VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI

VNU UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE FACULTY OF ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE

DAT THANH DINH

EFFECTS OF FIRE ON INSECTS BIODIVERSITY IN COPIA RESERVE, THUAN CHAU, SON LA

Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Bachelor of Science in Environmental Science

(Advanced Program)

Hanoi - 2016

VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI VNU UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE

FACULTY OF ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES

DAT THANH DINH

EFFECTS OF FIRE ON INSECTS BIODIVERSITY IN COPIA RESERVE, THUAN CHAU, SON LA

Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Bachelor of Science in Environmental Science

(Advanced Program)

Supervisor(s): Dr. Minh Le

Hanoi - 2016

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I would like to express my gratitude to my advisors, Dr. Le Duc Minh from

Faculty of Environmental Science, Dr. Pham Thi Nhi and Mr. Hoang Vu Tru from

Institute of Ecology and Biological Resources for their support, patience, and

encouragement throughout my graduate studies. It is not often that one finds

wonderful advisors that always finds the time for listening to the little problems and

roadblocks that unavoidably crop up in the course of performing research. Their

technical and editorial advice was essential to the completion of this dissertation and

has taught me innumerable lessons and insights on the workings of academic

research in general.

During this research, I had opportunity to go to Copia Natural Reserve, Thuan

Chau, Son La for several days and did field sampling with Dr. Pham Van Anh from

Tay Bac University. My time at field has been highly productive and working with

Dr. Anh was an extraordinary experience. Dr. Anh kindly assisted me with the

statistical analysis in this dissertation and was very patient with my knowledge gaps

in the area.

I must also thank my two friends, Mr. Linh from Tay Bac University, Mr. Phu

from Institute of Ecology and Biological Resources and all of my partners in the

fieldtrip for their friendliness and enthusiasm. Without their supports, I could not

finish this fieldtrip successfully. Thank you, guys.

Getting through my dissertation required more than just directly support, and

I have many, many teachers from Faculty of Environmental Science – VNU

University of Science to thank for their kindness, patience and inspiration, imparted

me useful knowledge over the past 4 years.

Most importantly, none of this could have happened without my family. To my

parents and my brother – it would be an understatement to say that, as a family, we

have experienced some ups and downs in the past four years. Every time I was ready

to quit, you did not let me and I am forever grateful. This dissertation stands as a

testament to your unconditional love and encouragement.

Once again, I sincerely thank all of you!

LIST OF ABBREVIATION

SUF: Special Use Forest

FPD: Forest Protection Department

BF: Burned Forest

UF: Unburned Forest

ABF13: After-Burned Forest and 1-3 years since burning

Table of Contents

INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................... 1

MAIN CONTENTS ................................................................................................ 3

CHAPTER 1: OVERVIEW ................................................................................. 3

1.1. Fire ...................................................................................................... 3

1.1.1. “Fire ecology” and impacts on ecosystem ..................................... 3

1.1.2. Fire regimes .................................................................................. 5

1.1.3. Plants respond to fire ..................................................................... 6

1.2. Insects .................................................................................................. 8

1.2.1. Biodiversity of Insect all over the world ........................................ 8

1.2.2. Impacts and responses ................................................................... 9

1.3. The current status of forest fire in Vietnam ........................................ 11

1.4. Indices use in biodiversity measurement of this study ........................ 13

1.4.1. Species richness ............................................................................... 13

1.4.2. Shannon's index ............................................................................... 13

1.4.3. Simpson's index ............................................................................... 13

1.4.4. Pielou's evenness .............................................................................. 14

1.4.5. Rényi diversity profiles .................................................................... 14

Chapter 2: RESEARCH OBJECTIVES AND METHODOLOGIES .................. 15

2.1. Objectives of research ............................................................................. 15

2.2. Fieldworks and Sampling methods .......................................................... 16

2.2.1. Introduction to Copia Nature Reserve .............................................. 16

2.2.2. Sampling locations ........................................................................... 16

2.2.3. Sampling technique .......................................................................... 17

2.2.4. Sample temporary storage in the field .............................................. 21

2.3. Laboratory works, classification method and data analyzation. ............... 22

2.3.1. Laboratory works ............................................................................. 22

2.3.2. Classification method ....................................................................... 22

2.3.3. Data analyses ................................................................................... 23

Chapter 3: RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS ..................................................... 24

3.1. Results .................................................................................................... 24

3.1.1. Insect species composition and general biodiversity ......................... 24

3.1.2. Lepidoptera community diversity ..................................................... 28

3.1.3. Heteroptera community diversity ..................................................... 30

3.1.4. Orthoptera community diversity ....................................................... 32

3.1.5. Discussions ...................................................................................... 34

3.2. Conclusion .............................................................................................. 38

3.4. Recommendation .................................................................................... 39

REFERENCES ...................................................................................................... 40

APPENDICES ....................................................................................................... 42

List of Tables

Table 1: Dry months and Rainy months in some region ......................................... 11

Table 2. Traps used in insects sampling and applied sites: ..................................... 17

Table 3. Index of Light trap use in this study ......................................................... 20

Table 4. Summary of the total samples obtained from the fieldworks .................... 24

Table 5. Number of Species corresponding to each Scenario ................................. 25

Table 6. Ecological structural characteristics of General communities in the 3

scenarios ................................................................................................................ 26

Table 7. Ecological structural characteristics of Lepidoptera communities in the 3

scenarios ................................................................................................................ 28

Table 8. Ecological structural characteristics of Lepidoptera communities in the 3

scenarios ................................................................................................................ 30

Table 9. Ecological structural characteristics of Orthoptera communities in the 3

scenarios ................................................................................................................ 32

List of Figures

Figure 1. Number of Fire spots in Son La Province until October, 2016 ................ 12

Figure 2. Number of Fire spots in Son La province in 2015 ................................... 12

Figure 3. Samples Collecting Points ...................................................................... 16

Figure 4. Sweep net ............................................................................................... 17

Figure 5. Malaise trap ............................................................................................ 18

Figure 6. Collecting cylinder of Malaise trap ......................................................... 18

Figure 7. Side view and Front view of light trap .................................................... 19

Figure 8. Stunned and Pinched the thorax of moths ............................................... 20

Figure 9. Folding steps for protective paper envelope ............................................ 21

Figure 10. Samples label of Cotton mattress .......................................................... 21

Figure 11. Pinned insects ....................................................................................... 22

Figure 12. Spreading board .................................................................................... 22

Figure 13. Composition of collected samples corresponding to 3 scenarios ........... 24

Figure 14. Species richness .................................................................................... 25

Figure 15. Rényi diversity profiles of the species communities in the sampling

scenarios ................................................................................................................ 26

Figure 16. Rank-abundance plots showing the number of captures of each species of

General community in each Scenario ..................................................................... 27

Figure 17. Rank-abundance plots showing the number of captures of each species of

Lepidoptera in each Scenario ................................................................................. 29

Figure 18. Rank-abundance plots showing the number of captures of each species of

Heteroptera in each Scenario ................................................................................. 31

Figure 19. Species accumulation curves of Orthoptera species in the study Scenarios

.............................................................................................................................. 32

Figure 20. Rank-abundance plots showing the number of captures of each species of

Orthoptera in each Scenario ................................................................................... 33

Figure 21. Rényi diversity profiles of the Heteroptera community in the sampling

scenarios ................................................................................................................ 36

1

INTRODUCTION

Biodiversity loss is one of urgent problems, which receives a lot of attention

from scientists and governments around the world. The world is witnessing the most

significant decline in the number of the animals, when populations of some wild

animals have fallen by a half in the past four decades, according to Living Planet

Report of WWF [11]. Unfortunately, 17% of the species number has officially been

deleted from the living list of creature world. Also, the report attributes the declines

primarily to habitat loss and degradation, hunting and fishing, and climate change.

Regrettably, human being is the cause of 1% of the number of species going extinct

every year.

In context of climate change and global warming, the atmosphere becomes

hotter. In combination with human activities, such as expanding production by

burning land, forests are now more flammable than ever. Million hectares of forest

are destroyed under fire every year, and this does not seem to stop. Forest fire leads

to serious impacts on the natural world, including losing living habitat, natural

resources, animal species themselves.

This can be briefly explained through underlying mechanisms of temperature,

smoke, and energy releasing during fire. Fire is the key factor, controlling the

composition of ecosystem, directly or indirectly impacting insect communities

during and after the burning. Although carrying a powerful ecological function, forest

fire does not get the attention it deserves in Vietnam. As a result, fire ecology has

been poorly studied, and little is known about its impacts on different ecosystems.

Insects are little creatures of fauna. With a large number of individuals and

high adaptation ability, insects can be found almost everywhere in the world. Even

so, like other species, insect communities are significantly affected by the fire. As a

vital part of the ecosystem, it is critical to understand the relationship between Insects

and Fire.

The goal of this study is to survey the insect communities in natural

ecosystems, in different scenarios to provide a general comparison and encapsulate

some of what is known about the intricate relationships between fire and insects. The

information collected from field sites was used to assess insect populations before,

right after, and after a period of recolonization, and thereby, to determine the trend in

2

insect diversity under the pressure of fire. This study will help clarify the complex

relationships between fire and insects. Field surveys were carried out in Copia Nature

Reserve , Thuan Chau District, Son La Province.

This study did not focus on politic or socioeconomic aspects of fire. The

information only serves as a background to demonstrate the pressures that influence

ecological and land management outcomes. Nevertheless, it provided a better

understanding on how fire affects insect communities and the ability to recover from

natural disasters of these small creatures. Based on the results of the study,

government agencies can design management strategies to better manage forest

ecosystems, especially considering impacts of fire on forest ecology.

