\documentclass[10pt]{article}

\usepackage{fullpage}
\usepackage{setspace}
\usepackage{parskip}
\usepackage{titlesec}
\usepackage[section]{placeins}
\usepackage{xcolor}
\usepackage{breakcites}
\usepackage{lineno}
\usepackage{hyphenat}





\PassOptionsToPackage{hyphens}{url}
\usepackage[colorlinks = true,
            linkcolor = blue,
            urlcolor  = blue,
            citecolor = blue,
            anchorcolor = blue]{hyperref}
\usepackage{etoolbox}
\makeatletter
\patchcmd\@combinedblfloats{\box\@outputbox}{\unvbox\@outputbox}{}{%
  \errmessage{\noexpand\@combinedblfloats could not be patched}%
}%
\makeatother


\usepackage{natbib}




\renewenvironment{abstract}
  {{\bfseries\noindent{\abstractname}\par\nobreak}\footnotesize}
  {\bigskip}

\titlespacing{\section}{0pt}{*3}{*1}
\titlespacing{\subsection}{0pt}{*2}{*0.5}
\titlespacing{\subsubsection}{0pt}{*1.5}{0pt}


\usepackage{authblk}


\usepackage{graphicx}
\usepackage[space]{grffile}
\usepackage{latexsym}
\usepackage{textcomp}
\usepackage{longtable}
\usepackage{tabulary}
\usepackage{booktabs,array,multirow}
\usepackage{amsfonts,amsmath,amssymb}
\providecommand\citet{\cite}
\providecommand\citep{\cite}
\providecommand\citealt{\cite}
% You can conditionalize code for latexml or normal latex using this.
\newif\iflatexml\latexmlfalse
\providecommand{\tightlist}{\setlength{\itemsep}{0pt}\setlength{\parskip}{0pt}}%

\AtBeginDocument{\DeclareGraphicsExtensions{.pdf,.PDF,.eps,.EPS,.png,.PNG,.tif,.TIF,.jpg,.JPG,.jpeg,.JPEG}}

\usepackage[utf8]{inputenc}
\usepackage[ngerman,english]{babel}



\usepackage{float}








\begin{document}

\title{The butterfly community assemblage of Mowire Quarry Site in the forest
agroecological zone of Ghana: Response of indicator biodiversity to
ongoing quarry operations.}



\author[1]{Sampson Addae}%
\author[2]{Sampson Addae}%
\author[3]{Michael Osae}%
\author[4]{Danilo Harms}%
\author[1]{Jones Quartey}%
\author[1]{Roger Sigismund Anderson}%
\author[1]{Ben  Aikins}%
\affil[1]{University of Ghana}%
\affil[2]{Affiliation not available}%
\affil[3]{Biotechnology and Nuclear Agriculture Research Institute, Ghana Atomic Energy Commission.}%
\affil[4]{Universität Hamburg}%


\vspace{-1em}



  
  \date{June 04, 2024}


\begingroup
\let\center\flushleft
\let\endcenter\endflushleft
\maketitle
\endgroup





\selectlanguage{english}
\begin{abstract}
Quarry operations cause serious environmental impact on invertebrate
communities and contribute negatively to habitat destruction and the
species they promote but very little is still known about the response
of butterflies to such disturbances in western Africa. The current study
provides data from a baseline survey of butterflies at Mowire quarry
site in the agroecological zone of Ghana and investigates the effects of
ongoing quarry operations on butterfly diversity. Specifically quarry
operations were assessed on species abundance and richness. A total of
417 individual butterflies belonging to 67 species from 5 families was
recorded in three zones. High relative abundance in the Eastern Zone
(EZ) (N = 329) and high species richness (S = 55) may be due to
increased flowering plants diversity which contain sweet nectar which
attracts and support rich butterfly abundance. Low species richness (S =
22) and relative abundance (N= 41) in the Western Zone (WZ), and
Northern Zone (NZ) (S = 21) and low relative abundance (N= 47), was
corroborated with low plant diversity. Our results shows that, the EZ
received less negative impact from the quarry operations but the
operations negatively affected WZ and NZ. More generally our study
indicates that state institutions should ensure mandatory environmental
impact assessment reports from the quarry companies.%
\end{abstract}%



