Malesian Butterflies
MENU
Malesian Butterflies
Troides prattorum Joicey & Talbot, 1922

CONSERVATION

IUCN Redlist category
Vulnerable (IUCN 2020)

Rationale for redlist categorization
Troides prattorum has been assessed as Vulnerable under criterion D2. This species is endemic to the island of Buru in Indonesia; in the past, access to the island in the past was almost impossible due to its use as a prison camp; the island has now opened up and logging is occurring in some parts on the island. However, hill forest is still considered to be close to intact. Should logging pressure increase, this species may become highly threatened in a short period of time; thus the species would benefit from effective protected areas. In addition, the species is involved in the international trade in birdwing species, sometimes considered the most colourful of all Troides species, fetching higher prices than other species of the genus in the past. So far, none of the individuals reported in the CITES database as traded between 2000 and 2015 stem from wild populations. More information is needed on the habitat and ecology of this species to be able to assess habitat extent and requirements for this species. (IUCN 2020)

Threat category
Ecosystem conversion|Ecosystem degradation,Species mortality (IUCN 2020)

Cause of stress
Intentional use (species is the target) (IUCN 2020)

Described Threats
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 host plants limits population size, collection in conjunction with habitat loss could have significant impacts on the species or subpopulations. In the past, the population of this species was protected from the effects of collecting, since access to Buru was almost impossible; since the 1980s at least, commercial collectors were active on the island and prices for this species in the 1980s were higher than for other Troides (Collins and Morris 1985). However, at present, none of the individuals reported in the CITES database as traded between 2000 and 2015 stem from wild populations (CITES 2015).

In a previous status assessment for this species, it was noted by the authors that logging operations on steep limestone hills to the south of Bara in the northwest of the island are having a serious environmental impact (Collins and Morris 1985). Latest data from the Global Forest Watch shows that forest loss has increased towards the more recent years, including in central parts of the island; however, much forest cover remains on the island (Hansen et al. 2013). A recent assessment of the Buru Thrush Geokichla dumasi suggests that in particular, hill forest on Buru is considerably more secure than lowland forest, and indeed remains almost intact (BirdLife 2017). (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, and given that it was reported to be the most colourful Troides (Laithwaite et al. 1975), it was reported to fetch higher prices than other Troides (Collins and Morris 1985). Recent data from the CITES Trade database show, that since 2000 and 2015 around 1,100 individuals were exported from Indonesia, none of which are from wild populations (CITES 2015). UNEP-WCMC (2012) also reports that the vast majority of traded individuals come from ranched and captive-bred populations. (IUCN 2020)

Kind of conservation needed
Site/area protection (IUCN 2020)

Applied conservation actions
This species was assessed as Indeterminate in a 1985 status assessment of the world's swallowtail butterflies (Collins and Morris 1985) and as Vulnerable under criterion D2 due to restricted range in 1996 (Baillie and Groombridge 1996). In 1991, New and Collins suggested work to fully integrate swallowtails into national conservation planning in Indonesia (1991), primarily for those species which were identified as threatened at the time - however, any such work would likely have benefited other birdwing species in the country; they also recommended urgent assessment of current knowledge and further surveys for this species.
In terms of protected areas, at the time of the 1985 assessment, there were no adequate reserves in place to help protect the species (Collins and Morris 1985). A proposed reserve, Gunung Kelapat Musa Reserve (UNDP/FAO National Parks Development Project 1981/1982, in Collins and Morris 1985), was thought to address this at the time, assuming that the species occurs in the area. At present, only one protected area is recorded for Buru in the World Database of Protected Areas (WDPA 2016): Masbait Wildlife Reserve, with an area of around 62.5 km?. Ensuring this reserve adequately serves this species is of utmost importance; additionally, further establishment of reserves for this and other Buru endemic butterflies ( Delias apatela Joicey and Talbot, 1923) is a priority.
In terms of research, Collins and Morris (1985) recommended study into the species' ecology and an assessment of its precise distribution and population status. These are still valid recommendations to date, as little research has been carried out or is available to inform a status assessment for this species. The species is listed, together with all other Troides , on CITES Appendix II. (IUCN 2020)

REFERENCES

  • Baillie, J. and Groombridge, B. (eds). 1996. 1996 IUCN Red List of Threatened Animals. pp. 378. International Union for Conservation of Nature, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK.
  • BirdLife. 2017. Geokichla dumasi. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2017: e.T22733666A118629453.
  • 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.
  • Hanscom, T. 1993. Setting hearts aflutter: little butterflies take wing as big business. The Rotarian 163: 16-19.
  • Hansen, M.C., Potapov, P.V., Moore, R., Hancher, M., Turubanova, S.A., Tyukavina, A., Thau, D., Stehman, S.V., Goetz, S.J., Loveland, T.R., Kommareddy, A,. Egorov, A., Chini, L., Justice, C.O. and Townshend, J.R.G. 2013. High-resolution global maps of 21st-century forest cover change. Science 342: 850-853.
  • IUCN. 2020. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2020-3. Available at: www.iucnredlist.org. (Accessed: 10 December 2020).
  • Laithwaite, E., Watson, A., and Whalley, P. E. S. 1975. The dictionary of butterflies & moths in colour. Michael Joseph, London, UK.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • UNDP/FAO National Parks Development Project. 1981/1982. National Conservation Plan for Indonesia. Vols. 1-8. FAO, Bogor.
  • Wambi, D. 1996. Birds, bugs and butterflies. New Guinea Insight 6: 5-9.
  • WDPA. 2016. Database on Protected Areas. A database online managed by UNEP-WCMC/IUCN World Commission on Protected Areas (WCPA). Available at: http://www.unep-wcmc.org/wdpa/index.htm.

%LABEL% (%SOURCE%)