IMPORTANCE OF HETEROGENEOUS MOSAIC LANDSCAPE FOR
CONSERVATION OF HIGH BUTTERFLY DIVERSITY (LEPIDOPTERA:
PAPILIONOIDEA) OF RURAL ENVIRONMENT – EXAMPLE OF
GORENJA VAS, POLJANSKA VALLEY, SLOVENIA 
Luka Šturm
1 Department of Food Science and technology, Biotechnical faculty, 
university of Ljubljana, Jamnikarjeva 101, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia, 
e-mail: lukalory@gmail.com
Abstract With the advancement in agriculture we sophisticated the exploitation of
land, but consequently started reducing the richness of the otherwise highly heteroge-
neous cultural landscapes. this began to impact the diversity of certain animal and
plant groups bound to specific habitat types. In order to investigate the importance of
heterogeneous mosaic landscapes in rural areas, a 2 years survey, including 31 individ-
ual counts of butterflies in two habitat-diverse locations, was performed. Based on
these observations we conclude, that even a relatively small areas of highly diverse
landscape, with a handful of different micro-habitats, can sustain relatively high num-
ber of butterfly species (54). Among those, 7 species are of conservation importance:
5 were found on the localities in smaller numbers (Plebejus idas, Parnassius
mnemosyne, Melitaea diamina, Euphydryas aurinia and Lycaena alciphron), while
two were more numerous (Lycaena hippothoe and Pyrgus armoricanus). Another
interesting find was Brenthis hecate, which is very rare in the studied region. Protection
of such environments, within otherwise intensive agricultural rural landscapes, is thus
vital for maintaining high habitat richness and the survival of diverse flora and fauna.
Key WorDS: monitoring, habitat heterogeneity, farmland, extensive grassland 
Izvleček PomeN HeteroGeNe moZAIČNe KrAJINe ZA oHrANJANJe
VISoKe PeStroStI DNeVNIH metuLJeV (LePIDoPterA: PAPILIoNoI-
DeA) V KuLturNI KrAJINI – PrImer GoreNJe VASI V PoLJANSKI
DoLINI, SLoVeNIJA
Z razvojem kmetijstva smo izboljšali rabo izbranih površin, a smo posledično
začeli zmanjševati raznolikost sicer heterogene kulturne krajine. to je vplivalo na
5
ACTA ENTOMOLOGICA SLOVENICA
LJUBLJANA, JUNIJ 2022                      Vol. 30, øt. 1: 5–20
diverziteto posameznih živalskih in rastlinskih skupin, ki so vezane na določene
habitate. Pomen heterogene mozaične krajine podeželja je bil zato raziskan s pomoč-
jo 2 letne analize števila in vrstne pestrosti metuljev. V ta namen je bilo izvedenih
31 posameznih vzorčenj na dveh habitatno raznolikih lokacijah. rezultati kažejo, da
že nekaj različnih mikro-habitatov lahko vzdržuje veliko število vrst dnevnih metu-
ljev (54). od tega je bilo zabeleženih 7 vrst, ki so naravovarstveno pomembne: 5 je
bilo najdenih na lokacijah v manjšem številu (Plebejus idas, Parnassius mnemosyne,
Melitaea diamina, Euphydryas aurinia in Lycaena alciphron), medtem ko sta bili 2
vrsti številčnejši (Lycaena hippothoe in Pyrgus armoricanus). Zanimiva je tudi najd-
ba Brenthis hecate, ki je zelo redka vrsta v severozahodni Sloveniji. Zaščita takih
okolji, v sicer intenzivni kmetijski krajini, je zato nujna, saj omogoča ohranjanje raz-
nolikih habitatov ter visoke pestrosti rastlinskih in živalskih vrst na teh območjih.
KLJuČNe BeSeDe: monitoring, habitatna heterogenost, kmetijska krajina, ekstenzivni
travniki
Introduction
With the advancement of technology, implementation of intensive agricultural
methods (such as use of fertilizers and pesticides), huge monoculture plantations and
degradation of certain habitats, coupled with the abandonment of mowing and graz-
ing in certain areas, the once diverse rural landscapes are becoming more and more
depleted of its former heterogeneity. once highly fragmented mosaic landscapes are
making way to more uniform types of intensive grasslands, fields and forests, while
also becoming more homogenous on larger scales (Frélichová and Fanta 2015;
ribeiro and Hribar 2019). Smaller heterogeneous areas are being replaced and trans-
formed into larger uniform units to improve agricultural efficiency, or simply
because of absence of farming and overgrowing associated with it. And while these
changes are welcomed from the perspective of everyday consumers and farmers on
a short term, they are devastating from the perspective of natural diversity, especially
the fauna and flora bound to specific habitats (van Swaay and Warren 2006; Zupan
et al. 2020). 