\sloppy


\textbf{Introduction}

Resource extraction through mining, lumbering, and quarry operations
contribute to the economic lifeblood of many countries in Sub-Sahara
Africa. Quarry operations are a major source of livelihood in the Mowire
community, with a growing demand for limestone has led to the
establishment of different scales of quarry companies in the district.
Quarry operations have serious environmental impact on invertebrate
communities and contribute negatively to habitat destruction and the
species they promote. (Lameed, 2010). One of the greatest adverse
environmental effect of quarry operation is the loss of species
diversity (Anand, 2006). Insect biodiversity tends to provide clearer
outcomes on ecological consequences of human-induced disturbance
(Husseini, Abubakar, \& Nasare, 2019). Arthropods are useful bio
indicators of environmental modifications caused by anthropogenic
disturbance such as pollution, habitat fragmentation, loss of habitat
and early warnings of ecological change. Butterflies provide information
on the health of ecosystem through species presence-absence and
abundance data, hence they are used as bio indicator to monitor changes
in habitat condition in the environment (Weisser \& Siemann, 2008). The
level of land degradation caused by stone quarry in Ghana has put forth
questions as to whether or not the activity should be allowed to
continue (Nartey, Nanor, \& Klake, 2012). Changes in landscape affect
invertebrates more significantly and rapidly compared to other taxa. One
of the greatest adverse environmental effect of quarry operations is the
harm to biodiversity (Eta, Idiku, \& Dan, 2019). Diversity and abundance
of butterfly species can be used to assess the impact of anthropogenic
activities on landscape changes, rapid biodiversity assessment,
monitoring degraded land and managed ecosystem (Gandhi, Patel, \&
Padate, 2017). This study provides a baseline survey of butterfly
abundance, diversity and species richness between three zones on the
Mowire quarry site. Specifically the study sought to: i) to use
butterflies as indicator species to assess the relationship between
quarry operations and insect diversity in the quarry operational area. :
ii) to assess the relationship between quarry operations and butterfly
diversity and abundance between three zones of the quarry site. The
Mowire Quarry site is perfect for carrying out this study due to the
continuous quarry operations in the area and the large concession it
holds.

\textbf{Materials and Methods}

Study Area

The research was conducted in Mowire near Kodie in the Ashanti Region of
Ghana. An area lying between Latitude: 6\selectlanguage{ngerman}° 48' 21.38'' (6.8347°) north
and Longitude: 1° 38' 25.43'' (1.7172°) west with an elevation of 280m
in the Afigya Kwabre District (Fig 1). Average temperatures ranged
between 25.0 °C between July and August and 28.0 °C from March to April
with an average annual rainfall of 1400 mm (Bannerman \emph{et al}
.,2013). The district experiences relatively high humidity ranging from
90\% to 98\% in the rainy season and drops to below 75\% in the dry
season (Bannerman\emph{et al} .,2013). The district has a current
population density of 397.3 persons per square kilometer with increasing
demand of land for residential purposes whiles available land for
agriculture and natural vegetation has been depleted. The forest
vegetation has been degraded by lumbering, settlement development and
agriculture. Part of the forest has been disturbed by various human
activities such as farming, logging and quarry operations. The economy
of the district is mainly agrarian employing about 61\% of the total
workforce. K.K quarry and Brosa Mineral Resource Limited are located at
Mowire Township about (6km) away from Kodie on the Offinso highway.
These two companies mine within the enclave of the quarry located in the
town periphery. The quarry operation has existed and been active for the
past fourteen years. Stone quarry is the main activity engaged by the
two quarry companies. The stones are crushed into relatively small
pieces of gravel-sized particles which are transported by heavy duty
vehicles daily. Blasting of rocks are done every Tuesday and Friday. KK
Quarry company take their turn to blast on Tuesdays whiles Brosa Mineral
Resource blast on Fridays. The site was positioned on a radial map with
three cardinal points Northern Zone (NZ), Eastern Zone (EZ) and Western
Zones (WZ) (Figure1). Significant quarrying activities are undertaken on
the (EZ) of the quarry operational which consist mainly of a secondary
forest (dense canopy with a lot of undergrowth and sweet nectar plants)
stretching along to the Northern part of the quarry. The EZ had the rock
cracker which was a compact, cost-effective and transportable piece of
machinery used to split, break stones and rock blocks, to reduce rocks
and to split reinforced concrete. Crushing of stones into small pieces
of rocks were done here. The rock cracker works almost every day for 24
hours generating a lot of noise and small volumes of dust to the
adjoining environment. The (WZ) has two secondary forest (degraded with
less canopy) patches as well as a sacred grove. The zone has a vast land
which has been degraded by a lot of flying rocks from the quarry
operations. Dust moves in this direction after every blast of the quarry
which was done every Tuesday and Friday. The (NZ) comprises of a
secondary forest and a settlement forming a large community and
experiences a lot of land vibrations as a result of heavy vehicles which
transport rock particles from the quarry site. The study was carried out
between the months of August 2018 and February 2019, which spanned
within dry and wet season.

