See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/343537359

A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF DIVERSITY OF SPECIES OF BUTTERFLIES IN

PROTECTED AND UNPROTECTED HABITATS OF OKWU OGBAKU FOREST
RESERVE IN MBAITOLI L.G.A., IMO STATE, NIGERIA

Experiment Findings · April 2011

DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.36488.44801

CITATIONS READS

2 277

2 authors, including:

Luke Chinaru Nwosu

Atlantic Technological University Ireland
66 PUBLICATIONS 361 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Luke Chinaru Nwosu on 09 August 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF DIVERSITY OF SPECIES OF BUTTERFLIES
IN PROTECTED AND UNPROTECTED HABITATS OF OKWU OGBAKU
FOREST RESERVE IN MBAITOLI L.G.A., IMO STATE, NIGERIA

Nwosu Luke Chinaru

Department of Science Laboratory Technology
Federal Polytechnic Ede, Osun State, Nigeria
E-mail: [email protected]
Iwu Charles Joseph
Department of Agricultural Technology
Federal College of Fresh Water Fisheries Technology
New Bussa, Niger State, Nigerria

ABSTRACT
Butterfly diversity at the Okwu Ogbaku forest reserve, Mbaitoli local government
area of Imo State, Nigeria was investigated by the use of sweep nets along
transects in two types of habitats (unprotected and protected). A total of 201
butterflies belonging to 28 genera and 5 families were identified in this study.
Members of the families Lycaenidae, Pieridae and Satyridae were more dominant
than Nymphalidae and Papilionidae which were scarce in the study area.
Abundant species of butterfly recorded in this study include Ypthima (Satyridae),
Hypokopelates (Lycaenidae) and Eurema (Pieridae). The number of butterflies
in the protected habitat were more than those in the unprotected habitat, though
not statistically significant. The distribution of butterfly genera in the two habitats
showed a significant difference. This suggested the effect of grazing and
agriculture activities on the ecosystem. The species recorded in this study
currently amount to 3.0% of all butterflies recorded in West Africa.
Keywords: Butterfly, Diversity, Ogbaku Forest, Sweep nets, Protected Habitat,
Ecosystem.

INTRODUCTION
Undoubtedly, tropical forest ecosystems are globally under much pressure
and such stress on disturbed forests is very likely to escalate (Terborgh, 1999
and Lewis, 2002). However, even the best protected areas may not be sufficient to
maintain the original ecosystems because of their little magnitude and difficult
political and social circumstances (Terborgh, 1999 and Najam, 2002). In deed,
concern for the status of the Earth's biodiversity (to which butterflies are part)
is on the increase (Okali, 2010) and arises from the observation that biodiversity
is being rapidly depleted, seriously threatening the continued support that nature

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The researchers are particularly thankful to Professor M.C. Eluwa and Professor A.C. Nwosu of
Michael Okpara University of Agriculture, Umudike, Abia State, Nigeria for sharing their
knowledge in Entomology and the technical guide they provided for this study.

