Research Article |
Corresponding author: Cássio Cardoso Pereira ( cassiocardosopereira@gmail.com ) Academic editor: Daniel Silva
© 2023 Andrêsa G. Andrade, Cássio Cardoso Pereira, Vinícius F. Sperandei, Tatiana Cornelissen.
This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Citation:
Andrade AG, Pereira CC, Sperandei VF, Cornelissen T (2023) Small reserve but high diversity: butterfly community across an altitudinal gradient in the Brazilian Atlantic Forest. Nature Conservation 53: 321-340. https://doi.org/10.3897/natureconservation.53.113052
|
The present study aimed to describe the composition of the butterfly community in relation to the altitudinal gradient in the Reserva Particular do Patrimônio Natural (RPPN) Alto-Montana, Serra da Mantiqueira, Minas Gerais, Brazil, and to provide a list of species for the area. We collected samples in the RPPN Alto-Montana along an altitudinal gradient from 1400 to 2100 m, between the dry and rainy seasons of 2018 and 2019. During this period, the sampling method utilizing Van-Someren Rydon traps totaled 3,936 hours and the effort using sweep nets totaled 246 hours. A total of 1,253 butterflies distributed across 124 species and six families of diurnal butterflies were observed (Hesperiidae, Lycaenidae, Nymphalidae, Papilionidae, Pieridae, and Riodinidae). Nymphalidae was the most representative family, followed by Hesperiidae, Pieridade, Lycaenidae, Papilionidae and Riodinidae. Moreover, we recorded 37 species with only one individual (singletons) and 20 species with only two individuals (doubletons), totalling 57 species, which corresponds to 46% of all sampled richness. The rarefaction curve did not reveal a tendency toward stabilization. However, the indices showed slightly higher values for the 124 species sampled. The analysis performed using the Bootstrap estimator predicted a total of 143.22 species (± 10.87 SE), with a further 19 additional species than observed. Chao 1 predicted 153.42 (± 11.82 SE), and Jackknife 1 predicted 164.00 (± 16.29 SE) species, with 29 and 40 additional species than the observed, respectively. Our study contributes to the knowledge of butterfly biodiversity in Serra da Mantiqueira and reveals a high species richness for the RPPN Alto Montana, especially considering the relatively small area. In addition, our study provides the first inventory of butterflies for the RPPN Alto Montana, thus supporting further studies investigating the butterfly richness in the Serra da Mantiqueira region. Finally, our findings of endemic, rare, and endangered butterfly species highlight the relevance of further conservation strategies to be considered for the Protected Area’s Management Plan.
Conservation, Hesperiidae, inventory, Lepidoptera, Nymphalidae, species richness, threatened species
Covering part of the Atlantic coast of South America, the Atlantic Forest Domain is composed of a mosaic of tropical vegetation with typical forest formations, altitude grasslands, restingas, and mangroves (
The butterfly richness for the Atlantic Domain is approximately 2,100 species (
All these characteristics classify them as bioindicators of environmental quality and illustrate the capacity with which this group responds quickly to landscape and climate changes (
Although studies with butterflies have increased in recent decades, inventories for this group in mountainous regions are still scarce (
The study was carried out in the Reserva Particular do Patrimônio Natural (RPPN) Alto-Montana, in the municipality of Itamonte, in the southern region of the state of Minas Gerais, Brazil (22°21'55"S, 44°48'32"W, Fig.
Map of the geographic location of the study area in Reserva Particular do Patrimônio Natural (RPPN) Alto-Montana, Itamonte, Minas Gerais, Brazil. The boundaries of Brazilian phytogeographic domains were adapted from shapefiles available from the
The butterfly samplings were carried out along the altitudinal gradient in an access trail in the northern area of the RPPN Alto-Montana. This region of the protected area has a slope of 700 meters starting from 1,400 m to a maximum altitude of 2,100 m above sea level. In order to carry out the sampling of butterflies along the gradient, eight altitudinal elevations were delimited with the aid of a Garmin® GPS, distributed across every 100 m of altitude, over a period of one year, in four collection periods, contemplating the rainy season, the dry season, and the transition between the two. Sampling in different seasons ensures that species that have life cycles in different periods can be captured and sampled, thus generating more robust results (
For the capture of frugivorous butterflies, 40 traps of the Van-Someren Rydon type were distributed in groups of five traps for each altitudinal level (Fig.