3

MAIN CONTENTS

CHAPTER 1: OVERVIEW

1.1. Fire

1.1.1. “Fire ecology” and impacts on ecosystem

Fire is the most basic natural element, which is defined as the rapid oxidation

of materials in the exothermic chemical process of combustion, releasing heat, light,

and various reaction products [35]. Fire is not a recent phenomenon in the world’s

history, and its influences, by far, predate human interests or involvement in its extent

and impacts. From the ancient times, humans have controlled and used fire as an

indispensable tool to cook, produce, and perform many other activities. However, like

others natural elements, the strength of the “mother nature” is enormous and

unpredictable. When things are out of control and the materials used to maintain the

fire is not gas or any other kinds of fuel but a forest, the story takes place in a

completely different direction [1].

In this sense, fire becomes a factor with strong ecological characteristic and

its effects are shown in variety ways, both advantageous and disadvantageous.

Extensive impacts of fire on natural ecosystems and environments have been studied

quite comprehensively. However, there are still a lot of controversies surrounding

this phenomenon. Scientists have discussed and developed numerous typical

examples and patterns on the roles of fire, yet many supporters approved the

hypothesis of Pausas and Keeley (2009) that “[2] The world cannot be understood

without considering fire, because fire has strong ecological, and evolutionary

consequences for biota, including humans”.

The disadvantaged effects of fire are that it usually happens so quickly and

hardly. In a suitable condition, fire can spread out with a velocity of 0.05m/s, which

can be converted to up to 180 meters per hour [6]. The area, where fire swept through,

just contains burned plants and a tiny number of living creatures, which could exist

after the event [1]. Changes in the configuration of the ecosystem are clearly indicated

by underlying mechanisms of high temperature and smog releasing during fire period.

Most flora species are destroyed by heat. A part of fauna species – those that cannot

run fast enough or find suitable shelter – die in the smoke and fire [3]. Some lose their

habitats and must fight for resources in another place [1, 2]. The life cycle is disturbed

4

significantly. As a core disturbance directly affects the ecosystem dynamics, “Fire is

one of the key environmental factors controls the compositions and functioning of

biota globally” [4]. Ecosystem is a long chain and extremely close links. If a link is

“burned”, it will disrupt all the rest [36].

On the other hand, the level and nature of the effects of fire on each ecosystem

are different and determined by fire cycles, intensity, burning time, especially the

adaptability of ecosystems with fire [1]. If fire occurs regularly in the same location,

the same site, the ecosystem there will start to have positive reactions against fire to

reach the more stable state, because its natural structure is well prepared to face with

wildfire many times before. After years of evolution and battle against fire, numbers

of flora and fauna species increase their adaptability with fire, and their vitality is

significantly improved [3]. Some of these survive by the ability to reborn or change in

flowering time [1]. For animals, when the flames begin, they do not just sit there and

wait for it to be over. Birds fly away, mammals run, amphibians and most of small

creature burrow deep into the ground or find suitable shelters. Some have sense to

feel the fire and ready for exodus, even before everything get burnt [3].

Although what exactly happens after a wildfire occurs depends on the nature

of ecosystems, the events always spark a succession of changes as insects, plants,

microbes, fungi, and other organisms recolonize the burned land. When flora

changes, light and other features also change. As a response, the composition of fauna

and organism changes. In many ecosystems, as widely recognized, natural fire is one

of the original factors, which activates natural regeneration processes and contributes

to shaping the distribution of flora and fauna. Even though the forests naturally

develop and change in composition over time, sets of flora or fauna living in young

and old forests may differ enormously. A disturbance like wildfire can act as a natural

reset button for an ecosystem [3].

Indeed, the succinct summary of global impacts of fire over time is clear

evidence, confirming that without including fire as a process in the natural history of

our planet in terms of adaptations and biodiversity distribution, it is impossible to

understand our biota. Those influences also continue, with the frequency and intensity

of fires strongly affected by climate, and by the nature and amount of fuel available

– together with impacts of human activity. Implications of recent climate change link

with likelihood of increased fire frequency and intensity in many places, with many

of the possible outcomes very poorly understood. Fire has long been, and will

5

continue to be, a major transformative agent in many terrestrial biomes. It can

reasonably be considered among profound disturbances that fire can disrupt

ecosystems, drawing on an early but now classic definition of disturbance as any

relatively discrete event in time that disturbs ecosystem, community or population

structure and changes resources, substrate availability, or physical environment.

Every fire leaves an imprint in the landscape, and the numerous variables that

influence fire behavior can render the consequences of any individual event are highly

unpredictable .[1]

1.1.2. Fire regimes

The term “Fire regime” is defined as summary encapsulation of the factors

that characterize or affect fire patterns in time and space, and impacts of fires in a

landscape. In conservation, “Fire regime” is applied to assessing how an ecosystem

interacts with fire in a wide range of time, from recent short-term impacts to historical

events. Any fire regime is a combination of details, described in terms of ignition,

frequency, severity, seasonality and spatial extent of fires occurring in a given area:

- Ignition: the materials of fire and decide the fire spread patterns, such as

surface fire, ground fire, crown fire, etc.

- Frequency: the number of fires over a given period. The higher the

frequency, the lower interval between fires and vice versa. Increased

intervals between fires, may equate to increased plant richness and

diversification of resources for insects: both vegetation richness and

structure are commonly associated with increased insect diversity.

- Severity: the levels of impacts, can be understood as the intensity and the

nature of area burned.

- Seasonality: the time of year that the fire occurs. For short-lived taxa or

the species have the reproductive time unluckily coincide with the season

of fire, the time of year for fires may be a critical consideration in avoiding

harm to sensitive species. Imposed burns at the same time every year may

lead to certain species or communities favored over other in term of natural

selection.

- Spatial extent of fire: the intensity of fires, referring to the extent of

heating, rate of spread, temperature and energy release.

In reality, area parameters, such as slope, aspect, size, exposure and variability,

all influence the fire behavior. Additionally, weather conditions can also influence

6

seasonal capacity and rapidly change the level of risk at any time if, for example,

strong winds or rain occur. [1]

Although, defining natural fire regimes is often difficult, but such

patterns are often used as basis for emulation in management on the supposition that

the local biota may in some way be adapted to the regimes by long-term association

– and so be less susceptible to the harm than to fires imposed in other ways and at

different seasons. These components contribute to fire management by incorporating

and balancing needs to conserve native vegetation system and thereby, conserve the

insect communities [1].

Eupatorus gracilicornis, commonly known as 5-horned beetle, is a species in

Vietnam red list, distributed in northwestern mountainous area including Copia

Nature Reserve in Thuan Chau District, Son La Province. Field surveys in April 2016

at Copia, right after the burning period, did not record any appearance of this species.

However, the reason was not only from the wildfire but also related to a behavior of

the 5-horned beetle. Their flying season usually occurs in September when most of

the males appear to wait for mating. Therefore, no samples of this species were

collected until September. Moreover, all of nine samples of Eupatorus gracilicornis

were collected from the burned site contained full of fired wood and punk, the main

food of this beetle. This example strongly confirms the relationship between fire

regime and insect. A full understanding of the fire regime as well as its interaction

with insect behavior will help clarify presence of a species during or after the fire.

Hence, explanation of research results will be more accurate and meaningful.

1.1.3. Plants respond to fire

In the energy net of wild ecosystem, plants and insects link very close to each

other. Obviously, most insects depend on vegetation in some way. Many insect

species, as herbivores, consume a variety of plants that supply them with all the

nutrients and minerals they need. Or, insect species which are on the higher level of

food chain feed on these herbivores (in many cases as highly parasitoids or predators,

such as the species of Family Reduviidae, Hemiptera, known as the assassin bugs) [1].

On the other part, a significant number of insects get benefit from the environments

provided by plants, including shelter, microclimate, or specialized domatia (A

domatia is tiny chamber produced by plants that houses arthropods) [7]. These

consumable and utilities resources may be strongly influences by fires, and responses

of plants and vegetation system to fires may be critical influences on insect wellbeing.

7

On the wider view, such influences spread out and can make impacts on vegetation

composition, condition, quantity and accessibilities. In other words, fire can have

significant effects on the nutritional quality of vegetable material and its accessibility

to customers - insects. Food plants of many insect species may not survive after the

burning [1].

Those influences and responses are incredibly complex, and strongly dictated

by the fire regimes. Change in fire regime, such as fire intensity and frequency, may

lead to negative shift in vegetation composition, and drive the consequence in flora

system. Decreased incidence of trees and shrubs, and prevention of succession from

earlier stages are both commonly reported targets for outcomes, and a primary aim in

practices such as uses of fire for prairie and other grassland maintenance. As well as

such structural and compositional changes in floristics, many plant species respond

to fire by changed productivity or phenology. Difficulty of extrapolation is enhanced

by some plants demonstrating variable responses, in some cases the same species can

have markedly different responses to fire on different sites.

In the environment, which has the fire regime with the high frequency of fire,

plants have developed the adaptability against fire. These abilities can be class into 3

specific kinds. The two major kinds can be termed: firstly, Re-sprouts – in which

adult individuals get through fire by producing new growth such as by epicormic buds

or buds from underground lignotubers, so that apparently killed individuals revive;

secondly, Re-seeds – in which killed individuals are replaced from seed either

surviving in the soil or stimulated to be released from the plants and germinate by

smoke or heat [1, 2]. The last one ability, less frequent the two others, usually exist in

the species which have features, such as thick bard, that enable them to self-protect

and survive in low intensity fire [1].