\textbf{Sampling Method and species identification}

Sampling was carried out using a combination of aerial/butterfly net,
random walk and count and Charaxes trap. Direct count of individuals
were recorded along all the three zones and random walk sampling
involving two individuals were employed during each visit throughout the
sampling period. Four Charaxes traps (90cm in height), meant to attract
alcohol-loving species or those attracted to fermenting fruits were set
randomly (200m apart) to avoid bias in each zone during the sampling
period (Figure1). Aerial/butterfly net was also used to capture
butterflies, especially those which were not easily identifiable in
flight. The net was swung swiftly around butterflies in flight. The
Charaxes traps were retrieved every six days between 7:00am and 10:00am
for catches and reset throughout the sampling period, complementing it
with random walk and count in each zone. Trapped butterflies were killed
by pinching the thorax gently, but firmly and placed in labelled
envelopes for morphological identification in the lab. Butterflies were
identified to species level with reference to the collection at the
Entomology Museum at Department of Animal Biology and Conservation
Science, University of Ghana. Floral density and diversity in each zone
was visually identified and counted.

\section*{Data Analysis}

{\label{data-analysis}}

Statistical analysis on species richness, species abundance, evenness,
species diversity and habitat similarities or differences in all the
zones were examined and computed. Data from all the zones were pooled to
obtain total diversity of insects for the entire study site and sampling
period. Three diversity indices were computed using PRIMER 6 \&
PERMANOVA+ to compare data from all three zones. These were preferred
because they allowed for qualitative assessment of sites by comparing
their diversity indices (Chao \emph{et al.} , 2005) which were treated
for biodiversity assessment (Marshall \emph{et al} ., 2006). Diversity
indices (Margalef index, Shannon-index, Simpson index and Evenness) were
calculated and compared between all three zones.

1. Species richness (Margalef): \(d\ =\ (S-1)/Log\ (N)\) - This is a measure
of the number of species present, making some allowance for the number
of individuals.

2. Pielou's evenness: \(J=\frac{H^{\prime}}{In(S)}\) - this is a measure of
equitability, a measure of how evenly the individuals are distributed
among the different species

3. Shannon-Wiener index: \(H\ =-\ \Sigma\ pi\ ln(pi)\) -- incorporates both species
richness and equitability components.

4. Simpson index (D): It is influenced by dominant species (Measures
dominance and evenness).

ni = the number of individual species in the sample,\(\Sigma\ ni\ =\ N.\ pi\ \)=
the proportion of individual species in the sample, \(pi\ =\ ni/N\).
S=the number of species in the sample, N= the total number of
individuals in the sample.

\textbf{Results and Discussion}

\textbf{Relative abundance of butterflies in all the three zones}

A total of 417 individuals belonging to 68 species from 5 families were
collected from all the three zones. (Table 1). The main families
included Nymphalidae (45 species, 106 individuals), Papilionidae (2
species, 21 individuals), Pieridae (14 species, 123 individuals),
Hesperiidae (4 species, 17 individuals) and Lycaenidae (3 species, 150
individuals). At the family level Papilionidae and Hesperiidae had the
lowest number of individuals while Lycaenidae had the highest number of
individuals (Table 1).