The collection and active search for butterflies along the gradient were carried out via sweep nets in each altitudinal range, during the same period of 1 year, to capture nectarivorous or even frugivorous butterflies that were eventually flying or foraging. The time for these samplings comprised an interval between 9 am and 4 pm when the butterflies are more active and thus more susceptible to active capture. The collections lasted around 50 minutes for each of the eight gradients, alternating the starting points, that is, on one day we started at 1400 m at 9 am and finished at 2100 m at 4 pm. The next day, we started at 2100 m at 9 am and ended at 1400 m at 4 pm (
The sampling effort was calculated based on the hours of active collections and baited traps. The sampling effort per baited trap was obtained by multiplying the total number of traps placed in the field for all collection days and the total number of hours the traps were available to butterflies on selected sites. The sampling effort per active collection was calculated by multiplying the number of hours (for each collection day) by the number of sweep nets used. Finally, the total sampling effort was obtained by adding the efforts by active collection and baited trap of each day sampled. Thirteen field trips were carried out in the (RPPN) Alto-Montana. During this period, the sampling effort by traps totaled 3,936 hours and the effort by sweep nets totaled 246 hours.
The total richness was estimated for the entire length of the altitudinal gradient. All species were analyzed and classified according to their frequency of occurrence in order to detect rare species. Species in which only one individual was observed were classified as singletons. Species with two individuals observed were classified as doubletons, and species with more than two individuals were considered common species (
To assess sampling sufficiency, a rarefaction curve was constructed using the specaccum function in Vegan (
A total of 1,253 butterflies distributed in 124 species and six families of diurnal butterflies (Hesperiidae, Lycaenidae, Nymphalidae, Papilionidae, Pieridae, and Riodinidae) were observed (Table
Butterfly species recorded in Reserva Particular do Patrimônio Natural (RPPN) Alto-Montana, Itamonte, Minas Gerais, Brazil A Archaeoprepona chalciope (Hübner, 1823) B Archonias brassolis (Fabricius, 1776) C Caligo arisbe (Hübner, 1922) D Catonephele sabrina (Hewitson, 1852) E Dismorphia astyocha (Hübner, 1831) F Dismorphia thermesia (Godart, 1819) G Epiphile hubneri (Hewitson, 1861) H Epiphile orea (Hübner, 1823) I Foetterleia schreineri (Foetterle, 1902). Scale bars: 20 mm.
List of butterfly species from Reserva Particular do Patrimônio Natural (RPPN) Alto-Montana, Itamonte, Minas Gerais states, Brazil. S = richness; m = meters; n = number of individuals. IUCN Status: NE = Not Evaluated; LC = Least Concern.