Nevertheless, many plants still die, even the fire adaptive species are affected

under particular fire regimes. In this case, the destruction of vegetation system can

then be countered only by the recolonization. The recovery after fire can divide in 4

path way: (1) endogenous regeneration from re-sprouting or seedling recruitment

triggered by the fire; (2) delayed seedling recruitment from postfire re-sprout seed

production; (3) delayed seedling recruitment from in situ parent plants surviving the

fire; and (4) colonization from unburned populations or metapopulation units [9].

In addition to changes in vegetation structure, the changes in nutritional quality

and amounts of vegetation after fire – such as rapid occurrence of flush growth

8

foliage. Those plant responses can incorporate increased productivity, increased

flowering (and associated nectar production), increased seed dispersal or

germination, and increased seedling establishment, each influencing the food supply

for insects and each of which may become a management aim in an insect

conservation. And because insects and plants are very close factors, so the speed of

the recovery in flora system, somewhat, also decided the recovery velocity of insects

community [1].

1.2. Insects

1.2.1. Biodiversity of Insect all over the world

Scientifically, the term “insects” denotes members of the class of Insecta. This

is the most diversity fauna group on the planet, donate a huge number of species to

the global biodiversity, that it is impossible to perform an all-inclusive worldwide

insects census. Scientists do not know exactly the number of insect. Yet, estimately,

there are about 8 – 10 million species, with only 1 million of known species,

accounting for 78% of known species on Earth. This proves that insects are a special

evolution form, which capable to overcome the brutality of the natural selection

process, to be able to maintain such high abundances until today. In nature, there is

no animal group which attracts special attention of people as the class of Insecta.

Insect have been presented on our planet millions of years ago, and is one of the oldest

class of creature world [29].

Along with the richness and diversity of the species, insects are the class,

which consist the biggest number of individuals on the Planet. Three hundred and

fifty million years of existence on Earth is also the three hundred and fifty million

years of survival and evolution, “The Mother nature” had equipped for Insects the

powerful sensory system as well as the ability to adapt with almost kinds of

environment, make insects present in every corner of the world. In a research in 1977,

Thomas Eisner and his partner E. O. Wilson had pointed that the Class of Insecta has

up to billion billion (1018) individuals [21]. This mean each square kilometer of Earth

surface is the habitat of 7 billion of insects, approximately 150 million times more

than human population in 2009 (6.7 billions) [36, 29]. With such an outstanding number

of individuals, many scientists consider that not humans, but Insects are the real

owner of our planet. The enormous number of species and the huge number of

individuals is the most evidence reflex the success of insects in conquering nature in

9

order to evolve, develop and complete their characteristics. Indeed, insects involve in

every process of life, including human life, appear in every corner of the world [29].

Insects involve in every part of world, including human life, from the brown

planthopper (BPH – scientific name: Nilaparvata lugens) – one of the crop-destructor

species to the honeybee (genus of Apis), which produce honey, provide very high

economic value. Whether partners or enemies, insects are an inseparable part of

human life as well as natural world on Earth.

1.2.2. Impacts and responses

In general, the consequence of fire can be separated into 2 different direction,

the loss of community richness and the loss of the resources. These are the

illustrations of causes of change in community richness, and also the pathways

through which had lost in organisms and resources. This lost is a part of the scenario

where some or all of individuals are affected. If the lost is significant, some

population may be lowered to below their critical survival levels. For the threatened

species, this could be the main reason driven them to the edge of extinction. The

increases in natural resource pressure on the competition, makes it becomes more

intense. Oppositely, the richness may be regained as if the competitive pressures are

reduced.

Thereby, the possible script of fire impacts can be:

(1) The elimination of individuals sufficient to drive populations to extinction

(2) The elimination of entire fire susceptible group

(3) Increase the competition under the pressure of lacking natural resources

(4) Reduces the sources variety, leading to extinction of feeding specialist or

increasing competition for those resources.

Basically, these effects comprise 3 levels of impacts over time:

(1) First order: direct effects over the short time period of up to few weeks after

fire.

(2) Second order: indirect effects, such as the affected habitats or the vegetation

succession that are influenced by the variations in fire characteristics.

(3) Third order: the evolutionary effects of fire.

10

Habitats and natural resources are necessary for insects to maintain their

community in the local area. The reduce in either or both of these factors may

significantly affect to the close-loop and decrease the richness, even the extinction in

case of the resources are specific and scarce. In general, fire has 3 major order levels

of impacts on insects, corresponding to the availability of:

(1) Possibility to refuge

(2) The sometimes characteristics behavior of insects, such as the dispersal

(3) Ecological characteristics of insects

The first order effects or the direct immediate impacts may be serve, and involve large

scale mortality because of both or either of: lethal heat exposure and direct flame [1].

Moreover, the effects of fire to ecosystem is obvious and its consequence

almost appear immediately, when forest litter and leaf litter is destroyed, soil moisture

and vegetation cover are reduced, ground surface temperature increase. These

contribute to microclimate changes and also the suitability of insect habitat,

especially the subterranean species [5].

In a research of exposing different life stages – from eggs, larvae, pupae, pre-

escape adults – of two species ground-nesting Megachilidae bees to increase

temperature whilst they were place under moist soil, James H. Cane and John L. Neff

had pointed out that: this species can highly survive at temperatures of 38 to 42oC

imposed for up to 27 mins, but no survival at 54oC. This experiment give the

explanation for survival chance of Meganchilidae bees, and broadly the underground

species. Because velocity of surface fire is relatively fast, the flame often pass quickly

before heating up the ground enough to kill the bees. The fire, in some case, may have

rather lower impacts on insects in soil. However, thicker surface litter, which give the

fire more material to maintain, may prolong the heating phase and endanger near-

surface insects. In this study, Cane and Jeff suggested that the distance for bees

nesting always be safe from fire is about 10 centimeters underground. The experiment

on 445 bee species, which nest depth information was available, had shown that just

only 9% of these species may be put under risk through increasing soil temperature

[10].

During the period of shock phase – when the ecosystem was putting under the

sudden pressure of fire and the habitat suitability change – insects continue to die

11

because of starvation and increased thermal exposure, especially with the species live

exposed on the ground or susceptible vegetation. For the insects, which cannot escape

away on time, direct mortality may be obvious [1].

In fact, there is a group of insects that respond positively to fire – pyrophilous

insects. Indeed, these species identified flames or smoke as the indicators of fire

increasing suitability of critical resources for laying egg or food. This mean fire is a

positive conditioner of their resource needs. Normally, many of pyrophilous species

have the traits to help them adapt with fire. Traits shared by pyrophilous species, and

presumed to be correlated with this habit, include:

(1) High potential for dispersion

(2) Sensitivity to respond to particular chemical or thermal signals generated

through fire

(3) Larval feeding only on the heavily stressed or recently burned trees

(4) Variable duration of larval development [1, 5, 6]

In reality, the number of insect species account for a major proportion of the

global biodiversity and human have just known only about 20% of them. Many

unknown and even the known taxa don’t have detailed information on their behaviors,

distribution, ecolgy, and have rarely been investigated. Thus, real impacts of fire on

these species are completely unknown [21].

1.3. The current status of forest fire in Vietnam

Vietnam is a typical tropical country. Climate can be split into two seasons,

wet season and dry season. In dry season, when the air is dry and the precipitation is

insignificant, the possibility of forest fire is also higher. Based on monthly average

temperature and precipitation, season with high possibility of fire, varying by each

region, can be regarded as “Fire season”, which usually lasts 6 – 8 month.

Table 1: Dry months and Rainy months in some region

No. Region Month in year

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

1 Northwestern 2 Northeastern 3 North Central 4 Song Hong delta

12

Annotation: : Dry months

: Rainy months

According to statistics of satellite fire tracking system of Vietnam FPD,

FirewatchVN, during the dry season, fire spot appears at higher frequency than the

rainy months [33].

(Information from FirewatchVN system, Vietnam Forest Protection Department [33])

As climate changes, incidence, extent and intensity of wildfires is apparently

increasing, and losses of humans lives and property are reported ever-more

frequently. Moreover, Vietnam has been reported as one of the countries severely

affected by climate change and extreme weather patterns. That scenario is clearly

evidenced when El Nino exerted severe impacts on Vietnam in two continuous years,

from 2015 to early 2016. El Nino is a natural weather phenomenon, which has existed

on Earth for more than 5000 years. However. under the influence of global warming

and the Earth is getting hotter at a faster rate than any other time in the history, El

Nino is more “brutal and frenzied”. It has caused prolonged droughts and dryer and

hotter weather patterns in many places. In high a temperature condition but without

rain, forests will become more flammable. Due to the statistic of Vietnam FPD, from

1/2014 to 3/2014, in just 3 months, Vietnam lost 278.52 ha of forest , including 66.95

107

334

781

704

117

1

1

2

0

1

0

0

0 200 400 600 800 1000

January

February

March

April

May

Jun

July

August

September

October

November

December

Number of Firespotsin Son La province in 2015

2

111

675

445

90

2

0

4

0

7

0 200 400 600 800

January

February

March

April

May

Jun

July

August

September

October

November

December

Number of Firespotsin Son La province until 10/2016

Figure 1. Number of Fire spots in Son La Province until October, 2016

Figure 2. Number of Fire spots in Son La province in 2015

13

ha of natural and protected forests, which possess a high richness of species in general

and insects in particular [30]. This requires timely intervention in order to limit adverse

impacts on biodiversity in general and insect communities in particular, reduce

property damage on human.

