Diversity of some insect fauna in different coastal habitats of Tamil Nadu, southeast coast of India

(1)

See discussions, stats, and author proﬁles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/268749444

Diversity of some insect fauna in diﬀerent coastal habitat of Tamil Nadu, southeast coast of India

Article · November 2014

DOI: 10.1016/j.japb.2014.10.010

CITATIONS

5

READS

375 3 authors, including:

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Coastal Pollution MonitoringView project

Ecology and restoration of coastal sand dunes in Cuddalore coastal areas, southeast coast of IndiaView project Dr. Srinivasan Balakrishnan

Zoological Survey of India, Ministry of Environment, Forest & Cli…

33PUBLICATIONS 153CITATIONS SEE PROFILE

M. Srinivasan

University college of engg-trichy(BIT campus) 59PUBLICATIONS 185CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Dr. Srinivasan Balakrishnan on 09 December 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded ﬁle.

(2)

Original article

Diversity of some insect fauna in different coastal habitats of Tamil Nadu, southeast coast of India

Srinivasan Balakrishnan

^a^,^*

, Muthukumarasamy Srinivasan

^a

, Jeyaraj Mohanraj

^b

aCentre of Advanced Study in Marine Biology, Faculty of Marine Sciences, Annamalai University, Parangipettai, India

bMarine Gastropod Hatchery and Research Laboratory, Kamaraj College, Manonmaniam Sundaranar University, Tuticorin, Tamil Nadu, India

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:

Received 20 August 2014 Received in revised form 18 October 2014 Accepted 21 October 2014 Available online 13 November 2014

Keywords:

Coastal environment Diversity

Evenness Insects Richness

a b s t r a c t

We investigated the biodiversity of some insect fauna in different coastal habitat of Tamil Nadu, Southeast coast of India and also tried to clarify the relationship between surrounding coastal environmental ecosystem of three coastal habitats (station-I estuarine complex, station-II mangrove area and station-III sandy beach), in order to, eventually, contribute to biodiversity conservation as well as to management of coastal habitat in India. Insect were collected from the three sites, from January 2008 to December 2008. Studies regarding diversity of insects available on coastal environments are very few. A total of 929 insects belong to 23 families and 6 orders were recorded from the 3 sites. Among them, 487 species are from station-II 259 species from station-I and 183 species are from station-III were recorded.

Statistical tools PRIMER (Ver. 6.1.11) were employed toﬁnd the species diversity, richness and evenness were calculated.

CopyrightÓ2014, National Science Museum of Korea (NSMK) and Korea National Arboretum (KNA).

Introduction

Biological diversity means the variability among the living organisms from all sources including terrestrial, marine, and other aquatic ecosystems (Harper and Hawksworth, 1994). This includes diversity within species, between species, and of ecosystems. Biological diversity refers to the entire body of organisms, their ecological complexity within the environment, and all the ecological processes in relation to these systems (Primack, 1993; Liu, 1999). Approximately 30 million species are found worldwide, of which about 1.4 million have been brieﬂy described; of these, about 750,000 are insects. In- sects now comprise>75% of all described animal species and exhibit not only a rich variety of form, color, and shape, but also a range of ecological adaptations unexcelled by any other group (Cheng, 1976).

Insects such as Halobates are recorded in the open ocean, thousands of kilometers from land; they spend their lives on the sea surface, and no marine insects remain submerged throughout their life cycle (Edwards, 1926; Tokunaga, 1932). Insects occur in different ecological niches of mangrove forests. They may be per- manent residents or only transient visitors. They are either harmful

or beneﬁcial, and play an important role in the ecology of mangrove systems. Most insect species in mangrove habitats are only tem- poral visitors, and they do visit many other habitats. As a result, the insects provide a linkage between the mangal and other environments (Balasubramanian et al. 2005).

