Crambid Moths of Forest-Agriculture Interface of Pandharkawada Forest Division Maharashtra, India: Diversity and Economic Importance

Introduction

The superfamily Pyraloidea, the grass and snout moths, is one of the larger lepidopteran lineages, and its family Crambidae includes more than 10,000 species in 15 subfamilies [1]. They contribute to the ecosystems as herbivores, nocturnal pollinators and food for bats, birds and other insect-eaters. Two subfamilies, Spilomelinae and Pyraustinae, contain over 5,200 species, about one third of the Pyraloidea [2]. Molecular phylogenies place several subfamilies whose larvae live in or near water, among them the Acentropinae, in a wet-habitat group of the Pyraloidea [3]. The family therefore covers a wide ecological range, from dry grassland and forest litter to ponds, streams and flooded land.

Crambid larvae feed on a very wide range of plants, and the family is of obvious economic interest. The yellow stem borer and the leaf folder are regarded as the lepidopteran pests of prime importance in rice, and yield reductions of 1-19% in early-planted and 38-80% in late-transplanted rice have been quoted for the stem borer [4]. The legume pod borer Maruca vitrata is a major constraint to grain legume production in the tropics [5]. The sesame leaf webber and capsule borer Antigastra catalaunalis is widely considered the most serious pest of sesame in India, with yield losses of 2-75% at flowering and 1.4-31.2% at capsule formation cited in recent work [6] and a significant loss of seed yield in unprotected plots of promising varieties [7]. Other crambids damage vegetables, sugarcane and ornamental plants, whereas many species feed on wild grasses, sedges and aquatic plants and cause no known crop damage. A faunal survey of the family therefore has both ecological and practical value.

The Indian moth fauna was first catalogued by Hampson [8], and modern field guides [9,10] have made field identification much easier. Moth inventories from Maharashtra include those of the northern Western Ghats [11,12], northern Maharashtra [13] and the state fauna volume [14], and an illustrated checklist is available for Delhi [15]. These works deal with many moth families together, and none of them examines the Crambidae of the forests and farmland of the Vidarbha region on its own.

The Pandharkawada Forest Division in Yavatmal district combines dry deciduous forest, scrub, forest nurseries, plantations and cotton-dominated farmland, where soybean and pigeon pea are also grown. Such a mosaic should support both crop-feeding crambids and species of wild grasses and wetter microhabitats, but the balance between the two groups has not been documented. The study therefore asked three questions: which crambid species occur in the division and how are they distributed among subfamilies; which larval host groups dominate; and what share of the species is known to damage crops. Its objectives were to prepare a baseline checklist of the Crambidae of the Pandharkawada Forest Division, to describe their subfamily composition and larval host use, and to assess their economic importance as crop pests.

Material and Methods

The study was carried out in the Pandharkawada Forest Division, Yavatmal district, in the Vidarbha region of Maharashtra, close to the border with Telangana. Pandharkawada Forest Division lies between 19°52′ N and 20°42′ N latitude and 77°31′ E and 78°34′ E longitude (Figure 1). The climate is tropical, with a hot summer, a monsoon from June to September and a mild winter. The vegetation is a mosaic of tropical dry deciduous forest with teak, scrub and grassland, forest plantations and nurseries, and farmland on which cotton, soybean and pigeon pea are widely grown, together with villages and water bodies.

Six sites representing different habitats were surveyed (Figure 2; Table 1): Krishna Tekadi, a forest ecopark with a semi-man-made ecosystem; Pandhardevi, an old forest near the Hemadpanthi Temple; Gopalpur Nursery, a Forest Department nursery with natural forest and a perennial nala with an agricultural fringe; a roadside shrub forest between Maregaon and Wani; Inzala Forest, a teak-dominant forest; and a plantation area near Botoni village with a grassy belt and bushes. Site coordinates were noted in the field and are listed in Table 1.

Moths were recorded from June 2023 to October 2025. Records were obtained through opportunistic day and night surveys, in which each site was searched on foot for moths resting on vegetation, tree trunks, walls and other surfaces and for individuals attracted to ambient light. No standardised sampling effort, trap or bait was used, and no specimens were collected. Each moth was photographed in the field with a Sony a9 III camera fitted with a 90 mm lens, usually from several angles so that the wing pattern, head, legs and abdomen were visible. All photographs were later examined and compared with published sources.

Identification relied on the field guides of Sondhi [10] and Shubhalaxmi [9], on the descriptions of Hampson [8] and on online moth databases. Classification into subfamilies followed Léger et al. [1] and Mally et al. [2], and subfamily placements are provisional because the higher classification of the Pyraloidea is still being revised. Species identified from photographs, records that could be identified only to genus or higher level were not counted as species. Larval host plants were taken from Robinson et al. [16] and from the agricultural and entomological literature; where a host was reported only for the genus or for a related species, the record was treated as provisional.

