Butterfly-Farming the Flying Gems by Labay PIFGEX 2009

7/22/2019 Butterfly-Farming the Flying Gems by Labay PIFGEX 2009

1/30

Butterfly Farming : The Flying Gems Page 1

Farming the Flying Gems for Rural Livelihood and the Environment!

BUTTERFLIES: THEIR USES, CONSERVATION STATUSAND PROTECTION OF HABITATS

Panchito M. LabayFORD Fellow

FORD Foundation International Fellowships Programemail: [email protected] phone: 09208597698

Abstract

Butterflies have been instrumental in the conservation of tropical forests, development and

promotion of rural economies through ecotourism and butterfly farming and in various

scientific studies with regard to flora-fauna interactions, biotic-abiotic relationships, population

dynamics and climate change. In this particular paper about Philippine butterflies, their uses,

conservation status and habitat protection information are presented in support to the

burgeoning economic use of butterflies as source of rural environment and rural or green

tourism. The paper reviews the taxonomic classification of butterflies, especially those found in

the Philippines, particularly in Marinduque. Their local larval- and nectar-host plants are also

discussed as they are related to butterfly farming and forest / ecosystem conservation and

protection. Focused discussion on butterfly farming / cultivation, processing and marketing,

mostly in Marinduque are also presented, especially the marketing trends from 1993 to 2005.

The brief social history of the livelihood is also added to serve as inspiration to the would be

butterfly farmers. To make it more wholesome, the presentation also includes the butterfly

species seasonal distribution, problems affecting their biodiversity, like parasitism and

predation and some related butterfly-plant-predator interaction chemistry for more information.

Finally, the paper primarily aimed to showcase the benefits of butterfly farming for enthusiasts,

environmentalists, educators and rural folks as well.

Keywords: biodiversity, butterfly farming, butterfly species, green tourism, larval-host plants,

Marinduque, nectar-host plants, rural livelihood.

Introduction

Nature is the home of biodiversitythe rich species of flora and fauna where they depend eachother. It produces renewable resources and ecological services to mankind. It is the hope of

about one billion (ITTO, 2000) to 1.6 billion (Djoghlaf, 2008), who are living in or near its

forests and slopelands to extract and farm food for survival.

Since nature is treated as a common resource by many, its exploitation to be of service to

mankind is practiced for millennia. People modified it into agricultural lands for food production(Colchester & Lohmann, 1993), which is generally devoted to single or few crops of introduced

species. Thus, agriculture along side with mining and logging are considered as one of the

destructive forces to nature (Shanahan & Masood, 2004; WWF, 1997). Those species that are

highly appropriated for their economic values are heavily exploited or extracted and those notappropriated with economic value are considered useless or minor species and therefore not


2/30


generally protected. With these spiralling activities, natures forests are continuously

disappearing worldwide at a rate of 17 million hectares per year (FAO, 1995) to 20.4 millionhectares per year (Bryant, Nielsen & Tangley, 1997).

The tropical forests that lie mostly in the lower latitude of the Earth are one of the worlds mostdiverse ecosystems, where almost 80% of biodiversity can be found (Mogato, Crimmins &

Crabb, 2008)

The Philippines is one of the places of the worlds centre for nature with high biodiversity. Thus,

it is one of the worlds megadiversity centre (Fernando, et al., 2003; Mittermeier, Myers &

Mittermeier, 2004).

On the other hand, it is also considered as biodiversity hotspot where over 57 percent of major

flora and fauna of the world can be found (Oliver & Heaney, 1996). It has exceptional

endemism, because the percentage of its endemic species is higher than any other biogeographicregion in the Indo-Malayan Realm (Heaney & Regalado, 1998; Holloway, 2003; Mey, 2003;

Mittermeier, Myers & Mittermeier, 2004; Myers, et al., 2000).

Invertebrate endemism, particularly the insects dominate the Philippine ecosystem. Of the nearly

21,000 inventoried species of insects, they were found belonging to 27 orders, 499 families and

6,185 genera. Of the 27 insect orders, they were composed of 35.2 percent Coleoptera (beetles),14.3 percent Hymenoptera (ants, bess, wasps) and 13.84 percent Lepidoptera (butterflies,

skippers, moths) (Gapud, 2005).

Its over-all endemism range from 44 percent to 87 percent and was reported to be 69.8 percent.They are further classified into: 35.7 percent neuropteroids (beetles, twisted-winged flies,

antlions, lacewings, owlflies), 29.3 percent panorpoids (flies, flea, butterflies, moths,

caddisflies), 14.3 percent hymenopteroids (ants, bees, wasps), 14.2 percent hemipteroids

(Barklice, thrips, lice, planthoppers, leafhoppers, cicadas, true bugs), 4.8 percent orthopteroids(grasshoppers, katydids, crickets, pygmy locusts, preying mantis, stick insects, earwings,

stoneflies, termites, roaches, webspinners), 1.5 percent palaeopterids (mayflies, damselflies,dragonflies) and the rest comprise 0.25 percent (Ballentes, Mohagan, Gapud, et al., 2006;

Gapud, 2005).

Focusing in on butterflies, the same high pattern of endemism was observed, even on islandswith few hundred square kilometres size (Holloway, 2003). Therefore, studies on butterflies in

the Philippine islands with more than 7,000 islands are very challenging, because until now little

research has been published on Philippine butterflies.

Inventory studies are still patchy, thus far from being complete (Baltazar, 1991). New species

and sub-species, as well as their larval food plants have to be discovered and re-examined astheir distributions also change through time (BOSTID, 1981; Danielsen & Treadaway, 2004;

Holloway, 2003; Isaac, Mallet & Mace, 2004).

Furthermore, like other species, the Philippine butterflies are not isolated from problems of

population decline, loss of habitats and fragmentation, predation and mass extraction for

economic purposes. Thus, this paper presents topics about Philippine butterflies, their uses and

status with focus on butterfly farming or cultivation, especially in the province of Marinduque.


3/30


Review of Systematics and Cladistics of Butterflies

Butterflies and moths are both classified under Division Ditrysia, Class Insecta and Order

Lepidoptera. The latest systematic (taxonomical diversification) and cladistic (hierarchical

phylogeny and evolutionary ancestry) classification of them still remain.

Order Lepidoptera is considered as one of the most speciose orders, estimated to have more

than 180,000 species in 128 families and 47 superfamilies worldwide (Wikipedia, 2009a). It isconsidered to have the largest number of species as compared to the three other big Orders ofthe clade, such as Hymonoptera, Diptera and Coleoptera.

Table 1. Number of known butterfly species worldwide per family, tribe and genera.

Superfamily / Family Subfamily Tribe No. Genera No. spp.

HESPERIOIDEA [3,500]

Hesperiidae Coeliadinae 8 75

Pyrrhopyginae 20 150

Pyrginae 160 1,000

Heteropterinae 16 150

Trapezitinae 16 60

Hesperiinae 325 >2,000

PAPILIONOIDEA [14,000]

Papilionidae Baroniinae 1 1

Parnassiinae 8 54-76

Papilioninae 17 550

Pieridae Dismorphiinae 6 100

Pseudopontinae 1 1

Pierinae 55 700

Coliadinae 12 250Lycaenidae Riodininae 140 1,250

Poritiinae 47 530

Miletinae 18 150

Curetinae 1 18

Lycaeninae 500 4,000

Nymphalidae Libytheinae 2 12

Heliconiinae 40 400

Nymphalinae 60 350

Limenitinae 100 >1,000

Charaxinae 28 400

Apaturinae 20 430

Morphinae 40 230

Satyrinae 280 2,400

Calinaginae 1 8

Danainae Danaini 11 162

Tellervini 1 6

Ithomiini 50 >300


4/30


HEDYLOIDEA [40]

Hedylidae 1 40

BUTTERFLIES IN TOTAL [1,985] [17,500]

Source: Lepidoptera Taxome Project (2002, 2004), Robbins & Opler (1997)

Others classified butterflies and moths into Rhopalocera and Heterocera respectively(Wikipedia, 2009b). The former is further divided into three superfamilies, such as

Papilionoidea (true butterflies), Hesperioidea (skippers) and Hedyloidea (American mothbutterflies) (Ackery, de Jong & Vane-Wright, 1999; Tree of Life Web Project, 2008).

The Papilionoidea or "true" butterflies are composed of five families-Papilionidae, Pieridae,Nymphalidae, Riodinidae and Lycaenidae (Brower, 2008; Wahlberg, Braby & Brower, 2008).

The existing number of scientifically described butterfly species in the world is also confusing.

Some estimated it to be 13,700 (Robbins, 1982), 17,116 (Hoskins, 2007), 17,500 (LepidopteraTaxome Project, 2004; Robbins & Opler, 1997).

