Butterfly Diversity in Agroecosystem of Low Hills in District Sirmaur of Himachal Pradesh

Author:

Avtar Kaur Sidhu*, Anjoo Dhar and Kamal Saini

Journal Name: Biological Forum, 17(3): 49-52, 2025

Address:

High altitude Regional Centre, Zoological Survey of India, Saproon, Solan (Himachal Pradesh), India.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.65041/BiologicalForum.2025.17.3.8

PDF Download PDF

Abstract

The present studies assess the butterfly species diversity in agroecosystem of low hills of district Sirmaur (Himachal Pradesh) based on surveys carried out from 2022 to 2024. The study area lies in Shiwalik hills, covering five sites with altitudinal range from 384m to 964m. A total of 40 butterfly species belonging 30 genera and to families of order Lepidoptera were recorded during the study period. The family Nymphalidae, was the most dominant (23 species), followed by Pieridae (10 species), Lycaenidae (5 species), Papilionidae (1 species) and Hesperiidae (1 species). Pieris canidia (Sparrman, 1768) has been observed to be the most dominant species of Butterfly in terms of number of individuals. Other dominant species observed in the agroecosystem of the low hills in Sirmaur district are Pseudozizeeria maha (Kollar, 1848), Eurema hecabe (Linnaeus, 1758), Pontia daplidice (Linnaeus, 1758) and Heliophorus sena (Kollar, 1848).  It has been observed that the agriculture fields which were flanked by forests or dense wild vegetation have higher diversity than the others.

Keywords

Butterfly diversity, agroecosystem, low hills, Sirmaur.

Introduction

The agroecosystems harbours unique biodiversity, the conservation of which is a global challenge due to monoculture, excessive use of pesticides, clearing of forests and conversion into agroecosystem. Among others, butterflies are most vulnerable taxa because of their sensitivity to habitat changes and climate changes. Thus, Butterflies play a crucial role in agroecosystems as pollinators and indicators of environmental health. Butterflies are sensitive towards changes in the environment. They are often used as bioindicators on the status and health of the environment (Chung et al., 2018). The district Sirmaur of mountainous state of Himachal Pradesh is situated between 30º22′30″ to 31º01′20″ north latitude and 77º01′12″ to 77º49′40″ east longitude and is located in its southern part.  The total area of the district is 2,825 sq. km. which cover only 5.07 per cent area of the Himachal Pradesh. Most part of the district Sirmaur is located in outer Himalayas which is also called as Shivalik range. Sirmaur is mainly an agricultural district where 90% of the population is dependent on agriculture. Maize and wheat as the major cereal crops. Tomato, ginger, Garlic and capsicum in green houses are the major commercial crops in the district. About 83.28% of land holdings are with small and marginal farmers and the average size of the holdings is less than one Ha (0.99 ha). The butterflies of Agroecosystem of Himachal Pradesh have been worked out by very few authors. Several studies have been undertaken to study the butterfly diversity in general from Himachal Pradesh but not much work has been done on Agro-ecosystems in particular. Some workers have studied distribution of butterflies in various habitats which included agricultural fields also. The studies include: Kumar and Mattu (2014) reported 40 butterfly species from various areas including agricultural areas of Balh Valley, Mandi, H.P; Sharma & Kumar (2015)  reported 49 species of butterflies from Renuka lake and its surrounding areas including agricultural fields; Kumar et al. (2016) reported 29 species of butterflies from Chanshal valley, Shimla, H.P. which includes collection from agricultural fields along with other habitats; Kaundil and Mattu (2017) published checklist of 35 species of Mandi Hills; Kumar et. al. (2023) enlisted 77 butterfly species from agroecosystem of Himachal Pradesh Agricultural University, Palampur, H.P. In present studies, the butterfly diversity of agroecosystem in low hills of district Simour has been assessed for the first time.

Material & Methods

Extensive surveys have been carried out from 2022 to 2024 in the agroecosystem of low hills of district Sirmaur of Himachal Pradesh to assess the butterfly diversity by selected 05 sites ranging between an altitude of 348 m to 964 m asl. The details of the sites, their location and the agriculture crops present in them are given below:


Table  1.

Sr. No.

Name of Site

Latitude

Longitude

Altitude

Crops

1.

Daduwala

30.5258

77.2829

348 m

Mostly agricultural fields of cash crops are near the water resources either near khad or water

2.

Jarag

30.6427

77.457

864 m

Agriculture fields of turmeric, lemon orchards

3.