Family/Species | Altitudinal gradient (m)/Abundance (n) | Total | IUCN Status | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1400 | 1500 | 1600 | 1700 | 1800 | 1900 | 2000 | 2100 | |||
Hesperiidae (S = 27) | ||||||||||
Hesperiinae (S = 15) | ||||||||||
Callimormus saturnus (Herrich-Schäffer, 1869) | – | – | – | 1 | – | – | – | – | 1 | NE |
Calpodes ethlius (Stoll, 1782) | – | 2 | – | 2 | 3 | 5 | 3 | – | 15 | NE |
Cobalopsis nero (Herrich-Schäffer, 1869) | – | 1 | – | – | – | – | – | – | 1 | NE |
Cumbre cumbre (Schaus, 1902) | – | – | – | – | – | 3 | – | – | 3 | NE |
Cymaenes gisca (Evans, 1955) | 2 | 1 | – | 2 | 7 | 5 | 8 | 4 | 29 | NE |
Cymaenes lepta (Hayward, 1938) | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | 1 | 1 | NE |
Cymaenes tripunctata (Latreille, 1824) | – | – | – | – | 1 | – | – | – | 1 | NE |
Cymaenes tripunctus (Herrich-Schäffer, 1865) | 1 | 1 | – | 1 | 6 | 1 | 1 | – | 11 | NE |
Lucida lucia (Capronnier, 1874) | – | 1 | – | – | – | – | – | – | 1 | NE |
Vehilius clavicula (Plötz, 1884) | – | – | – | – | 2 | – | – | – | 2 | NE |
Vettius aurelius (Plötz, 1882) | – | – | 1 | 2 | 1 | – | – | – | 4 | NE |
Vettius diversa (Herrich-Schäffer, 1869) | – | – | 1 | – | – | – | – | – | 1 | NE |
Vettius phyllus (Cramer, 1777) | – | – | – | 1 | 1 | – | – | – | 2 | NE |
Vettius ploetzii (Capronnier, 1874) | – | – | 1 | – | 6 | 5 | 1 | – | 13 | NE |
Zariaspes mys (Hübner, 1808) | – | – | – | 1 | – | – | – | – | 1 | NE |
Eudaminae (S = 1) | ||||||||||
Autochton neis (Geyer, 1832) | – | – | – | – | – | 1 | – | – | 1 | NE |
Pyrginae (S = 11) | ||||||||||
Achlyodes busirus (Stoll, 1782) | – | – | – | – | – | 1 | 2 | 1 | 4 | NE |
Astraptes fulgerator (Walchs, 1775) | 1 | 1 | 1 | – | – | – | – | – | 3 | NE |
Epargyreus socus (Hübner, 1925) | – | 1 | 1 | – | – | – | – | – | 2 | NE |
Heliopetes ochroleuca (Zikán, 1938) | 2 | 3 | 1 | – | 1 | 1 | – | – | 8 | NE |
Oechydrus chersis (Herrich-Schäffer, 1869) | 5 | 1 | – | – | – | – | – | – | 6 | NE |
Pyrgus orcus (Stoll, 1780) | – | – | – | – | – | 1 | – | – | 1 | NE |
Pythonides lancea (Hewitson, 1868) | 1 | 1 | – | – | – | – | – | – | 2 | NE |
Sostrata cronion (C. Felder & R. Felder, 1867) | 2 | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | 2 | NE |
Theagenes dichrous (Mabille, 1878) | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | 1 | 1 | NE |
Urbanus dorantes (Stoll, 1790) | – | – | – | – | 1 | – | – | – | 1 | NE |
Urbanus teleus (Hübner, 1821) | 1 | 2 | 4 | – | 1 | – | – | 1 | 9 | NE |
Lycaenidae (S = 8) | ||||||||||
Theclinae (S = 8) | ||||||||||
Arawacus meliboeus (Fabricius, 1793) | – | – | – | – | – | 1 | – | – | 1 | NE |
Arawacus tadita (Hewitson, 1877) | – | – | – | – | – | 1 | – | – | 1 | NE |
Laothus phydela (Hewitson, 1867) | – | – | – | 1 | – | – | – | – | 1 | NE |