The Status of Philippine Butterflies

With the on-going taxonomic inflation of species worldwide (Isaac, Mallet & Mace, 2004), thetotal number of butterfly species in the country will be also changed through time. Some reports

pegged it to 890 species and 900 subspecies (Gapud, 2005), others reported 910 species

(Conservation International, 2008) and 915 species and 910 subspecies (Danielsen &Treadaway, 2004). Of the known species, one-third of them were found endemic (Ballentes,

Mohagan, Gapud, et al., 2006; Conservation International, 2008).

Out of 915 known species, 133 were considered as globally threatened and 71 percent of them

do not have stable population within the 18 identified protected areas. A total of 29 taxa isendangered or critically endangered; 83 percent of these do not occur within a priority area

(Danielsen & Treadaway, 2004).

Despite these impressive records of butterfly species, the Philippines has one of the highest rates

of forest loss, declining from 70 percent to 18 percent cover in the last 100 years, and therefore,approximately 60 percent of endemic Philippine flora are now extinct (Heaney & Regalado,

1998).

This spiralling problem has drastic effect on the population of butterflies, which are highly

dependent on plants, some species of ants and abiotic conditions, such as temperature, humidity

and light.

Population pressure as brought by poverty and paucity of livelihood opportunities, dearth of

values and the "open access" to nature thinking, all contribute to the over-exploitation and non-

sustainable use of the countrys biodiversity. All these things have reverberating effects to thecountrys butterfly species, which experts believe that some have already faced extinction before

being studied and identified.


5/30


Uses of Butterflies

Butterflies as bioindicators of good environment

Environmentally, butterflies are the worlds most colourful insects, which can be observed in

diversity of habitats (Smart, 1975; Taylor, 1996). They can easily respond to changes in

temperature, humidity and light (Wood & Gillman, 1998). Though adult butterflies preferbasking in full sunlight, majority of them prefer the temperature range of 25

oC to 30

oC (Novak,

1995). Though they can thermo-regulate their bodies in various ways (Clench, 1966; Huey &

Kingsolver, 1989), at temperature higher than 35oC will make them inactive or may aestivate

under the leaves of plants and forest trees (Heinrich, 1993). A study revealed that hightemperature shortens their life span and their metamorphosis cycle as well (Karlsson &

Wiklund, 2005). Butterflies also tend to produce lower number of eggs and generally hatched

with smaller sizes (Braby, 1994). Thus, they have been identified as important indicators ofdisturbances, habitats and as surrogates for other taxa (Grill & Cleary, 2003).

Adult butterflies or imagines and larvae are practicing phytophagy, that is imagines feed on

nectar while caterpillars food on leaves of plants. Majority of the larvae are specialists ormonophagous, that is their larvae or caterpillars will starve to death rather than eating different

species of plants. Thus, the egg-laying imagines are tasting plants with their feet and antennae in

finding out the right food plants for their offspring.

As such, a diverse species of butterflies means a diverse species of plants in the area (Fernandez

& Andam, 2004; Gilbert, 1984; Lawton, Bignell, Bloemers, et al., 1998).

Furthermore, as specialists, their larvae also live on specific physical conditions to proliferate.

Adults or imagines form assemblages or communities, which are specific to each of thegeographical and ecological conditions where their food plants thrive (Hammond & Miller,

1998; Hill & Hamer, 1998).

Though ants are considered as primary predators of butterflies (Fielder, Holldobler & Seufert,1996), some species of them play an important role in the life of butterflies, especially among

the Lycaenidae, Riodinidae and some Nymphalidae. The ant-butterfly relationships known asmyrmecophagy (Mann, 1999) can be classified as facultative, where a caterpillar can interactwith a number of different ant species, but does not necessarily need to be in order survive orobligative, where the caterpillar depends on a specific ant-partner for survival (Seufert &

Fiedler, 1996).

When a caterpillar is found attended by ants, usually during its larval stage, the number of ants

can vary from one to fifteen. The chief protection the ants provide is against parasitism, whilethe caterpillar usually (but not always) provides secretions-often of amino acids andcarbohydrates (Fielder, Holldobler & Seufert, 1996).

Myrmecophagous species generally lay their eggs near the specific ant colonies or found onplant species that secret foliar nectar that attracts ants themselves (Mann, 1999). This is so,

because ants are known to guard plants secreting extra floral nectar (Pierce & Mead, 1981).


6/30


The natural survival of butterflies in the wild is astonishingly low, generally, only one percent of

the eggs reach adulthood due to predation, parasitism and of course changes in their habitats(Hoskins, 2007; Novak, 1995).

It is presumed that global climate change can drastically affect their population. As their naturalenvironment changes, population dynamics and predator-prey dynamics will also change

(Hammond & Miller, 1998), especially among the forest species that are considered as highlystenotopic, habitat specific and often endemic (Spitzer, Jaros, Havelka & Leps, 1997).In Europe and various parts of the globe, many butterfly species are threatened or are declining

rapidly due to loss and fragmentation of their habitats (New, Pyle, Thomas & Hammond, 1995).

Therefore, they can serve as good flagship species for biodiversity inventories (Lawton,

Bignell, Bolton, et al., 1998) to understand their ecology, their dispersal and distribution and thequality of the ecosystem (Pollard. & Yates, 1993).

The Philippine butterfly species, like in various parts of the globe are not isolated from thesechanges and the fragmentation of their natural habitats will cause drastic decline in their

population, wherein some will be forced to extinction

With that character and ecosystem requirement, they are also considered as important species for

scientific research (Morris, Collins, Vane-Wright & Wange, 1991; Parsons, 1992).

Butterflies as scientific basis for biogeography and ecological studies

Butterflies are a suitable group for ecological studies; they are relatively large, conspicuous in

comparison to other invertebrates, mostly diurnal, their taxonomy is relatively well known, andthere are some data on their geographic distributions and for some species on their life history

(Hill & Hamer, 1998; Spitzer, Jaros, Havelka & Leps, 1997).

According to Larsen (1993), butterfly communities are specific to ecological zones and as suchless than one percent of them are ubiquitous. Most of them have their habitats restricted to the

lowland forest zone, while the less specialized species thrive in agricultural lands and disturbedforest zones.

Butterflies have been used in population dynamics. They have yielded some of the most

interesting results including the fact that local population are often not permanent but regularlygo extinct followed by spontaneous re-introduction. Butterflies have been used in studying

evolution of plants by co-evolution of insects. As such plants have evolved new and more toxic

deterrents and butterfly larvae have become increasingly adopted at overcoming them.Butterflies have been found to be vital geographical and ecological indicators; they form

communities which are specific to each of the geographical sub-regions and to different types of

ecological conditions.

Thus, they have also been instrumental in the conservation of tropical forests, development and

promotion of rural economies through ecotourism and butterfly farming (Young, 1986,BOSTID, 1983; Parsons, 1992).

Butterflies have been identified as important indicators of disturbances, habitats, and as

surrogates for other taxa (Grill & Cleary, 2003).


7/30


Most butterfly movement studies have focused on the abundance of larval food plants whenpatch quality was considered as a factor affecting movement (Schneider, Dover & Fry, 2003)

Further studies have shown that butterflies are a valuable resource in the lepidoptera tradingindustry (Parsons, 1992; Morris, Collins, Vane-Wright & Wange,1991).

Butterflies as source of livelihood for rural communities

Economically, today butterflies are treated as valuable source of income among rural

communities (Aguilar, 1993; Brinckerhoff & Sabido, 2000; Young, 1986, PCARRD, 2004).Aside from the fact that butterfly farming is endorsed by the Lepidoptera Specialists Group of

the IUCN, it preserves the environment and butterfly species in the wild as well (BOSTID,

1983; Brinckerhoff & Sabido, 2000).

The foreign demand for dried butterfly specimens known as deadstockand lived pupae known

as livestockand processed butterfly value-added products is continuously improving (Aguilar,1993; Baltazar, 1991; BOSTID, 1983; DoST-IV, 1994; Labay, 2005; PAWB, 1993).

Today, the worlds leading producers of butterfly pupae are; Malaysia, Philippines, Thailand,Taiwan, Kenya, Madagascar, United States, El Salvador and Costa Rica (Brinckerhoff &

Sabido, 2000; DoST-IV, 1994).

Butterflies as indicator of socio-cultural beliefs and practices

Rural folks have associated butterflies to the seasonal changes of nature and in their farming

practices. Through years of interacting with butterflies in the wild, they have learned of using

them as messengers of nature, that is they are relating the seasonal occurrences of certainspecies of butterflies in the wild to the right season of preparing the lands, the right season of

planting their crops, as well as in predicting the flowering and fruiting of certain species ofplants and the right season of predicting the emergence of pest in their locality. They learned

about the interrelationships between the diverse butterfly species and plants and trees in the

forest and the river by relating them to changes in seasons and weather in their locality (Labay,

2007).

Others believe that some species are serving as spirits of their love ones or spirits of the unseen

that need to be respected. Thus, in some areas of the forests and rivers where these speciesoccur, are revered as sacred and need to be protected (Labay, 2007).

