Pieniny – Przyroda i Człowiek 8: 83–88 (2003)

Changes in species richness of fauna (, Hesperioidea and Papilionoidea) in the Pieniny Mountains

Zmiany w bogactwie gatunkowym fauny motyli (Lepidoptera, Hesperioidea i Papilionoidea) w Pieninach

L’UBOMÍR PANIGAJ

The Department of Zoology and Ecology, Faculty of Science, P. J. Šafárik University, Moyzesova 11, 041 67 Košice, Slovak Republik; e-mail: [email protected]

Abstract. Based on literature data and original studies the species of butter- flies occuring in Pieniny Mountains are listed. The author compares the num- bers of registered butterfly species in the Slovak and the Polish part of Pieniny Mts. On the Polish part there were 105 species of , and on Slovak part, 89 species recorded (in the whole Pieniny Mts. 108 species are known). Although some new species of butterflies were recorded – Colias erate (ESPER, 1805), Plebejus argyrognomon (BERGSTRÄSSER, 1779), Glaucopsyche alexis (PODA, 1761), many species have already disappeared from the Pieniny Mts. – Pyrgus carthami (HÜBNER, 1813), Thymelicus acteon (ROTTEMBURG, 1775), decoloratus (STAUDINGER, 1886), Cupido alcetas (HOFFMANNSEGG, 1804), Scolitantides orion (PALLAS, 1771), Polyommatus eroides (FRIVALDSZKY, 1835) and Melitaea didyma (ESPER, 1779). For conservation of butterfly fauna in Pieniny Mts. it will be necessary to preserve the integrity of their habitats and to minimize negative anthropogenic influences.

INTRODUCTION published in the second half of the 19th century (Nowicki 1869). The first information about the Pieniny Mts. has been the object of research for occurrence of the butterflies in the Slovak part was scientists for a long time. There has been con- published much later (Panigaj 1986, 1993, 1999a, ducted a lot of research work from various scien- 1999b). Research of the lepidopterofauna in the tific branches. It’ s interesting, that the Polish part Polish part was continued further, and more im- of Pieniny Mts. has gained more interest from portant works were published, for example by Si- scientists than the Slovak part. This is due to towski (1906, 1910, 1948), Błeszyn´ski, Razowski et longer research programms in Poland. As con- Z˙ukowski (1965), Da˛browski (1982), Buszko (1997). cerns the Slovak research was focused on Lepi- Untill now the occurrence of the butterflies in doptera, especially on butterflies (superfamilies the geomorphological complex of Pieniny Mts. Hesperioidea and Papilionoidea). was not discused. The aim of the study is to sum The first infomation from the Polish part was up all known facts. 84 L’. Panigaj – Changes in species richness of butterfly fauna