Journal of Environmental Issues and Agriculture in Developing Countries, Volume 3 Number 1, April 2011 129
provides for human existence and development. Although, the magnitude
of biodiversity present on Earth is largely unknown (Dobson, 1995) and its estimates
remain highly controversial (Stork, 1988 and May, 1990 ), it is known that most
of the global diversity strictly in terms of number of species is represented by arthropods
inhabiting tropical rainforests (Wilson, 1988).
The estimation of such diversity (species richness) of an organism within a
given habitat, community or area is necessary for biological assessment of the
environment. No wonder Vane- Wright, Humpheries and Williams (1991) recorded
that the knowledge of biodiversity is needed to understand and appreciate the natural
world as well as the natural and artificial changes it may experience. Butterflies,
which belong to the Phylum Arthropoda; class Insecta and order Lepidoptera are
however, comparatively well and easily studied (Sundufu and Dumbuya, 2008).
Moreover, they have outstanding ecological and economic importance (Southwood,
1973). Specifically, in agriculture, butterflies are important pollinators (Vane-Wright,
Humpheries and Williams, 1991). In industries, they play significant role as silk
producers for textile products (Erhardt, 1985). They are also good indicators of the
ecological quality of a habitat; as they are important components of the food chain,
particularly as Larvae (Devries, 1988). In Addition, butterflies are benign and
aesthetically pleasing that they are greatly appreciated in ecotourism (Thomas, James
and Warren, 1992).
Incidentally, Bernard (1982) describes seventeen families in the Lepidopteran
order with only eight comprising the butterfly group. In West Africa, about two
thousand species of butterfly abound with Nigeria alone habouring greater than one
thousand species (about 50%) (Viejo, Paul and Curie, 2000). In the study area, no
data exist on butterfly diversity, a situation which in part, provided the rationale of
the present study. In fact, butterflies (useful specimens in biodiversity studies) whose
small body size and dispersal ability enable create and occupy dimensions are equally
exposed to a wide range of environmental influences. Pollard (1988) recorded that
they are highly sensitive to changes in climatic factors such as rainfall, temperatures,
wind, humidity and altitudes. Recently, studies have suggested a range of factors that
affect the pattern of distribution of butterflies. These include competition, predation,
numerical abundance of species, food web structure, genetic factors, short and long-
term aspects of evolutionary rates and size of the insect (Thomas, James and Warren,
1992 and Charles, 2001). More works have attempted to specifically pin down the
factors that affect biodiversity of butterflies.
For instance, Brown (1997) identifies plants to play key role in butterfly
biodiversity, stressing that the value of the diversity of any ecosystem is viewed in
terms of number of species interacting among themselves and with their physical
environment. Holling, Schindler, Walker and Roughgarden, (1995) maintained that
the removal of certain species seems to have minimal effects on the functioning of the
ecosystem while the deletion of others induces a serious transformation from one
ecosystem type to another. Moreover, rising human influence and associated degrees

Journal of Environmental Issues and Agriculture in Developing Countries, Volume 3 Number 1, April 2011 130
of pressure and shocks on the ecosystem have resulted into changes, which many
creatures (including butterflies) cannot adapt to. When the change involves the
composition of species and major structuring processes of the ecosystem, Schindler
(1990) ascertained that it could have negative implications on the ability of such
ecosystem to provide economically valued ecological services. Therefore, this
necessitates the need to develop sustainable resource management policies for these
ecosystems based on an understanding and appreciation of the ecological processes
involved. This will definitely help in ensuring the realisation of the maximum yield
potentials of the forest ecosystem. It is now obvious why Nylin (1995) suggests the
need for techniques to monitor changes in populations caused by ecosystem
degradation and regeneration aimed at improving and sustaining environmental quality.
Establishing the biodiversity of an organism in an area in order to gather
baseline information for environmental quality and control respectively is scientifically
necessary. However, species richness and habitat preferences of butterflies as
documented by various researchers in different parts as well as in the same part of the
world seem to be controversial. For instance in southern Nigeria, Larsen, Riley and
Cornes (1979) found a surprisingly rich butterfly fauna in mixed secondary growth
within the rainforest zone. In a study in Benin, Nigeria, overall butterfly species
richness was higher in clearings than closed forest (Fermon, Schulze and Waltert,
2001). In the Eagle Owl Gully Forest Reserve of Amurum, Jos East, Plateau, Nigeria,
higher diversity of butterfly species was recorded in the protected area (Akwashiki,
Amuga, Nwansat and Ombugadu, 2007).
In Madagascar, disturbed forest habitat and edges were found to be richer in
butterfly species than undistributed area (Kremen,1994) while higher butterfly
diversities were recorded in unprotected tropical forest by Thomas (1991); Hill,
Kramer, Lace and Banham (1995), Brown (1997) and Hammer and Hill (2000). The
above records show that butterfly diversity varies from one location to another and
provide the rationale for locating specific analysis to inform biodiversity status/control
measures (or policies). This speculation that habitat type determines richness and
kinds of butterfly deserve further investigation. Therefore, this study sought to compare
and document the diversity of species of butterflies between the unprotected and
protected habitats of the Okwu Ogbaku Forest Reserve in Mbaitoli, Imo State, Nigeria.
The forest was significantly observed to habour a lot of birds, and that could be very
relevant in the study of insectivorous birds.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The study was carried out at the Okwu Ogbaku Forest Reserve, Mbaitoli
L.G.A, Imo State, Nigeria. Imo State (South Eastern part of Nigeria) is located in the
rain forest region of Nigeria on latitude 603lN and longitude 7036lE. The vegetations
of the area range from typical rain forest through degraded forest to mosaic forest
interphase. The mean total annual rainfall is 2000mm and the atmospheric temperature

