Download Investigating various butterfly species abundance and distribution in

BUTTERFLY SPECIES POPULATION ABUNDANCE AND
DISTRIBUTION IN BORNEOS PRIMARY & SECONDARY
FORESTS
Investigating the impacts selective logging can have on Butterfly distribution and abundance.
Summer Coffison and Jacinta Zalucki
SUMMER COFFISON S2942775
[email protected]
Contents
Abstract: ....................................................................................................................................................... 2
Data Collection: ............................................................................................................................................ 5
Analysis: ....................................................................................................................................................... 0
Discussion .................................................................................................................................................... 0
Conclusion:................................................................................................................................................... 1
Recommendations:....................................................................................................................................... 1
Future research: ........................................................................................................................................... 2
Reference List: ............................................................................................................................................. 3
Appendices:.................................................................................................................................................. 5
Abstract:
Investigating various butterfly species abundance and distribution in Bornean primary and
secondary forests. The aim of this report is to better understand the effects of selective logging in
native forests and investigate the value of secondary forests. It was hypothesised that the flora of
these forest would greatly impact the butterfly species that reside there. This is because of the
butterfly’s intricate relationship with host plants for their lifecycle. The host plants should have the
ability to influence weather common butterfly species are strong flyers, lifecycle lengths and
therefore reproduction rates. In order to prove this hypothesis data was collected from three
separate sites, while close geographically they were very different habitats. These three sites were
the primary forest, the primary forest edge and the secondary forest edge. This data was then
collated and analysed using excel Microsoft 2013 to graph species similarity to compare the
different areas. A species curve of the most abundant species to the least abundant to investigate
the most suitable habitats. This research found that the primary forest had a species richness of
24 and an abundance of 64 species, while the Primary forest edge had a species richness of 40
and an abundance of 155 and finally the secondary forest edge had a species richness of 37 and
an abundance of 117. This results were unexpected as the primary forest was expected to have
not only a greater diversity but also a greater abundance. This shows the large ecological value of
secondary forest as habitats for native species. There was a significant drop in species diversity
for the secondary forest.
Introduction:
There are around three times as many describes species of insects than there are of all other
animals combined (Sabrosky, 1953). This is staggering as their roles within the ecosystem are
often overlooked in comparison to the megafauna. Their size however is in no way equal to the
importance their role is on the health of an ecosystem (Christharina & Abang, 2014). They have
important roles in pollinating, food sources, bioturbation, decomposion, parasitism and herbivory;
they encourage biodiversity and are therefore necessary for a healthy habitat (Christharina &
Abang, 2014). Furthermore, insects respond to disturbance more rapidly than other fauna, and
butterflies in particular are extremely sensitive to environmental changes resulting from
disturbance (Kremen et al. 1993) Therefore, through studying the insects found in an area,
scientist can effectively gauge the overall health of that environment and subsequently understand
their conservation value. The health of these environments are negatively impacted through
developmental processes such as logging (even selective) or agriculture; this is an increasing
concern for Borneo’s intensive agricultural practices (Cazzolla Gatti et al., 2014 & Bicknell,
Struebig, Edwards, & Davies, 2014). Since the 1970s Borneo has lost 75% of its native forests, to
make way for agricultural processes such as palm oil (Gaveau et al., 2014). The magnitude of this
habitat loss is not only a concern but also the rapid rate at which this is occurring; furthermore,
these stresses are worsened due to global warming, this dangerous combination results in a loss
of biodiversity and species vulnerability and in extreme cases species extinction (Malcolm, et. al,
2006). Therefore, analysing species distribution and abundance are important in or to understand
how species are coping with developmental impacts and across habitats.