STUDY AREA be obtained from the Sitowski (1906, 1910, 1948) and Błeszyn´ski, Razowski et Z˙ ukowski (1965). In this study we consider the teritorry of oro- Table I contains the results of study of butter- graphical complex of Pieniny Mts. as a whole fly fauna of superfamilies Hesperioidea and Papi- including the teritorry of two national parks – lionoidea in the time periods when they were PIENAP in Slovakia and PPN in Poland. determined. Nomenclature is used according to The extent of PIENAP is 3 896 ha and of PPN the work of Laštu˚vka ed. (1998). is 2 231 ha. We can also determine the natural conditions in both parts of Pieniny Mts. which are divided by the Dunajec River. The Pieniny Mts. DISCUSSION represent a distinct area with diversified relief having a number of narrow valleys and gorges at So far, 108 species of the butterflies were found carsts and dolomites. Important country phe- in the area of Pieniny National Park. nomenon is Dunajec gorge, where typical vertical During the years number of species has inversion of species is observed – mountain and changed. Błeszyn´ski, Razowski et Z˙ ukowski subalpine species on the bottom of gorge, and (1965) found 98 species butterflies on the Polish thermophilous species of flora and fauna on the side, and in the next period (1963 – up-to-date) top of klippes and slopes. they found species such as Pyrgus carthami The altitude varies, from 440 m (level of Du- (HÜBNER, 1813) (collected in 1952), Thymelicus najec River), to 1050 m Vysoké skalky (on the acteon (ROTTENBURG, 1775) (were also collected Slovak part) and Three Crowns with 1000 m but in one individual in 1951), and in 1956 Cupi- height (on the Polish part). do decoloratus (STAUDINGER, 1886) was col- There are lot of very diversified habitats. The lected (which was a new species for Poland), in majority of the area of Pieniny Mts. is covered by 1938, Cupido alcetas (HOFFMANNSEGG, 1804) forests with domination of beach, fir, and pine was found in one individual, but Scolitantides making communities such as Fagetum carpati- orion (PALLAS, 1771), Polyommatus eroides (FRI- cum, Phyllitido-Aceretum, Tilio-Carpinetum, re- VA L D S Z K Y , 1835) and Melitaea didyma (ESPER, lict Pinetum dealpinum and Alnetum incanae. 1779) were not found in any individual. In Non-forest habitats include xerothermic com- general these species are endangered, vulnerable munities, such as Dendranthemo-Seslerietum, or very rare and they are dissapearing from their Festucetum pallentis, Origano-Brachypodietum habitats. pinnati and Anthylli-Trifolietum montani. Many The Colias croceus (FOURCROY, 1785), Poly- habitats in Pieniny Mts. are influenced and ex- ommatus amandus (SCHNEIDER, 1792) (was ploited by man – intensive grazing, mowned found in one individual in 1951) and Coenonym- meadows, tourist and sporties activities, construc- pha arcania (LINNAEUS, 1761) were found again tion of dam on the Dunajec River. in the years 1992–1993 by prof. Z. Witkowski in the area of construction of dam on the Dunajec RESULTS River near the village Czorsztyn – according to the written announcement. These species were Comparing the spectrum of butterflies in both not found on the Slovak part of Pieniny Mts. parts of Pieniny Mts. it can be seen that there Later there was a new group of species dis- were some problems caused by the length of the covered in Polish fauna of Pieniny Mts. Ochlodes study. Therefore it is necessary to concentrate on venatus (BREMER et GRAY, 1853), Colias erate the data obtained during the last 20 years and (ESPER, 1805), Cupido argiades (PALLAS, 1771). compare them to see if there are some significant It is necessary to remind the Plebeius argyrogno- differences. For more detailed pictures of the dy- mon (BERGSTRÄSSER, 1779) and Glaucopsyche namics in the species richness of the butterfly alexis (PODA, 1761) according to the written an- communities in Pieniny Mts. historical data can nouncement by prof. Z. Witkowski. Thus the total L’. Panigaj – Changes in species richness of butterfly fauna 85

Table I. Recorded species of the Butterflies in Pieniny Mts. (PL – Polish side, SK – Slovak side). Symbols in parenthesis – data by prof. Z. Witkowski (after the written announcement). Wykaz gatunków motyli z Pienin (PL – strona polska, SK – strona słowacka). Symbole w nawiasach – dane prof. Z. Witkow- skiego (wg publikacji).

No Species No Species PL: 1986–1997 PL: 1986–1997 SK: 1978–1984 SK: 1978–1984 SK: 1987–2002 SK: 1987–2002 PL: till year 1963 year till PL: 1963 year till PL:

35. Lycaena tityrus PODA ++ HESPERIIDAE 36. Lycaena alciphron ROTT.+++ 1. Erynnis tages L. ++++ 37. Lycaena hippothoe L. ++++ 2. Carcharodus alceae ESP.++ 38. Thecla betulae L. + + + + 3. Spialia sertorius HFMSG.++++39. Neozephyrus quercus L. + 4. Pyrgus malvae L. ++++ 40. Satyrium pruni L. ++++ 5. Pyrgus armoricanus OBTH.+ + 41. Satyrium w-album KN.++++ 6. Pyrgus alveus HB.+++ 42. Satyrium spini D. ET SCH.+++ 7. Pyrgus serratulae RBR.+(+) 43. Satyrium accaciae F. ++++ 8. Pyrgus carthami HB.+ 44. Callophrys rubi L. + + 9. Carterocephalus palaemon PALL.+ + + + 45. Cupido minimus FUESSLY ++++ 10. Thymelicus sylvestris PODA ++++ 46. Cupido argiades PALLAS ++ 11. Thymelicus lineolus O. ++++ 47. Cupido decoloratus STDGR.+ 12. Thymelicus acteon ROTT.+ 48. Cupido alcetas HFMSG.+ 13. Hesperia comma L. ++++ 49. Celastrina argiolus L. + + + 14. Ochlodes venatus BR. ET GREY +++ 50. Scolitantides orion PALL.+ PAPILIONIDAE 51. Glaucopsyche alexis PODA (+) 15. Parnassius apollo L. + + + + 52. Maculinea alcon D. ET SCH.++++ 16. Parnassius mnemosyne L. ++++ 53. Maculinea arion L. ++++ 17. Iphiclides podalirius L. ++++ 54. Plebeius argus L. ++++ 18. Papilio machaon L. ++++ 55. Plebeius idas L. + + PIERIDAE 56. Plebeius argyrognomon BRGSTR.(+) 57. Aricia agestis D. ET SCH.++ 19. Leptidea sinapis L. ++++ 58. Cyaniris semiargus ROTT.++++ 20. Leptidea reali REISSINGER + 59. Polyommatus dorylas D. ET SCH.++++ 21. Aporia crataegi L. + + + 60. Polyommatus amandus SCHN.+(+) 22. Pieris brassicae L. + + + + 61. Polyommatus icarus ROTT.++++ 23. Pieris rapae L. ++++ 62. Polyommatus eroides FRIV.+ 24. Pieris napi L. ++++ 63. Polyommatus coridon PODA ++++ 25. Pontia daplidicae L. + + + 64. Polyommatus bellargus ROTT.++++ 26. Anthocharis cardamines L. ++++ 65. Polyommatus daphnis D. ET SCH.+ + + + 27. Colias hyale L. ++++ 28. Colias alfacarensis RIBBE ++++ NYMPHALIDAE 29. Colias croceus FOURCR.+(+)+66. Apatura iris L. ++++ 30. Colias erate ESP.+67. Apatura ilia D. ET SCH.+++ 31. Gonepteryx rhamni L. ++++ 68. Limenitis populi L. ++++ 69. Limenitis camilla L. ++++ RIODINIDAE 70. Nymphalis polychloros L. + + + 32. Hamearis lucina L. ++++ 71. Nymphalis vaualbum D. ET SCH.++ 72. Nymphalis antiopa L. ++++ 33. Lycaena phlaeas L. ++++ 73. Inachis io L. ++++ 34. Lycaena virgaureae L. ++++ 74. Vanessa atalanta L. ++++ 86 L’. Panigaj – Changes in species richness of butterfly fauna