Kodewala

30.4786

77.4025

398 m

Agriculture fields of wheat, sides full of wild vegetation with water stream flowing from them

4.

Peripul

30.89283

77.23531

964 m

Beans, Pumpkin, Cucumber, Tomato, Grapes, Maize and Capsicum

5.

Sheetla

30.605

77.3946

852 m

Agriculture fields of wheat, with sides dry wild vegetation



Identification of adults was done using identification keys given by de Niceville (1886, 1890); Bingham (1905, 1907); Evans (1932); Talbot (1939, 1947); Wynter-Blyth (1957); Cantlie (1962); Haribla (1998). The nomenclature is followed from Varshney (1993, 1994, 1997).


Results & Discussion

In the present studies, 40 butterfly species belonging to 30 genera and 5 families of order Lepidoptera were recorded from agroecosystem of low hills of district Sirmaur of Himachal Pradesh. The family Nymphalidae was the most dominant (23 species), followed by Pieridae (10 species), Lycaenidae (5 species), Papilionidae (1 species) and Hesperiidae (1 species). Pieris canidia (Sparrman, 1768) (128 inviduals) has been observed to be the most dominant species of Butterfly in terms of number of individuals. Other dominant species observed in the agroecosystem of the low hills in Sirmaur district are Pseudozizeeria maha (Kollar, 1848) (73 indviduals), Eurema hecabe (Linnaeus, 1758) (64 individulas), Pontia daplidice (Linnaeus, 1758) (27 indviduals) and Heliophorus sena (Kollar,1848) (21 individuals). Site-1 at Daduwala is represented by 11 species and 11 genera, site 2 Jarag 13 species and 10 genera, site 3 Kodewala by 12 species and 12 genera, site 04 Peripul by 12 species and 11 genera, site 05 Sheetla by 11 species and 09 genera as given in Table 2 below.

Table 2.

Sr. No.

Family

Genus/species

Common name

site 1

Daduwala

(348m)

site 2

Jarag (864 m)

site 3

Kodewala

(362m)

site 4

Peripul

(964m)


site 5

Sheetla

(852m)

1.

Papilionidae

Papilio polytes (Linnaeus, 1758)

Common Mormon

+

_

+

_

_

2.

Nymphalidae

Acraea issoria (Hubner, 1818)

Himalayan Yellow Coster

_

_

_

+

_



3.

Nymphalidae

Argyreus hyperbius Linnaeus,1763

Indian Fritillary

_

+

_

_

_

4.

Nymphalidae

Ariadne merione (Cramer, 1777)


Common Castor butterfly

+

_

+

_

_

5.

Nymphalidae

Athyma opalina (Kollar, 1844)

Himalayan Hill Sergeant

_

+

_

_

_

6.

Nymphalidae

Symphedra nais (Forster, 1771)

The Baronet


_

_

+

_

_

7.

Nymphalidae

Vanessa cardui (Linnaeus, 1758)

Painted Lady


_

_

_

+

_

8.

Nymphalidae

Vanessa cashmirensis (Kollar, 1844)

Indian Tortoiseshell


_

+

_

_

+

9.

Nymphalidae

Ypthima inica (Hewitson, 1865)

Lesser Three-ring

_

+

_

_

_

10.

Nymphalidae

Ypthima sakra (Moore, 1857)

Himalayan five-ring

+

+

_

_

_

11.

Nymphalidae

Ypthima nareda (Kollar, 1844)

Large Three-Ring

_

_

_

+

_

12.

Nymphalidae

Mycalasis mineus (Linnaeus, 1767)

Dark-branded bushbrown

_

_

_

_

+

13.

Nymphalidae

Neptis hylas (Linnaeus, 1758)

Common Sailer

_

+

_

_

+

14.

Nymphalidae

Neptis sankara (Kollar, 1844)

Broad-banded sailer

_

+

_

_

+

15.

Nymphalidae

Danaus chrysippus (Linnaeus, 1758)

Plain Tiger


+

_

_

_

_

16.

Nymphalidae

Elymnias hypermnestra (Linnaeus, 1763)

Common Palmfly


_

_

+

_

_

17.

Nymphalidae

Euploea mulciber (Cramer, 1777)

Striped Blue Crow

+

_

_

_

_

18.

Nymphalidae

Junonia  almana (Linnaeus, 1758)

Peacock Pansy

_

_

+

_

_

19.