Strymon bubastus (Stoll, 1780) | – | – | – | 1 | – | 1 | – | – | 2 | NE |
Symbiopsis lenitas (Druce, 1907) | – | – | 1 | – | 1 | – | 1 | – | 3 | NE |
Theritas deniva (Hewitson, 1874) | – | – | – | – | – | 1 | – | – | 1 | NE |
Theritas triquetra (Hewitson, 1865) | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | 1 | 1 | NE |
Thestius azaria (Hewitson, 1867) | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | 1 | 1 | NE |
Nymphalidae (S = 65) | ||||||||||
Biblidinae (S = 4) | ||||||||||
Catonephele sabrina (Hewitson, 1852) | 1 | – | 2 | – | 6 | 2 | – | 1 | 12 | NE |
Diaethria candrena (Godart, 1823) | 2 | – | – | – | – | 1 | – | – | 3 | NE |
Epiphile hubneri Hewitson, 1861 | 1 | 4 | 13 | 2 | 3 | – | – | – | 23 | NE |
Epiphile orea (Hübner, 1823) | – | 4 | 8 | 7 | 1 | 6 | – | – | 26 | NE |
Charaxinae (S = 4) | ||||||||||
Archaeoprepona chalciope (Hübner, 1823) | 1 | 1 | – | – | – | – | – | – | 2 | NE |
Memphis moruus (Fabricius, 1775) | – | 1 | 2 | – | – | – | – | – | 3 | NE |
Polygrapha suprema (Schaus, 1920) | – | – | – | – | 4 | 5 | 3 | 5 | 17 | NE |
Zaretis itys (Cramer, 1777) | – | – | 2 | – | – | – | – | – | 2 | NE |
Danainae (S = 7) | ||||||||||
Episcada carcinia (Schaus, 1902) | – | – | – | 1 | – | – | – | – | 1 | NE |
Episcada philoclea (Hewitson, 1854) | – | 1 | – | – | – | – | – | 1 | 2 | NE |
Epityches eupompe (Geyer, 1832) | – | – | 2 | – | 1 | – | 1 | – | 4 | NE |
Hypothyris ninonia (Hübner, 1806) | 1 | 1 | 1 | – | – | – | – | – | 3 | NE |
Mechanitis lysimnia (Fabricius, 1793) | 1 | – | 3 | – | 1 | – | – | – | 5 | NE |
Pseudoscada erruca (Hewitson, 1855) | 2 | – | 1 | – | – | – | – | – | 3 | NE |
Pteronymia sylvo (Geyer, 1832) | 1 | – | 1 | – | 4 | – | – | – | 6 | NE |
Heliconiinae (S = 12) | ||||||||||
Actinote alalia (Felder, 1860) | – | – | – | – | 1 | 1 | – | 2 | 4 | NE |
Actinote bonita (Penz, 1996) | – | – | – | – | – | 3 | – | – | 3 | NE |
Actinote conspicua (Jordan, 1913) | – | – | – | – | 1 | – | – | 2 | 3 | NE |
Actinote dalmeidai (Francini, 1996) | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | 1 | 1 | NE |
Actinote mantiqueira (Freitas, Francini, Paluch & Barbosa, 2018) | – | – | 1 | – | 2 | – | 2 | 6 | 11 | NE |
Actinote surima (Schaus, 1902) | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | 3 | 3 | NE |
Dione juno (Cramer, 1779) | – | – | – | – | – | 1 | – | – | 1 | NE |
Eueides pavana (Ménétriés, 1857) | 2 | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | 2 | NE |
Heliconius besckei (Ménétriés, 1857) | – | – | 2 | 1 | 1 | – | – | – | 4 | NE |
Heliconius erato (Linnaeus, 1758) | 11 | 9 | 11 | 12 | 14 | 4 | 1 | – | 62 | NE |
Heliconius ethilla (Latreille & Godart, 1819) | 2 | 4 | 5 | 1 | – | 1 | – | – | 13 | NE |
Philaethria wernickei (Röber, 1906) | – | – | 1 | – | – | – | – | – | 1 | NE |
Limenitidinae (S = 6) | ||||||||||