This report will be investigating various butterfly species population abundance and distribution in
Sabah, Borneo. Maliau Basin Studies Centre (See figure 1) is located deep within the Maliau
Basins conservation area, free from impacts such as fringing from palm oil plantations or the
extensive logging in the area. Most of the conservation areas forests are Diptriocarp dominant
(Ghazoul, n.d.). The primary forest had 90% canopy cover and is as name states, primary
untouched forest. The primary forest edge, was a well-lit narrow forest corridor, with a spring and
puddles along sections. The secondary forest had been selectively logged, with regrowth and
occurring for the past decade. There were some dirt roads sectioning the area, with notable
disturbance levels and it was significantly more open than the primary forest. In total a sample of
336 individuals were collected 69 different species of the 950 that exist in Borneo
This is an important comparison as habit loss has seen severe impacts on Borneos flora and
fauna, however, just how much is still being discovered (Butler, 2012). Therefore in order to
understand this and also understand how much the environment will be impacted by the reduction
and even loss of these creatures is important. The aim of this report is to better understand the
impacts of development in native forests. This can be achieved as the Maliau Basin Conservation
area where this report was conducted has both primary and secondary forests providing a unique
and valuable resource where populations can be compare logged to untouched forest in almost
identical habitats. Furthermore, it also provides the opportunity to investigate the value of
secondary or logged forests, and if biodiversity and abundance of native species have been
negatively impacted. It was hypothesised that there will be a greater abundance and species
richness of butterfly populations in the primary forest and primary forest edge, in comparison to the
selectively logged secondary forest edge. As areas with higher levels of disturbance are often
associated with lower levels of biodiversity as succession shows that an event initial plant species
regrowth are often weed species as they need an increased tolerance range to survive the
conditions (Christharina & Abang, 2014).
Figure 1 showing an aerial map of Maliau Basin.
Furthermore, additional predictions are that the native flora of these forest would greatly impact
the butterfly species that reside there; because of butterflies’ intricate relationship with host plants
for their lifecycle. This is because both butterfly and plant species, have developed different
measures to avoid predation and increase the chances of offspring survival (Fiedler, 1996).
Including plant – butterfly symbiotic and mutualistic or even predatory relationships. For example,
some butterfly species choose specific plants as host to lay their eggs on and to for their young to
feed on to utilise the plants allopathic or chemical defences, in which they ironically produce to
prevent herbivory. In a feat of evolutionary brilliance, the caterpillars are not only not deterred by
the harmful chemicals but they encourage them, as certain species of butterflies have developed
ways to not only protect themselves from these chemicals but they are able to utilise them to their
own advantage and protect themselves them unpalatable to predators both in their juvenile and
adult stages (Fiedler, 1996).
Butterflies undergo a process called complete metamorphosis, their life cycle consists of four
stages: egg, larva, pupa, and adult (Schreiner & Nafus, 1997). The first stage the egg, is usually
laid on a host plant; this is chosen by the parent as a food plant for its next stage: the larvae. Once
hatched the caterpillars, only ambition is to eat in order to gain energy needed for the next stage.
In which the caterpillar spins a chrysalis and undergoes a transformation (Schreiner & Nafus,
1997) .Once it emerges it is an adult butterfly and its new ambition is to reproduce, this stage of
the life cycle can last anywhere from a few days to a number of months. Depending on weather
the adult is a male or female will influence its intentions, for example females are often searching
for food plants and are more likely to be found in dense forest areas. Whereas, males looking to
mate are commonly found in well sunlit areas such as vegetation corridors like that of the primary
forest edge (Schreiner & Nafus, 1997).
Methods:
Data was collected from three separate sites, while close geographically they were very different
habitats. These three sites were the primary forest, the primary forest edge and the secondary
forest edge. The butterflies were caught using two separate methods, nets and traps. Standard
butterfly nets were used at both the primary and secondary edge locations and the traps were only
used along the primary forest edge and in the primary forest. Of the 21 butterfly traps in total 12 of
them were located on the primary forest edge and 9 inside the primary forest. The traps were
placed randomly around the area with various separation lengths. The type of trap used was a
cone trap, where a net is suspended in a tree with a dish of fruit below. The butterflies land on the
dish and are caught when they go to fly up and away. Both the trap and nets size and type were
consistent across the days and locations.
The butterflies were enticed to land on the traps by baiting them with fruit and paper towel soaked
with a popular sweet butterfly bating recipe which was a mixture of cane sugar, beer, molasses
and mashed bananas. The fruit and paper towels were resoaked every second day to ensure the
continued attraction of butterflies. The traps were checked daily to collect species. Furthermore, all
data was collected over 7 days at each of the 3 locations twice a day during morning and
afternoon. The data was collected by a team of scientists over the week.
Once the butterflies were caught they were carefully placed in ‘sleeping’ bags filled with paper
towel soaked with acetone to be humanely killed. They were then collected and taken to the lab
where their wings were removed to be identified and laminated (see figure 2). Neither their age
nor gender of the subjects were recorded.
Figure 2 showing wing removal of a butterfly for identification
purposes.
Analysis:
Statistical analysis and data manipulations were carried out using Microsoft Excel 2013.