Journal of Environmental Issues and Agriculture in Developing Countries, Volume 3 Number 1, April 2011 131
ranges from 260C-400C. The Okwu Ogbaku Forest Reverse, characterized by three
different types of habitat (the gallery, the scrubby forest and the grassland area) is
about 200 hectares in size. Two sites were selected for this study: (a) the unprotected
area, which is an area outside the forest reserve that is open for human influence (that
is, a farm-bush habitat cultivated for different crops) and animal grazing, and (b) the
protected area, which is an area inside the forest reserve that is protected against
cultivation and also unavailable to grazers. Both categories of sites differ in vegetation
density but have no obvious differences in terms of plant species.
Walk-and-capture transects routes of 1000m each were surveyed for butterfly
during the study. Three line transects were situated in each of the unprotected and
protected habitats and were worked on, once in every sampling day. These transects
were surveyed 28 times in 14 rounds of sampling butterflies for each category of site.
Butterfly species seen on each transect were trapped, counted, described and recorded.
All butterflies seen 2.5m either side of the transect route and up to 5m in front were
trapped using a sweep net or released after marking, when positive identification was
possible (Hill, Kramer, Lace and Banham, 1995 and Pollard, 1977). Vegetation
measurements in terms of plant phaenology were taken randomly from both categories
of sites on each line transects using the method of Sutherland (2001).
All the captured butterflies put in specimen bottles containing ethyl acetate
soaked in cotton wool, were pooled from unprotected and protected habitats. The
butterflies were mounted by the method of Cyber Gallery of Natural Ecology
Experience (2004) and displayed by the method of Bernard (1982). Butterflies
collected were identified using Butterflies of West Africa (Larsen, 2005) and
identification guides of Bernard (1982), James (2002) and Hogue and Gray (2004).
Following the calculation of butterfly species diversity, analysis of vegetation factors
associated with the total number of butterflies in each family was done for both
unprotected and protected habitats.
In the year 2000, Viejo, Paul and Curie, (2000) documented that there were
about 2000 species of butterflies in West Africa. In the year 2007, Akwashiki, Amuga,
Nwansat and Ombugadu (2007) recorded a decreased number to about 1000 species
of butterfly in West Africa probably because of climate change effects and Sundufu
and Dumbuya (2008) recorded same in 2008. Therefore, in this study, the ecological
composition of butterflies of the study area, in relation to current amount of butterflies
of West Africa, was determined by dividing the number of species of butterfly collected
in this study, by 1000 species recorded by Akwashiki, Amuga, Nwansat and Ombugadu
(2007) and Sundufu and Dumbuya (2008) and multiplied by 100%. That is:
y
× 100%
1000 species
where y is number of species of butterflies collected in this study (Table 1).
Kolmogorov - Smirnov two-sample test was employed in the analysis of data
on butterfly diversity and distribution. The analysis was carried out using version
11.0 Statistical Package of Social Science (SPSS) software.