Insects that feed on dead trees or wood (saproxylic insects) or decaying organic material (saprophagous insects) play an important role in nutrient cycling in forests. Termites and wood borers (usually the larvae of beetles or moths) form the majority of saproxylic insects, and a relatively characteristic assemblage occurs in mangroves. A large number of ground-dwelling saprophagous insects can also be found in the mangrove habitat, and many have specialized adaptations for survival in the intertidal zone. Collem- bola (springtails) are diverse among the roots of mangrove plants and in the leaf litter that accumulates on the ground (Murphy, 1965). Among the number of biodiversity measures developed recently, four indices based on taxonomic relatedness between the species or individuals (Warwick and Clarke, 1995) are rated as the most promising for biodiversity assessment. Freshwater habitats have received less attention than terrestrial and marine ecosystems (Boyero, 2002). However, insects have a better chance ofﬁnding suitable habitats, shelter, or food over the course of a season in a mosaic for different coastal ecosystems. However, little is known about the changes in beach wrack quality in relation to the activity of beach organisms on Polish coasts. Stranded debris may provide

*Corresponding author. Tel.:þ91 04144243070,þ91 04144243071.

E-mail address:[email protected](S. Balakrishnan).

Peer review under responsibility of National Science Museum of Korea (NSMK) and Korea National Arboretum (KNA).

H O S T E D BY Contents lists available atScienceDirect

Journal of Asia-Paci ﬁ c Biodiversity

j o u r n a l h o m e p a g e : h t t p : / / w w w .e ls e v i e r . c o m / l o c a t e / j a p b

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.japb.2014.10.010

(3)

food and shelter for both aquatic and terrestrial animals. Because of the insects and other organisms that are attached to it, this beach wrack is an important foraging area for shorebirds (Brown and McLachlan, 1990). Seasonal variation in the abundance of tropical insects is a common phenomenon (Wolda, 1988; Pinheiro et al.

2002). A sharp reduction in abundance during the dry season seems to be restricted to tropical habitats that have a severe dry season (Janzen and Schoener, 1968; Janzen, 1973a,b; Wolda, 1977).

The present studies were directed toward the task of clarifying insect fauna from the different coastal habitats of Tamil Nadu, southeast coast of India, in the hope that the result would offer distinctive information for the biodiversity conservation as well as management of southeast coastal habitats in India.

Material and methods Sampling sites

This study was conducted in Parangipettai (Lat. 1124⁰N; Long.

7946⁰E), Pichavaram (Lat. 1127⁰N; Long. 7947⁰ E), and Naga- pattinam (Lat. 1048⁰0⁰⁰ N; Long. 7950⁰24⁰⁰ E), representing the coastal environments of the southeast coast of India (Figure 1). In this study, we conducted 1 day per month sampling of six insect orders (Lepidoptera, Coleoptera, Hemiptera, Diptera, Hymenoptera, and Heteroptera). The survey work was conducted from dawn to dusk at each site for 1 consecutive year (JanuaryeDecember 2008).

Sampling procedure

Hemiptera were collected with aerial nets (in ﬂight) and sweeping nets (mangrove vegetation), and beating of shrubs using long sticks and a cloth on the ground to collect the falling insects.

Sweeping or beating was performedﬁve to six times per hrs. The collected materials were kept in 70% alcohol for identiﬁcation.

Hymenoptera and Coleoptera were collected by beating and sweeping. The parts of the plant infested with these insect groups were beaten with a stick, wherein downward strokes were used to

free them. This was done at least four toﬁve times. Sweep nets were also used to trap the larger ﬂying hymenopterans. The collected specimens were either kept in vials with 70% alcohol or killed in killing bottles.

Species identiﬁcation

The collected insects were identiﬁed based on Merritt and Cummins (1988), Dominguez et al. (1992), Trivinho-Strixino and Strixino (1995), andCheng and Hashimoto (1978).