1.4. Indices use in biodiversity measurement of this study

1.4.1. Species richness

The species richness, denote as S, is the simply the number of species present

in an ecosystem. This index makes no use of relative abundances.

1.4.2. Shannon's index

The Shannon's index, denote as H, is an information statistic index, which

means it assumes all species are represented in a sample and that they are randomly

sampled.

Shannon�s index (H) = − � �� ln ��

�

���

Where: - pi: the proportion (n/N) of individuals of the ith species found

(n) divided by the total number of individuals found (N)

- S: the number of species

The higher diversity, the higher H is.

1.4.3. Simpson's index

The Simpson's index, denote as D, is a dominance index. It gives more weight

to common or dominant species. In which, a few rare species with only a few

representatives will not affect the diversity.

Simpson�s index (D) = 1

∑ ����

���

Where: - pi: the proportion (n/N) of individuals of the ith species found

(n) divided by the total number of individuals found (N)

- S: the number of species

The higher diversity, the higher D is.

14

1.4.4. Pielou's evenness

Pielou's evenness, denote as J refers to how close in numbers each species in

an environment is. Mathematically it is defined as a diversity index, a measure of

biodiversity which quantifies how equal the community is numerically.

Pielou′s evennes ( J ) = H

ln S

Where: - H: Shannon's index

- S: number of species

The less variation in communities between the species, the higher J is.

1.4.5. Rényi diversity profiles

The Rényi diversity profile is one of the techniques for diversity ordering that

were specifically designed to rank communities from low to high diversity. Rényi

diversity profile values (Hα) are calculated from the frequencies of each component

species and a scale parameter (α) ranging from zero to infinity as:

H� = 1

1 − � ln (� ��

�)

Community A is more diverse than a community B if the diversity profile for

community A is everywhere above the diversity profile for community B.

Communities that have intersecting profiles cannot be ordered in diversity.

15

Chapter 2: RESEARCH OBJECTIVES AND METHODOLOGIES

2.1. Objectives of research

This study attempted to survey and assess the insect community diversity in

Copia Nature Reserve based on the diversity indices. Surveys were deployed in three

different scenarios: primary and unburned forest, burned forest, 3 - 7 years after fire

forest. Comparisons between three different scenarios will help to clarify how fire

affect to insect diversity.

Specifically, the study was conducted in three following steps:

Step 1: On the field

- Sampling – Collect samples at selected locations.

Step 2: In the laboratory

- Classify and identify collected specimens according to scientific

nomenclature, based on physical characteristics. Count number the

individuals of each species.

- Analyze the statistical data and calculate the diversity indices, using

commonly used software, such as R, Prime 7. Assess the impacts of fire to

insect biodiversity.

Step 3:

- Repeat the above steps at the same selected locations, but after 4 – 6

months to assess the ability to regenerate and the composition of the

ecosystem.

Based on data analyses and the information gathered from the field about

climate, cultivation tradition of local people, this study also provided

recommendations to reduce adverse impacts of forest fire and conserve the

biodiversity of insect community in the investigated area.

16

2.2. Fieldworks and Sampling methods

2.2.1. Introduction to Copia Nature Reserve

Copia Nature Reserve is a special use forest, located in Thuan Chau District,

Son La Province, Vietnam. In an area of over 12,000 hectares [7], at the latitude above

1,800 meters, Copia contain mostly evergreen forest with a high level of biodiversity

level. As the reports of Son La FPD, in the dry season, forests of Copia is usually set

at a very high fire alert. The most recent fire occurred in April, 2016.

2.2.2. Sampling locations

Sampling locations were carefully selected to reflect the diversity precisely

and best suited to the characteristics of each scenario. Samples collection works were

performed during 2 fieldtrips in 2016, one in April and other in early September.

- Unburned forest: original ecosystems, unaffected by fire. (GPS:

21°19'44.40"N, 103°35'20.40"E).

- Burned forest: contain fired-wood. (GPS: 21°22'11.70"N, 103°37'29.20"E).

- 1 – 3 years after fire forest: contain tree with body radius smaller than 10 cm,

shrubs. (GPS: 21°22'59.70"N, 103°38'41.10"E).

Figure 3. Samples Collecting Points

17

2.2.3. Sampling technique

Table 2. Traps used in insects sampling and applied sites:

Category Major target taxa Applied sites A

ctiv

e

Netting - Lepidoptera - Species which are not attracted by light

- All sites

Pas

sive

Malaise traps - Many - BF - UF

Light traps - Moths - Nocturnal species

- All sites

- Netting

“Netting” was the method that researcher walk right to the

investigated site, observe and use a sweep net to catch the

samples. Survey area would be divided into many smaller

blocks and this method would be applied in every single

block.

Normally, insects distribute in many different position and

different floor of forest. Thus, 2 types of sweep nets were

used in this research:

(1) Short sweep net: changeable length, maximum 1.2

meters. Used to catch some Lepidoptera species or insects

in the lower layer of forest.

(2) Long sweep net: changeable length. Maximum up to 3

meters. Used to catch in the higher level of forest, including

Lepidoptera, Coleoptera, etc.

Collected samples, then, will be taken out and put in to "a killing jar (*)", including

small Lepidoptera. For Larger Lepidoptera, the samples are injected with ammonia

sale solution. All Lepidoptera, then, are stored in "folded protective paper envelopes

(**)". It is extremely necessary to avoid lose in their wings scale and antenna. In some

case, lose in Lepidoptera wings scale or antenna may lead to the lacking in their

identifying characteristics, difficult to exactly arrange them.

Figure 4. Sweep net

Credit: Lara Tapp

18

- Malaise traps

Malaise traps is a tent-like structure,

used for trapping flying insects. The

effective design of the trap contains

an open-sided, dark-colored tent with

a central vertical interception sheet

and a funnel mechanism leading to a

collecting cylinder [12].

(1) Black mesh – an open-sided

(2) White mesh – funnel-like

(3) Collecting cylinder at the apex of

the trap.

When insects encounter the black mesh panel, most will naturally go up towards the

white colored roof in an attempt to escape. The insects are directed to the apex of the

trap where they encounter a killing cylinder and become permanently trapped.

The collecting cylinder was filled with 70 percent Ethanol. When

the samples stuck inside the cylinder, alcohol vapor fill their

respiratory system, insects fall down and be soaked in ethanol

solution at the bottom of the cylinder. The ethanol solution acts

as the preservative factor, keep the samples in the intact form.

The opening of the chosen cylinder mouth was 20 mm. Although

big opening may cause a loss of alcohol vapor in the process of

implementation, it ensured the malaise trap may collect bigger

insects in bigger body size. However, bigger size insects or loss

of alcohol vapor may result in slower death, increase the amount

of damage a newly caught insect will inflict on older one. Thus,

the samples and ethanol solutions in the killing cylinder was

collected and replaced periodically every 2 days to maintain the

efficiency of the method.

Place, where installed the trap, was cleaned up tall trees, and trap foot was placed

close to the ground in order to optimize the efficiency of traps.

Figure 5. Malaise trap

Figure 6. Collecting cylinder of Malaise trap

Cylinder mouth

Ethanol

(3)

(2)

(1)

19

- Light traps

Light trap is the simple trap that use the artificial light to attract and trap moths

and other nocturnal insects. The design of light trap is simple: put the electric bulb in

front of a white sheet.

Moths and some nocturnal taxa are attracted by light. When seeing the light,

they will arrive. The white screen is the factor that receiving and scattering light and

also the landing place of the insects.

In reality, the efficiency of the light depends on some factor, that the collector

must control to reduce the uncertainties in the implementation process:

(1) Light source: this is the most important element determining the range of insects

captured. The light sources with different nature and intensity will attract different

insects at difference range. If the intensity of the light source is too strong, insects at

the greater distance, out of the investigating forest area, will come and falsifying the

results. Furthermore, these lights source may be either green-yellow-red, or UV light

and different insects group is attracted by different light color.

(2) Time: Setting the trap with enough time will optimize the samples size and the

minimize errors. Time is estimated based on: (a) the area of investigating forest that

the insects at the further distance take longer time to arrive the trap; (b) weather

condition, such as wind direction – tailwind flight will arrive sooner and vice versa;

(c) location, trapping in the exposed locations is have the higher efficient than in a

wood. For example, burned forest, which had the lower flora density, may have more

effective trap than unburned forest.

(3) Size of the white screen [13].

Figure 7. Side view and Front view of light trap

Side view Front view

20

To balance these above factors, the index of the light trap used in this study is shown

in the table below:

Table 3. Index of Light trap use in this study

Category Index

Light source 1 High-voltage bulb

White-light light source Energy used: 250W

Time

BD_RChay1 18h30 – 20h30

BD_RChay2 21h – 23h

BD_R13 18h30 – 20h30

BD_RTot 18h30 – 20h30

Size of the screen 1.8 x 2.2 m

The high-voltage light bulb was installed at the a distance of 40 cm from the screen

to ensure light cover all the screen area.

Trapped samples would be caught by forceps

and put into "a killing jar (*)" to poisoned and

preserved. Larger moths, with big body size, were

stunned and pinched the thorax by hand, then injected

into their bodied the solution of ammonia salt solution

through prothorax in order to killed and preserved the

specimens.