Journal of Environmental Issues and Agriculture in Developing Countries, Volume 3 Number 1, April 2011 132
 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
A total number of 201 butterflies belonging to 28 genera and 5 families were
collected from both the unprotected and protected habitats of Okwu Ogbaku Forest
Reserve, Mbaitoli, Imo State (Table1). That this result marked relatively high diversity
of butterfly species seems supported by Akwashiki, Amuga, Nwansat and Ombugadu
(2007) and Sundufu and Dumbuya (2008). However, the result is further corroborated
by Thomas, James and Warren, (1992), Hill, Kramer, Lace and Banham (1995), and
Brown (1997) who reported rich butterfly fauna in forest canopies. The highest number
of species were recorded in the families Lycaenidae, Pieridae and Satyridae. That the
families Lycaenidae and Pieridae were recorded in high numbers in this study is
supported by the works of Akwashiki, Amuga, Nwansat and Ombugadu (2007) and
Brown (1997) who reported the two families as the largest of the Lepidopteran order,
that also appear ubiquitous. In contrast, the families Nymphalidae and Papilionidae
occurred in lesser number of species. The presence of the Nymphalidae in low number
has implications for pollination in the area, since they are among the exceptionally
fruit-feeding butterfly community. The fruit-feeding habitat of the Nymphalidae is
documented by Sundufu and Dumbuya (2008). Generally, 3 genera from 3 families
showed greater abundance in this study than the others. They are: Ypthima (Satiridae),
Hypokopelates (Lycaenidae) and Eurema (Pieridae). It is not uncommon that these 3
genera were the most abundant butterfly species in both the unprotected and protected
habitats of the study area since Pierce, Michael and Health (2002) already reported
species of Hypokopelates as polyphagous creatures who have the capacity to adapt
to a wide range of habitats.
However, 8 other genera occurred in lesser numbers of species from 7 to 16,
leaving the remaining 17 genera in lowest occurrence with less than 7 species. Analysis
of results associated with habitat types showed that higher numbers of species occurred
in the families Lycaenidae, Pieridae and Satyridae than Nymphalidae, and Papilionidae
in the protected habitat (Table 1). Similarly, in the unprotected habitat, higher numbers
of butterfly species were found in the same families but as follows: Lycaenidae, Pieridae
and Satyridae than Nymphalidae and Papilionidae (Table 2). The common occurrence
of the Nymphalidae and Papilionidae in low numbers in both habitats could be attributed
to some seasonal factors. This observation and assessment seem also supported by
Pierce, Michael and Health (2002). Moreover, the occurrence of these species in the
first place could supply useful information on conservation of biodiversity.

CONCLUSION
The distribution of butterflies genera showed a significant difference between
the two habitats.This suggests the effect of grazing and agricultural activities on the
ecosystem. However, number of butterflies in the protected habitat differed (though
not significantly) from those of the unprotected habitat. This difference is simply an
index of disturbance in terms of grazing and cultivation. Since the butterfly fauna of