Table I. Continued. – Tabela I. Kontynuacja. occurence of Leptidea reali (REISSINGER, 1989), Neozephyrus quercus (LINNAEUS, 1758) and Melitaea aurelia (NICKERL, 1850) is not known on the Polish part, there is very important confir- No Species mation of the occurence of Pyrgus armoricanus (OBERTTHÜR, 1910) on the Slovak side. Primary PL: 1986–1997 PL: SK: 1978–1984 SK: 1987–2002 PL: till year 1963 published species Spialia orbifer (HÜBNER, 1823) 75. Cynthia cardui L. ++++ was deleted from the list after revision, since it 76. Aglais urticae L. ++++ was found out to be Spialia sertorius (HOFFMAN- 77. Polygonia c-album L. ++++ NSEGG, 1804). Together on the Slovak part of 78. Araschnia levana L. ++++ 79. Argynnis paphia L. ++++ Pieniny Mts. 89 species are registred. 80. Argynnis aglaja L. ++++ On the Slovak part the following species were 81. Argynnis adippe D. ET SCH.++++also not registred Carcharodus alcae (ESPER, 82. Argynnis niobe L. ++++ 1780), Lycaena tityrus (PODA, 1761) Callophrys 83. Issoria lathonia L. ++++ rubi (LINNAEUS, 1758), Aricia agestis (DENIS et 84. Brenthis ino ROTT.+++SCHIFFERMÜLLER, 1775), Nymphalis vaualbum 85. Boloria selene D. ET SCH.++++(DENIS et SCHIFFERMÜLLER, 1775) and Coeno- 86. Boloria euphrosyne L. ++++ nympha tullia (MÜLLER, 1764). The habitats on 87. Boloria dia L. ++++ the Slovak part (absence of wetlands) are not suit- 88. Melitaea didyma ESP.+ able for the entirely hygrophilous species (f. e. 89. Melitaea diamina LANG ++Coenonympha tullia MÜLLER, 1764). 90. Melitaea athalia ROTT.++++It would be possible to expect an occurence of 91. Melitaea aurelia NICK.+more species, for exemple Leptidea morsei (FEN- SATYRIDAE TON, 1881) and also Polyommatus slovacus 92. Melanargia galathea L. ++++ (VÍTˇ AZ, BÁLINT et ŽITNˇ AN, 1997). The taxo- 93. Brinthesia circe F. + + nomic position of Maculinea alcon (DENIS et 94. Erebia ligea L. ++++ SCHIFFERMÜLLER, 1775) is questionable and it 95. Erebia euryale ESP.+++would be necessary to revise the known materials 96. Erebia aethiops ESP.++++to eliminate interchange with Maculinea rebeli 97. Erebia medusa D. ET SCH.++++ (HIRSCHKE, 1904). 98. Maniola jurtina L. ++++ There is a continuous occurence of 68 species 99. Hyponephele lycaon KÜHN ++++ of the butterflies on both parts, which are mainly 100. Aphantopus hyperanthus L. ++++ unpretentious and eurytopic species. Another 101. Coenonympha pamphilus L. ++++ species show unstable occurrence with popula- 102. Coenonympha tullia MÜLLER ++ 103. Coenonympha arcania L. + (+) tion’s fluctuation. It is interesting that among the 104. Coenonympha glycerion BKH.++++butterflies which became extinct, most belong to 105. Pararge aegeria L. ++++ the ecological group of termophilous species. No- 106. Lasiommata megera L. ++++ wadays Lepidopterological value of Pieniny Mts. 107. Lasiommata maera L. ++++ is because of the species which are bound to xe- 108. Lasiommata petropolitana F. + + + rothermic habitats on calcareous ground. Some Total 98957386 termophilous species have a northern border of distribution in Pieniny Mts. The reasons why certain butterflies were dis- number of discovered species on the Polish side appearing were described by Da˛browski (1982). of Pieniny Mts. is 105 species. According to his opinion anthropogenic influence From the Slovak side the number of published such as – changing and destroying of original species is 74 species (PANIGAJ 1986), later on an- habitats, mainly in lower elevations, the increased other 16 species have been discovered. While the effect of pollution and touristic activities have L’. Panigaj – Changes in species richness of butterfly fauna 87 been the major causes of the problem. Similar an- Da˛browski J. S. 1982. Przemiany we wspólczesnej lepidopte- tropogenic influence can also be seen on the Slo- rofaune Pienin. [In:] Zarzycki K. (ed.): Przyroda Pienin w obliczu zmian. — Studia Nat., Ser. B, Wyd. Pop.