Nymphalidae

Junonia  iphita (Cramer, 1779)

Chocolate Pansy

_

+

_

+

+

20.

Nymphalidae

Junonia  lemonias (Linnaeus, 1758)

Lemon Pansy


_

_

_

+

+

21.

Nymphalidae

Junonia orithya (Linnaeus, 1758)

Blue Pansy


_

_

_

_

+

22.

Nymphalidae

Pantoporia hordonia (Stoll, 1779)

Common

Lascar


+

_

_

_

_

23.

Nymphalidae

Limenitis procris (Cramer, 1777)

Brush-footed butterfly

_

_

+

_

_

24.

Nymphalidae

Phalanta phalantha (Drury, 1770)

Common Leopard


_

+

_

+

+

25.

Pieridae

Catopsilia pomona (Fabricius, 1775)

Common Emigrant

_

_

+

_

_

26.

Pieridae

Catopsilia pyranthe (Linnaeus, 1758)


Mottled Emigrant

_

_

+

_

_

27.

Pieridae

Colias erate (Esper,1805)

Eastern Pale Clouded Yellow

_

_

_

+

_

28.

Pieridae

Pareronia valeria (Cramer, 1777)

Common Wanderer


+

_

_

_

_

29.

Pieridae

Pieris canidia (Sparrman, 1768)

Indian cabbage white

_

_

+

+

+

30.

Pieridae

Pontia daplidice (Linnaeus, 1758)

Bath White


_

_

+

+

_

31.

Pieridae

Eurema hecabe (Linnaeus, 1758)

Common Grass Yellow

+

_

_

+

+

32.

Pieridae

Eurema brigitta (Cramer, 1780)

Small Grass Yellow

_

+

+

_

_

33.

Pieridae

Eurema laeta (Boisduval, 1836)

Spotless Grass Yellow

_

+

_

_

_

34.

Pieridae

Ixias pyrene (Linnaeus, 1758)

Yellow Orange-Tip

+

_

_

_

_

35.

Lycaenidae

Heliophorus sena (Kollar, 1848)

Sorrel Sapphire

_

_

_

_

+

36.

Lycaenidae

Megisba malaya (Horsfield, 1828)

The Malayan


+

_

+

_

_

37.

Lycaenidae


Celastrina huegelii (Moore, 1882)

Large Hedge Blue


_

_

_

+

_

38.

Lycaenidae

Pseudozizeeria maha (Kollar,1848)

Pale Grass Blue


_

+

_

+

+

39.

Lycaenidae


Castalius rosimon (Fabricius, 1775)

Common Pierrot

+

_

_

_

_

40.

Hesperiidae

Potanthus confucius (Felder, 1862)

Chinese dart


_

+

_

_

_

Total

5

40


11/11

10/13

12/12

11/12

9/11

+ = Species present; - = Species absent

Pollinators are important for reproduction of many plants (Arun and Azeez 2003; Caldas and Robbins 2003). Pollination is one of the most important types of interaction between plants and animals in ecosystems because it is a key process in the sexual reproduction of most angiosperms and can affect directly the plant reproduction success (Arun, 2002). During present studies, the butterfly pollinating in agriculture fields has been assessed.  It has been observed that the butterfly diversity is more along edges of agriculture fields that in the core area due to excessive chemical sprays in the fields. As per interaction with farmers, it has been told that they are spraying in the fields after every 15 days, causing the less diversity in the fields. The agriculture fields which are surrounded by forests / wild vegetation have been observed to have more butterfly diversity than the others. As butterflies are sensitive to any change in their environment, their diversity in the fields depicts good health of agricultural fields. From this study it can be concluded that health of the agriculture fields of this district is less in respect of butterfly diversity due to monoculture and various insecticides and pesticides practices because these insects are very good pollution indicators of whole environment.


Conclusion

The butterfly fauna of Aroecosystem of Himachal Pradesh remain to be poorly studied. The present attempt provides the baseline data to give future researchers a list on butterfly diversity in district Sirmour. In conclusion, endemicity is very low in the study site because of anthropogenic disturbances.

Future Scope

Future attempts to measure the butterfly diversity in other districts of Himachal Pradesh planned. Extensive study of butterfly in reference to the different agro-ecosystems is recommended.

References

Arun, P. R. (2002). Butterflies of Siruvani forest of Western Ghats, with notes on their seasonality. Zoo’s Print J., 18(2), 1003-1006.