Butterflies as instrumental for ecotourism

In relation to the above, butterflies in the past five years have been instrumental in promoting

ecotourism or green tourism in the countryside (BOSTID, 1983; Brinckerhoff & Sabido, 2000;Morris, Collins, Vane-Wright & Wange, 1991; Mun & Weei, 2008; Young, 1986).

The protection of their natural habitats created a landscape that attracts tourists here and abroad,

which further enhanced the creation of livelihood among rural communities.


8/30


One clear example is the Municipality of Gasan that created a monthly celebration of Gasang-Gasang, where participants are wearing outfits fashioned from butterflies wings and the

seasonal butterfly kite flying competition and butterfly release activities in their natural

habitats in a hope to replenish them in the wild.

The Butterflies of Marinduque

Systematics and Cladistics

Recent studies on the inventoried species of the province revealed 398 species (Table 2)

belonging to six families, e.g. Hesperiidae (45), Lycaenidae (164), Nymphalidae (126),

Papilionidae (31), Pieridae (30) and Riodinidae (2). They are represented by 23 subfamilies, 75tribes and 121 genera (Labay, 2008)

Table 2. Taxonomical distribution of Marinduques butterflies*Superfamily Family Subfamily Tribe Genera Species

Hesperioidea(Skippers) Hesperiidae (45)

1. Coeliadinae 1 2 7

2. Hesperiinae 5 13 283. Pyrginae 2 5 10

Papilionoidea(True Butterflies)

Lycaenidae (164)

1. Aphnaeinae 1 1 22. Curetinae 1 2 23. Lycaeninae 2 2 5

4. Miletinae 2 4 145. Polyommatinae 2 1 606. Poritinae 1 2 57. Theclinae 11 23 76

Nymphalidae (126)

1. Apaturinae 1 1 12. Charaxinae 2 3 5

3. Cyrestinae 1 1 34. Danainae 1 6 225. Heliconiinae 2 7 12

6. Libytheinae 1 1 27. Limenitidinae 5 11 32

8. Nymphalinae 4 5 129. Satyrinae 5 14 37

Papilionidae (31) 1. Papilioninae 3 7 31Pieridae (30) 1. Coliadinae 1 3 9

2. Pierinae 2 6 21Riodinidae (2) 1. Riodininae 1 1 2

Hedyloidea(Moth Butterflies)

none - - - -

Total 23 57 121 398

*Taxonomical classification was synthesized from Lepidoptera Taxome Project (2004) &Tree of Life Web Project

(2008).


9/30


Table 3. Comparative number of butterflies species at national, regional and global level.Family World Oriental Region Philippines Marinduque

Hesperiidae 4,073 570 253 45Lycaenidae & Riodinidae 5,731 620 345 166Nymphalidae 5,727 891 285 126Papilionidae 565 170 56 31

Pieridae 1,020 160 59 30Total 17,116* 2,411* 998** 398***

*Hoskins (1997)

**de Jong & Treadaway (1993); Page & Treadaway (2003); Takami & Seki (2001); Treadaway (1995);

Tsukada (1981, 1982, 1985, 1991); Schroder. & Treadaway (2002)

***Labay (2008)

By comparing these numbers from the collated results of the published scientifically knownspecies, where the country has about 998 species as shown in Table 3, the butterflies from the

province comprise 39.88 percent that of the country, 16.51 percent that of the oriental region

and 2.33 percent that of the world.

The Lycaenidae comprises two-fifths of the identified species, while the Nymphalidae

comprises one-thirds of the total. Hesperiidae and Riodinidae are least represented in number as

compared to the rest (Fig. 1).

Fig. 1. Distribution of butterfly species in Marinduque by family.

There is no clear study about butterfly endemism in the province. But, there are published

papers on species and subspecies that are named after the province, such as Arophala anthelus

marinduquensis Hayashi, Schrder & Treadaway and Dacalana monsapona marinduquensis

Hayashi, Schrder & Treadaway and Paruparo lumawigi Schrder (Lycaenidae) and Euripusnycteliusmarinduquanus Treadaway (Nymphalidae).Other species that are considered endemic are Papilio palinurus daedalus C. Felder, Papilio

luzviae Schrder & Treadaway, Pachliopta phlegon strandi Bryk and Pachliopta phlegon

(annae) phlegon C&R Felder (Papilionidae).


10/30


Habitat Distribution and Seasonality

The results of the study conducted from 1999 to 2008 in the so-called Butterfly Ecological

Zones of the province (Labay, 2008), 98.74 percent of the species could be found in Ilaya,

Bagtingon-Mt. Natilus, Balagbag Mountain Range; 93.70 percent in Bayute-Kitay-SabongRiparian Forest; 77.58 percent in Nabiling, Makawayan-Rhinoceros Horn, Mt. Malindig Area

and 44.58 percent in Tugos-Banhigan-Duyay Area.

In terms of habitat type, more species were found in the dipterocarp forests375 or 94.46%. It

is followed by the riparian forests371 or 93.45% and the swiddens and grasslands, 182

(45.84%) and 166 (41.81%) respectively. The mossy forest has 121 species (30.56%) while the

cocal and built-in areas have 100 (25.19%) and 91 (22.92%) respectively.

The diverse species of butterflies in the riparian and dipterocarp forests can be related to the

diversity of food plants in these areas. The mossy forest of Mt. Malindig, despite obscured byfog the whole year round also holds a number of species, but generally dominated by dark

coloured satyrids, nymphalids and lycaenids.

The grasslands and swiddens also have good number of species, despite the limited number of

host plants, because most of these areas are very closed to dipterocarp forests, like that of

Bagtingon-Mt Natilus and Makawayan-Mt. Malindig

The prevalence of all species in a year was observed during the months of May until August.

These maybe related to the seasonal regeneration and emergence of plants during these months,

where the early rain of May triggers the plants to produce new leaves and flowers that serve asfood plants.

Low population of species was observed in all areas in1999 as compared to 2002 and 2005. This

maybe related to the swiddening activities of the local farmers in these areas and the carried-over effect of El Nio. As what Hammond said, the population of butterflies in the wild is not

generally depending on the quality and diversity of food plants in a locality, but also dependenton minimum seasonal weather variations (p.18).

The drastic increase in population in 2002 and 2005 maybe related to the regeneration of plants

in the swiddens, especially in areas like Bagtingon-Mt. Natilus, Mt. Malindig, and Bayute-Kitay-Sabong, where swiddening was halted.

In 2001, the farmers left their swiddens for fallowingthat is leaving the land to regenerate itsnutrients to make it productive again for agriculture. Thus, this fallowing made the former

swiddens covered with food plants againrevegetating these areas with various host plants.

With these seasonal occurrences of species in their natural habitats, it can be presumed that most

of them are univoltine, that is having one brood per year. Based from the observations I made

in their natural habitat, majority of the species have one and a half to two months ofmetamorphosis change from ovum (egg) to imago (adult butterfly) and the adult has a general

lifespan of three weeks to one month, depending on species type. The eggs that were laid in late

February to early March emerged into imagines (adult butterflies) in May and would have


11/30


second broods in late July to early August. This maybe also the reason for the increase of

species in the four transects (Labay, 2008).

The species population declines during the rainy and typhoon seasons of June to October,

maybe due to weather fluctuations that make them inactive. Those species that laid their eggs inlate May would emerge into adult in late July to early August and very few of them survived in

late October up to January as the temperature declines. It was observed in some species ofpapilionids, like the graphiums, chilasas, pachlioptas and papilios that their pupae did not hatchinto imagines until next year of early March. Therefore, they hibernate during these cold

months.

On the other hand, the farmed species are generally multivoltine as they are reared incontrolled conditions. Thus, in built-in areas of Tugos-Duyay, where backyard farming is one of

the sources of income, some butterflies can be seen the whole year round. This is so, because

some farmers are using the ranch-type of farming, where the species are flying freely in theirfarms. Another reason is that, they are obliged by the Department of Environment & Natural

Resources to release 10 percent of their farmed species as requirement for the renewal of

permits (Labay, 2008).

During the months of October to January, majority of the farmers release most of their stock,

because during these months the world market for pupae is temporarily stopped. The reason isthat butterflies will not survive in butterfly houses in Europe and other importing countries

during winter time. Majority of the farmers during these months, especially those applying theKinulambo and Kumpay type, release their stocks in their backyards, making these species

available during these months and the coming year.

In the early 90s, some species were reported not seen in the wild for almost 15 years, such as the

papilionids, Triodes magellanus C&R Felder, Pachliopta phlegon strandi Bryk, Pachliopta

phlegon (annae) phlegon C&R Felder, Pachliopta schadenbergi Semper and Atrophaneurasempere.

