Fisheries in the Southern Border Zone of Takamanda - Impact ...
Fisheries in the Southern Border Zone of Takamanda - Impact ...
Fisheries in the Southern Border Zone of Takamanda - Impact ...
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
56 O’Kah<br />
f22<br />
y2@w—˜A<br />
g—22@IE2—A<br />
ƒ22@IE2A<br />
H S IH<br />
u<br />
Specimens were placed <strong>in</strong> butterfly envelopes and<br />
preserved <strong>in</strong> airtight conta<strong>in</strong>ers with mothballs to prevent<br />
deterioration and protect <strong>the</strong> specimens from <strong>in</strong>vad<strong>in</strong>g<br />
<strong>in</strong>sects. Information on collection site, date, collector, and<br />
method <strong>of</strong> trapp<strong>in</strong>g (SN = Sweep Nett<strong>in</strong>g and CN =<br />
Canopy Nett<strong>in</strong>g) was documented.<br />
Identification was completed <strong>in</strong> Limbe, us<strong>in</strong>g<br />
identification keys and manuals as well as color plates as<br />
suggested by Larsen (1996). Where possible, specimens<br />
were identified to family, sub-family, species, and race.<br />
Classification followed that <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Afrotropical Catalogue<br />
(Carcasson et al. 1995). Specimens whose full<br />
identification was not possible on site were sent to<br />
specialists. Specimens will be deposited primarily <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
Limbe Botanic and Zoological Gardens, Cameroon.<br />
<strong>Takamanda</strong>: <strong>the</strong> Biodiversity <strong>of</strong> an African Ra<strong>in</strong>forest<br />
w—<br />
w—<br />
w——<br />
Figure 1. Sampl<strong>in</strong>g locations <strong>of</strong> butterflies <strong>in</strong> <strong>Takamanda</strong> Forest Reserve, Cameroon<br />
3 Results and Discussion<br />
A total <strong>of</strong> 111 species represent<strong>in</strong>g 4 families were<br />
identified from <strong>the</strong> 384 specimens collected<br />
(Appendix 1), with 79 specimens identified to<br />
species (Appendices 1 and 2).<br />
The majority (78%) <strong>of</strong> specimens were collected<br />
us<strong>in</strong>g sweep nett<strong>in</strong>g, while <strong>the</strong> canopy traps<br />
accounted for 22% <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> collection. Dur<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong><br />
survey 85 (22%) <strong>of</strong> <strong>in</strong>dividuals were trapped us<strong>in</strong>g<br />
canopy traps, while 298 (78%) <strong>in</strong>dividuals were<br />
captured us<strong>in</strong>g sweep-nets. Canopy traps are known<br />
to attract only those species that prefer fruits. This<br />
method is best used dur<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> dry season when <strong>the</strong><br />
butterflies can forage freely over longer distances.<br />
The difference between capture rates <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> canopy