Arun, P. B. and Azeez, P. A. (2003). On the butterflies of Puyankutty forest, Kerala, India. Zoo’s Print J., 18(12), 1276-1279.

Bingham, C. L. (1905). The fauna of British India including Ceylon and Burma, Butterfly-Vol-I. Taylor and Francis Ltd., London. 511pp.

Bingham, C. L. (1907). The fauna of British India including Ceylon and Burma, Butterfly-Vol-II. Taylor and Francis Ltd., London. 453pp.

Caldas, A. and Robbins, R. K. (2003). Modified Pollard transects for assessing tropical butterfly abundance and diversity. Biol. Conserv., 110, 211-219.

Cantlie, K. (1962). The Lycaenidae portion (except the Arhopala group) of Brigadier Evan’s the identification of Indian Butterflies 1932 (India, Pakistan, Ceylon, Burma). The Bombay Natural History Society, Bombay, India. 156pp.

Chung, A., Bosuang, S. and Chan, C. (2018). Importance of Butterflies. Insects in promoting nature tourism in Sabah. Conference: Insect Diversity Course, Tabin Wildlife Resort, Lahad Datu, Sabah, November 2017.

de Niceville, L. (1886). The butterflies of India, Burma and Ceylon. Vol-II. Nymphalidae, Lemoniidae, Libythaeinae, Nemeobinae. The Calcutta Central press Co. Ltd. 332pp.

de Niceville, L. (1890). The butterflies of India, Burma and Ceylon. Vol-III (Lycaenidae). The Calcutta Central press Co. Ltd. 503pp.

Evans, W. H. (1932). The identification of Indian Butterflies. (2nd Edition). The Bombay Natural History Society, Mumbai, India. 454pp.

Haribal, M. (1998). The Butterflies of Sikkim Himalaya and their natural history. Sikkim Nature Conservation Foundation, Gangtok, India. 217pp.

Kumar, P., Devi, R. and Mattu, V. K. (2016). Diversity and abundance of Butterfly fauna (Insecta: Lepidoptera) of Subalpine area of Chanshal Valley of District Shimla (Himachal Pradesh). Journal of Entomology and Zoology Studies, 4(4), 243-247.

Kumar, R. and Mattu, V. K. (2014). Diversity of Butterflies (Lepidoptera: Insecta) from Balh Valley (District Mandi in Himachal Pradesh), INDIA. Asian J. of Adv. Basic Sci., 2(3), 66-70.

Kumar, P., Parmar, B. and Kumar, P. (2023). Preliminary checklist of butterfly diversity from the Himachal Pradesh University, Palampur, India. Environment Conservation Journal, 24(3), 215-221. 

Kaundil, P. and Mattu, V. K.  (2017). A preliminary study on butterfly fauna (Order: Lepidoptera) from Mandi hills of Himachal Pradesh. Journal of Entomology and Zoology Studies, 5(3), 851-854.

Sharma, K. L. and Kumar, R. (2015). Diversity of Butterflies in Renuka Lake and its Vicinity of Himachal Pradesh. International Journal of Science and Research (IJSR), 4(9), 1628-1634.

Talbot, G. (1939). The fauna of British India including Ceylon and Burma, Butterfly-Vol-I. Taylor and Francis Ltd., London. 600pp.

Talbot, G. (1947). The fauna of British India including Ceylon and Burma, Butterfly-Vol-II. Taylor and Francis Ltd., London. 506pp.

Varshney, R. K. (1993). Index Rhopalocera Indica. Part III. Genera of butterflies from India and neighbouring countries [Lepidoptera: (A) Papilionidae, Pieridae and Danaidae]. Oriental Insects, 27, 347-372.

Varshney, R. K. (1994). Index Rhopalocera Indica. Part III. Genera of butterflies from India and neighbouring countries [Lepidoptera: (B) Papilionidae, Pieridae and Danaidae]. Oriental Insects, 28, 151-198.

Varshney, R. K. (1997). Index Rhopalocera Indica. Part III. Genera of butterflies from India and neighbouring countries [Lepidoptera: (C) Lycaenidae]. Oriental Insects, 31, 83-138.

Wynter-Blyth, M. A. (1957). Butterflies of the Indian region. Bombay Natural History Society, Bombay. 523pp.

How to cite this article

Avtar Kaur Sidhu, Anjoo Dhar and Kamal Saini  (2025). Butterfly Diversity in Agroecosystem of Low Hills in District Sirmaur of Himachal Pradesh. Biological Forum, 17(3): 49-52.