Other species include; Dacalana monsapona marinduquensis Hayashi, Schrder & Treadaway

and Paruparo lumawigi Schrder (Lycaenidae), Euripus nyctelius marinduquanus Treadaway(Nymphalidae), Parantica sita Kollar (Nymphalidae),Lexias satrapes C. Felder (Nymphalidae)

andHebomoia glaucippe Linnaeus (Pieridae).

Re-introduction of some species were made by the Layrons and the Franciscos in the early 90s,

such as Triodes magellanus from Batanes and Aurora andHebomoia glaucippe from Mindoro.

On the other hand, some butterfly farmers and local traders also engaged in introducing species

that are not found in the province, such as the Idea leuconoe Erichson (Nymphalidae) in theearly 90s from Quezon, and the Papilio memnon Linnaeus and Papilio lowii Druce from

Palawan.


12/30


Larval-, Nectar-Host Plants and Associated Ant Species

Majority of the species are phytophagous (79.2%), that is their larvae subsist on plants (324).

The rests are myrmecophagous-phyto-predaceous 69 (17.3%) and totally entomophagous /

aphytophagous 14 (3.5%) (Fig. 2). Therefore, to farm these species, it is important to know theirlarval-host plants.

Fig. 2. Distribution of species in terms of larval food preference.

The phytophagous species were found subsisting on 324 species of plants belonging to 62families (Fig. 3). Majority of them are shrubs and trees belonging to Papilionaceae, Moraceae,

Lauraceae and Rutaceae that are found along the riparian areas and dipterocarp forests. These

shrubs and trees are intertwined with lianas, vines and herbs under the tree canopies.

Fig. 3. Distribution of larval-host plants by family.

Majority of the larval-food plants are classified as shrubs (33.6%), lianas and vines (20.1%),

trees (13.3%) and herbs (11.7%) (Fig. 4).


13/30


Fig. 4. Distribution of larval-host plants in terms of plant form.

Based on Table 4, the computed butterfly species-host plant ratio, it reveals that majority of thelarvae are host specific, e.g. hesperriids (1:1.15), lycaenids (1:0.63), nymphalids (1:1.28),

papilionids (1:1.48) and pierids (1:0.59). Therefore, majority of them are monophagous tooligophagous, that is they are subsisting on specific host plants or in a number of host plants

within the same family (Labay, 2008).

Table 4. Distribution of larval-host plants versus butterfly family, genus and species.

Bufferfly familyButterfly feeder Larval-host plant

No. genera(57)

No. species(398)

No. families(62*)

No. genera(186*)

No. species(324*)

Hesperiidae 20 45 9 27 51Lycaenidae 35 164 60 63 103

Nymphalidae 49 126 64 100 166Papilionidae 9 31 7 24 46Pieridae 7 30 5 10 17Riodinidae 1 2 1 3 5

* Referring to the total number (not the sum) since these values e.g. plant families, genera, etc., are distributed to thefive butterfly families.

From the data again, it can be presumed that the pierids and the lycaenids are those species that

can be easily affected by adverse changes in their natural environment, especially once their host

plants are destroyed. Therefore, the number of butterfly species in a certain locality is a bio-indicator of a good environment, not only the diverse species of plants that support them, but

also the abiotic factors like weather, human encroachment, etc. that alter their population in the

wild.


14/30


Table 5. Butterfly species that are associated with ants.Subfamily Tribe Genera No. sp. Larval-Host Plant Larval-Host AntsA. Entomophagous / Aphytophagous

Miletinae Miletini Allotinus 6 - Anoplolepis, Crematogaster,Oecophylla, Technomyrmex,Pseudoregma

Logania 3 - Crematogaster,Dolichoderus, Leptothorax

Miletus 4 - Dolichoderus, Pheidole,Polyrhachis, Pseudoregma

Spalgini Spalgis 1 - Crematogaster, Oecophylla

B. Myrmecophagous / Phyto-predaceous

Polyommatinae Lycaenesthini Anthene 4 Anacardiaceae,Papilionaceae

Crematogaster, Oecophylla

Niphandini Niphanda 1 Fagaceae Camponotus,Crematogaster

Theclinae Aphnaeini Spindasis 2 Combretaceae,Dioscoreaceae,Myrtaceae

Crematogaster

Arophalini Arophala 23 Boraginaceae,Combretaceae,

Lythraceae,Papilionaceae

Crematogaster, Oecophylla,Pseudoregma

Flos 5 Lythraceae,Myrtaceae

Crematogaster,Pseudoregma

Surendra 2 Papilionaceae Crematogaster, OecophyllaCheritrini Drupadia 1 Rubiaceae CrematogasterLoxurini Drina 1 Combretaceae,

LythraceaeCrematogaster

Loxura 1 Dioscoreaceae CrematogasterDeudorigini Bindahara 1 Hippocrateaceae Crematogaster

Deudorix 4 Loganaceae,Punicaceae,Sapindaceae

Crematogaster, Oecophylla

Rapala 9 Eleagnaceae,Papilionaceae

Crematogaster

Sinthusa 3 Rosaceae CrematogasterSource: Labay (2005a)

Seventy species of Lycaenidae were found living with ants (Table 5). Fourteen of them arecompletely entomophagous, the Miletinae species (2 tribes, 4 genera). Fifty-seven are

myrmecophagous with eleven genera of Theclinae and two of Polyommatinae (Labay, 2005a).

Majority of them lived with Crematogaster sp. (3) Miletini, (10) Theclini and (2) Polyommatini.Other ants associated with majority of the species are Oecophylla sp. (6) and Pseudoregma sp.

(4).

Most species of myrmecophagous were found in areas with Macaranga sp. (Euphorbiaceae),Zingiber sp. (Zingiberaceae) and in areas with wild bamboos, where ants nests on their leaves,

flowers and soil could be found (Labay, 2005a).

The most preferred nectar-host plants of the imagines in the wild are the Lantana camara,Stachytarpheta jamaicensis, Asclepias currassavica, Ixora species in this decreasing order of

significance as presented in Table 6.


15/30


Table 6. The preferred nectar-host plants of butterflies in the wild.Species Family Local NameLantana camara L. Verbenaceae Lantana, HintatakawStachytarpheta jamaicensis (L.) Vahl. Verbenaceae Kandikandila, SentimientoAsclepias currassavica L. Asclepidiaceae Bulak-BulakanIxora species Rubiaceae Santan, Sta. AnaDuranta species Verbenaceae Duranta

Samanea saman L. Papilionaceae AcaciaBarleria cristata L. Acanthaceae VioletaBarleria prionitis L. Acanthaceae Tahid-ManokCrataeva religiosa Forst. f. Papilionaceae -Cassia species Papilionaceae -Mimosa invisa Mart. Papilionaceae Makahiyang GubatHeliotropium indicum L. Boraginaceae Buntot-LeonPassiflora species Passifloraceae -Ipomoea triloba L. Convulvolaceae Aurora, Kamote-kamotihanAlbizzia species Papilionaceae -Psidium guajava L. Myrticaceae BayabasIpomoea pes-tigridis L. Convulvolaceae Kamoteng may gilikCommelina diffusa Burm. f. Commelinaceae Tari-TariMedinilla species Melastomataceae Kapa-KapaMelastoma secies. Melastomataceae -Clerodendrum species Verbenaceae -Cleome spinosa Jacq. Capparidaceae -Mussaenda philippica A. Rich. Rubiaceae TaligharapClitoria ternatea L. Papionaceae -Coffea arabica L. Rubiaceae KapeCosmos species Asteraceae CosmosTibouchina species Melastomataceae -Tithonia diversifolia (Hemsl.)A.Gray Asteraceae Wild SunflowerVitex species Verbenaceae -

Note: The term species refer to the different plants under the same genera.

The Butterfly Livelihood of Marinduque

Brief Social History of the Livelihood

The butterfly livelihood in Marinduque had its early beginnings in the 60s (1965). It started fromthe hobby of Romeo Lumawig (Box 1) of collecting butterflies for dried specimens, which later

developed into exchanging of his personal collections with foreign contacts in the USA, Japan,

Australia and Canada (Donato, 2002).


16/30


Due to the uniqueness of the specimens

that Romeo sent to his foreign friends,they requested for more specimens and

species. This marked the beginning of

exporting butterflies as dried specimens.Brought by the increasing demands,

Romeo contacted his former childhoodfriend Ambrosio Layron of Cawit, Boacto serve as his tauhan (paid-labourer)

in collecting butterfly specimens in

Marinduque (Labay, 2005b).

Ambrosio on the other hand, involved

his three sons, Pepito, Grelando and

Angelito, who were elementary gradersthen, in collecting butterflies during

weekends.

When the Layrons learned that the most

species of butterflies could be found in

Bagtingon, Buenavista, they settled inthat village and shared their knowledge

and skills to the Franciscos, especially to

brothers Luna, Mario and Venus.

In 25 August 1972, Yazusuki

Nishiyama, (Box 2) a Japanese

enthusiast-entrepreneur arrived in

Manila as he was fascinated by thespecimens that Romeo had sent abroad.