Adelpha calliphane (Fruhstorfer, 1915) | 3 | 2 | 1 | – | – | – | – | – | 6 | NE |
Adelpha hyas (Boisduval, 1836) | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | 1 | 1 | NE |
Adelpha mythra (Godart, 1823) | 1 | 2 | 4 | 3 | – | – | – | – | 10 | NE |
Adelpha poltius (Hall, 1938) | – | – | – | 1 | 2 | – | 1 | – | 4 | NE |
Adelpha syma (Godart, 1823) | – | – | – | – | – | – | 1 | 1 | 2 | NE |
Adelpha thessalia (Felder, 1867) | – | – | – | 1 | – | – | – | – | 1 | NE |
Nymphalinae (S = 4) | ||||||||||
Eresia lansdorfi (Godart, 1819) | – | – | 1 | – | – | – | – | – | 1 | NE |
Tegosa anieta (Hewitson, 1864) | 1 | 3 | – | 2 | 2 | – | 1 | – | 9 | NE |
Tegosa claudina (Eschscholtz, 1821) | 6 | 3 | 4 | – | – | 1 | – | – | 14 | NE |
Vanessa braziliensis (Moore, 1883) | – | – | – | – | – | 1 | – | 2 | 3 | NE |
Satyrinae (S = 28) | ||||||||||
Caligo arisbe (Hübner, 1822) | – | – | 1 | – | – | – | – | – | 1 | NE |
Caeruleuptychia helena (Anken, 1994) | 1 | – | 1 | – | – | – | – | – | 2 | NE |
Carminda griseldis (Weymer, 1911) | – | – | – | 1 | – | – | 1 | – | 2 | NE |
Carminda surpresa (Barbosa, Aguiar, Rosa, Zacca & Freitas, 2020) | 1 | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | 1 | NE |
Carminda umuarama (Ebert & Dias, 1997) | 1 | – | – | 1 | – | 1 | 8 | 7 | 18 | NE |
Cissia phronius (Godart, 1824) | – | – | 1 | 1 | 2 | 3 | – | – | 7 | NE |
Eryphanis reevesii (Doubleday, 1849) | – | – | 1 | – | – | – | – | – | 1 | NE |
Eteona tisiphone (Boisduval, 1836) | 1 | – | – | – | – | – | 1 | – | 2 | NE |
Foetterleia schreineri (Foetterle, 1902) | 1 | 2 | – | – | 16 | 23 | 18 | 25 | 85 | NE |
Forsterinaria necys (Godart, 1824) | 5 | 2 | 9 | 6 | 22 | 21 | 10 | 3 | 78 | NE |
Forsterinaria pronophila (Butler, 1867) | 2 | – | 1 | 1 | – | – | 1 | 1 | 6 | NE |
Forsterinaria quantius (Godart, 1824) | 15 | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | 15 | NE |
Godartiana muscosa (Butler, 1870) | 1 | – | 3 | 3 | 1 | – | – | – | 8 | NE |
Moneuptychia itapeva (Freitas, 2007) | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | 13 | 13 | NE |
Moneuptychia montana (Freitas, 2015) | – | – | – | – | – | – | 3 | 2 | 5 | NE |
Moneuptychia pervagata (Freitas, Siewert & Mielke, 2015) | 1 | – | – | – | 1 | 1 | – | 2 | 5 | NE |
Morpho epistrophus (Fabricius, 1796) | 7 | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | 7 | NE |
Morpho portis (Hübner, 1821) | 5 | 20 | 38 | 40 | 71 | 39 | 27 | 9 | 249 | NE |
Narope cyllastros (Doubleday, 1849) | – | – | – | – | 2 | – | 1 | – | 3 | NE |
Opoptera syme (Hübner, 1821) | – | – | 1 | 1 | – | – | – | – | 2 | NE |
Paryphthimoides eous (Butler, 1866) | – | – | 1 | – | – | – | 1 | 1 | 3 | NE |
Paryphthimoides poltys (Prittwitz, 1865) | 1 | – | – | 1 | – | – | – | – | 2 | NE |
Praepedaliodes phanias (Hewitson, 1861) | – | – | – | 2 | 7 | 11 | 18 | 2 | 40 | NE |
