Research Article |
Andrêsa G. Andrade‡, Cássio Cardoso Pereira§, Vinícius F. Sperandei|, Tatiana Cornelissen§
|
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
|
 |
Abstract
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.
Key words
Conservation, Hesperiidae, inventory, Lepidoptera, Nymphalidae, species richness, threatened species
Introduction
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 (
Materials and methods
Study area
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
Data sampling
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.
Data analysis
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 (
Results
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).
Discussion
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 (
Conclusion
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 (
Acknowledgеments
The authors would like to thank UFSJ,
Additional information
Conflict of interest
The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Ethical statement
No ethical statement was reported.
Funding
Cássio Cardoso Pereira and Vinícius Sperandei thank Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior – Brazil (CAPES) – Finance Code 001. Tatiana Cornelissen acknowledges CNPq.
Author contributions
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.
Author ORCIDs
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
Data availability
All of the data that support the findings of this study are available in the main text.
References
- Alvares CA, Stape JL, Sentelhas PC, De Moraes Gonçalves JL, Sparovek G (2013) Köppe's climate classification map for Brazil. Meteorologische Zeitschrift (Berlin) 22(6): 711–728. https://doi.org/10.1127/0941-2948/2013/0507
- Andrade DA de, Teixeira IRV (2017) Diversidade de lepidoptera em um fragmento florestal em muzambinho, minas gerais. Ciência Florestal 27: 1229–1241. https://doi.org/10.5902/1980509830311
- Bond-Buckup G, Buckup L, Dreier C (2008) Biodiversidade dos campos de Cima da Serra. Libretos, Porto Alegre, 195 pp.
- Bordin SMS, Monteiro M, Ferreira VW, Lutinski JA, Rodrigues ENL (2019) Frugivorous butterflies from the Atlantic Forest in Southern Brazil (Lepidoptera: Nymphalidae). Biota Neotropica 19(4): e20180722. https://doi.org/10.1590/1676-0611-bn-2018-0722
- Brown KS, Freitas AVL (2000) Atlantic Forest Butterflies: Indicators for Landscape Conservation1. Biotropica 32(4): 934–956. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-7429.2000.tb00631.x
- Casagrande MM, Duarte M (2023) Lepidoptera. Catálogo Taxonômico da Fauna do Brasil. http://fauna.jbrj.gov.br/fauna/faunadobrasil/84
- Chao A (1984) Non-parametric estimation of the number of classes in a population. Scandinavian Journal of Statistics, Theory and Applications 11(4): 265–270. https://www.jstor.org/stable/4615964
- Chao A, Shen T-J (2004) Nonparametric prediction in species sampling. Journal of Agricultural Biological & Environmental Statistics 9(3): 253–269. https://doi.org/10.1198/108571104X3262
- Chowdhury S, Jennions MD, Zalucki MP, Maron M, Watson JEM, Fuller RA (2023) Protected areas and the future of insect conservation. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 38(1): 85–95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2022.09.004
- Colli‐Silva M, Reginato M, Cabral A, Forzza RC, Pirani JR, Vasconcelos TNDC (2020) Evaluating shortfalls and spatial accuracy of biodiversity documentation in the Atlantic Forest, the most diverse and threatened Brazilian phytogeographic domain. Taxon 69(3): 567–577. https://doi.org/10.1002/tax.12239
- Colwell RK (2013) EstimateS: Statistical Estimation of Species Richness and Shared Species from Samples. Version 9.1.0. User’s Guide and application. https://www.robertkcolwell.org/pages/1407-estimates
- Colwell RK, Chao A, Gotelli NJ, Lin S-Y, Mao CX, Chazdon RL, Longino JT (2012) Models and estimators linking individual-based and sample-based rarefaction, extrapolation and comparison of assemblages. Journal of Plant Ecology 5(1): 3–21. https://doi.org/10.1093/jpe/rtr044
- Crist TO, Veech JA (2006) Additive partitioning of rarefaction curves and species–area relationships: Unifying α-, β- and γ-diversity with sample size and habitat area. Ecology Letters 9(8): 923–932. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2006.00941.x
- Cruz BPD, De Castro EM, Cardoso MDG, De Souza KF, Machado SMF, Pompeu PV, Fontes MAL (2014) Comparison of leaf anatomy and essential oils from Drimys brasiliensis Miers in a montane cloud forest in Itamonte, MG, Brazil. Botanical Studies 55(41): 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40529-014-0041-y
- de Lima RAF, Oliveira AA, Pitta GR, De Gasper AL, Vibrans AC, Chave J, Ter Steege H, Prado PI (2020) The erosion of biodiversity and biomass in the Atlantic Forest biodiversity hotspot. Nature Communications 11(1): 6347. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-20217-w
- DeVries PJ (1987) The butterflies of Costa Rica and their natural history. Priceton University, New Jersey, 327 pp.