For him, Philippine butterflies areworth-searching and studying, due to

their diversity. Lumawig referred

Nishiyama to his nephew, Edgar Borja

to join in the formers expeditions invarious parts of the country.

In 1973, the generous Japanese shared to Borja and to his kumpadres Domingo Dacasin and

Rodrigo Rodriguez of Palawan, the secrets of farming butterflies using a hanging-circular cage(Labay, 2005b).

In the early 70s, a number of Japanese tourists, butterfly enthusiasts, collectors and tradersvisited Bagtingon, Buenavista. One of them was Yazusuki Nishiyama, who became one of their

compadrazos (Labay & Ombao, 2000).

The success of the establishments of lived butterfly parks and gardens in Europe in 1980 led tothe construction of the London House of Butterflies. So, similar establishments were constructed

Box 2

List of Butterflies Named after Yasuzuki Nishiyama

Arophala alitaeusnishiyamai, Hayashi (1981)Pareronianishiyamai, Yata (1981)Udaranishiyamai, Eliot & Kawazoe (1983)

Source: CESA (1999)

Box 1

List of Butterflies Named after Romeo Lumawig &Family

Atrophaneura semperiimogeneSchrder & Treadaway,1976(namedafter daughter Imogene Lumawig Rillo)

Bassarona piraticalromeoSchrder & Treadaway,1987Charaxes amycusbayaniiSchrder & Treadaway,1982

(named after son Bayani)Charaxes amycusmarionSchrder & Treadaway,1981

(named after daughter Marion)Euploea tobleriromeoSchrder & Treadaway,1978HoragaelizabethaeSchroeder & Treadaway, 2001Neocheritra manatagertrudesSchrder & Treadaway,1978

(named after his wife Gertrudes)Pachliopta strandielizabethaePage & Treadaway, 1997

(named afterdaughter Elizabeth LumawigHeitzman)

ParuparolumawigilumawigiSchrder,1976 (Paruparoisthe Tagalog word for butterfly)

ParuparolumawigijumaloniTreadaway & Nuyda,1993

ParuparolumawigimindoranaSchrder & Treadaway,1993ParuparolumawigipanayensisHayashi, Schrder &Treadaway,1984

PratapaismaeliSchrder & Treadaway,1983 (named afterson Ismael)

TerinosromeoSchrder & Treadaway,1984

Sources: CESA (1999) & Nssig (comp.) (2005)


17/30


18/30


Butterfly farming is the horticultural activity of propagating the appropriate butterfly larval-

food plants (plants that serve as food to butterflies larvae or caterpillar) and the nectar-producing or flowering plants preferred by adult butterflies as their source of food. These plants

are considered as the key to sustain this livelihood, because each butterfly has specific larval-

food plants to live on until they turned into pupae or chrysalis and finally imagine. Thus,butterfly farming is inherently dependent on the native larval-and nectar-host plants available

and the habitat that these plants created.

In doing so, the farmers first establish a garden of these plants called as butterfly farm, which

can be located in their backyards or under the coconut groves or along the sides of their

ricefields, vegetables and root crops plots. A number of these native plants are needed for a

constant supply of food for the larvae and to sustain the life of the imagine, especially the egg-laying butterflies. The most important aspect is, once the farm is established and the plants

reached their stable maturity, a number of butterflies can be seen flying around the garden as

they are attracted by the nectar-producing plants and the odour release by the leaves of thesefood plants. This combination of leafy larval-food plants and flowering plants provide a

complete habitat where butterflies find everything they need to proliferate. One good important

aspect of butterfly farming is that these native plants do not need inputs, like fertilizers,pesticides and other labour-intensive activities as compared to vegetables, rice and coconut

farming (Labay, 2005b).

Butterfly breeding is the process of culturing the captive-bred butterfly stocks (butterfly

species that are produced in a butterfly farm) out of the established butterfly garden. In

Marinduque, it is done in different ways based on the local innovations that the farmers made,

such as: a) kinulambo or by using a kulambo (kulambo is the Tagalog name for mosquito net,which serves as the flight cage for the captive-bred butterfly stocks); b) kinumpay or by using akumpay (refers to cabinet lined with finely-mesh nets) where the larvae or caterpillars are

placed to protect them against pests like ants; c) by a combination of [a] and [b]; d) sinuputan or

sleeving, that is covering the whole plants with larvae on them with finely-mesh net; and e) byusing a ranch-type farming, where host plants are extensively propagated in order to attract the

egg-laying female imagines around it.

Life cycle Average duration Some observations

ovum to larva 7 10 days Oviposited by first tasting the plants with taste padslarvae to pupa 3 4 weeks Pupation generally occurs from 8-10 pmpupa to imago 7 10 days Emergence into adult generally occurs from 8-10 am

imago 3 - 4 weeks 90% of the males are observed in the wild generallypuddlingsipping sodium ions

The newly emerged pupae from the kumpay cabinets, kulambo, supot or in a butterfly ranch,

which are called livestock are kept in boxes lined with cotton and are sold to the middlemenand exporters. Other farmers opt to market dried specimens of newly emerged butterfly frompupal stage, which are called as deadstock.

Marketing Trends

With almost ten years of studying butterflies and its related livelihood, it revealed that butterfly

farming in the Philippines started in Cebu, Marinduque and Palawan, but only Marinduque isdoing it in commercial scale (Labay, 2005b).


19/30


As shown in the 1993 report of PAWB (1993), 78.53% of the registered butterflyfarmers/traders are Marinduqueos, thus making it a distinctive landmark livelihood of the

province.

Table 7.Number of households engaged in butterfly livelihood nationwide

Locality/Place Number of engaged households Percent (%)Marinduque 139 78.53Palawan 11 6.21Oriental Mindoro 7 3.95Tarlac 5 2.82Quezon Province 4 2.26Manila City 4 2.26Mountain Province 2 1.13Cavite 1 0.56Nueva Ecija 1 0.56Baguio City 1 0.56Quezon City 1 0.56Surigao 1 0.5612 Provinces nationwide 177

PAWB Wildlife Division (1993)

Though there are no new records or follow-up studies made by PAWB nationwide, in theprovince of Marinduque, the number of engaged households increased to 216 in 2000 (Table 8),

that swelled to 345 households provincewide (Ombao, 2002). The number of registered traders

also increased from five in 1993 to 20 in 1995.

In the same work of Ombao (2002), it revealed that 80 percent of the farmers were from Boac.

The rest of the households in the remaining municipalities have low engagement in thelivelihood for unknown reason, especially Sta. Cruz and Torrijos.

Table 8. Number of engaged households in butterfly farming and marketing.Year No. engaged households No. registered traders

1993 139 51994 141 51995 158 71996 133 101997 152 101998 202 151999 205 162000 216 182001 222 182002 345 182003 218 172004 236 202005 317 20


20/30


Table 9. Distribution of engaged households by municipality.

Towns Number of engaged households Percent (%)Boac 276 80.0Buenavista 8 2.3Gasan 37 10.7Mogpog 22 6.4

Sta. Cruz 0 -Torrijos 2 0.6

345

Ombao (2002)

Level of capitalization by activity.Of the four related activities, butterfly product processing

has the highest level of capitalization, PhP 2,250 (approx. 35 by todays exchange rate), whichis generally used in buying wooden frames, glass, glue, sealant and dried specimens, while

trading has a mean of PhP 2,116.67 (approx. 33), and generally used in processing papers for

the necessary permits.

Breeding which is participated in by majority has a mean of PhP 293.615 (approx. 4,50),.

Collection in the wild shows the lowest at PhP 60.71 (approx. 0,93),, which is generally usedin buying materials for hand nets.

Volume and value of marketed livestock or pupae. Of the 398 known species, only 38 or only

9.55 percent are farmed as livestock, which constitute the bulk of the traded butterfly products(Table 10)

Table 10. Number of marketed butterfly species as livestock versus

available species per family.Family Total Species Marketed as livestockHesperiidae 45 -Lycaenidae 164 -

Nymphalidae 126 17Papilionidae 31 15Pieridae 30 6Riodinidae 2 -

Total 398 38 (9.55%)

The papilios constitute the bulk of the traded livestock from 1994 to 2005. This comprisesalmost 75 percent of the traded pupae (Fig. 5).

Sudden decline in volume was exhibited in 1997 to 2004, which was presumed caused by dryseason and infestation. High volume was exhibited in 1994, which was presumed due to the

opening of more butterfly zoos in Europe, USA, Japan and Canada.

The computed sales declined from 1997 to 1999, which is presumed cause by the same factors.

The highest sale was made in 1997 amounting to Php 3,491,318 (approx. 54.000) and then rose

to Php 4,427,410 (approx. 68.000) in 1999.

From the computed value a household can have an avarage earning of Php 30,000 to Php 50,000

(approx. 462 770) per year, which is a good income among farmers in the rural areas.