Journal of Environmental Issues and Agriculture in Developing Countries, Volume 3 Number 1, April 2011 133
West Africa currently consist of approximately 1000 species (Akwashiki Amuga,
Nwansat and Ombugadu, 2007 and Sundufu and Dumbuya, 2008), the species
recorded in Okwu Ogbaku Forest Reserve thus amount to approximately 3.0% of all
butterflies recorded in West Africa (Table 1).
Table 1: Number of Butterfly Families and Genera Sampled at Okwu Ogbaku Forest
Reserve, Mbaitoli, Imo State, Nigeria.
Family Genus Number (%)
Lycaenidae Hypokopelates 25 (12.4)
Azanus 16 (8.0)
Iolaus 9 (4.5)
Lepidochrysops 8 (4.0)
Virachola 8 (4.0)
Anthene 7 (3.5)
Cupidopsis 6 (3.0)
Liptena 2 (1.0)
Spindasis 2 (1.0)
Omipholidotes 1 (0.5)
Total 84 (41.8)
Pieridae Eurema 23 (11.4)
Catopsilia 15 (7.5)
Belenois 9 (4.5)
Dixeia 5 (2.5)
Leptosia 4 (2.0)
Mylothris 1 (0.5)
Total 57 (28.4)
Satyridae Ypthima 29 (14.4)
Juninia 4 (2.0)
Appias 2 (1.0)
Colotis 2 (1.0)
Bicycus 1 (0.5)
Trucus 1 (0.5)
Total 39 (19.4)
Nymphalidae Junonia 8 (4.0)
Euriphene 4 (2.0)
Chraxes 2 (1.0)
Neptis 2 1.0
Byblia 1 (0.5)
Total 17 (8.5)
Papilionidae Graphium 4 (2.0)
Total: 5 28 201 (100)
Source: Fieldwork, 2010

Journal of Environmental Issues and Agriculture in Developing Countries, Volume 3 Number 1, April 2011 134
Table 2: Distribution of Butterfly Families in Unprotected and Protected Habitats of
Okwu Ogbaku Forest Reserve, Mbaitoli, Imo State, Nigeria.
Family Unprotected Habitat[nC%] Protected Habitat[nC%] Total [nC%]
Lycaenidae 33 (16.4) 51 (25.4) 84 (41.8)
Pieridae 26 (12.9) 31 (15.4) 57 (28.4)
Satyridae 16 (8.0) 23 (11.4) 39 (19.4)
Nymphalidae 6 (3.0) 11 (5.5) 17 (8.5)
Papilionidae 2 (1.0) 2 (1.0) 4 (2.0)
Total 83 (41.3) 118 (58.7) 201 (100)
Source: Fieldwork, 2010

REFERENCES

Akwashiki, B. A., Amuga, G. A., Nwansat, G. S. and Ombugadu, R. J. ( 2007). Assessment of

Butterfly Diversity in Eagle Owl Gully of Amurum Forest Reserve, Jos East Local
Government Area, Plateau State, Nigeria. The Zoologist, 5, 33-38.
Bernard. D. F. R. (1982). Butterflies of Afro-tropical Region. Land-wone edition.
Brown, Jr. K. S. (1997). Diversity, distance and sustainable use of Neotropical Forest: Insects as
indications for conservation monitoring. Journal of Insects Conser-vation 1, 25-42.
Charles J. K. ( 2001). Ecology. 5th Edition.
Cyber Gallery of Natural Ecology Experience - CGNEE (2004). Butterfly Festival of Hamp-
yeong, 310pp.
Devries, P. J. (1988). Vertical stratification of fruit feeding butterfly in a Costa Rica Forest. Journal
of Research on Lepidoptera, 26, 98-108.
Dobson, A. P. (1995). Conservation and biodiversity. Freeman: Scientific America Libraries,
Erhardt. A. (1985). Diurnal Lepidotera: Sensitivity indicators of cultural and abandoned grassland.
Journal of Applied Ecology, 22, 849-861.
Fermon ,H., Schulze, C.H. and Waltert, M. (2001). The butterfly community of the Noyau Central,
Lama Forest (Republic of Benin), with notes on its ecological composition and geographic
distribution. African Entomology, 9, 177-185.
Hamer, K. C. and Hill, J. K. (2000). Scale-dependent effects of habitats disturbance on species
richness in tropical forests. Conservation Biology, 14,1435-1440.
Hill J. K., Kramer K. C., Lace L. A. and Banham W. M. T. (1995). Effects of selective logging
on tropical forest butterflies on Buru, Indonesia. Journal of Applied Ecology, 32, 754-
760.
Hogue, S. and Gray, A. (2004). Bio Quip Methods. 115pp.
Holling C. S., Schindler D. W. W., Walker B. H and Roughgarden J. (1995). Biodiversity in the
functioning of an ecosystem: An ecological synthesis. In Biological Diversity; Economic
and Ecological issues. Cambridge: University Press. 448pp.
James, L. C. (2002). Photographic Atlas of Entomology and Guide toIinsect Identification. 2nd
edition. 238pp.
Kremen, C. (1994). Biological inventory using target taxa: a case study of the butterflies of
Madagascar. Ecological Applications, 4, 407-422.
Larsen T. B., Riley J. and Cornes M. A. (1979). The butterflies fauna of a secondary bush
locality in Nigeria. Journal of Research on the Lepidoptera, 18, 4-23.
Larsen, T. B. (2005). Butterflies of West Africa 2 vols., 596pp., 125 plates. Apollo Books.
Lewis, O. T. (2002). Effects of experimental selective logging on tropical butterflies. Conservation
Biology, 15, 389-400.