-Nauk., vak side, nevertheless the Pieniny Mts. have 30: 521–528. status of a national park. But we suppose, that Danková M. 1997. Projekt posilnenia populácie jasonˇa cˇerve- besides anthropic influences, also natural circum- nookého na území Pienin. Príroda Pienin v premenách. — stances have influence on changing habitats, e. g. Monografické štúdie o národny´ch parkoch, 1: 110–122. overgrowth of slopes by trees and long term cli- Laštu˚vka Z. (ed.). 1998. Seznam moty´lu˚ Cˇeské a Slovenské matic changes have impact on the butterfly popu- republiky (Checklist of Lepidoptera of the Czech and lation. Slovak Republics) (Lepidoptera). — Konvoj, Brno, pp. 118. Restitution and artificial breeding are difficult ways of saving the endangered species. Neverthe- Nowicki M. 1870. Wiadomostki z Pienin. [In:] Zapiski fauni- cze. — Spraw. Kom. Fizyogr., 4: (20)–(23). less the population of Parnassius apollo (LIN- Panigaj L’. 1986. Fauna moty´l’ov (Lepidoptera) Pieninského NAEUS, 1758) was saved with success (Witkowski národného parku. — Zbor. Prác o TANAP-e, 27: 83–144. et al. 1997, Danková 1997). For certain interna- Panigaj L’. 1993. Niekol’ko poznámok k vy´skytu moty´l’ov (Le- tional cooperation will be necessary to carry on pidoptera) v ochrannom pásme PIENAP-u. [In:] XVI. the research and implement the preservation Vy´chodoslovensky´ TOP 1992. Prehl’ad odborny´ch means for the butterflies in Pieniny Mts. vy´sledkov (Cˇerveny´ Kláštor 25.07. – 1.08. 1992) — Po- In the area of the dam on the Dunajec River, prad, p. 37–46. a decrease in the number of species was ob- Panigaj L’. 1999a. The Monitoring of Butterflies (Lepidoptera, Rhopalocera) in the Pieniny National Park. [In:] Panigaj served, what was stated by prof. Z. Witkowski. L’. (ed.): Methodology of the biotic elements monitoring In the years 1992–1993, 63 species were listed of the Pieniny National Park. Proceeding of the contribu- (Z. Witkowski, A. Kosior), 48 species in 1996, but tions submitted at the conference. Town of Sp. — Stara only 38 species were listed in 1997 (B. Jenner). We Ves and Pieniny National Park, p. 52–57. can see that the presence of the dam has a nega- Panigaj L’. 1999b. Doplnky k faune moty´l’ov (Lepidoptera) tive effect on its surroudings. The influence of the v Pieninskom národnom parku. — Štúdie o Tatranskom národnom parku, 4(37): 167–174. dam on the butterfly fauna in the future is a object for monitoring at the present (Panigaj 1999a). Sitowski L. 1906. Motyle Pienin. — Spraw. Kom. Fizyogr., 39: 39–69. On the basis of the butterfly species richness, Sitowski L. 1910. Motyle Pienin. 2. — Spr. Kom. Fizyogr., we consider the Polish and Slovak sides of Pie- 44: 130–154. niny Mts. as an integral complex. This is indi- Sitowski L. 1948. Przyczynki do znajomos´ci fauny Parku Na- cated also by high faunistical similarity (85.6%) rodowego w Pieninach. Ochr. Przyr., 18: 133–142. according Sorensen’s similarity coefficient. For Witkowski Z., Adamski P., Kosior A., Płonka P., 1997. Extinc- calculation of this coefficient all species of butter- tion and reintroduction of Parnassius apollo L. in the Pie- flies found in the Polish and Slovak part were niny National Park (Polish Carpathians). — Biologia, used. 52(2): 199–208.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT STRESZCZENIE I thank to prof. Z. Witkowski for information about butterfly fauna in the area of the dam on Dunajec River. Do tej pory wykazano z Pienin 108 gatunków This study was partly supported by the Slovak Scien- o motyli dziennych. Z tego z polskiej cze˛s´ci Pienin tific Grant Agency as a Project N 1/7559/20 and znanych jest 105 gatunków, a ze słowackiej 87–89. a Phare-Credo Project No 97/1 – SK/PO-008. Róz˙nica ta wynika z niejednakowego stopnia zbadania obu cze˛s´ci Pienin. Po polskiej stronie REFERENCES pierwsze prace z tego tematu były publikowane Błeszyn´ski S., Razowski J., Z˙ ukowski R. 1965. Fauna motyli juz˙ pod koniec XIX wieku, a po stronie słowac- Pienin. — Acta Zool. Cracov., 10: 376–583. kiej dopiero w 1986 roku. Buszko J. 1997. A Distributional Atlas of Butterflies in Po- Kolejna˛ przyczyna˛ róz˙nic w ilos´ci dziennych land, 1986–1995. — Turpress, Torun´, pp.170. motyli jest poste˛puja˛ca zmiana ekosystemów. 88 L’. Panigaj – Changes in species richness of butterfly fauna

