CONSERVATION
IUCN Redlist category Least Concern (IUCN 2020)
Rationale for redlist categorization Troides amphysus has been assessed as Least Concern. This is a very widespread species with a very large extent of occurrence, occurring from southern Myanmar to Peninsular Malaysia and Singapore and into Indonesia. It is a relatively common species which appears to cope well with logging disturbance, although it can be strongly impacted by burning. It is protected under CITES and EU trade regulations for wild fauna and flora. Localised conservation action and monitoring may be required in those areas where the species has appeared to have declined. (IUCN 2020)
Threat category Species mortality,Ecosystem conversion|Ecosystem degradation|Species mortality|Species disturbance (IUCN 2020)
Cause of stress Intentional use (species is the target),Increase in fire frequency/intensity (IUCN 2020)
Described Threats This species is strongly affected by forest fires and such events can render it locally extinct. It may start to recover a few years later (Hirowatari et al. 2007). The species may be affected by logging, causing habitat loss, although it may be somewhat able to cope with the effects of fragmentation and open forest: while it was found to be common in continuous habitats in Central Kalimantan, but rare in isolated forest fragments and absent in areas of burned forest (Cleary and Genner, 2006), it was also shown to be more abundant along forest edges than in unlogged forest (Cleary et al., 2005).
The species is listed on CITES Appendix II together with the genera Ornithoptera and Trogonoptera , with the exception of O. alexandrae which is listed on Appendix I. Recently traded individuals appear to come mostly from captive or ranched populations (CITES 2015). Butterfly ranching is generally thought of as a sound, economically viable and sustainable rural industry (Wambi 1996, Hanscom 1993, Burrows 2003 in Small 2007). However, there are concerns that butterfly ranching may not be as sustainable in some countries as it is often perceived to be (e.g., Papua New Guinea; Small 2007). This is based on a lack of data and species monitoring to assess the status of butterfly populations, and for many species, such monitoring is fraught with difficulty due to inaccessibility of their habitat (Small 2007). New and Collins (1991) noted that trade is extremely difficult to monitor because transportation of unpinned specimens is easy, especially of comparatively low value species which may instead be traded at high volumes. It has been stated that overcollecting seldom becomes a threat to butterflies, due to the reproductive capacity of insects and the difficulty in capturing significant numbers of the population (Pyle and Hughes 1978, in Parsons 1992). However, where birdwing butterflies are highly specific to host plants and where density of these hosts plants limits population size, collection in conjunction with habitat loss could have significant impacts on the species or subpopulations. (IUCN 2020)
Commercial use Butterflies are mostly traded dead for the curio market (Collins and Morris 1985, New and Collins 1991). Between 1998 to 2007, 306,000 butterflies were traded from Southeast Asia, with 13,000 of these being wild-caught (Nijman 2010). There is a distinct shift towards ranched and captive-bred individuals in trade from 2003 onwards; in 1985, it was reported that globally less than 10% of trade was in ranched individuals (Collins and Morris 1985). Altogether at least 34 different species were recorded in trade, most of which belonged to the birdwing butterflies ( Troides and Ornithoptera ; Nijman 2010). It should be noted that trade in butterflies may be underreported, because of difficulties monitoring. New and Collins (1991) noted that trade is extremely difficult to monitor because transportation of unpinned specimens is easy, especially of comparatively low value species which may instead be traded at high volumes.
Birdwings can fetch high prices on the market. For example, butterfly collectors have paid high prices for birdwing butterflies of this genus: a pair of Ornithoptera meridionalis was reported to have fetched USD 3,400 in Germany (Melisch and Schutz 2000). Reported prices for Troides are however much lower. For example, a more recent pricing was around $85 per pair of T. hypolitus , around $15 per individual of T. helena and between $43 and $85 per pair of T. haliphron (Putri 2016). This species is listed on Appendix II of CITES. Recent data from the CITES Trade database show, that since 2000 and present around 14,000 individuals were exported from range states (Indonesia, Malaysia and Thailand) as part of the wildlife trade; of these, the majority came from Malaysia (around 11,000 individuals, around 20% of which are reportedly wild-caught; CITES 2015). Overall, close to 80% of individuals exported from range states are registered as originating from captive or ranched populations (CITES 2015). This is in agreement with previous trends from range states between 1987 and 2005, where ranched individuals were the most common source of traded individuals (UNEP-WCMC 2007). A previous report explicitly states that the majority of individuals traded from Indonesia to the European Union and the rest of the world derive from ranched individuals; main importers were Austria, Germany, Japan, US and Canada (UNEP-WCMC 2014). (IUCN 2020)
Applied conservation actions The species was not thought to be globally threatened in a status assessment in 1985, although in Malaysia it was thought to be Vulnerable (Collins and Morris 1985). This species is protected in Malaysia; in Indonesia under Government Regulation No. 7/1999 (Dahelmi et al. 2008, UNEP-WCMC 2014), with collection, possession, transport and export for commercial purposes prohibited and trade only accepted of at least second-generation bred individuals. It is listed in Appendix II of CITES, along with all other Troides, Trogonoptera and Ornithoptera (with the exception of O. alexandrae which is listed on Appendix I), as well as Appendix B of the EU regulation on trading with species of wild Fauna and Flora. The species is listed as a protected species in Indonesia (Rusman et al. 2016).