21/30


Their most preferred livestock are the papilios, especially Papilio rumazovia and Papilio

palinurus, as well as Chilasa clytia paliphates, Papilio demoleus, Papilio polytes, Idea

leuconoe,Hypolimnas bolina and Cethosia biblis.

Fig. 5. Volume of traded lived pupae or livestock per year.

Volume and value of marketed deadstock or dried butterflies. Of the 398 species, 131 or32.91 percent are traded as deadstock (Table 11). The papilios also constitute the bulk of the

traded deadstock, with an average percentage of 80.

Abrupt decline was observed in 1999, because trading of deadstock was banned, especially inthe USA, due to problems with introduction of fungis that are present in it, when not properly

processed. Activities of the animal welfare groups in the country also affects the traded of deadspecimens.

Table 11. Number of marketed butterfly species as deadstock versus available

species per family.Family Total Species Marketed as deadstock

Hesperiidae 45 -Lycaenidae 164 28Nymphalidae 126 49

Papilionidae 31 26Pieridae 30 28Riodinidae 2 -

Total 398 131 (32.91%)

At present most of the deadstocks are used in making framed butterflies and few novelty items.Cethosia biblis (Nymphalidae) andIdea leuconoe (Nymphalidae) appear to be the most favored,followed by Appias nero (Pieridae), Delias hyparete (Pieridae), Delias henningia (Pieridae),


22/30


Palilio polytes, Papilio rumanzovia and Papilio palinurus (all Papilionidae). This maybe due to

their brightly colored wings, which are good for framed novelty products.

Highest sale of deadstocks was in 1995, amounting to PhP 489,858 (approx. 7.540) and lowest

in 1999 at PhP 146, 246 (approx. 2.250).

Fig. 6. Volume of traded dried specimens or deadstock per year.

Volume of marketed lived adults or imagines

Though the trading of imagines for special occasions, like the butterfly release activities for

weddings, parties, funerals and other celebrations started only in the late 90s, this also addincome to the butterfly farmers.

Fig. 7. Volume of marketed live imagines per year.


23/30


At present majority of the species use are the Idea leucnoe (Nymphalidae), which can be

attributed from their size and slow flying movement, aside from the fact that they can be easilyfarmed. Other species include Hypolimnas bolina (Nymphalidae), Ideopsis juventa manillana

(Nymphalidae) and some pierids likeEurema (Terias) sp.

As shown in Fig. 7, there was a drastic increased in marketing lived imagines from 2003 to

2005. The volume was dominated by Nymphalidae, especiallyI. leucnoe.

Predation and Parasitism

Predation and parasitism are the worst problems of butterfly farming, giving heavy toll to the

population of majority of the species. The application of pesticides of course is not applicable,

because the butterflies themselves will be also affected.

Study revealed that in the wild, these same problems are bringing heavy toll to majority of the

species, and only less than 10 percent of the laid eggs (300 to 500) survived to replenish the next

years species.

The study made with Idea leuconoe in natural habitat, under Marinduque condition, only 15

percent of the 300 laid eggs hatched into larvae. At the end of the larval stage only 10 survivedto pupal stage. And at the end of the cycle only three made it to adult stage (Table 12).

It is presumed that in the wild, over half of all pupae are eaten by predators, infected byparasitoids, or die from desiccation due to high temperature and drastic changes of weather, thus

two or three at the end of the cycle will emerge into adults.

Table 12. Survival chart ofI. leuconoe for each stage in natural habitat.Ova Larvae Pupae Imagine

300 45 % survived from ova 10 % survived from ova 3 % survived from ova15 3.33 1

% survived from larvae % survived from larvae22.22 6.66

% survived from pupae30

When the same experiment was done under controlled conditions, results showed that the degreeof survival for each cycle was so high.

Table 13. Survival chart ofI. leuconoe for each stage under controlled condition.Ova Larvae Pupae Imagine

300 273 % survived fromova 268 % survived from ova 263 % survived from ova

91 89.33 87.67

% survived from larvae % survived from larvae98.17 96.34

% survived from pupae98.13


24/30


Through farming, perhaps 90 percent of those laid eggs will hatch, which can be sustained until

the adult stage is reached.

In the province, the most recorded problems of butterfly farming are the ants that devour on both

the ova, larvae, pupae and imago in all their stages. These include the red ants and Oecophylla

smaragdina. It is advised that cages need not be placed close to trees and shrubs that harbour

these species.

Other farming enemies include robberflies, wasps, spiders, praying mantis, lizards, frogs, birds

and even men.

The most common parasites that can even affect controlled farming are the chalcid and braconidwasps, trachid flies and some ovipositors. These include the following species: Cotesia sp.,Trichogramma sp.Diadegma sp. and trachiid wasps.

These parasites can parasitize butterflies in all their stages starting from ova to larvae up to

pupae stages. Most of them are too small, which can even pass through the nets of butterfly

farms and cabinets.

Plant-Butterflies-Parasites Chemistry

Understanding the plant-butterflies-parasites interactional chemistry is also important in

butterfly farming. Plants are releasing secondary chemical that may either protect or killed thelarvae and imagine as well. Butterflies are not only phytophagous, but also pharmacophagous as

they respond on certain chemicals present in the plants leaves and flowers, which they may

sequester or evade for their protection.

The eyes of butterflies are sensitive to ultraviolet lights, which lie between the frequency of

violet and blue, thus flowers that are coloured blue and violet easily attracted them, thus theflowers of Stachytarpheta, Duranta, Ipomoea, Clitoria, Tibouchina and Melastoma. Thesespecies also have high content of anthocyanins.

Flowers with shades of green also attracted butterflies, like the case ofPapilio palinurus (Labay,2008). This maybe associated to the structural colour of the wings of their mates or maybe they

associated it to the colour of their larvaes food plants, theZanthoxylum sp. (Rutaceae).

Flowers that are emitting ultraviolet light guide butterflies easily. Flowers that are changing theircolours from yellow to red as brought by the changes in levels of anthocyanin present, serve as

cue to foraging butterflies, like the case ofLantana camara.

Butterflies can also detect the presence of their food plants for a distance of about a kilometre.

Thus, a concentration of their food plants will easily lure them around.

The ovipositing danaids and some nymphalids are guided by the amounts of iridoid glycosides,

such as aucubin and catalpol in the leaves of the plants, which are presumed important to protect

their larvae from parasites.


25/30


Pyrrolizidine alkaloids in plants leaves, especially among Apocynaceae also attract ovipositing

butterflies, which later on will be sequestered by their larvae as protection against predators andparasites.

Floral and leaves volatiles, such as the monoterpene trans--ocimene and the sesquiterpenes -caryophyllene and -caryophyllene, like inLantana camara attract a foraging butterfly.

On the other hand, Rutaceae with high content of hydroxybenzoic acids, like Citrus hystrix,deterred the ovipositing papilionids. This is also true to those plants with high content of

phellamurin (flavonoid glycoside) apiin and apigenin (Apiceae flavonoids) and gentisic acid.

The levels of natural chemicals are also increased by some plants in response to the foraging

larvae and ovipositing imagines.

Though phenols, such as chlorogenic acid and hydrolizable tannins are abundant among plants,

especially in the leaves, they do not deter foraging larvae. But when these chemicals are

oxidized into quinones, they deter or may make sick the herbivore larvae.

Antiaphrodisiac compounds like methyl salicylate that are passed on by the males to their mated

females served as cue to parasites, like Cotesia sp.

Host-plants also respond to larvae attack by producing green-leafy volatiles (GLVs) and volatile

odorous compounds (VOCs) in order to attract parasitoid wasps, like Diadegma sp.( Snoeren,

2009) and braconid wasps Cotesia sp. (Geervliet, Vet & Dicke, 1996). Diadegmasp. deposits

eggs in the larvae, which produce more parasitoid wasps. They are unable to smell caterpillarsso they rely on the chemical signal release by plants.

The released VOCs also serve as cue to other plant species in the vicinity, alarming them of the

larval attack that was happening.

The odoriferous chemical substance that are released by butterfly frass, especially when wet,also serve as cue to foraging parasites. Thus, cleanliness in the farm must be maintained to avoid

infestation and parasitism of eggs, larvae and pupae.

Conclusion

Butterfly farming is an emerging livelihood and a hobby at the same time. It is a combination offarming floral (flowering) and foliar (leafy) plants that provide a complete habitat for butterflies

to grow, proliferate and reproduce. The livestock may be enclosed in a caged garden or may

freely flutter in an open garden or a reserve that also attracts tourists here and abroad.

Technically the farming of butterflies is a combination of different strategies depending on thetime, money and effort that the farmer will be engaged.

First and foremost in this livelihood is the establishment of gardens with a diversity of plants

that will serve as larval and nectar-host plants and at the same time will give an over-all effect

suitable for butterflies to grow and reproduce. Some of these plants can be intercropped withother agricultural crops, provided that chemical farming is not allowed.