\textbf{Diversity indices of butterflies in all the three zones}

The eastern zone (EZ) was the most diverse site for butterflies, with
the highest relative abundance of individuals (N = 329) and the highest
species richness (S = 55), which was corroborated with the highest
Margalef index (d = 9.317) with a Shannon Weiner index (H'= 2.616)
(Table 2). Two families Lycaenidae and Pieridae had the highest relative
abundance of individuals (42.9\% and 30.7\%) (Table 1).

The western zone (WZ) had low species richness (S = 22) and the lowest
relative abundance of individuals (N= 41) with the highest Shannon
Weiner index (H'= 2.807) corroborated by the highest Pielou evenness
(J'= 0.908) (Table 2). Family Nymphalidae accounted for 61\% of all the
butterflies recorded in this zone (Table 1).

The Northern zone (NZ) had the lowest species richness (S = 21) as well
as low relative abundance of individuals (N= 47) corroborated by the
lowest Margalef index (d = 5.195) with a Shanon Weiner index (H'= 2.696)
(Table 2). Family Pieridae and Nymphalidae had the highest relative
abundance of individuals (34.0\%) and (32.0\%) respectfully for all the
butterflies recorded in this zone.

\textbf{Relative abundance of plant species in all the zones}

A total of 386 individuals belonging to 25 genera were identified across
all the three zones for the sampling period. The Eastern zone had
highest relative abundance of individuals (N = 175) followed by the
Western zone (N = 111) and the least from the Northern zone (N = 100).

\textbf{Diversity indices of plant species in all the three zones}

The eastern zone (EZ) had the highest relative abundance individuals (N
= 175) and the highest richness (S = 16). The western zone (WZ) had low
richness (S = 13) and the highest Shannon Weiner index (H'= 2.241)
(Table 4). The Northern zone (NZ) had the lowest richness (S = 13) and
the lowest relative abundance of individuals (N= 100) (Table 4).

\textbf{Butterfly similarity index}

This shows the similarity between the Eastern and Northern zone at
39.81\% and similarity between Eastern, Western and Northern Zone at
27.74 \%. From the dendrogram all the Zones are dissimilar since their
percentages fall below 50\% with Western and Northern Zones being more
dissimilar.

The highest relative abundance (N = 329) and species richness (55
species, 5 families) of butterflies in the (EZ) may be attributed to the
presence of large undisturbed secondary forest which serves as a refuge
for butterfly species. This was in consonance with work done by
Tudor\emph{et al.} (2004) which suggest that vegetation structure is
important for butterfly assemblage as a site for mating and
thermoregulation. This correlated positively with the highest abundance
of tree species (175) and tree diversity (2.17292) in the EZ. This
conforms to work done by Wala \emph{et al.} (2012) which suggests that
diverse nature of plant species in forest ecosystem attract butterflies
for foraging and reproductive purposes, which could result in higher
species richness and abundance.

Low species richness (S = 22) and the lowest relative abundance (N= 41)
of butterflies in WZ could be attributed to the movement of dust
particles towards the zone after every blast of the quarry. This is in
agreement with work done by Mabogunje (2008) who suggested that,
quarrying carries the potential of destroying habitats and the species
they support. Dust and vibrations from heavy vehicles that transport
quarry products in the NZ could possibly have caused the decline in
butterfly relative abundance (N= 47) and species richness (S = 21). This
support work done by Nisic (2018), who indicated that quarry operations
negatively affects the environment in a variety of ways during
exploration, blasting, transportation and disposal of waste rocks.

\textbf{Conclusion}

Loss of suitable or quality habitats negatively affect the distribution
and abundance of butterflies in the quarry enclave. The quarry
operations had little effect on the diversity, abundance and richness of
butterflies in the EZ and retained a suitable environment for insect
diversity. However the quarry operations negatively affected WZ and NZ
resulting in the lowest abundance of individuals and species richness.
It is recommended that interventions to prevent biodiversity habitat
loss in and around the quarry operational site should focus on policies
that ensure and enforce the establishment of a dust control mechanism
system in the extractive industry.