- (*) Killing jar

A killing jar is a device use to poisoned captured insects quickly, thus,

minimize the damage of newly caught samples on the older. The killing jar is a wide-

mouth bottle, containing absorbent paper at the bottom that absorb the killing agent,

normally ethyl acetate.

Many species, such as large beetles, can take several minutes to hours to die

after becoming immobile in the killing bottle, and should not be removed too soon.

However, in many case, colored-insects should be removed from the bottle as soon

as they dead before ethyl acetate discolored them [14].

Figure 8. Stunned and Pinched the thorax of moths

21

- (**) Folded protective paper envelope

Butterflies and other large-winged insects were stored in the folded protective

paper envelopes [14].

2.2.4. Sample temporary storage in the field

To ensure the quality of specimens, caught insects were pre-treat and pre-

classify right on the field. Samples were taken out of the killing jar and arranged on

cotton mattresses. Insects of the same order were put into the same place. These

cotton mattress is then naturally dried out, before placed into the container. Added an

insect repellent, such as naphthalene, to prevent attack by pests.

For the specimens, which were trapped by the malaise trap, these samples were

continued to preserve in the ethanol solution and be treated in the laboratory.

Moreover, all relevant data must be record

at the time of collecting. It is essential to note the

locality, date, and other information, such as trap

kind, sampling point and order of the specimens.

This was done by writing on a small label, and

attach the label to the cotton mattresses.

Figure 9. Folding steps for protective paper envelope

Credit: SFRINET

Figure 10. Samples label of Cotton mattress

22

2.3. Laboratory works, classification method and data analyzation.

2.3.1. Laboratory works

- Samples storage:

For long-term insect storage, the specimens were dried in an oven at 50

degrees Celsius for about 24 hours, then preserve in storage box. Naphthalene is

added to the box the prevent scavenger insects which feed on dead insect specimens [16]. These boxes will be closed and placed in a cool, dry room.

- Pinning insects:

For pinning insects, special pins were needed. The

pin was usually just slightly to the right of the midline

of the insects.

- Pinning and Spreading Lepidoptera:

Lepidoptera, Moth in particular, need to be

pinned and spread out to show off all of their wing

scales. Samples were shaped and maintained by the

series of pins and thin strips of papers or mica – about

0.5cm wide and 7-10cm long. The Spreading technique

was performed on the spreading board, which made of

soft wood. For the dry or hard samples, it is necessary to

moisten them before pinning and spreading out in order

to prevent all damages.

2.3.2. Classification method

The identification and classification of the samples are referenced information

from library of many documents, books, and articles. However, the works is primarily

process base on the insect identification keys. Different order, family, genus of insects

have different key system and specimen will be determined to each level of

taxonomic rank, from highest to lowest. Once the Order is recognized, the next step

Figure 11. Pinned insects

Credit: North Carolina State University

Department of Entomology

Figure 12. Spreading board

Credit: Mississippi University

23

is to determine the Family within that Order to which the insects belongs. The

information about specific types of structures and the variation that exists within these

structures are clearly recorded to make a comparison and follow the keys. Once the

Family is determined, the last step is to search for the literature or study that permit

identification to genus and species. It necessary to attend the newer documents

because there is still a lot of controversy concerning classification of many insects.

However, not all insects are discussed or are identifiable to species because of lacking

in documents. The insects of the same Genus, then, are named as “Sp + ID”, such as

“Sp.1, sp.2, etc.”

Some books are used in identification are: "Động vật chí Viêt Nam, Part 7" of

Lưu Tham Mưu and Đặng Đức Khương; Fauna of India; Fauna of Australian.

Example of identification key [15]:

Key to the suborders of Orthoptera

Antennae with more than 30 segments. Auditory organs, when present, located on

fore tibiae. Stridulatory mechanisms, if present, located at base of the fore wings,

usually in male. Ovipositor usually visible and having the valves articulated to form

an elongate, sword-like, tubular or scythe-like extension of the

abdomen…………………………………………………………...Suborder Ensifera

Antennae with less than 30 segments. Auditory organs, when present, located on first

abdominal tergite. Stridulatory specializations of the fore wings, when present,

located in the lateral part of the wings in their folded position. Ovipositor, when

present, consisting of four separate hook-like valves……………...Suborder Caelifera

2.3.3. Data analyses

The biodiversity indices will be transferred to spreadsheet file and calculate

by the statistical software, R software version 3.3.1 with packages of BiodiversityR.

The Spreadsheet file is aggregated from the data of locality, species composition and

number of individuals for each species. The Biodiversity indices are Richness (S),

Abundance (N), Shannon's index (H), Simpson's index (D) and Pielou's evenness (J).

24

Chapter 3: RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

3.1. Results

3.1.1. Insect species composition and general biodiversity

A total of 169 insect species in 3 Orders were identified among 540 individual insects

from all 3-typical scenario BF, UF and ABF in Copia reserves.

Table 4. Summary of the total samples obtained from the fieldworks

Number of Family Number of Species Samples number

Heteroptera 6 16 29

Lepidoptera 18 139 459

Orthoptera 7 14 52

The most common order is Lepidoptera. This Order accounted for 85% the total

number of specimens. Orthoptera and Heteroptera follow with 9.6% and 5.4%

respectively. Moreover, Lepidoptera is also the Order with the outstanding number

of Families and Species in comparison with the 2 others Orders.

The composition of samples was collected corresponding to each scenario is shown

in the chart below:

Figure 13. Composition of collected samples corresponding to 3 scenarios

195

28

309

18

132

17

4

8

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

UF BF ABF13

Number of samples in each Scenario

HETEROPTERA LEPIDOPTERA ORTHOPTERA

25

Figure 13 points out that 345/540 of specimen number, which mean more than two

third, were collected from the scenario of UF. From ABF, this number is 168/540.

BF represents just a very small part of specimen number, 27/540.

The attributes of the species compositions are summarized in the table 5:

Table 5. Number of Species corresponding to each Scenario

Category Scenario

UF ABF13 BF

Family number

Heteroptera 4 6 3

Orthoptera 4 3 4

Lepidoptera 17 15 7

Species number

Heteroptera 8 12 3

Orthoptera 7 3 4

Lepidoptera 112 50 17

Total 127 65 24

From the figure 14, it is clear that UF has very high Species richness. In comparison

with the other scenarios, this biodiversity indices decrease nearly 2 times at ABF13

and only about 1/5 remain in BF.

Figure 14. Species richness

12

3

8

3

4

7

50

17

112

0 20 40 60 80 100 120

ABF13

BF

UF

Richness

Sce

nar

io

Species richness

Heteroptera

Orthoptera

Lepidoptera

26

Table 6. Ecological structural characteristics of General communities in the 3 scenarios

Rényi's diversity ordering found a significant difference between UF and BF as well

as ABF13 and BF. However, figure 15 show the intersection between UF line and

ABF13 line, which indicate that the ranking of UF and ABF13 was not possible.

Figure 15. Rényi diversity profiles of the species communities in the sampling scenarios

UF ABF13 BF Species numbers (S) 127 65 24 Individuals numbers 345 168 27 Shannon index (H') 4.34 3.71 3.12 Simpson index (D) 0.977 0.965 0.952 Pielou 's evenness 0.895 0.982 0.888

27

Figure 16. Rank-abundance plots showing the number of captures of each species of General community in each Scenario

UF

ABF13

BF

28

3.1.2. Lepidoptera community diversity

Throughout this study, a total of 139 Lepidoptera species and 459 individuals

were identified in 17 families. The highest number of species was detected in the UF

scenario, follow by ABF and UF. The number of individuals found in each forest also

correlate with the number of the species.

The calculated diversity indices show the unambiguous result in Shannon

index, whilst the value of Simpson index is quite similar among 3 scenarios.

However, the similarity between these two indices is that they tend to decrease, on

which the highest value is recorded from UF, and lowest from BF (Table 16).

Table 7. Ecological structural characteristics of Lepidoptera communities in the 3 scenarios

UF ABF13 BF

Species numbers (S) 112 50 17

Individuals numbers 309 132 18

Shannon index (H') 4.20 3.44 2.81

Simpson index (D) 0.973 0.954 0.938

Pielou 's evenness 0.890 0.880 0.993

29

Figure 17. Rank-abundance plots showing the number of captures of each species of Lepidoptera in each Scenario

UF

ABF13

BF

30

3.1.3. Heteroptera community diversity

In Heteroptera community, the number of collected specimens is much lesser

in comparison with Lepidoptera. In just 52 collected individuals, there are 16 species

in 6 Families had been determined. Unlike the Lepidoptera community, result has

shown different trend, which the highest number of species and individuals is from

ABF13, follow by UF and smallest is from BF.

Moreover, comparing the diversity indices values also give the different

order in scenario arrangement from the result of Lepidoptera community. In which,

the value of Shannon' index and Simpson's index are highest in ABF13, the second

and last places corresponding to UF and BF.

Table 8. Ecological structural characteristics of Lepidoptera communities in the 3 scenarios

UF ABF13 BF

Species numbers (S) 8 12 3

Individuals numbers 19 28 5

Shannon index (H') 1.59 2.01 0.95

Simpson index (D) 0.687 0.804 0.560

Pielou 's evenness 0.763 0.865 0.865

31

Figure 18. Rank-abundance plots showing the number of captures of each species of Heteroptera in each Scenario

UF

ABF13

BF

32

3.1.4. Orthoptera community diversity

Orthoptera is the order which have the lowest number of collected specimens,

29 samples. In which, 14 species in 7 Families had been identified. In UF, the species

number and individuals number still have the biggest value. Whilst in BF and ABF13,

these numbers are contradictory that BF had more species but ABF13 had more

individuals.