Data analysis

Different statistical tools were used to determine the diversity indices, richness, and evenness using the biodiversity software, PRIMER (Ver 6.1.11) (Primer-E Ltd., Plymouth, United Kingdom). Biodiversity indices were calculated following the standard formulas; species diversity was calculated using the following formula (Shannon and Wiener, 1949):

H⁰¼ P pilnpi,

where pi is the proportion of individuals of each species belonging to the ith species of the total number of individuals.

Species richness (D) was calculated using the formula given by Simpson (1949):

D¼1C; C¼P

p_i²;p_i¼n_i/N.

Evenness or equitability (S) was calculated usingPielou’s (1966) formula:

J⁰¼H⁰/Jns or H⁰/log2S.

Figure 1.Map showing the sampling stations.

S Balakrishnan et al. / Journal of Asia-Paciﬁc Biodiversity xxx (2014) 408e414 409

(4)

A calendar year was divided into four seasons: postmonsoon (JanuaryeMarch), summer (AprileJune), premonsoon (Julye September), and monsoon (OctobereDecember), based on the northeast monsoon, which is prevalent in the study area.

Beta diversity was analyzed with the BrayeCurtis similarity index using the presence/absence data. Cluster analysis was performed following hierarchical agglomerative clustering (Bray and Curtis, 1957). Taxonomic diversity was analyzed with four taxonomic relatedness based indices: average taxonomic diversityD^, average taxonomic distinctness based on abundance data D^*, average taxonomic distinctness based on incidence dataD^þ^{, and} variation in taxonomic distinctnessL^þ(Clarke and Warwick, 2001;

Warwick and Clarke, 1995).

Results

A total of 929 insects belonging to 23 families and six orders were collected from three coastal environments. Diversity indices, richness, and evenness for four different seasons were calculated.

Diversity index and species richness were higher in Pichavaram and lower in Parangipettai and Nagapattinam. Values on evenness index showed little contrast; it was highest in premonsoon and lowest in summer season. The Margalef index was highest during postmonsoon and lowest during summer. The means and 95%

conﬁdence limits of diversity values were computed and are pre- sented seasonwise and stationwise. Seasonal variation of the physicochemical parameters was analyzed in the three sites between January 2008 and December 2008, and the physicochemical parameters are given inTable 1.

In the present study, the diversity index (H⁰) varied from 3.692 to 4.950. The minimum species diversity (3.692) was recorded in Station III during summer, and the maximum level (4.950) was observed in Station II during premonsoon; however, low species diversity was observed in the present study (Figure 2). The species richness index (D) ﬂuctuated between 56.014 and 57.337. The minimum species richness (56.014) was observed in Station III during summer, and the maximum (57.337) was noted in Station II during postmonsoon (Figure 3). The species evenness index (J⁰) varied from 0.997 to 0.999. The minimum species evenness (0.997) was observed in Station III during monsoon, and the maximum (0.999) was recorded in Station II during premonsoon (Figure 4).

The dominant species in the marine habitat were Lepidoptera (24%), Coleoptera (26%), Diptera (18%), Heteroptera (13%), Hemi- ptera (11%), and Orthoptera (8%). The maximum number of species collected belongs to Lepidoptera (24%), followed by Coleoptera (26%) (Figure 5).

The K-dominance plot clearly demonstrates the diversity pattern in three stations. As the percentage contribution of each species is added, the curve extends horizontally (the species number is evident in theXaxis) prior to reaching the cumulative 100%. Because the curve for Station I has to accommodate only a few species, it rises quickly. Hence, it lies above the curves of Station II and Station III. This plot also indicates the rich diversity in Sta- tions I and II compared to Station III (Figure 6). Moreover, to study the similarity/dissimilarity, the data of three different stations were also approached to cluster analysis and MDS (non-metric Multi Dimensional Scaling) ordination. Among the stations, samples from the Pichavaram mangrove area got grouped at the highest level of similarity (90%), followed by samples from the Parangipettai estuarine complex (70%) and Nagapattinam sandy beach (30%).