\textbf{Acknowledgements.}

We thank the chief and people of Mowire for giving us access to the
community for the research. Special thanks goes to DAAD and ARPPIS.

\textbf{Data Availability Statement} : The data that support the
findings of this study are available at
https://doi.org/10.5061/dryad.0vt4b8gxb.

\textbf{References}

Addo-Fordjour, P., \& Rahmad, Z. B. (2015). Environmental factors
associated with liana community assemblages in a tropical forest
reserve, Ghana. \emph{Journal of Tropical Ecology, 31} (1), 69-79.

Anand, N. (2006). Planning networks: Processing India's national
biodiversity strategy and action plan.

Bannerman, S., Jnr, O. E., Duker, A., \& Yevugah, L. Environmental Noise
Implications of Quarrying at Buoho Township and Surrounding Communities
in Ghana.

Brehm, J. M., Saifan, S., Taifour, H., Abulaila, K., Al-Assaf, A.,
El-Oqlah, A., . . . Haddad, N. (2016). 15 Crop Wild Relatives: A
Priority in Jordan? Developing a National Strategy for the Conservation
of Plant Diversity in Jordan Using a Participatory Approach.
\emph{Enhancing crop genepool use: Capturing wild relative and landrace
diversity for crop improvement} , 172.

Brown Jr, K. S., \& Hutchings, R. W. (1997). Disturbance, fragmentation,
and the dynamics of diversity in Amazonian forest butterflies.
\emph{Tropical forest remnants: ecology, management, and conservation of
fragmented communities. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 632} .

Chao, A., Chazdon, R. L., Colwell, R. K., \& Shen, T. J. (2005). A new
statistical approach for assessing similarity of species composition
with incidence and abundance data.\emph{Ecology letters, 8} (2),
148-159.

Degtjarenko, P. (2016). Impacts of alkaline dust pollution on
biodiversity of plants and lichens: from communities to genetic
diversity. In: Tartu.

Gehring, T. M., \& Swihart, R. K. (2003). Body size, niche breadth, and
ecologically scaled responses to habitat fragmentation: mammalian
predators in an agricultural landscape.\emph{Biological conservation,
109} (2), 283-295.

Honda, K., \& Kato, Y. (2005). Biology of butterflies. \emph{eds. Honda
K and Kato Y, University of Tokyo Press, Tokyo} , 255-301.

Iqbal, M. Z., Shafiq, M., \& Syed, K. A. (2001). Toxic effects of lead
and cadmium individually and in combination on germination and growth of
Leucaena leucocephala (Lam.) De-Wit. \emph{Pak. J. Bot, 33} , 551-557.

Kyerematen, R., Adu-Acheampong, S., Acquah-Lamptey, D., Andersen, R.,
Owusu, E. H., \& Mantey, J. (2018). Butterfly diversity as indicator for
environmental health within Tarkwa Gold Mine, Ghana. \emph{Environment
and Natural Resources Research, 8, 69-83. DOI: 10.5539/enrr. v8n3p6 9} .

Kyerematen, R., Akuamoah-Boateng, A., Acquah-Lamptey, D., \& Anderson,
R. (2014). Land use type affects butterfly diversity: a case study of
the university of ghana, main campus, Legon. \emph{Journal of
Biodiversity and Environmental Sciences, 5} (5), 205-214.

Lameed, G., \& Ayodele, A. (2010). Effect of quarrying activity on
biodiversity: Case study of Ogbere site, Ogun State Nigeria.
\emph{African Journal of Environmental Science and Technology, 4} (11),
740-750.

Larson, T. (1997). Butterflies of West African--Origin. \emph{Natural
history, diversity, and conservation Draft Systematic part
LARSON-CD-ROM, Monila} , 395-399.

