Biodiversity indices of Noctuid Moths in various conifer forests of Himachal Pradesh

Paper Details

Research Paper 01/02/2016
Views (251) Download (10)
current_issue_feature_image
publication_file

Biodiversity indices of Noctuid Moths in various conifer forests of Himachal Pradesh

Shweta Thakur, V.K. Mattu, Pawan Kumar
J. Bio. Env. Sci.8( 2), 98-103, February 2016.
Certificate: JBES 2016 [Generate Certificate]

Abstract

Lepidoptera is probably one of the most suitable groups for most quantitative comparisons especially their abundance and species richness. Moths were found to be a potentially useful indicator of biodiversity. The main objective of the study was to assess biodiversity health of conifer forests by using moths as indicator species. Quantitative estimates of species diversity, evenness and richness in different locations were made. Noctuid moths were collected from different parts of Himachal Pradesh during 2012-2014. A total number of 1348 noctuid moth specimens were collected by using light traps. During the study, a total of 103 species were collected from five different conifer forest spread over 10 localities of Himachal Pradesh. Regarding different forests it was found that maximum species diversity was found in year 2014 (3.22), followed by 2013 (2.97) and finally 2012 (2.80); maximum species evenness was found in the year 2014 (2.12), followed by year 2012 (2.08) and finally 2013 (1.99); maximum species richness was found in year 2014 (16.25), followed by 2013 (15.37) and finally 2012 (13.9). Regarding different localities, it was found that year 2014 showed maximum values with Species diversity: 2.65; Species evenness: 2.11; Species richness: 10.24 followed by year 2013 with Species diversity: 2.54; Species evenness: 2.08; Species richness: 8.72 and then 2012 with Species diversity: 2.03; Species evenness: 1.69; Species richness: 8.26. The rich abundance in Chirpine forest was due to diversified fruit crop ecosystem. In this experimental finding conclude that species found in Chirpine forest predict immediate protective measures to conserve forest ecosystem.

VIEWS 9

Altermatt F. 2010a. Climatic warming increases voltinism in European butterflies and moths. Proceedings of Royal Society of London B 277, 1281 – 1287.

Altermatt F. 2010b. Tell me what you eat and I’ll tell you when you fly: diet can predict phenological changes in response to climate change. Ecology Letters 13, 1475 – 1484.

Anonymous. 1988. Technologies to maintain biological diversity. Science Information Resource Centre, Philadelphia, USA, 334.

Aslam M. 2009. Diversity, species richness and evenness of Moth fauna of Peshawar. Pakistan Entomologist 31( 2 ), 99-102.

Ehrlich PR, Wilson EO. 1991. Biodiversity studies: Science and policy. Science 253, 758-762.

Holloway JD. 1984. The larger moths of the Park: a preliminary assessment of their distribution, ecology and potential as environmental indicators. In: Jermy AC, Kavanagh KP, eds. Gunung Mulu National Park, Sarawak: An account of its environment and biota, Sarawak Museum Journal Supplement, 2.

Holloway JD. 1985. The Moths of Borneo: family Noctuidae: subfamilies Euteliinae, Stictopterinae, Plusiinae, Pantheinae. Malayan Nature Journal 38, 157-317.

Humphries CJ, Williams PH, Vane –Wright RK. 1996. Measuring biodiversity value for conservation. Animal Ecology and Systematics 26, 93-111.

Kapoor VC. 1985. Perspectives in Insect Systematics. Inter-India Publications, New Delhi.

Karsholt O, Razowski J. 1996. The Lepidoptera of Europea distributional checklist. Apollo Books.

Kocsis M, Hufnagel L. 2011. Impacts of climate change on Lepidoptera species and communities. Applied Ecology and Environmental Research 9, 43 – 72.

Magurran AE. 1988. Ecological Diversity and Its Measurement. Princeton University Press, Princeton.

Margalef R. 1958. Temporal succession and spatial heterogeneity in phytoplankton. In: Perspectives in Marine biology, Buzzati-Traverso ed. Univ. Calif. Press, Berkeley, 323-347.

Melchias G. 2001. Biodiversity and conservation. Oxford and IBH Publ. Co., New Delhi, 236.

Parmesan C, Ryrholm N, Stefanescu C, Hill JK, Thomas CK, Descimon H, Huntley B, Kaila L, Kullberg J, Tammaru T, Tennent WH, Thomas JA, Warren M. 1999. Poleward shifts in geographical ranges of butterfly species associated with regional warming. Nature 399, 579-583.

Pielou EC. 1966. The measurement of diversity in different types of biological collections. Journal of theoretical Biology 13, 131-144.

Shannon CE, Wiener W. 1949. The mathematical theory of communication. Urbana, University of Illinois Press, 177.

Summerville KS, Crist TO. 2004. Contrasting effects of habitat quantity and quality on moth communities in fragmented landscapes. Ecography 27, 3-12.

Summerville KS, Ritter LM, Crist TO. 2004. Forest moth taxa as indicators of lepidopteran richness and habitat disturbance: a preliminary assessment. Biological Conservation 116, 9-18.

Varshney RK. 1998. Faunal Diversity in India. In: Alfred JRB, Varshney RK Ghosh AK, eds. Insecta, Zoological Survey of India Calcutta, 145-157.