Firstly, a species abundance curve of all species was produced to identify the most and least common species found across all locations. This
was done to suggest the butterflies with the most suitable habitat across locations.
Once these comparisons were made the data was further analysed to compare species diversity in the nets vs. the traps. This graph shows the
total species abundance regardless of location. The total species richness across all sights were 69 with a total abundance of 336 individuals.
The graph clearly shows that Catopsila pomona is the most common species at 34 individuals, and closely followed by Ideopsis vulgaris at 33
individuals. They are followed by Eurema hecabe at 21. There are also a number of species where only one individual was caught.
Figure 3 Speceis Richness across all locations
The figure below shows the percentages of species abundance in a pie chart for only the Primary
Forest. The following pie charts list the species richness about five individuals, less than that and
they are placed under other. This allows the most abundant species to be clearly shown. The
‘other’ species make up less than half combined at 40.3% and the Mycalesis kina at the most
abundant at 14.5% closely followed by Charaxes bernards at 12.9%.
Figure 4: Species abundance percentages at Primary Forest
This shows the Species abundance for the Primary Forest Edge, there is a higher species
diversity here.The other percent is very similarly in the percentage of the primary forest data at
43.1%. The most abundance species however show no overlap, with none of the most abundant
species being found at both location. This does not include the species abundance of the less
abundant specie in ‘other’. The most abundant species being the Catopsila Pomona and the
Ideopsis vulgaris.
Figure 5: Species abundance percentages at Primary Forest Edge
The final pie chart shows the species abundance for the Secondary Forest Edge, the ‘other’
abundance trend continues with the 38.1% all within and around 40%. That is the only trend to
continue as there is common abundant species between the primary forest edge and the
secondary forest edge. The similar species are the Ideaopsis vulgaris, Athyma nefte and the
Eurema hecabe. The most abundant species is the Ideaopsis vulgaris only just ahead of the
Moduza horsfieldi at 10.3%.
Figure 6: Species abundance percentages at Secondary Forest Edge
The figure below shows the butterfly species distribution for all locations and overlaps common
species found at either all, both more than one and shows the total number of species found at
each individual location. Only three species were found at all locations, and only six were found at
the largest overlap between the primary forest edge and the secondary forest edge.
Figure 7 showing Species abundance at each location
The figure below is an Ordination plot showing the species similarity and difference at each
location including the trapping method of the species. The primary forest traps are shown in light
blue, the primary forest edge nets are shown in green and the secondary forest is shown in dark
blue. This clearly shows that the species caught in the Primary forest were very different to the
species caught at the other two locations. There is a single outlier from the primary traps towards
the secondary and primary edges, even so it is out on its own. So while the Primary Forest was
the least abundant and genetically different, the species caught at the other two locations are very
similar.
Figure 8: Species difference between locations
Discussion
This research found that the primary forest had a species richness of 24 and an abundance of 64
species, and the most abundant species at the primary forest was the Mycalesis kina (Chocolate
bush brown). The Mycalesis kina preferred host plant is the echinochloa colona poaceae. The
Poaceae is a type of grass that has allopatheic chemical defences (Sánchez–Moreiras, Weiss, &
Reigosa–Roger, 2003). The Mycalesis kina or Chocolate Bush Brown is typically found in sun-lit
sections of forests and is endemic to Borneo. It was not only the Primary forests most abundant
species but it was only found there using the traps. Mycalesis kina is very sensitive to
environmental changes.
Continuing on, the Primary forest edge had the largest species richness at 40 as well as the
largest abundance of 155 and the most abundant butterfly species was the Catopsilia pomona
(Common Emigrant) It was also the most abundance specie regardless of location. Finally, the
secondary edge forest had a species richness of 37 and an abundance of 117 with the most
common butterfly being the Ideopsis vulgaris (blue grass tiger). The butterfly species distribution
can been seen below in figure 5, showing that of the 69 different species found only 3 were found
at all locations. Them being the Athyma nefte (the Colour Sergeant), Eurema hecabe (Common
Grass Yellow) and the Mycalesis anapita (Tawny Bushbrown) which are all common species. The
figures scarcely improve for the species found at two locations, for any of the combinations. For
example, the primary forest and the secondary forest edge who show the greatest species
similarity (see figure 6) only had six common species. This figures are small in comparison to the
total number of species caught at each location. This was surprising due to butterflies ease of
locomotion, however further supports the hypothesis of the importance of plant species in different
habitats.