Lee, C. M., Park, J. W., Kwon, T.-S., Kim, S.-S., Ryu, J. W., Jung, S.
J., \& Lee, S. K. (2015). Diversity and density of butterfly communities
in urban green areas: an analytical approach using GIS. \emph{Zoological
Studies, 54} (1), 4.

Lodh, R., \& Agarwala, B. (2016). Rapid assessment of diversity and
conservation of butterflies in Rowa Wildlife Sanctuary: An Indo-Burmese
hotspot-Tripura, NE India.\emph{Tropical Ecology, 57} (2), 231-242.

Louis, A.-W. (2008). Mapping distribution of butterflies in central
Bobiri Forest Reserve and investigation of logging and stage of
regeneration on butterfly species richness and diversity.

Maleque, M. A., Maeto, K., \& Ishii, H. T. (2009). Arthropods as
bioindicators of sustainable forest management, with a focus on
plantation forests. \emph{Applied entomology and zoology, 44} (1), 1-11.

Maponga, O., \& Munyanduri, N. (2001). \emph{Sustainability of the
dimension stone industry in Zimbabwe---challenges and opportunities.}
Paper presented at the Natural resources forum.

Marks, K., \& Pullin, R. (1998). TOPILOT: Overall project evaluation and
monitoring report. In: EFECOT, Brussels.

Moranz, R. A., Debinski, D. M., McGranahan, D. A., Engle, D. M., \&
Miller, J. R. (2012). Untangling the effects of fire, grazing, and
land-use legacies on grassland butterfly communities. \emph{Biodiversity
and Conservation, 21} (11), 2719-2746.

Murugesan, M., Arun, P., \& Prusty, B. (2013). The butterfly community
of an urban wetland system-a case study of Oussudu Bird Sanctuary,
Puducherry, India. \emph{Journal of Threatened Taxa, 5} (12), 4672-4678.

Nganso, T., Kyerematen, R., \& Obeng-Ofori, D. (2012). Review of
biodiversity in sacred groves in Ghana and implications on conservation.
\emph{Current Trends in Ecology, 3} , 1-10.

Padhye, A., Dahanukar, N., Paingankar, M., Deshpande, M., \& Deshpande,
D. (2006). Season and landscape wise distribution of butterflies in
Tamhini, northern Western Ghats, India. \emph{Zoos' Print Journal, 21}
(3), 2175-2181.

Perrins, C. (1991). Tits and their caterpillar food supply. \emph{Ibis,
133} , 49-54.

Price, P. W. (1997). \emph{Insect ecology} : John Wiley \& Sons.

Richardson, P. J., Lundholm, J. T., \& Larson, D. W. (2010). Natural
analogues of degraded ecosystems enhance conservation and reconstruction
in extreme environments.\emph{Ecological Applications, 20} (3), 728-740.

Saha, S. K., Nair, P. R., Nair, V. D., \& Kumar, B. M. (2009). Soil
carbon stock in relation to plant diversity of homegardens in Kerala,
India. \emph{Agroforestry systems, 76} (1), 53-65.

Saket, M., Branthomme, A., \& Piazza, M. (2010). FAO NFMA---support to
developing countries on national forest monitoring and assessment.
\emph{National forest inventories---pathways for common reporting.
Edited by Springer} , 583-594.

Sant'Anna, C. L., Ribeiro, D. B., Garcia, L. C., \& Freitas, A. V.
(2014). Fruit\selectlanguage{english}-feeding butterfly communities are influenced by
restoration age in tropical forests.\emph{Restoration Ecology, 22} (4),
480-485.

Santhosh, S., \& Basavarajappa, S. (2017). Biology of few butterfly
species of agriculture ecosystems of arid regions of Karnataka, India.
\emph{Research Journal of Life Sciences, Bioinformatics, Pharmaceutical
and Chemical Sciences, 2} (6), 1-19.

Simonson, S. E., Opler, P. A., Stohlgren, T. J., \& Chong, G. W. (2001).
Rapid assessment of butterfly diversity in a montane landscape.
\emph{Biodiversity \& Conservation, 10} (8), 1369-1386.