In the Orthoptera community, the calculated diversity indices support for the

highest diversity in UF. However, the difference between the first and the second

order scenario – BF – is ambiguous, especially in Simpson's index. These data can be

explained by the different sensitivity of the diversity formulas to dominant and rare

species, and the equitability. The Simpson's index gives more weight to common or

dominant species. For this case, in UF, the rare species with low number of

individuals give less affects to diversity than the dominant species. Whilst, the

community in BF is even, 4 individuals, each individual stand for a species. This is

clearly shown via the value of the Pielou's evenness. The scenario of ABF13 with 8

individuals and 3 species is stand at the bottom of diversity rank.

Table 9. Ecological structural characteristics of Orthoptera communities in the 3 scenarios

UF ABF13 BF

Species numbers (S) 7 3 4

Individuals numbers 17 8 4

Shannon index (H') 1.646 0.736 1.386

Simpson index (D) 0.761 0.406 0.750

Pielou 's evenness 0.846 0.670 1

33

Figure 20. Rank-abundance plots showing the number of captures of each species of Orthoptera in each Scenario

UF

ABF13

BF

34

3.1.5. Discussions

The hypothesis that there would be significant effects of fire to ecosystem

biodiversity was partly true. The results of diversity indices and diversity

comparisons clearly delineate the ranks of the UF, BF and ABF13. In most cases, the

analyses of 540 specimens of 169 insect species in 3 Orders support for the high level

of diversity in UF. The comparisons also pointed out the decrease of biodiversity in

the scenario of BF, that the individuals number (abundance) as well as the species

number (richness) in this scenario is always at the low level, just 27 individuals in 24

species out of 540 specimens throughout of this study. Graphically, the rank-

abundance plots (Figure 15) display the poorness in biodiversity of BF.

Throughout these results, the responsibility of fire on decrease level of

biodiversity can be explained by the affecting mechanism of temperature, which high

temperature had destructed the habitats of insect species. The information collected

from field showed the significant differences in properties of scenario of UF and BF.

In UF, the abundance of flora is higher; trees normally have broad foliage and

developed trunk, up to 40 cm; the composition of flora system is stable through years.

This is the suitable conditions for a very wide range of insects, including the species

which living under foliage, sap-sucking, punk-eating, moisture-loving, etc [23].

However, living in a stable environment, low volatility also makes a part of these

species more sensitive to external impacts [22], in which fire is very strong ecological

factor. This sensitivity is clearly shown in the significant decrease of abundance and

diversity in scenario of BF. BF mainly contain fired trunk and cinder. Even though

fired trunk and cinder is the favorable resources of some special fire insects, for

example: 5-horned beetles had found in the scenario of BF, changes in living

conditions from balance to ruined ecosystem completely led to the disappearance of

most local species (Appendix 1: List of identified species). Although the responses

of insects to fire is variety, however, the immediate decrease of insect community

after the disaster of fire, in general, is obvious.

Moreover, the analyzation also give the higher value in biodiversity indices of

ABF13 than BF, which is the clearest evidence for the very first regeneration of the

ecosystem after burned. Indeed, the specimens number collected from ABF13 is 168,

that means 6 times higher than from BF, and as if the species number, this is nearly

2.5 times higher. The biodiversity assessment was performed in the scenario of after

burned forest, which have been recovered from 1 to 3 years since fire. This is the

35

period when the recovery-ecosystem is quite early and the ecosystem function did not

fully develop [24], containing mainly small-punk trees with radius lower than 5 cm

and small foliage and shrubs. A kind of ecosystem like this is the preferred habitats

of species which normally appear in opened sites. Species with higher adaptability

will more chances to develop their population. The recovery forest composition may

completely different from the old forest and strongly depend on the climate of local

area [24]. In reality, it is difficult to quantify the recovery velocity. However, the very

first additions to insect community had been recorded and seem to be positive. The

Pielou’s evenness (0.982 out of 1) also pointed out that the insect community in

recovery-ecosystem is quite balance and less variation.

When rank diversity using Rényi's profile, it can be observed that UF and

ABF13 are more diverse than BF. Comparing diversity between UF and ABF13 is

impossible. However, the diversity model of Shannon and Simpson, as well as the

index of original richness and abundance, in others way, supports for the higher

diversity of UF than ABF13, through the preeminence in species composition and

abundance. Summarily, the diversity of the sampling scenario can be arranged as

follow: UF > ABF13 > BF. This result also reflects an extremely natural process of

ecosystem, from green-state, be burnt and then recovered.

The biodiversity measurement in Lepidoptera community also give the result

quite similar to the general trend of insect community. In which, the biodiversity

indices support for the highest diversity on scenario of UF, the next is ABF13 and

BF. The identification and count of Lepidoptera individuals demonstrate the severe

decline in the number of butterflies, 309 individuals in UF corresponding to 18

individuals in BF. This can be explained by the sensitivity of Lepidoptera to habitats

degradation, which many moth species are threatened with local or completely extinct [25]. Sedentary moth species are particularly vulnerable to high rates of fire because

their poor dispersal ability reduces the rate of recolonization [26]. Thus, just a small

number of moths can survive after the events of fire, led to the significant decrease in

local diversity. Moreover, when assess the addition to moth composition in recovery-

forest, the result is positive and the recolonization is definitely true.

Notwithstanding, if the general ecosystem is cut off into smaller pieces

corresponding to the community of different species Orders, the results also show the

36

closer point of view in relationship between each species Order community and forest

structure, especially the floristic composition.

Unexpectedly, the quantitative measurement of diversity performed in the

community of Bug (Insecta of Heteroptera) has given the different trend in diversity

index. The decrease in diversity from UF to BF is still obvious. The difference is

shown in the predominant value of diversity in the scenario of ABF13, which

rearranged the biodiversity rank: ABF13 > UF >BF (Table 8).

The Rényi's profile of Heteroptera community (Figure 23) show the significant

superiority in diversity of ABF13 than others scenario. The value of Shannon and

Simpson index also demonstrate the same trend in Heteroptera diversity. Moreover,

the difference in diversity indices value between 3 scenarios is significant while

ABF13 have much higher diversity. The higher of biodiversity indices are

unexpected and can be explained by the dependence of insect community and forest

composition on each other. Forest structure plays and important role in the

maintenance of favorable forest composition for Heteroptera. A research of Corinne

Figure 21. Rényi diversity profiles of the Heteroptera community in the sampling scenarios

37

Zurbrugg and Thomas Frank, which determined factors influencing Heteroptera

diversity, pointed out that the vegetation structure is of high predictive value for bug

species richness, abundance and bug species composition. The landscape has the

vegetation composition with more low shrubs, feral and wildflower clearly increased

total Heteroptera species richness and abundance, thereby, increase the diversity [17].

Fire, with strong ecological strength, burn most of flora system under the temperature

of the flames. The event changed most of local floristic composition, replaces trees

by shrubs and feral, created the scenario of after-burned forest. In the case of this

study, the scenario of after-burned forest contains many favorable factors of

Heteroptera species. This create a favorable condition for these Bugs to develop and

regenerate after the event of fire more quickly. The UF scenario with less favorable

conditions have the lower diversity of Heteroptera.

The diversity trend once again changes when comparing the diversity between

3 scenarios. The value of diversity indices show the different arrangement, UF > BF

> ABF13. Moreover, the difference between Shannon and Simpson value of UF and

BF is small, especially Simpson index. A research of Carl E. Bock and Jane H. Bock

investigated the response of grasshopper to fire indicate the fire can reduce densities

of grasshoppers and change the relative abundances of species and subfamilies, but

only for 1 or 2 postfire year. This study also pointed out: plots that had been unburned

for at least 20 year supported essentially the same grasshopper populations as plots

only in 3rd postfire year [27]. Thus, the higher diversity of BF than ABF13 as well as

the similarity diversity between UF and BF is a strange trend and can only explain by

the ability to against fire, that the community of grasshopper is highly fire-tolerant,

but not fire-dependent. The reasonable explanation had been clarified in some studies.

Firstly, the fire had little direct impact on grasshoppers because most species existed

only as underground eggs at the period of fire [28]. In this case, the impacts of fire on

grasshopper eggs were reduce and underground environment is play as the protector,

keep these eggs from being destroyed, then ready to hatch and recover. Secondly, fire

time in Copia occurred at April and September – a season when almost grasshoppers

were present as adult individuals. The dispersal ability of adult grasshoppers made

them more mobile to escape from fire [28]. However, there are numbers of grass

hoppers appeared within a few days of fire, even before these was any sign of green

vegetation. All individuals were flying adult individuals. These grasshoppers were

38

presumed that they colonized from adjacent unburned habitats. This phenomenon,

somehow, increase the error of the analyzation.

3.2. Conclusion

In context of global warming and climate change, forests are now easier to get

burned than before. In addition, the forests have been harvested for a long time ago

along with the behavior of burning forest to spread out agricultural area of local

people also make high pressure on maintaining the existence of natural ecosystem.

Fire with its ecological power may play as "a reset button" for the whole system, but

may also play as "the destroyer", break the inherent stability of natural ecosystem,

which may need years to form. However, either "a reset button" or "destroyer", the

short – term impacts of fire on local community are obvious and the decrease in local

biodiversity, in some ways, has been shown in this study. But, after the event of fire,

the recovery is going and the very first regenerations, somewhat, have been recorded.