Pseudodebis ypthima (Hübner, 1821) | – | – | – | – | – | 1 | – | – | 1 | NE |
Splendeuptychia libitina (Butler, 1870) | – | 1 | 1 | 2 | 4 | – | – | 1 | 9 | NE |
Taygetis ypthima (Hübner, 1816) | – | – | 1 | – | – | – | – | – | 1 | NE |
Yphthimoides angularis (Butler, 1867) | – | 2 | – | – | 1 | – | – | – | 3 | NE |
Yphthimoides ochracea (Butler, 1867) | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | 1 | 1 | NE |
Papilionidae (S = 6) | ||||||||||
Papilioninae (S = 6) | NE | |||||||||
Heraclides hectorides (Esper, 1794) | 2 | 1 | 1 | – | – | – | – | – | 4 | LC |
Mimoides lysithous (Hübner, 1821) | 4 | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | 4 | LC |
Parides agavus (Drury, 1782) | 1 | 1 | – | – | – | – | – | – | 2 | LC |
Parides anchises (Linnaeus, 1758) | 1 | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | 1 | LC |
Parides bunichus (Hübner, 1821) | 6 | 9 | – | – | – | – | – | – | 15 | LC |
Parides proneus (Hübner, 1831) | 4 | 6 | – | 1 | – | – | – | – | 11 | LC |
Pieridae (S = 14) | ||||||||||
Coliadinae (S = 6) | ||||||||||
Eurema albula (Cramer, 1775) | 8 | 16 | 30 | 2 | 1 | 1 | – | – | 58 | NE |
Eurema deva (Doubleday, 1847) | 1 | – | 2 | – | – | 1 | – | 1 | 5 | NE |
Eurema elathea (Cramer, 1777) | 3 | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | 3 | NE |
Eurema lirina (Bates, 1861) | 3 | 3 | – | 1 | – | – | – | – | 7 | NE |
Eurema phiale (Cramer, 1775) | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | 1 | 1 | NE |
Pyrisitia nise (Cramer, 1775) | – | – | – | – | 1 | – | – | – | 1 | NE |
Dismorphiinae (S = 3) | ||||||||||
Dismorphia amphione (Cramer, 1779) | – | 1 | – | 1 | – | – | – | – | 2 | NE |
Dismorphia astyocha (Hübner, 1831) | – | – | 1 | – | – | 1 | – | – | 2 | NE |
Dismorphia thermesia (Godart, 1819) | 6 | 23 | 24 | 40 | 32 | 2 | 1 | – | 128 | NE |
Pierinae (S = 5) | ||||||||||
Archonias brassolis (Fabricius, 1776) | – | 1 | – | – | – | – | – | – | 1 | NE |
Catasticta bithys (Hübner, 1831) | – | – | – | – | 5 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 9 | NE |
Hesperocharis anguitia (Godart, 1819) | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | 1 | 1 | NE |
Hesperocharis erota (Lucas, 1852) | – | – | – | – | 1 | 1 | 5 | 3 | 10 | NE |
Pereute swainsoni (Gray, 1832) | – | 1 | – | – | – | – | 1 | – | 2 | NE |
Riodinidae (S = 4) | ||||||||||
Riodininae (S = 4) | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | ||
Charis cadytis (Hewitson, 1866) | – | 1 | 1 | 1 | – | – | – | – | 3 | NE |
Mesosemia rhodia (Godart, 1824) | – | – | – | 1 | 2 | – | – | – | 3 | NE |
Synargis paulistina (Stichel, 1910) | – | – | – | – | – | – | 1 | – | 1 | NE |
Synargis regulus (Fabricius, 1793) | 1 | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | 1 | NE |
The most abundant species were Morpho portis (Hübner, 1821) (Nymphalidae: Satyrinae, N = 249, Fig.