Sourakov, A., Duehl, A., \& Sourakov, A. (2012). Foraging behavior of
the blue morpho and other tropical butterflies: the chemical and
electrophysiological basis of olfactory preferences and the role of
color. \emph{Psyche: A Journal of Entomology, 2012} .

Suggitt, A. J., Stefanescu, C., Paramo, F., Oliver, T., Anderson, B. J.,
Hill, J. K., . . . Thomas, C. D. (2012). Habitat associations of species
show consistent but weak responses to climate. \emph{Biology Letters, 8}
(4), 590-593.

Summerville, K. S., \& Crist, T. O. (2001). Effects of experimental
habitat fragmentation on patch use by butterflies and skippers
(Lepidoptera). \emph{Ecology, 82} (5), 1360-1370.

Tudor, O., Dennis, R., Greatorex-Davies, J., \& Sparks, T. (2004).
Flower preferences of woodland butterflies in the UK: nectaring
specialists are species of conservation concern. \emph{Biological
conservation, 119} (3), 397-403.

Vitousek, P. M., Mooney, H. A., Lubchenco, J., \& Melillo, J. M. (1997).
Human domination of Earth's ecosystems. \emph{Science, 277} (5325),
494-499.

Wala, K., Woegan, A. Y., Borozi, W., Dourma, M., Atato, A., Batawila,
K., \& Akpagana, K. (2012). Assessment of vegetation structure and human
impacts in the protected area of A ledjo (T ogo). \emph{African Journal
of Ecology, 50} (3), 355-366.

Yoon, J.-H., Kang, S.-J., Lee, J.-S., \& Oh, T.-K. (2006). Brevundimonas
terrae sp. nov., isolated from an alkaline soil in Korea.
\emph{International journal of systematic and evolutionary microbiology,
56} (12), 2915-2919.

\textbf{Figures:}\selectlanguage{english}
\begin{figure}[H]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.70\columnwidth]{figures/image1/image1}

\end{center}
\end{figure}

\textbf{Figure 1:} A map showing all the sampling points in all the
three zones (\textbf{Source:} Addae, 2019)

\textbf{Butterfly similarity index}\selectlanguage{english}
\begin{figure}[H]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.70\columnwidth]{figures/image2/image2}

\end{center}
\end{figure}

\textbf{Figure 2:} Dendrogram showing similarities of butterflies in the
different zones

\textbf{Table 1:} Relative abundance (\%) of butterfly families recorded
in all three zones.

Family Eastern Western Northern \textbf{Total}

NYMPHALIDAE 66 (20.1\%) 25 (61.0\%) 15(32.0\%) 106(25.4\%)

PAPILIONIDAE 11 (3.3\%) 1 (2.4\%) 9 (19.1\%) 21 (5.0\%)

PIERIDAE 101 (30.7\%) 6 (14.6\%) 16 (34.0\%) 123(29.5\%)

HESPERIIDAE 10 (3.0\%) 4 (9.8\%) 3 (6.4\%) 17 (4.1\%)

LYCAENIDAE 141 (42.9\%) 5 (12.2\%) 4 (8.5\%) 150(36.0\%)

\textbf{Total 329 41 47 417}

\textbf{Table 2:} Diversity indices of butterflies recorded in all three
zones.