26/30


Once the gardens are established, butterfly farming will be a low maintenance activity, which

can be easily managed and performed by rural families. The butterflies are the perfect productlight, not bulky, non-perishable, unique, applying simple technology, but high valued, especially

when fashioned into novelty products.

The livelihood is really environment-friendly, no chemical inputs and therefore protects

biodiversity and the ecosystem. It is also socio-culturally acceptable in the rural areas, which atthe end can attract green tourism, which is favoured by the Western tourists. Through this,urban wealth can be channelled into the rural areas.

It is attuned to the World Banks 2004 Forest Strategy, that is harnessing the potential of theforests to reduce poverty by demonstrating that every member of the family, the community can

engage in economic activities, that is wholesome to the environment and rewarding to the

community people. It has been said that, "for any form of farming to be successful andsustainable, it must be profitable", thus this will integrate the forests resources in the sustainable

economic development of the countryside.

The livelihood can be easily integrated to the farming practices and the socio-cultural values ofthe people, since majority of the poor families are small farmers. This does not require tracts of

land, but will help in protecting the remaining forests to sustain the livelihood in the long run. Itcan also trigger the local government units (LGUs) to come-up with policies that will expedite

the creation of protected areas, parks and wildlife sanctuaries that will serve as gene banks for

butterflies and connected forms of life.

Through butterfly livelihood, conservation of nature and local enterprise-building can be

integrated holistically.

References

Ackery, P. R., de Jong, R. & Vane-Wright, R. I.. (1999). The Butterflies: Hedyloidea, Hesperioidea andPapilionoidea. Lepidoptera: Moths and Butterflies 1. Evolution, Systematics and Biogeography. Vol. 4, Part

35. In N. P. Kristensen (ed.)Handbook of Zoology. De Gruyter, Berlin and New York.

Aguilar, N. O. (1993). Butterfly Culture and Marketing of Progenies. Training course on butterfly culture and

marketing. NCPC-UPLB, 12-14 May 1993.

Ballentes, M. G., Mohagan, A. B., Gapud, V. P., Espallardo, M. C. P. & Zarcilla, M. O. (2006). Arthropod Faunal

Diversity and Relevant Interrelationships of Critical Resources in Mt. Malindang, Misamis Occidental.

Southeast Asian Regional Center for Graduate Study and Research in Agriculture (SEARCA) Biodiversity

Research Programme for Development in Mindanao: Focus on Mt. Malindang and Environs.

Baltazar, C. R. (1991).An Inventory of Philippine Insects: II. Order Lepidoptera (Rhopalocera).University of the

Philippines-Los Banos, Philippines.

Board on Science & Technology for International Development (BOSTID) (1983). Managing Tropical Animal

Resources: Butterfly Farming in Papua New Guinea. Washington DC: National Academy of Sciences Press.

Braby, M.F. (1994) The significance of egg size variation in butterflies in relation to hostplant quality. Oikos, 71,

89129.

Brinckerhoff, J. & Sabido, M. (2000). All About Butterfly Farming. The Butterfly Farmer, Educational Resources,

Costa Rica Entomological Supply. Retrieved 20 December 2007 from

http.//www.butterflyfarm.co.cr/farmer.htm

Brower, A.V. Z. (2008). True Butterflies. Papilionoidea Latreille 1802. [Electronic Version] 07 October 2008

(under construction). Retrieved 27 June 2009 from http://tolweb.org/Papilionoidea/12027/2008.10.07inThe

Tree of Life Web Project, http://tolweb.org/

Bryant, D., Nielsen, D. & Tangley, L. (1997). The Last Frontier Forests: Ecosystems and Economies on the Edge.

Washington DC: World Resources Institute.


27/30


Donato, A. E. (2002, August 19). Apolitical Mr. Butterfly. Inquirer News Centre. Retrieved 24 April 2004 from

http://marinduque.net/apolitical.htm

Centre for Entomological Studies Ankara (CESA) (1999). The Lepidoptera Fauna of the Philippine Islands:

Papilionoidea & Hesperioidea. Ankara, Turkey. Retrieved 25 February 2005 from

http://www.members.tripod.com/~Cesa_1988/on.html

Clench, H. K. (1966) Behavioral thermoregulation in butterflies.Ecology, 47, 10211034.

Conservation International (2008). Philippines: Diversity and endemism. In Biodiversity Hotspots. Retrieved 27

June 2009 from http://web.biodiversity.org/xp/Hotspots/ philippines/biodiversity.xml

Colchester, M. & Lohmann, L. (eds.) (1993). The Struggle for Land and the Fate of the Forest. London: Zed

Books.

Danielsen, F. & Treadaway, C. G. (2004). Priority conservation areas for butterflies (Lepidoptera: Rhopalocera) in

the Philippine islands.Animal Conservation, 7, 7992. DOI:10.1017/S1367943003001215

de Jong, R. & Treadaway, C. G. (1993). The Hesperiidae (Lepidoptera) of the Philippines. Zoologische

Verhandelingen, 288, 116-121.

Department of Science & Technology (DoST-IV) (1994). Techno-feature: Pag-aalaga ng Paru-paro, Sumisikat na

Industiya. Science & Technology Prospects, 9(2):2&3.

Djoghlaf, A. (2008). United Nations Convention of Biodiversity. Manila, Philippines.

Fernandez, R. A. (reporter) & Andam, C. J. (interviewee) (2004, January 4). Butterfly genebank, set-up on Mt.

Makiling. The Philippine Star. Retrieved 12 February 2004 from

www.newsflash.org/2004/02/si/si001853.htmFiedler, K., Holldobler, B. & Seufert, P. (1996). Butterflies and ants: the communicate domain.Experientia52, 14-

24.Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) (1995). Forest Resources Assessment 1990:

Global Synthesis. FAO Forestry Paper 124 Annex 1, p. 21.

Gapud, V. P. (2005). The status of insect biodiversity in the Philippines. Samut Sari, 4, (1):2-5.

Geervliet, J. B. F., Vet, L. E. M. & Dicke, M. (1996). Innate responses of the parasitoids Cotesia glomerata and C.

rubecula (Hymenoptera: Braconidae) to volatiles from different plant-herbivorecomplexes.J. Insect Behav.

9:525538.

Gilbert, L. E. (1984). The Biology of Butterfly Communities, In R. I. Vane-Wright & P. R. Ackery (eds.) The

Biology of Butterflies. pp. 41-54. London: Academic Press.

Grill, A. & Cleary, D. F. R. (2003). Diversity patterns in butterfly communities of the Greek nature reserve Dadia.

Biological Conservation, 114: 427436.

Hammond, P. C. & Miller, J. C. (1998). Comparison of the biodiversity of Lepidoptera within three forested

ecosystems.Annals of the Entomological Society of America, 91,323-328.

Heaney, L. R. & Regalado, J. C. Jr. (1998). Vanishing Treasures of the Philippine RainForest. Chicago:The Field Museum.

Heinrich, B. (1993) The Hot-blooded Insects: Strategies and Mechanisms of Thermoregulation. Berlin: Springer.

Hill, J. K. & Hamer, K. C. (1998). Using species abundance models as indictors of habitat disturbance in tropical

forests.J. Applied Ecol., 35, 458-460.

Holloway, J. D. (2003). Biological images of geological history: through a glass darkly or brightly face to face? J.

Biogeography, 30, 165180.

Hoskins, A. (2007). Butterfly census. Retrieved 8 December 2007 from

http://www.learnaboutbutterflies.com/Taxonomy%202.htm

Huey, R. B. & Kingsolver, J. G. (1989) Evolution of thermal sensitivity of ectotherms. Trends in Ecology and

Evolution, 4, 131135.

Isaac, N. J. B., Mallet, J. & Mace, G. M. (2004). Taxonomic inflation: its influence on macroecology and

conservation. TRENDS in Ecology and Evolution, 19(9):464-469.

ITTO (2000 April). Tropical Forest. U . P . D. A . T .E [A newsletter from the International Tropical Timber

Organisation to Promote Conservation and Sustainable Development of Tropical Forests] 10, 4.

Karlsson, B. & Wiklund, C. (2005). Butterfly life history and temperature adaptations; dry open habitats select for

increased fecundity and longevity.J. Animal Ecol., 74,99104. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2656.2004.00902.x

Labay, P. M. (2005a). Taxonomic classification of Lycaenids (Rhopalocera) of Marinduque and their larval-host

plants and associated ants. The Marinduque State College Journal of Research & Innovation, 4(1):4-9.

Labay, P. M. (2005b). The Social History of a Hobby that Turned into a Livelihood Strategy: The Case of Butterfly

Livelihood in Rural Philippines (Masters Thesis: Wageningen University & Research Centre, The

Netherlands, June 2001).