Butterfly species recorded in Reserva Particular do Patrimônio Natural (RPPN) Alto-Montana, Itamonte, Minas Gerais, Brazil A Heliconius besckei (Ménétriés, 1857) B Heraclides hectorides (Esper, 1794) C Hesperocharis erota (Lucas, 1852) D Memphis moruus (Fabricius, 1775) E Morpho epistrophus (Fabricius, 1796) F Morpho portis (Hübner, 1821) G Opoptera syme (Hübner, 1821) H Parides agavus (Drury, 1782) I Parides anchises (Linnaeus, 1758). Scale bars: 20 mm.
Butterfly species recorded in Reserva Particular do Patrimônio Natural (RPPN) Alto-Montana, Itamonte, Minas Gerais, Brazil A Parides proneus (Hübner, 1831) B Pereute swainsoni (Gray, 1832) C Philaethria wernickei (Röber, 1906) D Polygrapha suprema (Schaus, 1920) E Vanessa braziliensis (Moore, 1897) F Zaretis itys (Cramer, 1777). Scale bars: 20 mm.
The rarefaction curve did not reveal a tendency toward stabilization (Fig.
Rarefaction curve representing the relationship between species and sampled area. The line represents the average calculated value of the species collected at the 13 sampling periods in Reserva Particular do Patrimônio Natural (RPPN) Alto-Montana, Itamonte, Minas Gerais, Brazil. The shaded area represents the standard error (α = 0.05).
Our survey showed that the butterfly community of the RPPN Alto Montana is quite diverse, especially when we take into account the size of the area in hectares. With considerable richness, our data suggested a positive potential for the RPPN Alto Montana to provide relevant information on butterfly richness for the Serra da Mantiqueira region. Although data on butterfly biodiversity is still incipient today, especially for mountainous regions (
Our results showed a high richness of butterflies for a relatively small area, when we compare the extension in hectares of the RPPN Alto Montana with other areas already studied. Thus, the richness of butterfly species found in this work was higher than that observed for other mountainous regions of Brazil (
Comparing our study with the species lists published by
Being a megadiverse group, studies with insects generally do not show stabilization in their rarefaction curves (
The lack of stabilization in the accumulation curve may be due to the species’ rarity, since almost half of the sampling species are doubletons and singletons. The classification of species recorded in singletons and doubletons showed that the evaluated butterfly community is largely represented by rare species, 46% of the sampled richness. Rare species in the vast majority of cases are distributed in defined environmental ranges, with specific conditions (
Nymphalidae and Hesperiidae were the most representative families in this study, as well as in similar surveys already carried out for other Atlantic Forest sampling sites in Minas Gerais (
Morpho portis (Hübner, 1821), Dismorphia thermesia (Godart, 1819), and Foetterleia schreineri (Foetterle, 1902) were the three most abundant species in this survey. All occur predominantly in high-altitude regions, both in reforestation areas and preserved forests (
The Atlantic Forest has suffered high losses in its biodiversity (de Lima 2020), and for the state of Minas Gerais, there are few butterfly inventories in this phytogeographic Domain (
The authors would like to thank UFSJ,
The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
No ethical statement was reported.
Cássio Cardoso Pereira and Vinícius Sperandei thank Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior – Brazil (CAPES) – Finance Code 001. Tatiana Cornelissen acknowledges CNPq.
Andrêsa Garcia Andrade: Contribution in the concept and design of the study; Contribution to data collection; Contribution to butterfly identification; Contribution to manuscript preparation. Cássio Cardoso Pereira: Contribution to data analysis and interpretation; Contribution to manuscript preparation; Contribution to critical revision. Vinícius da Fontoura Sperandei: Contribution to data collection; Contribution to butterfly identification; Contribution to manuscript preparation; Contribution to critical revision. Tatiana Cornelissen: Contribution in the concept and design of the study; Contribution to data collection; Contribution to manuscript preparation; Contribution to critical revision.
Andrêsa G. Andrade https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7514-2324
Cássio Cardoso Pereira https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6017-4083
Vinícius F. Sperandei https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3093-706X
Tatiana Cornelissen https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2721-7010
All of the data that support the findings of this study are available in the main text.