Furthermore, clusters from the Parangipettai estuarine complex area and Nagapattinam sandy beach formed a single cluster at the next level of similarity (50%), and clusters of Pichavaram mangrove area are grouped successively at the next level (55%) (Figure 7). To conﬁrm this pattern of grouping, the data were also given as input

to MDS. The plot revealed that the groupings recognized in the cluster were evident. The stress value, which overlie on the top- right corner of the plot, is also very minimal (0.02), signaling a good ordination pattern of species in three different stations (Figure 8).

Discussion

Studies on the diversity of coastal environmental insects from the Parangipettai estuarine complex, Pichavaram mangrove area, and Nagapattinam sandy beach were carried out from January 2008 to December 2008. A total of 929 insects were collected from all three stations: 487 species from Pichavaram mangrove, 259 species from the Parangipettai estuarine complex, and 183 species from Nagapattinam sandy beach. The orders with respect to the number of individuals in the different habitats were as follows: Coleoptera (26%), Lepidoptera (24%), Diptera (18%), Heteroptera (13%), Hemi- ptera (11%), and Orthoptera (8%). A maximum number of species was recorded that belonged to Coleoptera and Lepidoptera, and these species were found in the three sites. This trend has also been recorded previously.Veenakumari et al. (1997), who studied insect Table 1

Checklist of insect recorded from the sampling stations.

Insects Sites*

Family Species Station

I

Station II

Station III Eupterotidae Eupterote mollifera(Walker, 1865) þ þ Camptous lateralis(Olivier, 1792) þ þ

Hypscidae Hypscaﬁcus(Fabricius, 1787) þ þ

Nymphalidae Melanitis ledaismere(Linnaeus, 1758) þ þ Pyralidae Maruca testulalis(Fabricius, 1787) þ

Acentria ephemerella(Denis &

Schiffermüller, 1775)

þ þ

Othreis fullorica(Linnaeus, 1763) þ

Arctiidae Utetheisa pulchella(Linnaeus, 1758) þ þ Noctuidae Nephelodes minians(Guenée, 1852) þ þ HydrophilidaeHydrous piceus(Latreille, 1802) þ þ

Elateridae Cicinidela formosa(Say, 1817) þ þ

Dalopius marginatus(Linnaeus, 1758) þ þ Scolytidae Oulema gallaeciana(Heyden, 1879) þ Dendroctonus micans(Erichson, 1836) þ Cicinidelidae Philonthus politus(Lameere, 1900) þ þ

Corixidae Sigara striata(Leach, 1815) þ

Lathrobium terminatum(Graven horst, 1802)

þ þ

Trichocorixa verticalis(Fieber, 1851) þ þ Staphylinidae Leptoglossus occidentalis(Heidemann,

1910)

þ

Stenocorus meridianus(Linnaeus, 1758)

þ þ

Nabidae Scudderia furcata(Linnaeus, 1758) þ þ þ

Nabis ferus(Linnaeus, 1758) þ

Gerridae Halobates micans(Eschscholtz, 1822) þ þ þ

H. germanus(White, 1883) þ þ þ

Culicidae Culex pipiens(Linnaeus, 1758) þ þ

C. tarsalis(Linnaeus, 1758) þ

Aedessp. (Meigen, 1818) þ þ þ

Anophelessp. (Meigen 1818) þ þ þ

Syrphidae Syrphus corolla(Perthshire, 1894) þ þ Syrphus ochrostoma(Zvenigorod,

1989)

þ

Anthomyidae Fucelliasp. (Robineau-Desvoidy, 1842)

þ þ

Formicidae Solenopsissp. (Gruner et al. 2003) þ þ

Apidae Apis dorstata(Fabricius, 1793) þ þ þ

A.ﬂorae(Fabricius, 1787) þ þ

PyrrhocoridaeDysdercus cingulatus(Fabricius, 1775)þ þ Pyrrhocoris apterus(Linnaeus, 1758) þ þ ¼presence; ¼absence.

*Station I (Parangipettai); Station II (Pichavaram); Station III (Nagapattinam).

