninsular India. Hyderabad: Universities Press (India) Limited. p. 254.

Kuussaari M, Heliölä J, Luoto M, Pöyry J. (2007) Determinants of local species richness of diurnal Lepidoptera in boreal agricultural landscapes. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 122:366-376.

Losey JE, Vaughan M. (2006) The economic value of ecological services provided by insects. BioScience 56:311-323.

Magurran AE. (1988) Ecological diversity and its measurement. London: Chapman and Hall. p. 192.

Mukherjee S, Banerjee S, Saha G, Basu P, Aditya G. (2015) Butterfly diversity in Kolkata, India: An appraisal for conservation management. Journal of Asia-Pacific Biodiversity 8: 210-221.

Mutmainnah AR, Santosa Y. (2019) Impact of oil palm plantation on the butterfly diversity: a Case study in KGP & CNG, Ketapang, West Kalimantan. IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 336: 012032.

Nimbalkar RK, Chandekar SK, Khunte SP. (2011) Butterfly diversity in relation to nectar food plants from Bhor Tahsil, Pune District, Maharashtra, India. Journal of Threatened Taxa 3:1601-1609.

Öckinger E, Dannestam Å, Smith HG. (2009) The importance of fragmentation and habitat quality of urban grasslands for butterfly diversity. Landscape and Urban Planning 93:31-37.

Öckinger E, Eriksson AK, Smith HG. (2006) Effects of grassland management, abandonment and restoration on butterflies and vascular plants. Biological Conservation 133:291-300.

Öckinger E, Smith HG. (2006) Landscape composition and habitat area affect butterfly species richness. Oecologia 149:526-534.

Pollard E, Yates TJ. (1993) Monitoring butterflies for ecology and conservation. London: Chapman and Hall. p. 292.

Pollard E. (1977) A method for assessing changes in the abundance of butterflies. Biological Conservation 12:115-134.

Roy US, Mukherjee M, Mukhopadhyay SK. (2012) Butterfly diversity and abundance with reference to habitat heterogeneity in and around Neora Valley National Park, West Bengal, India. Our Nature 10:53-60.

Saikia MK.( 2014) Diversity of tropical butterflies in urban altered forest at Gauhati University Campus, Jalukbari, Assam. Journal of Global Biosciences 3:452-463.

Sodhi NS, Koh LP, Clements R, et al. (2010) Conserving Southeast Asian forest biodiversity in human-modified landscapes. Biological Conservation 143:2375-2384.

Stefanescu C, Herrando S, Páramo F. (2004) Butterfly species richness in the northwest Mediterranean Basin: the role of natural and human-induced factors. Journal of Biogeography 31:905-915.

Thomas JA. (2005) Monitoring change in the abundance and distribution of insects using butterflies and other indicator groups. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B 360:339-357.

Tiple A. (2018)  Butterflies (Lepidoptera Rhopalocera) of the Bor wildlife sanctuary, Wardha, Maharashtra, Central India. Biodiversity Journal 9: 171-180.

Tiple AD, Deshmukh VP, Dennis RLH. (2006) Factors influencing nectar plant resource visits by butterflies on a university campus: implications for conservation. Nota Lepidopteralogica 28:213-224.

Watt WB, Boggs CL. (2003) Synthesis: butterflies as model systems in ecology and evolution present and future. In: Boggs CL, Watt WB, Ehrlich PR, editors. Butterflies: ecology and evolution taking flight. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. pp. 603e613.

Wilson EO. (1997) Introduction. In: Reaka-Kudla ML, Wilson DE, Wilson EO, editors. Biodiversity II. Washington, D.C: Henry Press. pp. 1-3.

Wilson RJ, Thomas CD, Fox R, et al. (2004) Spatial patterns in species distributions reveal biodiversity change. Nature 432:393-396.

Wynter-Blyth MA. (1957) Butterflies of the Indian region. Mumbai: Bombay Natural History Society. 523 p.

Yavatmal Gazetteer. (2019) Database of Buldhana District redirected from official website of Buldhana District, Maharashtra, India. Available at: www.yavtmal.nic.in [Date accessed: 01 January 2019].

Zar JH. (1999) Biostatistical analysis. 4^th  ed. New Delhi (Indian Branch): Pearson Education (Singapore) Pte. Ltd.. p. 667.