The species has been reported from protected areas within its range, such as Ujung Kulon National Park (UNESCO World Heritage Site) in West Java (Peggie 2002), Sungai Imbak Forest Reserve in Sabah (Jalil et al. 2008), Kinabalu Park (H?user et al. 1997), Mount Sago Nature Reserve in West Sumatra (Rusman et al. 2016) and the Sungai Sedim Forest Reserve in Kedah, Malaysia (Sulaiman et al. 2010). (IUCN 2020)
REFERENCES
- CITES. 2015. CITES Trade Data Base. Available at: http://trade.cites.org/.
- Collins, N.M. and Morris, M.G. 1985. Threatened Swallowtail Butterflies of the World. The IUCN Red Data Book. IUCN, Gland and Cambridge.
- H?user, C.L., Schulze, C.H. and Fiedler, K. 1997. The butterfly species (Insecta: Lepidoptera: Rhopalocera) of Kinabalu Park, Sabah. The Raffles Bulletin of Zoology 45(2): 281-304.
- Hanscom, T. 1993. Setting hearts aflutter: little butterflies take wing as big business. The Rotarian 163: 16-19.
- Hirowatari, T., Makihara, H. and Sugiartaro. 2007. Effects of fires on butterfly assemblages in lowland dipterocarp forest in East Kalimantan. Entomological Science 10: 113-127.
- IUCN. 2020. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2020-3. Available at: www.iucnredlist.org. (Accessed: 10 December 2020).
- Jalil, M.F., Mahsol, H.H., Wahid, N. and Ahmad, A.H. 2008. A preliminary survey on the butterfly fauna of Sungai Imbak Forest Reserve, a remote area at the centre of Sabah, Malaysia. Journal of Tropical Biology and Conservation 4(1): 115-120.
- Melisch, R. and Schutz, P. 2000. Butterflies and beetles in Germany. Traffic Bulletin 18: 91-93.
- New, T.R. and Collins, N.M. 1991. Swallowtail butterflies: an action plan for their conservation. International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources/Species Survival Commission Lepidoptera Specialist Group, Gland, Switzerland.
- Nijman, V. 2010. An overview of international wildlife trade from Southeast Asia. Biodiversity and Conservation 19(1101-1114).
- Parsons, M.J. 1992. The butterfly farming and trading industry in the Indo-Australian region and its role in tropical forest conservation. Tropical Lepidoptera 3(Suppl. 1): 1-31.
- Peggie, D. 2002. A list of the butterflies of Ujung Kulon National Park, Java, Indonesia. Treubia 39: 67-76.
- Putri, I.A.S.L.P. 2016. Handicraft of butterflies and moths (Insecta: Lepidoptera) in Bantimurung Nature Recreation Park and its implications on conservation. Biodiversitas 17(2): 823-831.
- Pyle, R.M. and Hughes, S.A. 1978. Conservation and Utilization of the Insect Resources of Papua New Guinea. Wildlife Branch, Department of Natural Resources, Port Moresby.
- Rusman, R., Atmowidi, T. and Peggie, D. 2016. Butterflies (Lepidoptera: Papilionoidea) of Mount Sago, West Sumatra: Diversity and Flower Preference. HAYATI Journal of Biosciences 23: 132-137.
- Small, R.D.S. 2007. Becoming unsustainable? Recent trends in the formal sector of insect trading in Papua New Guinea. Oryx 41(3): 386-389.
- Sulaiman, N. Said, S.M., Abdullah, M. and Mohamed, A.A. 2010. Butterfly fauna (Lepidoptera: Rhopalocera) of the Sungai Sedim Forest Reserve in Kedah, Malaysia. Journal of Wildlife and Parks 26: 21-32.
- UNEP-WCMC. 2007. Review of trade in ranched birdwing butterflies. UNEP-WCMC, Cambridge.
- UNEP-WCMC. 2014. Review of Birdwing Butterflies from Indonesia. UNEP-WCMC, Cambridge.
- Wambi, D. 1996. Birds, bugs and butterflies. New Guinea Insight 6: 5-9.