(5)

diversity in the mangroves of Andaman and Nicobar islands of In- dia, reported the following results: Lepidoptera,w50%; Coleoptera, w20%; Hemiptera,w15%; Diptera, 5%; Hymenoptera, 3%; Orthop- tera, 5%; Thysanoptera, 2%.

Seasonal abundance was calculated using the ShannoneWiener index, and a minimum value was found during summer. Species richness was calculated using the Margalef index, and we found that, among the three stations, Pichavaram has higher species richness and evenness (based on Pielou’s index), as indicated by data from different seasons. In the present study, a marked variation in diversity indices was observed between the stations. In Station I, species diversity varied from 4.950 to 3.692. Species richnessﬂuctuated between 4.478 and 7.955. As regards species evenness, it varied from 0.999 to 0.997. The taxonomic diversity and Figure 2.ShannoneWeiner diversity indices of coastal environment insects from three stations.

Figure 3.Simpsons index of coastal environment insects from three stations.

Figure 4.Pielou’s evenness of coastal environment insects from three stations.

Figure 5.Relative proportion of species composition in the major order of insect’s diversity.

(6)

total phylogenetic diversity ﬂuctuated from 90% to 30%. Species richness, population density, and species diversity of terrestrial insects in Uttaranchal were calculated byTewari et al. (2006).

Senthil and Varadharajan (1995)carried out a study on insect diversity at Pichavaram mangrove from December 1993 to March 1994, and they reported a total of 101 species of insects belonging to nine orders and 42 families. They also identified 18 insects up to species level,five insects up to genus level, and four insects up to order level in the same area. In their study, maximum numbers (27) of insects were recorded from vegetation, 17 insects from soil, and one from water. Out of 23 insects, 12 were from herbs, 20 from trees, and eight from grasses. Among them, 32 insects were considered harmful, whereas the remaining 19 insects were recognized as beneficial. Species richness was highest in Coleoptera with 28 species, followed by Lepidoptera with 25 species. Out of 28

species of beetles, 18 were found to be pests and 10 were serious pests on trees. In the present study, 31 insects were identiﬁed up to species level and 21 insects up to genus level. Among them, 12 insects were collected from vegetation, eight insects from soil, three insects from water, and 15 insects from wood (wood boring insects).Susila (2007)reported 9 species from Parangipettai waters and Lepidoptera order (Coleoptera, Diptera, Heteroptera, Hemi- ptera and Orthoptera) was found to be more, when compared to other species, as reported in the present study.

Veenakumari et al. (1997)recorded 276 species of insects in the mangals of Andaman and Nicobar islands of India. They found that 197 species were herbivores, 43 were parasites, and 36 species were predators. Among the collected species, 14 species were wood borers, which cause considerable damage to heartwood, sapwood, shrubby stems, fruits, and germinating seedlings of the mangrove Figure 6.K-dominance curve for insects from three stations.

Figure 7.Dendrogram for hierarchical clustering of coastal environment insects from three stations.

(7)

plants of Andaman and Nicobar Islands.Kathiresan and Bingham (2001) reported that herbivorous insects can cause considerable damage to mangrove vegetations. The dominance of Coleoptera and Leptoptera in our study areas is indicated by the exceptionally higher abundance of Ptiliidae, which prefer moist soil, litter, and rotting wood, and are a potential bioindicator of moist habitats (Hall, 2001; Sawada and Hirowatari, 2002; Sörensson, 2003).

Lepidoptera and Coleoptera are the most important phytophagous insects occurring in mangrove forests.

The K-dominance plot clearly demonstrates the diversity pattern in three different stations. Conforming to the trend observed in diversity indices, the curves representing Stations I and II lie on the lower side, extending further and rising slowly because of the presence of a higher number of species. As the percentage contribution of each species is added, the curve extends horizontally (species number is evident in theXaxis) prior to reaching the cumulative 100%. As the curve for Station I had to accommodate only a few species, it rises quickly. Hence, it lies above the other curves. This plot also simply proves the rich diversity in Stations I and II as compared to Station III as done byAjmal Khan et al. (2005).