Journal of Environmental Issues and Agriculture in Developing Countries, Volume 3 Number 1, April 2011 135
 May, R. M. (1990). How many species? Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London
B330:293-304.
Najam, A. (2002). Legitmacy as a systematic Challenge. In Financing Sustainable Development.
London: IIED.
Nylin, S. (1995). Effects of changing photo-periods in the life cycle regulations of the comma
butterfly, Polvnia calbum (Nymphalidae). Ecological Entomology, 14, 209-218.
Okali, D. (2010). Many species one planet; one future. Proceeding of the 3rd Annual Conference
of the Institution of Ecology and Environmental studies Vol.3 Held at Oduduwa Hall,
Obafemi Awolowo University Ile- Ife, Nigeria 15-17th June, 2010 pp 1-11.
Pierce E. N., Michael F. B. and Health A. (2002). The ecology and evolution of ants association
in the Lycaenidae (Lepidoptera), Annual Reviews of Entomology, 47, 733-771.
Pollard, E. (1977). A method for assessing changes in the abundance of butterflies. Biological
Conservation, 12, 16-134.
Pollard, E. (1998). Temperature, rainfall and butterfly numbers. Journal of Applied Ecology, 25,
819-829.
Schindler, D. W. (1990). Experimental perturbation of whole lakes as test of hypothesis concerning
ecosystem structure and function. Proceedings of 1987 Crafoard Symposium. Oikos 57:25-
41.
Southwood ,T. R. E. (1973). The Insect/Plant relationship. London: Royal Entomological Society.
Stock, N. E. (1988). Insect diversity: facts, fiction and speculation. Biological Journal of the
Linnean Society, 35, 321-337.
Sundufu, A. and Dumbuya, R. (2008). Habitat preferences of butterflies in the Bumbuna forest
Northern Sierra Leona. Journal of Insect Science, 8 (64), 1-17.
Sutherland, W. J. (2001). The conservation Handbook: Research Management and Policy,
Blackwell Science, 452pp.
Terborgh, J. (1999). Requiem for Nature. Island Press.
Thomas, C. D. (1991). Habitat use and geographic ranges of butterflies from the wet lowlands of
Costa Rica. Biological Conservation, 35, 269-281.
Thomas, C.D., James, A. and Warren. M.S. (1992). Distribution of occupied and vacant butterfly
habitats in fragmented land-scapes. Ecology, 62, 563-567.
Vane-Wrigth, R.I., Humpheries. C.J. and Williams, P.H. (1991). What to protect Systematic
and the agony of choice. Biological Conservation, 55, 235-254.
Viejo. P.; Paul L. and Curie. N. (2000). Conservation Biology 1st edition 300pp.
Wilson, E. O. (1988). The current state of biological diversity. In Wilson E.O.(ed). Biodiversity.
Washington: National Academic Press, pp 3-18.

Journal of Environmental Issues and Agriculture in Developing Countries, Volume 3 Number 1, April 2011 136

View publication stats