28/30


Labay, P. M. (2007). Farmers endogenous knowledge and practices for a sustainable butterfly livelihood.

International Conference on Research in Higher Education Institutions. Waterfront Hotel, Lahug, Cebu

City. 24-27 October 2007. Commission on Higher Education (CHED).

Labay, P. M. (2008). The Rhopalocera (Butterflies) of Marinduque. International Research Conference. Iloilo City:

West Visayas State University

Lawton, J. H., Bignell, D. E., Bolton, B., Bloemers, G. F. Eggleton, P., Hammond, P. M., Hodda, M., Holt, R. D.,

Larsen, T. B., Mawdsley, N. A., Stork, N. E., Srivastava, D. S. & Watt, A. D. (1998). Biodiversity

inventories, indicator taxa and effects of habitat modification in tropical forest.Nature, 391, 72-76.

Lepidoptera Taxome Project (2002 May 23). The Lepidoptera Taxome Project [Draft]. Retrieved 25 June 2009

from http://www.ucl.ac.uk/taxome/eoi.pdf

Lepidoptera Taxome Project (2004). Taxonomy of butterflies: The scale of the problem. Retrieved 25 June 2009

from http://www.ucl.ac.uk/taxome/rhopnos.html

Mann, J. (1999, April 19). Myrmecophily: Ants and butterflies, the evolution, effects, and maintenance of their

relationships.

Mey, W. (2003). Insular radiation of the genus Hydropsyche (Insecta, Trichoptera: Hydropsychidae) Pictet, 1834 in

the Philippines and its implications for the biogeography of Southeast Asia.J. Biogeography, 30, 227236.

Mittermeier, R.A., Myers, N., Gil, P. R. & Mittermeier, C. G. (2004). Hotspots: Earths Biologically Richest and

Most Endangered Terrestrial Ecoregions. CEMEX, Conservation International and Agrupacion Sierra

Madre, Monterey, Mexico.

Mogato, M. (reporter), Crimmins, C. & Crabb, R. (eds.) (2008, June 20). UN calls on Asian nations to end

deforestation [News]. Thomson Reuters.

Morris, N. M., Collins, N. M., Vane-Wright, R. T. & Wange, J. (1991). The Utilisation and Value of Non-Domesticated Insects: The Conservation of Insects and Their Habitats. Royal Entomological Society of

London. London: Academic Press.

Mun, S. C. K. & Weei, G. C. (2008). The ABCs of Butterfly Gardening [Powerpoint]. Proceedings in the 2nd

Asian

Lepidoptera Conservation Symposium. Penang Butterfly House. 24-28 November 2008.

Myers, N., Mittermeier, R. A., Mittermeier, C. G., de Fonseca, G. A. B. & Kent, J. (2000). Biodiversity hotspots for

conservation priorities.Nature 403, 853-858.

Nssig, W. A. (comp.) (2005). List of the New Taxa described within the NEVA series. Die entomologische

Fachzeitschriftenserie. Nachrichten des Entomologischen Vereins Apollo (NEVA). Retrieved 25 February

2005 in http://www.apollo-frankfurt.de/Gesamt-V/GV-99nTa.htm

New, T. R., Pyle, R. M., Thomas, J. A. & Hammond, P. C. (1995). Butterfly conservation management. Annual

Review of Entomology, 40, 5783.

Novak, I. (1995).Butterflies and Moths. Leicester: Harveys Bookshop Ltd.

Oliver, W.L.R. & Heaney, L.R. (1996). Biodiversity and conservation in the Philippines. International Zoo News,43, 329-337.

Ombao, H. (2002) Export potentials of butterfly species in Marinduque. Boac, Marinduque: Marinduque State

College.

Page, M. G. P. & Treadaway, C. G. (2003) Papilionidae of the Philippine Islands, Vol. 17. Butterflies of the World.

Parsons, M. J. (1992). The Butterfly Farming and Trading Industry in the Indo-Australian Region and Its Role in

Tropical Forest Conservation. Isbel St., Glandele, USA :Tropical Lepidoptera.

Philippine Council for Agricultural Resources Research & Development (PCARRD) (2004, June 27). More people

being drawn to butterfly farming. Retrieved 24 February 2004 from

www.newsflash.org/2004/02/si/si001853.htm

Pierce, N. E. & Mead, P. S. (1981). Parasitoids as selective agents in the symbiosis between lycaenid butterfly

larvae and ants. Science211: 1185-1187.

Pollard, E. & Yates, T. J. (1993).Monitoring Butterflies for Ecology and Conservation,London: Chapman & Hall

Protected Areas & Wildlife Bureau (PAWB) (1993). PAWB Report on Butterfly Farming in the Philippines.

Manila, Philippines: Department of Environment & Natural Resources.

Robbins,R. K. & Opler, P. A. (1997). Butterfly diversity and a preliminary comparison with bird and mammal

diversity. In D. E. Wilson, M. L. Reaka-Kulda & E. O. Wilson (eds.) Biodiversity II. Understanding and

Protecting our Biological Resources. pp. 69-82. Washington D. C.: National Academy of Sciences.

Schroder, H. G. & Treadaway, C. G. (2002): Zur Kenntnis philippinischer Lycaenidae, 16 (Lepidoptera). Neue

Folge. , 23(3):135139.

Seufert, P. & Fiedler, K. (1996). Life-history diversity and local co-existence of three closely related lycaenid

butterflies (Lepidoptera: Lycaenidae) in Malaysian rainforests.Zoologischer Anzeiger234: 229-239.

Shanahan, M. & Masood, E. (2004, December 1). Biodiversity: Facts and figures. In Agriculture & Environment.

Retrieved 9 October 2008 from www.scidev.net


29/30


Smart, P. (1975). TheIllustrated Encyclopedia of the Butterfly World. London: Salamander Books Ltd.

Snoeren, T. (2009). Parasitoid wasps use plant odors to spy [back cover]. Wageningen Update, Issue 2.

Spitzer, K., Jaros, J., Havelka, J. & Leps, J. (1997). Effect of Small-Scale Disturbance on Butterfly Communities in

an Indo-Chinese Montane Rainforest.Biological Conservation, 80, 9-15.

Takanami, Y. & Seki, Y. (2001) A Synonymic List of Lycaenidae from the Philippines, Revised ed.12. Retrieved 2

June 2005 from http://www.asahi-net.or.jp/~EY4Y-TKNM/frontp.html

Taylor, B. (1996).Butterflies and Moths. London: Dorling Kindersley Ltd.

Treadaway, C. G. (1995). Checklist of the butterflies of the Philippine Islands (Lepidoptera: Rhopalocera). Nachr.

entomol. Ver. Apollo,Suppl. 14, 7118.

Tree of Life Web Project. (2008). Ditrysia. [Electronic Version] 01 May 2008 (temporary). Retrieved 27 June 2009

from http://tolweb.org/Ditrysia/11868/2008.05.01in The Tree of Life Web Project, http://tolweb.org/

Tsukada, (ed.) (1981). Pieridae and Danaidae, Vol 2. Butterflies of South East Asian Islands. Japan: Plapas Co.,

Ltd.

Tsukada, (ed.) (1982). Papilionidae, Vol. 1.Butterflies of South East Asian Islands. Japan: Plapas Co., Ltd.

Tsukada, E. (ed.) (1982). Satyridae, Vol 3.Butterflies of South East Asian Islands. Japan: Plapas Co. Ltd.

Tsukada, E. (1985). Nymphalidae I, Vol. 4.Butterflies of South East Asian Islands. Japan: Plapas Co, Ltd.

Tsukada, E. (1991). Nymphalidae II, Vol 5.Butterflies of South East Asian Islands. Japan: Plapas Co. Ltd..

Wahlberg, N., Braby, M. F., Brower, A. V. Z., de Jong, R., Lee, M. M., Nylin, S., Pierce, N. E., Sperling, F. A. H.,

Vila, R., Warren, A. D. & Zakharov, E. (2005). Synergistic effects of combining morphological and

molecular data in resolving the phylogeny of butterflies and skippers. Proceedings of the Royal Society

Series B 272:1577-1586.

Wikipedia (2009a).Lepidoptera. Retrieved 27 June 2009 from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lepidoptera.

Wikipedia (2009b).Moth. Retrieved 27 June 2009 from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moth.

Wood, B. & Gillman, M. P. (1998). The effects of disturbance on forest butterflies using two

methods of sampling in Trinidad.Biodiversity & Conservation, 7, 597-616.

World Bank (2004). Sustaining Forests: A Development Strategy. Washington, D.C.

World Wildlife Fund (WWF) (1996).Bad Harvest? London, UK: World Wide Fund for Nature.

Young, A. M. (1986). Eco-enterprises: Ecotourism and farming of exotics in the tropics. Ambio, Royal Swedish

Academy of Sciences, 15 (6):361-363.


30/30

Documents

Butterfly-Farming the Flying Gems by Labay PIFGEX 2009