- Dinerstein E, Olson D, Joshi A, Vynne C, Burgess ND, Wikramanayake E, Hahn N, Palminteri S, Hedao P, Noss R, Hansen M, Locke H, Ellis EC, Jones B, Barber CV, Hayes R, Kormos C, Martin V, Crist E, Sechrest W, Price L, Baillie JEM, Weeden D, Suckling K, Davis C, Sizer N, Moore R, Thau D, Birch T, Potapov P, Turubanova S, Tyukavina A, De Souza N, Pintea L, Brito JC, Llewellyn OA, Miller AG, Patzelt A, Ghazanfar SA, Timberlake J, Klöser H, Shennan-Farpón Y, Kindt R, Lillesø J-PB, Van Breugel P, Graudal L, Voge M, Al-Shammari KF, Saleem M (2017) An Ecoregion-Based Approach to Protecting Half the Terrestrial Realm. Bioscience 67(6): 534–545. https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/bix014
- Efron B (1979) Bootstrap methods: Another look at the Jackknife. Annals of Statistics 7(1): 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1214/aos/1176344552
- Ferraz ACP, Gadelha BDQ, Aguiar-Coelho VM (2009) Análise faunística de Calliphoridae (Diptera) da Reserva Biológica do Tinguá, Nova Iguaçu, Rio de Janeiro. Revista Brasileira de Entomologia 53(4): 620–628. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0085-56262009000400012
- Francini RB, Duarte M, Mielke OHH, Caldas A, Freitas AVL (2011) Butterflies (Lepidoptera, Papilionoidea and Hesperioidea) of the "Baixada Santista" region, coastal São Paulo, southeastern Brazil. Revista Brasileira de Entomologia 55(1): 55–68. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0085-56262011000100010
- Freitas AVL, Francini RB, Souza TS (2009) Immature stages and natural history of the threatened butterfly Actinote quadra (Nymphalidae: Heliconiinae: Acraeini). Tropical Lepidoptera Research 19(2): 83–88.
- Freitas AVL, Kaminski LA, Iserhard CA, Silva AK, Barbosa EDP, Araujo PF (2011) Inventário das borboletas do Parque Nacional Do Itatiaia, RJ, 1–9. http://www2.ib.unicamp.br/labor/site/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/RT-Itatiaia-RJ-Relat%C3%B3rio.pdf
- Global Biodiversity Information – GBIF (2023) Free and open access to biodiversity data. https://www.gbif.org/what-is-gbif
- Girardello M, Chapman A, Dennis R, Kaila L, Borges PAV, Santangeli A (2019) Gaps in butterfly inventory data: A global analysis. Biological Conservation 236: 289–295. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2019.05.053
- Gueratto PE, Carreira JYO, Santos JP, Tacioli A, Freitas AVL (2020) Effects of forest trails on the community structure of tropical butterflies. Journal of Insect Conservation 24(2): 309–319. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10841-019-00199-x
- Henriques NR, Beirão MDV, Brasil E, Cornelissen T (2019) Butterflies (Lepidoptera: Papilionoidea) from the campos rupestres of Serra de São José, Minas Gerais, Brazil. Biota Neotropica 19(3): e20180655. https://doi.org/10.1590/1676-0611-bn-2018-0655
- IBGE - Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística (2023) Biomas do Brasil. https://www.ibge.gov.br
- ICMBio (2018) Livro vermelho da fauna brasileira ameaçada de extinção. https://www.gov.br/icmbio/pt-br/centrais-de-conteudo/publicacoes/publicacoes-diversas/livro_vermelho_2018_vol7.pdf
- International Union for Conservation of Nature – IUCN (2023) The IUCN red list of threatened species. https://www.iucnredlist.org/
- Joly CA, Metzger JP, Tabarelli M (2014) Experiences from the Brazilian Atlantic Forest: Ecological findings and conservation initiatives. The New Phytologist 204(3): 459–473. https://doi.org/10.1111/nph.12989
- Mariano RF, Rezende VL, Mendes CN, Santos RMD, Souza CRD, Moura ASD, Machado FS, Pompeu PV, Carvalho WAC, Fontes MAL (2020) Phylogenetic beta diversity in an upper montane Atlantic Forest along an altitudinal gradient. Plant Ecology 221(8): 671–682. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11258-020-01041-0
- Marques MC, Grelle CE (2021) The Atlantic Forest: History, biodiversity, threats and opportunities of the mega-diverse forest. Springer Nature, London, 527 pp. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-55322-7