A further assessment of the speed and the ability to recover need a study with years

of monitoring and evaluation.

Nevertheless, an important factor affect to the recovery ability that the

composition of insect community basically depends on the ability of providing

resources of environment, which is determined by the floristic composition. The

quantitative measurements can return results about the incredible diversity of

ecosystems after fire.

The conservation and management should receive more attention to protect

biodiversity and the forests resources in not only Copia reserve in particular, but also

any forest in general. Thousand hectares of forests were burned every year. Moreover,

extinguishing a forest fire consume a lot of time and resources. Thereby, well

understanding fire and forest species composition, diversity patterns, and community

assemblages are very important for managing ecosystems for their environmental and

conservation value. Protecting biodiversity, forest resources and insect community in

Copia reserve has become the objects of some researches. The conservation of insect

community must be given priority to avoid the loss of species, especially endemic

and nearly endemic species.

In summary, fire is shown to be the strong factor influencing the insect

community. Enhancing the knowledge of fire is very important to balance a multitude

39

of economic, ecological, and societal demands but still ensure the stability of the

insect community and also the ecosystem.

3.4. Recommendation

Base on the statistical data of FPD, combined with the information obtained

from interviewing local people about their agricultural behavior, there are 2 reasons

led to forest fire in Copia Nature Reserve:

Local weather, dry weather during dry months.

Burning activities to expand cultivated area of the local people.

Use fire in finding honey.

Below are the recommendations to reduce forest fire in Copia Nature Reserve,

thereby, protect the insect community:

Effectively use the system of FireWatch VN in order to monitor hotspots and

take timely actions to control and suppress fire. Increase patrolling in the peak

months of the dry season.

Use education and communication campaigns to enhance local people

knowledge of forest fire, thus, change their cultivation behaviors.

Improve people's cultivation technique, increase productivity to minimize

their dependence on forest resources.

40

REFERENCES

English

1. Tim.R New (2014), Insects, Fire and Conservation. Pp.1-50.

2. Juli G. Pausas and Jon E. Keyley (2009), "A Burning Story: The Role of Fire in the History of Life", pp.1.

3. Sarah Zielinski, "What Do Wild Animals Do in a Wildfire"

4. Eva M. Spehn, Maximo Liberman, Christian Korner, Land Use Change and Mountain Biodiversity, pp.337, 332.

5. Florida Alliance for Safe Homes, "Protect Your Home from Wildfire Damage", pp.5.

6. Eunmo Koo, Patrick Pagni, John Woycheese, Scott Stephens, David Weise, and Jeremy Huff, A Simple Physical Model for Forest Fire Spread Rate,

pp.860 7. O'Dowd, Dennis J. and Mary F. Willson, "Associations Between Mites and

Leaf Domatia". Trends in Ecology & Evolution, pp.179–182. 8. Keeley JE, Bond WJ, Bradstock RA, Pausas JG, Rundel PW (2012), Fire in

Mediterranean ecosystems. Ecology, evolution and management

9. DeSouza O, Albuquerque LB, Tonello VM, Pinto LP, Junior RR, Effects of fire on termite generic richness in a savanna-like ecosystem (‘Cerrado’) of

central Brazil, pp.639-649. 10. James H. Cane, John L. Neff, "Predicted fates of ground-nesting bees in soil

heated by wildfire: Thermal tolerances of life stages and a survey of nesting depths", pp.3

11. World Wildlife Fund (WWF), "Living Planet Report 2014"

12. Michael J. Samways, Melodie A. McGeoch, Tim R. New, Insect Conservation: A Handbook of Approaches and Methods, pp.109-110.

13. R.C. Muirhead-Thomson, Trap responses of Flying insects: The influences of Trap Design on Capture Efficiency, Chapter 1: Light trap, pp.1-65

14. SAFRINET, the Southern African (SADC) LOOP of BioNET-

INTERNATIONAL, Colleting and Preserving Insects and Arachnids, pp.56-59.

15. ITO Gen and Homathevi Rahman, "A Guide to Orthoptera and Allied Insects", pp.96.

16. David L. Keith, Tiffany Heng-Moss, "Collecting Insects", pp.4. 17. Corinne Zurbrugg and Thomas Frank, "Factors influencing bug diversity

(Insecta: Heteroptera) in semi-natural habitats", pp.15-16. 18. T. T. Kozlowski, Fire and Ecosystem 19. Balint Horvath, "Diversity comparison of nocturnal macrolepidoptera

communities (Lepidoptera: Macroheterocera) in different forest stand", pp.3-7.

41

20. Jim Baxter, "Measuring biodiversity (revised)", pp.1-2. 21. Thomas Eisner, For Love of Insects.

22. David Dunn and James P. Crutchfield, Insects, Tree and Climate: The Bioacoustics ecology of deforestation and entomogenic climate change.

23. F. R. Wylie, Martin R. Speight, Insect Pests in Tropical Forestry, pp.22-48. 24. John R. Kelly, Mark A. Harwell, Indicators of Ecosystem Recovery, pp. 5-

10.

25. Sands, D.P.A. and New, T.R., The Action Plan for Australian Butterflies. Environment Australia, Canberra, Australia.

26. Fischer, K., Beinlich, B. and Plachter, H., Population structure, mobility and habitat preferences of the violet copper Lycaena helle (Lepidoptera:

Lycaenidae) in Western Germany: implications for conservation. Journal of Insect Conservation 3 pp.43-52.

27. Carl E. Bock and Jane H. Bock, Response of Grasshoppers (Orthoptera:

Acrididae) to Wildfire in a Southeastern Arizona Grassland, pp.165-166. 28. Edward W. Evans, "Fire as a Natural Disturbance to Grasshopper

assemblages of Tallgrass Prairie".

Vietnamese

29. GS.TS. Nguyễn Viết Tùng, Giáo trình Côn trùng học Đại cương, trang 6. 30. Cục Kiểm lâm, "Cháy rừng và Sâu bệnh Hại Rừng tính từ 1/2014 đến

3/2014"

31. Chi cục Kiểm lâm Sơn La, "Dự án Điều tra kiểm kê rừng 2003" 32. Lưu Tham Mưu, Đặng Đức Khương, "Động vật chí Việt Nam"

Websites

33. Cục kiểm lâm – Tổng cục lâm nghiệp Việt Nam, “Hệ thống theo dõi cháy rừng trực tuyến”, retrieve from:

http://www.kiemlam.org.vn/firewatchvn 34. Fire, retrieve from:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fire#cite_note-1

35. The Ecosystem and how it relates to Sustainability, retrieve from:

http://www.globalchange.umich.edu/globalchange1/current/lectures/kling/ec

osystem/ecosystem.html

36. Earth surface, retrieve from: https://vi.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tr%C3%A1i_%C4%90%E1%BA%A5t

37. A Moments of Science, Fire Beetle

http://indianapublicmedia.org/amomentofscience/fire-beetles/

42

APPENDICES

Appendix 1: List of identified species

Order Family Species UF BF ABF13

HETEROPTERA Coreidae Leptocorisa lepida Breddin, 1909 0 0 1

Rhamnomia dubia (Hsiao, 1963) 0 0 1

Cydnidae Adrisa magna (Uhler, 1861) 2 0 1

Macroscytus vietnamicus Lis, 1994 1 1 6

Chilocoris sp.1 0 0 1

Lygaeidae Dieuchus uniguttatus (Thunberg, 1822) 0 0 1

Pentatomidae Carbula sp.1 0 0 3

Elasmostethus sp.1 1 0 0

Pyrrhocoridae Dysdercus cingulatus (Fabricius, 1775) 2 0 1

Physopelta quadrigutta Bergroth, 1894

Physopelta gutta Bermeister, 1834 10 3 10

Reduviidae Acanthaspis sp.1 1 0 0

Ectomocoris sp.1 0 1 1

Ectrychotes atripennis (Stal, 1866) 0 0 1

Ectrychotes sp.1 1 0 0

Ectrychotes sp.2 1 0 1

LEPIDOPTERA Arctiidae Aloa lactinea (Cramer, 1777) 1 0 0

Barsine maculifasciata (Hampson, 1894) 1 0 0

Callimorpha sp.1 2 0 0

Cyana bellissima (Moore, 1878) 2 0 0

Cyana sp.1 2 0 0

Eilema griseola (Hübner, 1803) 7 0 1

Lyclene sp.1 2 0 0

Macotasa tortricoides (Walker, 1862) 19 0 0

Miltochrista dentifascia Hampson, 1894 3 0 0

Nyctemera adversata (Schaller, 1788) 2 0 1

Sidyma albifinis Walker, 1856 1 0 0

Spilarctia nydia Butler, 1875 4 0 0

Spilarctia sp.1 2 0 0

Spilarctia sp.2 1 0 0

Thysanoptyx sordida (Butler, 1881) 1 0 0

Bombycidae Mustilia sphingiformis Moore, 1879 1 0 1

Cossidae Panau stenoptera sumatrana (Roepke, 1957)

1 0 1

Drepanidae Cyclidia orciferaria Walker, 1860 1 0 0

Eupterotidae Pseudojana incandescens (Walker, 1855)