Ideopsis vulgaris at 33 individuals was the second most common species (see figure 2) and found
at both the primary forest edge and the secondary forest edges common host plant is the
heliotropium indicum which provides the caterpillar protection by making it distasteful to predators.
This plant produces Pyrrolizidine alkaloid which are hepatotoxic, or damaging to the liver (Smith &
Culvenor, 1981). However these toxic chemicals are not harmful to Ideopsis vulgaris who instead
use the plants defences to its own advantage. The host plant heliotropium indicum is considered
an invasive weed and is often associated with wet, fertile soils, in disturbed areas often near rivers
and lakes (Atlas of Living Australia, 2016). This is true for both the primary and secondary forest
edge (Invasive Species Compendium, 2016). The fact that these species use plant Carcinogens
and Pyrrolizidine alkaloid is expected. The Catopsilia pomona pomona which while was only found
at the Primary Forest edge was the most abundant with 21 individuals found. The particular
species favours Fabaceae and Cassia species as host plants which contain alkaloids and other
toxic nitrogenous compounds also providing chemical protection (Wink, 2013). The Pomona
further uses its flying ability to evade predators in fact, its common name is the (Schreiner &
Nafus, 1997)
Furthermore, secondary forests recover faster than less sustainably logged forests and the forest
in question has had allowed recovery for a number of years since the initial logging (Bicknell,
Struebig, Edwards, & Davies, 2014). Logging is known to be destructive, however, a more
sustainable method is selective logging where only the larger trees are intermittently removed from
an area as opposed to all vegetation being cleared which is a common practice in Borneo as after
the land is cleared for timber they are used for Palm Oil Plantations (Bicknell, et. Al., 2014).
However, even so this shows the large ecological value of secondary forest as habitats for native
species. There was a significant drop in species diversity for the secondary forest.
The ordinate plot clearly shows a difference in the species between the primary forest and the
primary and secondary forest edges. This raises questions as butterflies have the ability to travel
long distances and the locations are within a close proximity to one another. The influencing
factors in which certain species prefer certain habitats could be attributed to the forestry canopy
cover percentages. The primary forest had an average cover of 70% and the secondary forest had
an average cover of 30%. This is relevant as butterflies particular males seek sunlit corridors as
flight ability is determined by body temperature which regulated by the environment. This in turn
determines their ability to mate; which is a concern due to warming temperatures from global
warming (Hirota & Obara, 2000 & Clench, 1966).
Loss of soil quality in secondary forests this is a particular issue as the use of defensive chemicals
are costly for plants because of the resources consumed in their biosynthesis, their toxicity to the
plant itself or the ecological consequences of their accumulation (Cazzolla Gatti et al., 2014). This
is already an issue as Borneo has very nutrient poor soil, most of its nutrients exist within its top
soil, so practices that cause erosion create ongoing issues (Hedin, Brookshire, Menge, & Barron,
2009). The tolerance levels of plant vary, and this is an important note as species that can tolerant
poorer soils or less water for instant might not necessarily be a suitable host plant for butterfly
species. This is where host plants influence the species abundance.
Furthermore, butterfly habits and speed would influence catch data, as there were different
individuals catching them the butterflies over the course of the week there is a potential for bias
and variation for example, varying speeds rates of both the individuals would influence the ability
for certain scientist to catch certain butterflies. The specific catches were not recorded so this
possibility cannot be ruled out.
Conclusion:
The Primary forest edge had the largest species richness and largest abundance. The secondary
forest edge had the second highest abundance and species richness with the primary forest
having both the least abundance and species richness. While the results are surprising, they area
a testimony to Borneos rainforests and sustainable logging practices, even after logging
secondary forests still hold the potential to support a great abundance and of diversity of life.
However, the difference in species caught in the Primary forest from the species caught at the
primary and secondary edge forests shown in the ordinate plots. Show the unique value of primary
forests and their ability to support sensitive species. There is a single outlier from the primary traps
towards the secondary and primary edges, even so it is out on its own. So while the Primary
Forest was the least abundant and genetically different, the species caught at the other two
locations are very similar, this shows the value and importance of the primary forest.