Species were tallied by subfamily, by larval host group and by the crop attacked, and percentages were calculated from the number of species. A species was classed as a crop pest when the literature records it as damaging a cultivated plant, irrespective of the damage level in the study area; all other species were classed as having no known crop damage. Field work in the forest areas was carried out with the permission of the Deputy Conservator of Forests, Pandharkawada Forest Division. The photographs and records are available from the author on request.

Results and Discussion

The survey produced 39 crambid records, of which 36 were identified to species level (Table 2). The remaining four records were identified only to genus or higher level and are not counted among the species: Chalcidoptera sp.,  Ancylolomia sp., an unidentified crambine. The 36 species belonged to six subfamilies (Figure 3). Spilomelinae was by far the richest, with 21 species (58.3%), followed by Acentropinae with five (13.9%), Pyraustinae with four (11.1%), Scirpophaginae with three (8.3%), Crambinae with two (5.6%) and Odontiinae with one (2.8%).

The larval host records fell into seven groups (Figure 4). Species feeding on grasses and cereals were the largest group, with eight species (22.2%), followed by aquatic-plant feeders (five species, 13.9%), species on other specific plants (six, 16.7%), species on vegetable, oil and ornamental crops (four, 11.1%), legume feeders (two, 5.6%) and polyphagous species (two, 5.6%). The hosts of nine species (25.0%) are not documented, and these records show how little is known about the larval biology of many Indian crambids.

Eleven of the 36 species (30.6%) are crop pests (Table 3; Figure 5). Four attack rice (Cnaphalocrocis medinalis, Scirpophaga incertulas, Parapoynx stagnalis and Herpetogramma licarsisalis), two attack pulses and soybean (Maruca vitrata and Omiodes indicata), two attack vegetables (Diaphania indica and Spoladea recurvalis), and one each attacks sugarcane (Scirpophaga nivella), sesame (Antigastra catalaunalis) and jasmine (Nausinoe perspectata). The other 25 species (69.4%) have no known crop damage. All five Acentropinae are aquatic-plant feeders, and the perennial nala at Gopalpur Nursery is the most obvious wet habitat among the six sites.

The 36 species show that the forest-farm mosaic of the Pandharkawada Forest Division supports a varied crambid fauna in six subfamilies. The dominance of Spilomelinae, with 58.3% of the species, is expected, because this subfamily is the largest in the Pyraloidea and, with Pyraustinae, holds about one third of its species [2]. The small numbers of Crambinae and Scirpophaginae probably reflect the method rather than the true fauna, since these grass-associated moths are small, cryptic and often active late at night, and they are easily missed during opportunistic searches without light traps. The list should therefore be read as a baseline and not as a complete inventory.

The most striking result is that almost one third of the species (30.6%) are crop pests. This is a high share for a faunal survey and gives the family clear economic weight in a region that grows cotton, soybean, pigeon pea and other crops. The rice yellow stem borer Scirpophaga incertulas and the rice leaf folder Cnaphalocrocis medinalis are considered the most important lepidopteran pests of rice, and large yield reductions have been quoted for the stem borer, particularly in late-transplanted rice [4]. The legume pod borer Maruca vitrata is a major constraint on grain legumes in the tropics [5], which is relevant to a region where pigeon pea and soybean are widely grown. The sesame leaf roller Antigastra catalaunalis can cause severe losses in sesame [6,7]. The cucumber moth, the beet webworm, the bean leaf folder, the sugarcane top borer and the jasmine moth are further recognised pests of vegetables, soybean, cane and ornamentals. It must be stressed that the presence of a pest species in the forest division shows its potential as a pest and does not prove economic damage in local fields, and that the records of rice pests are indicative pest of other grassy crops as paddy is not cultivated in the study area.

Several features of the fauna are not related to crop damage. All five Acentropinae feed on aquatic plants, and members of this group belong to a wet-habitat lineage of the Pyraloidea [3]. Their presence suggests that water bodies and wet microhabitats, such as the perennial nala at Gopalpur Nursery, support specialised moths and deserve protection together with the surrounding forest. Species feeding on wild grasses, sedges and herbs, such as members of Crambinae and Scirpophaginae and the grassy belt at Botoni, probably develop on uncultivated vegetation, and they may serve as alternative prey for natural enemies when crops are absent. At the same time, the high share of species with undocumented hosts (25.0%) and the ten provisional identifications show how little is known about many Indian crambids and how much remains to be learned from rearing and from DNA barcoding.

The results have practical implications. Rice fields are known to shelter natural enemies such as spiders and egg parasitoids, and plant-based sprays have been reported to harm these enemies less than synthetic insecticides [4]. Conserving natural enemies, avoiding broad-spectrum insecticides and monitoring the main pests would therefore be sensible components of crop protection in and around the forest division, and forest patches, plantations and bund vegetation may help to maintain these enemies. The study has several limitations: the records are largely photographic, no abundance data were collected, sampling effort was uneven among sites and seasons, four records are identified only to genus need confirmation from specimens. Seasonal sampling with light traps, rearing of larvae, DNA barcoding and pest incidence surveys in  pulse and cane fields would test the patterns reported here.