A cluster analysis (or classification) is helpful infinding the natural groupings of samples, such that samples within a group are more similar to each other than the samples in different groups. It is also used to define species assemblages, that is, groups of species that tend to occur in a parallel manner across sites. The dendrogram and the MDS drawn clearly reveal the grouping of samples collected in the three stations. The stress value recorded in the present study is comparable with that obtained byAjmal Khan et al. (2005). In general, apart from studies on the diversity of marine organisms such as microbes, plankton, benthos,fishes, and mammals, only a few studies have been conducted on the biodiversity of marine reptiles and coastal environmental insects. In the present study, Coleoptera, Lepidoptera, Diptera, Heteroptera, Hemiptera, and Orthoptera are recorded in different biotopes (i.e., Parangipettai estuarine complex, Pichavaram mangroves, and Nagapattinam

sandy beach). Further study will help us identify new species of coastal environmental insects. Biodiversity is one of the important cornerstones of sustainable development and represents the biological wealth of a nation. The world is currently facing its greatest ever biodiversity crisis. Insects and plants are becoming extinct because of habitat loss, overexploitation, pollution, overpopulation, and the threat of global climatic changes. To counteract these challenges, it will be necessary to conduct further detailed surveys, including seasonal surveys and other methods, to investigate the insects in this area for the promotion of biodiversity conservation and management of southeast coastal habitats in India.

Acknowledgments

We thank the authorities of Annamalai University, Para- ngipettai, India for providing the necessary facilities. S.B. thanks the Indian National Centre for Ocean Information Services (INCOIS), Satellite Coastal and Oceanographic Research (SATCORE) (G4/515/

2008), Ministry of Earth Sciences (MoES), Government of India, Hyderabad, forﬁnancial assistance. We also thank the anonymous referees for the valuable comments, which greatly improved our manuscript.

References

Ajmal Khan S, Rafﬁ SM, Lyla PS. 2005. Brachyuran crab diversity in natural (Pichavaram) and artiﬁcially developed mangroves (Vellar estuary). Current Science88:8e25.

Balasubramanian K, Srinivasan M, Kathiresan K. 2005. Insects. In:Proceedings of coastal biodiversity in mangrove ecosystems: UNUeINWEHeUNESCO, Interna- tional Training Course. pp. 359e363.

Boyero L. 2002. Insect biodiversity in freshwater ecosystems is there any latitudinal gradient?Marine and Freshwater Research53:753e755.

Bray JR, Curtis JT. 1957. An introduction of the upland forest communities of southern Wisconsim.Ecological Monograph27:325e349.

Brown AC, McLachlan A. 1990.Ecology of sandy shores. Amsterdam: Elsevier. p. 328.

Cheng L. 1976.Marine insects. Amsterdam: North Holland Publishers.

Figure 8.MDS ordination generated for coastal environment insect in three different stations. MDS¼non-metric Multi Dimensional Scaling.

(8)

Cheng L, Hashimoto H. 1978. The marine midge Pontomyia (Chironomidae) with a description of females ofP. oceanaTokunaga.Systematic Entomology3:189e196.

Clarke KR, Warwick RM. 2001.Changes in marine communities: an approach to statistical analysis and inter predation. 2nd ed. Plymouth: PRIMER-E.

Dominguez E, Hubbard MD, Peters WL. 1992. Clave para ninfas y adultos de las familias generous de Ephemeroptera Sudamericanos.Biologica Acuatica16:5e 39 [In Spanish].

Edwards FW. 1926. On marine Chironomidae (Diptera): with descriptions of a new genus and four new species from Samoa.Proceedings of the Zoological Society London; 1926:779e806.

Hall WE. 2001. Ptiliidae. In: , Arnett RH, Thomas MC, editors.American beetles, Vol. 1.

Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press. pp. 233e246.

Harper JL, Hawksworth DL. 1994. Biodiversity: measurement and estimation.

Preface. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, Series B, London345:5e12.

Janzen DH, Schoener TW. 1968. Differences in insect abundance and diversity between wetter and drier sites during a tropical dry season.Ecology49:96e110.

Janzen DH.1973a. Sweep samples of tropical foliage insects: description of study sites, with data on species abundances and size distributions.Ecology54:600e686.

Janzen DH. 1973b. Sweep samples of tropical foliage insects: effects of seasons, vegetation types, elevation, time of day and insularity.Ecology54:687e708.

Kathiresan K, Bingham BL. 2001. Biology of mangroves and mangrove ecosystems.

Advances in Marine Biology40:81e251.

Liu JK. 1999.Advance hydrobiology. Beijing, China: China Science Press. pp. 23e120.

Merritt RW, Cummins KW. 1988.An introduction to the aquatic insects of North America. 2nd ed. Debuque, IA: Kendall, Hunt Publishing Company. p. 722.

Murphy DH. 1965.Deboutevillea marinan. gen., n. sp., (Collembola, Sminthuridae) from the inter-tidal zone of Singapore.Bulletin Natural Museum in Singapore33:

31e34.

Pielou EC. 1966.Ecological diversity. New York: Wiley Eastern Publications.

Pinheiro MHO, Monteiro R, Cesar O. 2002. Levantamentoﬁtossociologico daﬂoresta estacional semidecidual do Jardim Botanico Municipal de Bauru, Sao Paulo.

Naturalia27:145e164 [In Portuguese].

Primack RB. 1993.Essentials of conservation biology. Sunderland, MA: Sinauer As- sociates. p. 569.

Sawada Y, Hirowatari T. 2002. A revision of the genusAcrotrichis Motschulsky (Coleoptera: Ptiliidae) in Japan.Entomological Science5:77e101.

Senthil R, Varadharajan. 1995. Proceedings of the national symposium on recent trends in wild life research. A.V.C. College.Mayiladuthurai609:30e35.

Shannon CE, Wiener’s W. 1949.The mathematical theory of communication. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.

Simpson EH. 1949. Measurement of diversity.Nature163:688.

Sörensson M. 2003. New records of feather wing beetles (Coleoptera: Ptiliidae) in North America.Coleopterists Bulletin57:369e381.

Susila S. 2007.Biodiversity of coastal environmental insects from Parangipettai area.

M.Sc. thesis, Centre of Advanced Study in Marine Biology. Annamalai University.

Tewari M, Poonam Bodh D, Kaushal R. 2006. Diversity of terrestrial insects in a cultivated land of Tarai region of Kumaun, Uttaranchal.Entomon31:207e216.

Tokunaga M. 1932. Morphological and biological studies on a new marine chiron- omidﬂy,Pontomyia paciﬁca, from Japan: Part 1. Morphology and taxonomy.

Memoirs of the College of Agriculture, Kyoto Imperial University19:1e56.

Trivinho-Strixino S, Strixino G. 1995.Larvas de Chironomidae do Estado de São Paulo:

guia de identiﬁcaçãoe diagnoses dos generos. PPG-ERN, UFSCar, Sao Carlos. p. 299 [In Spanish].

Veenakumari K, Mohanraj P, Bandyopadhyay AK. 1997. Insects herbivores and their natural enemies in mangals of the Andaman and Nicobars Islands.Journal of Natural History31:1105e1126.

Warwick RM, Clarke KP. 1995. New‘Biodiversity’measures reveal a decrease in taxonomic distinctness with increasing stress.Marine Ecological Progress Series 129:301e305.

Wolda H. 1977. Fluctuations in abundance of some Homoptera in a neo tropical forest.Geology, Ecology and Tropical Science3:229e257.

Wolda H. 1988. Insect seasonality: why?Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 19:1e18.

View publication stats View publication stats