Zanikaja˛ w Pieninach stanowiska kserotermicz- stupnˇa poznania obidvoch cˇastí. Na pol’skej strane ne i tym samym uste˛puja˛ zwia˛zane z nimi gatunki boli prvé práce s touto problematikou publiko- np.: Pyrgus carthami Hb., Thymelicus acteon Rott., vané už koncom XIX. storocˇia, na slovenskej Scolitantides orion Pall., Melitaea didyma Esp. strane až v roku 1986. Hlavná prícˇina rozdielov W ostatnich latach odkryto nowe dla Pienin v druhovom bohatstve denny´ch moty´l’ov je v pos- gatunki motyli dziennych np.: Colias erate Frcr., tupujúcich zmenách v ekosystémoch. V Pie- Glaucopsyche alexis Poda, Plebejus argyrogno- ninách zanikajú xerotermné stanovištia a v súvi- mon Brgstr. slosti s ty´m ustupujú druhy moty´l’ov, ktoré sú na Dla zachowania fauny motyli dziennych w Pie- ne viazané, napr. Pyrgus carthami Hb., Thymeli- ninach konieczne jest utrzymywanie róz˙norodnos´ci cus acteon Rott., Scolitantides orion Pall., Meli- siedlisk, minimalizowanie skutków ruchu turysty- taea didyma Esp. cznego oraz zrównowaz˙one uz˙ytkowanie terenów V posledny´ch rokoch boli pre Pieniny objave- rolnych, głównie ła˛k. Interesuja˛ca be˛dzie tez˙ ob- né ako nové druhy denny´ch moty´l’ov napr. Colias serwacja wpływu powstałego na Dunajcu zespołu erate Frcr., Glaucopsyche alexis Poda, Plebejus zbiorników wodnych na faune˛ tych zwierza˛t. argyrognomon Brgstr. Pre zachovanie fauny denny´ch moty´l’ov v Pie- SÚHRN ninách je rozhodujúce udržanie rôznorodosti stanovíšt’, minimalizácia vplyvov turistického ru- Doteraz je z Pienin uvádzany´ch 108 druhov chu a optimalizované využívanie pol’nohospodár- denny´ch moty´l’ov. Z toho z pol’skej strany je zná- skych plôch, hlavne lúk. Zaujímavé bude tiež sle- mych 105 druhov a zo slovenskej strany 89 dru- dovanie vplyvu vodny´ch nádrží na Dunajci na hov. Tento rozdiel vyply´va už z nerovnakého faunu ty´chto živocˇíchov