Recommendations:
Further research is recommended, such as extending surveying periods not only across seasons
but years to investigate population fluxes, migration patterns and butterfly lifecycles. This will
provide better understanding of species habitats and therefore a better understanding other
influencers that impact abundance and distribution. Future studies would also require a larger
sample size, as the study only had 69 of the species of the 950 that exist in Borneo. Additionally,
there are a number of different habitats in the immediate area so further investigations across
these habitat types habitat would provide more accurate data and take into consideration the
distances butterfly can travel. Additionally, in order to be confidence in the results consistent
trapping methods across all locations are also necessary. Finally, recording research’s individual
catches ensures there is no bias, even if there is consistent use of the same scientists.
Future research:
The ever increasing global demand for palm oil is expected to increase deforestation rates in oil
palm-producing countries. This will lead to a reduction in biodiversity unless sustainable measures
can be taken to improve the biodiversity of palm plantations (Koh, 2008). Therefore, this report
also holds potential for further research opportunities on Borneos extensive mono-crop palm oil
plantations. Future research on the influence palm plantations has on butterfly populations and
host plant species from replacement of a number of different flora species to a single crop.
Furthermore, this could be extended to investigate habitats who have experienced a drop in
butterfly populations and how that has impacted the ecosystem.
Acknowledgements:
Jacinta Zalucki on behalf of Griffith University.
Reference List:
Bell, W. & Cardé, R. (1984). Chemical ecology of insects (pp. 159 - 202). London: Chapman and
Hall.
Benedick, S., Hill, J., Mustaffa, N., Chey, V., Maryati, M., & Searle, J. et al. (2006). Impacts of rain
forest fragmentation on butterflies in northern Borneo: species richness, turnover and the value of
small fragments. Journal Of Applied Ecology, 43(5), 967-977. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.13652664.2006.01209.x
Benedick, Suzan (2001) Responses of fruit-feeding butterflies to selective logging in Sabah,
Borneo, Durham theses, Durham University Cited: 13/9/16
Bicknell, J., Struebig, M., Edwards, D., & Davies, Z. (2014). Improved timber harvest techniques
maintain biodiversity in tropical forests. Current Biology, 24(23), R1119-R1120.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2014.10.067
Butler, R. (2012). Impact of Deforestation—Extinction. Mongabay.com. Retrieved 21 October
2016, from http://rainforests.mongabay.com/0908.htm
Cazzolla Gatti, R., Castaldi, S., Lindsell, J., Coomes, D., Marchetti, M., & Maesano, M. et al.
(2014). The impact of selective logging and clearcutting on forest structure, tree diversity and
above-ground biomass of African tropical forests. Ecological Research, 30(1), 119-132.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11284-014-1217-3
Chazdon, R. (2008). Beyond Deforestation: Restoring Forests and Ecosystem Services on
Degraded Lands. Science, 320(5882), 1458-1460. http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1155365
Christharina, S. & Abang, F. (2014). Taxonomic Diversity of the Fruit-feeding Butterflies
(Lepidoptera: Nymphalidae) in Kubah National Park, Sarawak, Southwest Borneo. Chulalongkorn
University. Retrieved from http://www.biology.sc.chula.ac.th/TNH/archives/v14_no1/720%20Christharina%20after%20Proof%20edit.pdf
Clench, H. (1966). Behavioral Thermoregulation in Butterflies. Ecology, 47(6), 1021-1034.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1935649
Davis, A. (2000). Does Reduced-Impact Logging Help Preserve Biodiversity in Tropical
Rainforests? A Case Study from Borneo using Dung Beetles (Coleoptera: Scarabaeoidea) as
Indicators. Environ Entomol, 29(3), 467-475. http://dx.doi.org/10.1603/0046-225x-29.3.467
Dawood, M., Hamer, K., Hill, J., & Tangah, J. (2004). Vertical distribution of fruit-feeding butterflies
in Sabah, Borneo. Sepilok: Sepilok Bulletin. Retrieved from
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.536.2161&rep=rep1&type=pdf
[Accessed 9th Aug. 2016].
Fiedler, K. (1996). Host-plant relationships of lycaenid butterflies: large-scale patterns, interactions
with plant chemistry, and mutualism with ants. Entomologia Experimentalis Et Applicata, 80(1),
259-267. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1570-7458.1996.tb00931.x
Fitzherbert, E., Struebig, M., Morel, A., Danielsen, F., Bruhl, C., Donald, P., & Phalan, B. (2008).
