Kim Hy Proposed Nature Reserve - Frontier-publications.co.uk

substratum was jagged limestone. Collection generally took place between 0800 and
1600 hours, on consecutive days where possible.
Canopy traps: As described by Austin and Riley (1995). These were used at all survey
sites within the limestone forest area in order to account for those species which feed
(and therefore tend to fly) in the upper/upper middle storeys of the forest. They were
generally hung at between 15 and 20m above ground level. Over-ripe fruit, fermented
alcohol, sugar and sugar-based food was used as bait, both independently and mixed, and
to varying levels of success. Traps were checked at sunrise and sunset.
In both of the above methods, butterfly specimens were taken after a preliminary field
identification by applying pressure to the thorax to kill the individual, and storing the
specimens in airtight containers containing drying agents paradichlorobenzene and silica
gel.
Identifications were made by A. Monastyrskii of the Vietnam-Russia Tropical Centre in
Hanoi. Taxonomy and Nomenclature follow Pinratana (1977-96) and Corbet and
Pendlebury (1992), with variations incorporated from more recent works.
4.1.3 Results
A total of 93 species of butterfly (from 403 identifications) were recorded for this survey
period: a full list of these is provided in Appendix 3. The species comprise nine families:
the Papilionidae (11 species), Pieridae (12 species), Danaidae (7 species), Satyridae (13
species), Amathusiidae (4 species), Nymphalidae (24 species), Acraeidae (1 species),
Lycaenidae (16 species) and Hesperiidae (5 species).
4.1.4 Discussion
4.1.4.1 Species richness
The number of butterfly species recorded in Kim Hy proposed Nature Reserve was
significantly lower than other sites of similar forest type and habitat quality. For example,
Frontier surveys of a similar length at Na Hang Nature Reserve (Hill, 1997), Ben En
National Park (Tordorff et al, 2000) and Ba Be National Park (Hill et al, 1997) yielded
143, 168 and 167 species respectively. In contrast to Huu Lien Nature Reserve, which
contains a wealth of butterfly species - 181 were recorded on the Frontier survey there in
2000 (Furey et al, 2002) – Kim Hy was not found to be especially diverse on this survey,
which spanned both wet and dry seasons and all existing habitats. The reasons for this are
unclear, as survey effort may be considered to be comparable to the above mentioned
surveys It seems at this stage premature to conclude that this result indicates an actual
poverty in species diversity, and may be more linked with the predominant habitat type
surveyed on the Frontier expeditions (see section 4.1.4.3 on habitat preferences below).
More than 90% of captures were made using hand nets, which may mean that a number
of canopy species were missed in this survey. It is highly unlikely that the species list
Frontier Vietnam Forest Research Programme Technical Report No.24. 43