Conclusion

The Crambidae of the Pandharkawada Forest Division include 36 species in six subfamilies, led by Spilomelinae. Almost one third of the species are crop pests of rice, pulses, soybean, vegetables, sugarcane, sesame and jasmine, and five aquatic species indicate wetland habitats. Monitoring of pests, conservation of natural enemies and protection of wetlands and forest patches are advisable.

Acknowledgements

The author is grateful to Mr. Kiran Jagtap, Deputy Conservator of Forests, Pandharkawada Forest Division, for his kind permission, encouragement and support during the field work. The author also sincerely thanks the field officers and field staff of the Pandharkawada Forest Division for their valuable help, guidance and cooperation in the forest areas during the survey.

Funding: This research received no specific grant from any funding agency.

Conflict of interest: The author declares that there is no conflict of interest.

References

1. Léger T, Mally R, Neinhuis C, Nuss M. Refining the phylogeny of Crambidae with complete sampling of subfamilies (Lepidoptera, Pyraloidea). Zool Scr. 2021;50(1):84-99. doi:10.1111/zsc.12452

2. Mally R, Hayden JE, Neinhuis C, Jordal BH, Nuss M. The phylogenetic systematics of Spilomelinae and Pyraustinae (Lepidoptera: Pyraloidea: Crambidae) inferred from DNA and morphology. Arthropod Syst Phylogeny. 2019;77(1):141-204. doi:10.26049/ASP77-1-2019-07

3. Regier JC, Mitter C, Solis MA, Hayden JE, Landry B, Nuss M, et al. A molecular phylogeny for the pyraloid moths (Lepidoptera: Pyraloidea) and its implications for higher-level classification. Syst Entomol. 2012;37:635-56.

4. Seni A, Pal R, Mohapatra S, Mandal D, Bansude SK, Seth P, et al. Pesticidal plant extract effect against major lepidopteran insect pests and their natural enemies in rice Oryza sativa L. Front Insect Sci. 2025;4:1500542. doi:10.3389/finsc.2024.1500542

5. Sharma HC. Bionomics, host plant resistance, and management of the legume pod borer, Maruca vitrata: a review. Crop Prot. 1998;17(5):373-86. doi:10.1016/S0261-2194(98)00045-3

6. Radhakrishnan V, Indiragandhi P, Ramasubramanian GV. Efficacy of insecticides against sesame shoot webber Antigastra catalaunalis. Indian J Entomol. 2023;85(3):723-5. doi:10.55446/IJE.2021.372

7. Sundria MM, Pandey S, Geat N, Kumhar SR. Assessment of avoidable losses caused by leaf webber and capsule borer (Antigastra catalaunalis Dup.) in promising sesame varieties. Ann Arid Zone. 2022;60(1-2). doi:10.56093/aaz.v60i1%20&%202.131406

8. Hampson GF. The Fauna of British India, including Ceylon and Burma. Moths. Vols 1-4. London: Taylor and Francis; 1892-1896.

9. Shubhalaxmi V. Field Guide to Indian Moths. Bengaluru: Indian Foundation for Butterflies; 2018.

10. Sondhi S. Moths of India: A Field Guide. Dehradun: Titli Trust and Bishen Singh Mahendra Pal Singh; 2024.

11. Shubhalaxmi V, Kendrick RC, Vaidya A, Kalagi N, Bhagwat A. Inventory of moth fauna (Lepidoptera: Heterocera) of the northern Western Ghats, Maharashtra, India. J Bombay Nat Hist Soc. 2011;108(3):183-205.

12. Kalawate AS. On a collection of moths (Lepidoptera: Heterocera) from the northern Western Ghats of Maharashtra, India. Zool Ecol. 2018;28(3):231-51. doi:10.1080/21658005.2018.1506378

13. Gurule S, Nikam S. The moths (Lepidoptera: Heterocera) of northern Maharashtra: a preliminary checklist. J Threat Taxa. 2013;5(12):4693-713. doi:10.11609/JoTT.o2555.4693-713

14. Mitra B, Chandra K, Shah SKR, Kumar J. Insecta: Lepidoptera. In: Fauna of Maharashtra, State Fauna Series 20, Part 3. Kolkata: Zoological Survey of India; 2019. p. 89-209.

15. Komal J, Shashank PR, Sondhi S, Madan S, Sondhi Y, Meshram NM, et al. Moths (Insecta: Lepidoptera) of Delhi, India: an illustrated checklist based on museum specimens and surveys. Biodivers Data J. 2021;9:e73997. doi:10.3897/BDJ.9.e73997

16. Robinson GS, Ackery PR, Kitching IJ, Beccaloni GW, Hernández LM. Hostplants of the Moth and Butterfly Caterpillars of the Oriental Region. London: Natural History Museum; Kuala Lumpur: Southdene; 2001.