How will oil palm expansion affect biodiversity?. Trends In Ecology & Evolution, 23(10), 538-545.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2008.06.012
Gaveau, D., Sloan, S., Molidena, E., Yaen, H., Sheil, D., Abram, N., Ancrenaz, M., Nasi, R.,
Quinones, M., Wielaard, N. and Meijaard, E. (2014). Four Decades of Forest Persistence,
Clearance and Logging on Borneo. PLoS ONE, [online] 9(7), p.e101654. Available at:
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0101654 [Accessed 19 Aug.
2016].
Ghazoul, J. Dipterocarp Biology, Ecology, and Conservation. Oxford University Press.
Hamer, K., Hill, J., Benedick, S., Mustaffa, N., Sherratt, T., Maryati, M., & K., C. (2003). Ecology of
butterflies in natural and selectively logged forests of northern Borneo: the importance of habitat
heterogeneity. J Appl Ecology, 40(1), 150-162. http://dx.doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2664.2003.00783.x
Heliotropium indicum (Indian heliotrope). (2016). Cabi.org. Retrieved 24 September 2016, from
http://www.cabi.org/isc/datasheet/26899
Hedin, L., Brookshire, E., Menge, D., & Barron, A. (2009). The Nitrogen Paradox in Tropical Forest
Ecosystems. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst., 40(1), 613-635.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.37.091305.110246
Hirota, T. & Obara, Y. (2000). The Influence of Air Temperature and Sunlight Intensity on MateLocating Behavior of Pieris rapae crucivora. Zoological Science, 17(8), 1081-1087.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2108/zsj.17.1081
Koh, L. (2008). Can oil palm plantations be made more hospitable for forest butterflies and birds?.
Journal Of Applied Ecology, 45(4), 1002-1009. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2664.2008.01491.x
Kremen, C. (1992). Assessing the Indicator Properties of Species Assemblages for Natural Areas
Monitoring. Ecological Applications, [online] 2(2), pp.203-217. Available at:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.2307/1941776/full [Accessed 3 Oct. 2016].
Malcolm, J., LIU, C., Neilson, R., Hansen, L., & Hannah, L. (2006). Global Warming and
Extinctions of Endemic Species from Biodiversity Hotspots. Conservation Biology, 20(2), 538-548.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2006.00364.x
Wink, M. (2013). Evolution of secondary metabolites in legumes (Fabaceae). South African
Journal Of Botany, 89, 164-175. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.sajb.2013.06.006
Price, P., Bouton, C., Gross, P., McPheron, B., Thompson, J., & Weis, A. (1980). Interactions
Among Three Trophic Levels: Influence of Plants on Interactions Between Insect Herbivores and
Natural Enemies. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst., 11(1), 41-65.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev.es.11.110180.000353
Runeckles, V. (1975). Recent advances in phytochemistry (pp. 1 - 40). New York: Plenum Press.
Sabrosky, C. (1953). How Many Insects Are There?. Systematic Zoology, 2(1), 31.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2411567
Sánchez–Moreiras, A., Weiss, O., & Reigosa–Roger, M. (2003). Allelopathic Evidence in the
Poaceae. The Botanical Review, 69(3), 300-319. http://dx.doi.org/10.1663/00068101(2003)069[0300:aeitp]2.0.co;2
Smith, L. & Culvenor, C. (1981). Plant Sources of Hepatotoxic Pyrrolizidine Alkaloids. Journal Of
Natural Products, 44(2), 129-152. http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/np50014a001
Tiple, A., Khurad, A., & Dennis, R. (2011). Butterfly Larval Host Plant use in a Tropical Urban
Context: Life History Associations, Herbivory, and Landscape Factors. Journal Of Insect Science,
11(65), 1-21. http://dx.doi.org/10.1673/031.011.6501
Appendices:
Map of Borneo: accessed 15/09/16
https://www.adventurealternative.com/sabahs-lost-world/
Butterfly Species Distribution (2016). [Pie Chart 4]
Excell 2013
Maliau Basin Conservation Area. (2014). [Image 1].
http://maliaubasin.org/about-mbca/
Primary Forest Abundance. (2016). [Pie Chart 1]
Summer Coffison, Excel 2013
Primary Forest Edge Abundance (2016). [Pie Chart 2]
Excell 2013
Process of species Identification. (2016). [Image 4].
Summer Coffison, Maliau Basin, Borneo 2016
Secondary Edge Abundance (2016). [Pie Chart 3]
Excell 2013
Species collection. (2016). [Image 3].
Summer Coffison, Maliau Basin, Borneo 2016
Traps in use. (2016). [Image 2].
Summer Coffison, Maliau Basin, Borneo 2016