- Mazza I, Rosa CAD, Souza ACD, Aximoff I, Passamani M (2018) Mamíferos de médio e grande porte registrados em florestas dominadas por Araucaria angustifolia na rppn alto-montana, serra da mantiqueira. Oecologia Australis 22(1): 74–88. https://doi.org/10.4257/oeco.2018.2201.07
- Melo DHA, Filgueiras BKC, Iserhard CA, Iannuzzi L, Freitas AVL, Leal IR (2019) Effect of habitat loss and fragmentation on fruit-feeding butterflies in the Brazilian Atlantic Forest. Canadian Journal of Zoology 97(7): 588–596. https://doi.org/10.1139/cjz-2018-0202
- Ministério do Meio Ambiente (2022) Lista oficial das espécies da fauna e flora ameaçadas de extinção. https://www.icmbio.gov.br/cepsul/images/stories/legislacao/Portaria/2020/P_mma_148_2022_altera_anexos_P_mma_443_444_445_2014_atualiza_especies_ameacadas_extincao.pdf
- Montejo-Kovacevich G, Meier JI, Bacquet CN, Warren IA, Chan YF, Kucka M, Salazar C, Rueda-M N, Montgomery SH, McMillan WO, Kozak KM, Nadeau NJ, Martin SH, Jiggins CD (2022) Repeated genetic adaptation to altitude in two tropical butterflies. Nature Communications 13(1): 4676. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-022-32316-x
- Montgomery GA, Dunn RR, Fox R, Jongejans E, Leather SR, Saunders ME, Shortall CR, Tingley MW, Wagner DL (2020) Is the insect apocalypse upon us? How to find out. Biological Conservation 241: 108327. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2019.108327
- Myers N, Mittermeier RA, Mittermeier CG, Da Fonseca GAB, Kent J (2000) Biodiversity hotspots for conservation priorities. Nature 403(6772): 853–858. https://doi.org/10.1038/35002501
- Oksanen J (2013) Vegan: ecological diversity. https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/vegan/vignettes/diversity-vegan.pdf
- Oliveira GCS, Souza MM de, Clemente MA, Vieira KM (2021) Efeito da altitude sobre riqueza de vespas sociais (Vespidae, Polistinae). Acta Biológica Catarinense 8(2): 54–61. https://doi.org/10.21726/abc.v8i2.1436
- Oliveira LA, Milani LR, Souza MM (2018) Riqueza de borboletas (Lepidoptera) no Parque Estadual da Serra do Papagaio, sul de Minas Gerais, Brasil. MG. Biota 11(3): 5–21.
- Pearman PB, Weber D (2007) Common species determine richness patterns in biodiversity indicator taxa. Biological Conservation 138(1–2): 109–119. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2007.04.005
- Pompeu PV, Fontes MAL, Santos RMD, Garcia PO, Batista TA, Carvalho WAC, Oliveira Filho ATD (2014) Floristic composition and structure of an upper montane cloud forest in the Serra da Mantiqueira Mountain Range of Brazil. Acta Botanica Brasílica 28(3): 456–464. https://doi.org/10.1590/0102-33062014abb3239
- Quenouille MH (1956) Notes on bias in estimation. Biometrika 43(3/4): 353–360. https://doi.org/10.2307/2332914
- Quintero I, Jetz W (2018) Global elevational diversity and diversification of birds. Nature 555(7695): 246–250. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature25794
- R Core Team (2021) R: A language and environment for statistical computing. https://www.r-project.org/
- Raven PH, Gereau RE, Phillipson PB, Chatelain C, Jenkins CN, Ulloa Ulloa C (2020) The distribution of biodiversity richness in the tropics. Science Advances 6(37): eabc6228. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.abc6228
- Ribeiro MC, Metzger JP, Martensen AC, Ponzoni FJ, Hirota MM (2009) The Brazilian Atlantic Forest: How much is left, and how is the remaining forest distributed? Implications for conservation. Biological Conservation 142(6): 1141–1153. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2009.02.021
- Ribeiro DB, Batista R, Prado PI, Brown Jr KS, Freitas AVL (2012) The importance of small scales to the fruit-feeding butterfly assemblages in a fragmented landscape. Biodiversity and Conservation 21(3): 811–827. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-011-0222-x
- Ribeiro DB, Williams MR, Specht A, Freitas AVL (2016) Vertical and temporal variability in the probability of detection of fruit-feeding butterflies and moths (Lepidoptera) in tropical forest: Detection of fruit-feeding Lepidoptera. Austral Entomology 55(1): 112–120. https://doi.org/10.1111/aen.12157