Diversity index Eastern Western Northern

H\textsuperscript{'} 2.616 2.807 2.696

D 0.8218 0.9209 0.9072

J\textsuperscript{'} 0.6529 0.908 0.8855

d 9.317 5.655 5.195

N 329 41 47

S 55 22 21

*Simpson index (D), Shannon-Weiner diversity index
(H\textsuperscript{'}), Pielou evenness (J'), Margalef (d), Number of
individuals (N) and Number of species / species richness (S).\selectlanguage{english}
\begin{longtable}[]{@{}lllllllll@{}}
\toprule
Species & & East & & West & & North & & Total\tabularnewline
\midrule
\endhead
\emph{Antiaris toxicaria} & & 4 & (2.3\%) & 0 & 0 & 4 & (2.3\%) &
8(2.1\%)\tabularnewline
\emph{Albizia adianthifolia} & & 1 & (0.6\%) & 0 & 0 & 9 & (5.1\%) &
10(2.6\%)\tabularnewline
\emph{Albizia zygia} & & 6 & (3.4\%) & 0 & 0 & 2 & (1.1\%) &
8(2.1\%)\tabularnewline
\emph{Amphimas pterocarpoides} & \emph{Amphimas pterocarpoides} & 2 &
(1.1\%) & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 2(0.5\%)\tabularnewline
\emph{Baphia nitida} & & 30 & (17.1\%) & 10 & (9.0\%) & 0 & 0 &
40(10.4\%)\tabularnewline
\emph{Baphia pubescens} & & 10 & (5.7\%) & 3 & (2.7\%) & 8 & (4.6\%) &
21(5.4\%)\tabularnewline
\emph{Blighia sapida} & & 1 & (0.6\%) & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 &
1(0.3)\tabularnewline
\emph{Ficus sur} & & 7 & (4.0\%) & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 &
7(1.8\%)\tabularnewline
\emph{Ficus exasperata} & & 11 & (6.3\%) & 11 & (10.0\%) & 21 & (12.0\%)
& 43(11.1\%)\tabularnewline
\emph{Margaritaria discoidea} & & 1 & (0.6\%) & 22 & (19.8\%) & 0 & 0 &
23(6.0\%)\tabularnewline
\emph{Millettia zechiana} & & 9 & (5.1\%) & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 &
9(2.3\%)\tabularnewline
\emph{Morinda lucida} & & 5 & 2.857143 & 17 & (15.3\%) & 3 & (1.7\%) &
25(6.5\%)\tabularnewline
\emph{Newbouldia laevis} & & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 6 & (3.4\%) &
6(1.6\%)\tabularnewline
\emph{Broussonetia papyrifera} & & 6 & (3.4\%) & 18 & (16.2\%) & 11 &
(6.3\%) & 35(9.05)\tabularnewline
\emph{Chromolaena odorata} & & 25 & (14.3\%) & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 &
25(6.5\%)\tabularnewline
\emph{Elaeis guineensis} & & 55 & (31.4\%) & 7 & (6.3\%) & 16 & (9.1\%)
& 78(20.2\%)\tabularnewline
\emph{Pseudospondias microcarpa} & & 2 & (1.1\%) & 2 & (1.8\%) & 0 & 0 &
4(1.0\%)\tabularnewline
\emph{Leucaena leucocephala} & & 0 & 0 & 4 & (3.6\%) & 0 & 0 &
4(1.0\%)\tabularnewline
\emph{Spondias mombin} & & 0 & 0 & 2 & (1.8\%) & 0 & 0 &
2(0.5\%)\tabularnewline
\emph{Cocos nucifera} & & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 10 & (5.7\%) &
10(2.6\%)\tabularnewline
\emph{Caragana arborescens} & & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 4 & (2.3\%) &
4(1.0\%)\tabularnewline
\emph{Citrus medica} & & 0 & 0 & 12 & (10.8\%) & 0 & 0 &
12(3.1\%)\tabularnewline
\emph{Mangifera indica} & & 0 & 0 & 2 & (1.8\%) & 4 & (2.3\%) &
6(1.6\%)\tabularnewline
\emph{Tectona grandis} & & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 2 & (1.1\%) &
2(0.5\%)\tabularnewline
\emph{Alstonia boonei} & & 0 & 0 & 1 & (1.0\%) & 0 & 0 &
1(0.3\%)\tabularnewline
\textbf{Total} & & \textbf{175} & & \textbf{111} & & \textbf{100} & &
\textbf{~386}\tabularnewline
\bottomrule
\end{longtable}

\textbf{Table 3} . Relative abundance of plant species captured in all
three zones for both seasons

\textbf{Table 4} : Diversity indices of plant species for all the three
zones.

Diversity index Eastern Western Northern

H\textsuperscript{'} 2.173 2.241 1.992

N 175 111 100

S 16 13 13

* Shannon-Weiner diversity index (H\textsuperscript{'}), Number of
individuals (N) and Number of species / species richness (S).

\selectlanguage{english}
\FloatBarrier
\end{document}