2 1 5

Geometridae Abraxas sp.1 3 0 0

Abraxas sp.2 1 0 0

43

Biston mediolata Jiang, Xue & Han, 2011

1 0 0

Chorodna creataria (Guenée, 1857) 8 0 0

Chorodna metaphaeria (Walker, 1863) 1 0 0

Chorodna moorei Thierry-Mieg, 1899 3 0 0

Chorodna strixaria (Guenée, 1857) 1 0 0

Chorodna testaceata (Moore, 1868) 1 0 0

Cleora sp.1 1 0 0

Cleora sp.2 2 0 0

Cleora sp.3 1 0 0

Darisa parallela (Prou, 1927) 15 0 4

Dindica polyphaenaria Guenée, 1857 1 0 2

Herochroma sp.1 0 0 2

Ornithospila lineata Moore, 1872 2 0 0

Xandrames xanthos Sato, 1996 1 0 0

Lasiocampidae Dendrolimus punctata (Walker, 1855) 0 0 1

Limacodidae Parasa ostia Swinhoe, 1902 12 0 1

Parasa pseudorepanda Hering, 1933 1 0 0

Scopelodes velosa Walker, 1855 0 0 1

Squamosa svetlanae Solovyev et Witt, 2009

1 0 0

Thosea sinensis (Walker, 1855) 1 0 0

Lymantriidae Euproctis sp.1 0 0 1

Noctuidae Actinotia intermediata (Bremer, 1861) 1 0 1

Axylia putris (Linnaeus, 1761) 2 0 0

Anomis fulvida Guenée, 1852 0 1 0

Asota plaginota (Butler, 1875) 1 0 0

Asota tortuosa (Moore, 1872) 0 0 1

Callyna jugaria Walker 1858 0 0 1

Ctenoplusia limbirena (Guenée, 1852) 3 0 0

Dictyestra dissectus Walker,1865 0 0 1

Hamodes pendleburyi Prout, 1932 1 0 0

Hypena trigonalis (Guenée, 1854) 0 1 0

Lygniodes endoleucus (Guerin-Meneville, 1844) 0 1 0

Mecodina cineracea (Butler, 1879) 1 0 0

Mocis undata (Fabricius, 1775) 1 0 0

Mythimna sp.1 2 0 1

Neochera dominia butleri Swinhoe, 1892 5 1 1

Neochera marmorea (Walker, 1856) 1 0 0

Oxyodes scrobiculata (Fabricius, 1775) 0 0 1

Sarbanissa transiens Walker,1855 2 0 0

44

Tambana subflava (Wileman, 1911) 1 0 0

Tiracola aureata Holloway, 1989 1 0 7

Tiracola sp.1 2 0 3

Noctuidae Acontiinae sp.1 1 0 0

Actinotia intermediata (Bremer, 1861) 2 0 0

Anomis fulvida Guenée, 1852 1 0 0

Axylia putris (Linnaeus, 1761) 2 0 0

Callyna jugaria Walker 1858 1 0 0

Ctenoplusia limbirena (Guenée, 1852) 3 0 0

Dictyestra dissectus Walker,1865 1 0 0

Hypena trigonalis (Guenée, 1854) 1 0 0

Mecodina cineracea (Butler, 1879) 1 0 0

Mocis undata (Fabricius, 1775) 1 0 0

Mythimna sp.1 3 0 0

Noctuid sp.1 0 1 0

Noctuid sp.2 1 0 0

Noctuid sp.3 1 0 0

Noctuid sp.4 1 0 0

Noctuid sp.5 1 0 0

Noctuid sp.6 6 0 0

Noctuid sp.7 1 0 0

Noctuid sp.8 1 0 0

Noctuid sp.9 0 0 1

Noctuid sp.10 0 0 1

Odontodes aleuca Guenée, 1852 1 0 0

Oxyodes scrobiculata (Fabricius, 1775) 1 0 0

Sarbanissa transiens Walker,1855 2 0 0

Tambana subflava (Wileman, 1911) 1 0 0

Targalla subocellata (Walker, 1863) 1 0 0

Ugia sp.1 0 1 0

Nolidae Negeta contrariata Walker, 1862 2 0 0

Notodontidae Allata sikkima (Moore, 1879) 1 0 0

Baradesa lithosioides gigantea Schintlmeister, 1997 5 0 0

Dudusa sphingiformis Moore, 1872 1 0 0

Dudusa synopla Swinhoe, 1907 0 0 1

Neopheosia mariae Schintlmeister, 2013 1 0 5

Netria viridescens Walker, 1855 0 0 2

Quadricalcarifera sp.1 4 1 1

Tarsolepis malayana Nakamura, 1976 4 0 1

Pyralidae Palpita sp.1 7 0 0

Parotis marginata (Hampson, 1893) 0 0 1

45

Vitessa suradeva Moore, 1860 1 0 0

Pyralid. sp.1 30 0 1

Pyralid. sp.2 6 1 4

Saturniidae Archaeoattacus edwardsii (White, 1859) 3 0 7

Attacus atlas (Linnaeus, 1758) 0 0 1

Sphingidae Acherontia lachesis (Fabricius, 1798) 1 0 1

Acosmeryx anceus (Stoll, 1781) 1 1 0

Acosmeryx naga (Moore, 1858) 3 0 0

Acosmeryx pseudonaga Brechlin & Kitching, 2007 0 0 1

Acosmeryx sericeus (Walker, 1856) 5 0 13

Acosmerycoides harterti (Rothschild, 1895)

2 1 1

Ambulyx ochracea Butler, 1885 1 0 2

Ambulyx sericeipennis Butler, 1875 0 0 2

Ampelophaga rubiginosa Bremer & Grey, 1853 5 1 0

Amplypterus mansoni (Clark, 1924) 2 0 0

Archaeoattacus edwardsii (White, 1859) 3 0 7

Callambulyx poecilus (Rothschild, 1898) 3 0 0

Callambulyx rubricosa (Walker, 1856) 3 0 1

Cechenena lineosa (Walker, 1856) 14 0 10

Cechenena minor (Butler, 1875) 5 0 8

Cechenena subangustata Rothschild, 1920

1 0 0

Dahira obliquifascia (Hampson, 1910) 0 0 1

Eupanacra variolosa (Walker, 1856) 0 0 1

Macroglossum mitchellii Boisduval, 1875

2 0 0

Marumba saishiuana Okamoto, 1924 2 1 0

Marumba sperchius (Ménétriés, 1857) 2 0 0

Meganoton rubescens (Butler, 1876) 1 0 0

Parum colligata (Walker, 1856) 3 1 4

Polyptychus trilineatus Moore, 1888 0 1 0

Psilogramma menephron (Cramer, 1780) 1 0 1

Rhagastis castor (Walker, 1856) 0 1 0

Rhagastis hayesi Diehl, 1982 1 0 0

Rhodoprasina callantha Jordan, 1929 1 0 0

Theretra boisduvalii (Bugnion, 1839) 0 0 1

Theretra nessus (Drury, 1773) 4 0 13

Theretra tibetiana Vaglia & Haxaire, 2010

1 0 0

Thyrididae Dysodia rajah Boisduval, 1874 6 2 0

Zygaenidae Eterusia aedea edocla Doubleday, 1847 0 0 1

46

ORTHOPTERA Acrididae Acrididae sp.2 1 0 0

Xenocatantops humilis (Serville, 1838) 0 1 0

Eucoptacra binghami Uvarov, 1921 0 0 1

Eumastacidae Erianthus dohrni Bolivar, 1914 0 0 6

Gryllidae Cardiodactylus sp.1 2 0 0

Gryllidae sp.1 0 1 0

Gryllotalpidae Gryllotalpa orientalis (Burmeister, 1838) 1 0 0

Tettigoniidae Pseudorhynchus sp.1 6 0 0

Conocephalus sp.1 1 0 0

Conocephalus sp.2 5 0 0

Tettigoniidae sp.1 1 0 0

Tetrigidae Tetrigidae sp.1 0 0 1

Bolivaritettix sikkinensis (Bolívar, 1909) 0 1 0

Tridactylidae Tridactylidae sp.1 0 1 0

Appendix 2: Pictures of UF, BF and ABF13

Scenario of ABF13

47

Scenario of Burned-Forest

Scenario of Unburned-Forest

48

APPENDIX 3: Picture of traps were used during samples collecting:

.

Light trap

Malaise trap and Killing cylinder

Photo: Dat

Photo: Dat

49

APPENDIX 4: Some pictures during the fieldtrip

Netting insects in the scenario of ABF13 nearby the road.

Collecting the very first insects trapped by Light trap

Photo: Dat

Photo: Phu V.

50

APPENDIX 5: Some species in Vietnam Redlist appeared during the research:

A female 5-horns beetle (Eupatorus gracilicornis) flew into our shelter during the

September fieldtrip. More than 10 individuals had been collected. The special

behavior of this species is that they usually appear in pairs. So, if an individual is

caught, the probability to catch its mate is normally high.

A pair of specimens of 5-horns beetle.

Male Photo: Dat Femal

51

Lepid-Saturniidae-Archaeoattacus edwardsii

APPENDIX 5: Pictures of some specimens:

Male Femal

A Female Luca-Odontolabis cuvera fallaciosa

A Female Luca-Dorcus titanus fafner

A pair of Lepid – Papi – Troides aeacus aeacus

Ph

oto

: M

r. T

ru V

u H

oan

g

Photo: Mr. Tru Vu

Photo: Mr. Tru Vu Hoang

52

Lepid-Sphingidae-Rhodoprasina callantha

Dysdercus cingulatus Fabricius, 1775

Physopelta gutta Burmester, 1834

Physopelta quadrigutta Bergroth, 1894

Photo: Dat

Photo: Mr. Tru Vu