- Sánchez-Bayo F, Wyckhuys KAG (2019) Worldwide decline of the entomofauna: A review of its drivers. Biological Conservation 232: 8–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2019.01.020
- Santos JC, Fernandes GW (2021) Measuring arthropod biodiversity: a handbook of sampling methods. Springer, London, 600 pp. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-53226-0
- Santos JPD, Iserhard CA, Teixeira MO, Romanowski HP (2011) Fruit-feeding butterflies guide of subtropical Atlantic Forest and Araucaria Moist Forest in State of Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil. Biota Neotropica 11(3): 253–274. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1676-06032011000300022
- Santos JPD, Freitas AVL, Brown Jr KS, Carreira JYO, Gueratto PE, Rosa AHB, Lourenço GM, Accacio GM, Uehara‐Prado M, Iserhard CA, Richter A, Gawlinski K, Romanowski HP, Mega NO, Teixeira MO, Moser A, Ribeiro DB, Araujo PF, Filgueiras BKC, Melo DHA, Leal IR, Beirão MDV, Ribeiro SP, Cambuí ECB, Vasconcelos RN, Cardoso MZ, Paluch M, Greve RR, Voltolini JC, Galetti M, Regolin AL, Sobral‐Souza T, Ribeiro MC (2018) Atlantic butterflies: A data set of fruit‐feeding butterfly communities from the Atlantic forests. Ecology 99(12): 2875–2875. https://doi.org/10.1002/ecy.2507
- Shirai LT, Machado PA, Mota LL, Rosa AHB, Freitas AVL (2019) DnB, the Database of Nymphalids in Brazil, with a Checklist for Standardized Species Lists. Journal of the Lepidopterists Society 73(2): 93. https://doi.org/10.18473/lepi.73i2.a4
- Smith EP, Van Belle G (1984) Nonparametric Estimation of Species Richness. Biometrics 40(1): 119. https://doi.org/10.2307/2530750
- Soldati D, Silveira FAD, Silva ARM (2019) Butterfly fauna (Lepidoptera, Papilionoidea) in an ecotone between two biodiversity hotspots in Minas Gerais, Brazil. Papéis Avulsos de Zoologia 59: e20195902. https://doi.org/10.11606/1807-0205/2019.59.02
- Stevens VM, Trochet A, Van Dyck H, Clobert J, Baguette M (2012) How is dispersal integrated in life histories: a quantitative analysis using butterflies: Dispersal life-history correlates. Ecology Letters 15(1): 74–86. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2011.01709.x
- Thomson JR, Fleishman E, Nally RM, Dobkin DS (2006) Original article: Comparison of predictor sets for species richness and the number of rare species of butterflies and birds: Comparing predictors of species richness and rare species. Journal of Biogeography 34(1): 90–101. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2699.2006.01576.x
- Uehara-Prado M, Fernandes JDO, Bello ADM, Machado G, Santos AJ, Vaz-de-Mello FZ, Freitas AVL (2009) Selecting terrestrial arthropods as indicators of small-scale disturbance: A first approach in the Brazilian Atlantic Forest. Biological Conservation 142(6): 1220–1228. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2009.01.008
- Vieira LR, Henriques NR, De Souza MM (2022) Communities of Lepidoptera along an elevational gradient in the Brazilian Atlantic Forest (Lepidoptera: Papilionoidea). SHILAP Revista de Lepidopterologia 50(197): 175–189. https://doi.org/10.57065/shilap.203
- Vilanova MRN (2015) Long-term rainfall trends in Serra da Mantiqueira Environmental Protection Area, southeast Brazil. Environmental Earth Sciences 73(8): 4779–4790. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12665-014-3763-y
- Viloria AL (1998) Studies on the systematics and biogeography of some montane satyrid butterflies (Lepidoptera). PhD Thesis, King’s College London, University of London, London, England.
- Warren AD, Ogawa JR, Brower AVZ (2008) Phylogenetic relationships of subfamilies and circumscription of tribes in the family Hesperiidae (Lepidoptera: Hesperioidea). Cladistics 24(5): 642–676. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1096-0031.2008.00218.x
- Zikán JF, Zikán W (1968) Inseto-fauna do Itatiaia e da Mantiqueira. Pesquisa Agropecuária Brasileira 3(1): 45–109.