Despite the fact that most rural areas have been unsuitable for some animals, like
large carnivores, for at least a hundred years (Breitenmoser 1998), other smaller ani-
mals, such as butterflies, were permitted to flourish. this is mostly due to the fact
that smaller animals require only small patches of suitable habitat to sustain their
populations. thus, in the case of fragmented mosaic landscapes, consisting of other-
wise human-dominated micro-habitats, the rural wildlife diversity could remain sur-
prisingly high. However, with the intensification of agriculture, especially in the last
two decades, the diversity of smaller animals started to decline as well (Nilsson et al.
2013; Frélichová and Fanta 2015; ribeiro and Hribar 2019). 
In this article, the importance of diverse mosaic landscape has been studied in a
small heterogeneous area near Gorenja vas, Poljanska Valley, Slovenia. In 2019 and
2020, more than 30 surveys were conducted on two localities, counting the individ-
Acta entomologica slovenica, 30 (1), 2022
6
ual butterflies in the process. the butterfly species found were later linked to their
corresponding larval host plants, as additional indicators of richness of these frag-
mented landscapes.
Geographical characteristics of the region
Gorenja vas is a village in the centre of Poljanska Valley in the northwestern part
of central Slovenia. the wider area represents a typical Slovenian rural environment
consisting of larger and smaller villages, scattered throughout the river valley and
nearby slopes, with a noticeable agricultural activity (Perpar and Kovačič 2002). the
main area around Gorenja vas, including its surrounding villages, has a population
of around 1800 inhabitants and is one of the most highly populated area in the valley
(Portal GoV.SI 2021). Its altitude of roughly 400-450 m (Geodetski Zavod Slovenije
et al. 2005), coupled with typical continental climate with high annual rainfall (1600-
1800 mm) (ArSo 2021), average July temperatures of 15-20 °C and average year
temperatures of 8-10 °C (Perko et al. 2020), provides excellent conditions for farm-
ing, especially for the cultivation of different crops. 
the valley floor consists mainly from fluvio-periglacial accumulation of gravel,
silts, sandstones, and conglomerates (Šifrer 1982), while the upper parts of the valley
consist mainly of dolomite and Carbon silts (Ilešič 1938). the uninhabited parts of
the valley’s basin are mostly used for cultivation of grasslands and fields, while the
slopes of the valley are dominated by forests, grasslands and occasional pastures.
the latter are used for grazing of cows and, to some extent, goats, and occupy only
a small percentage of the cultivated area. Duo to the high annual rainfall, the valley
and its surrounding hills are also interspersed with smaller rivulets and streams, dom-
inated by river Sora, flowing through the centre of the valley. Consequently, humid
grasslands and marshes were once widespread, which is even hinted by some local
area names (e.g. ˝Blate˝ – ˝muds˝), but are now found only locally in few isolated
places. In general, the area is rich with diverse habitat types: from mixed forests,
overgrown riverbanks, extensive and intensive wet, humid, and dry grasslands, to
orchards, fields and urban gardens. 
the mixed forests, which are found predominantly at the outskirts of the valley,
consist mainly of beech and spruce, while oak, ash, chestnut, fir, and pine are rarer,
but not uncommon. the only forest-like habitat type found in the valley floor is the
river fringe vegetation, which is dominated by willows, ash and beech, among oth-
ers. the largest part of the uninhabited valleys basin is covered either in grasslands
or fields. the intensive managed grasslands consist almost entirely of grasses
(Lolium spp.) and dandelion, are mowed at least three to four times per year and
heavily fertilised, while the monocultural fields consist mainly of corn and some-
times oats. the smaller fields, on the other hand, found mainly on the outskirts of the
valley, are cultivated predominantly with corn, potatoes and vegetables from the
Brassica oleracea provenance. the dry, humid, and marshy extensive grasslands are
found almost exclusively on the outskirts of the valley, mostly on elevated areas. the
marshes are almost non-existing, and can be found only very locally, usually near the
Luka Øturm: Importance of heterogeneous mosaic landscape for conservation of high butterfly diversity
7
smaller springs. Also important for the habitat diversity are smaller orchards and gar-
dens, which additionally enrich the otherwise already rich flora of the area. 
Another distinctive feature of the landscape is its high habitat fragmentation.
this is especially true for the valley’s outskirts, where the most diverse seminatural
habitats can be found, like extensive grasslands, forest clearings and marshes. the
central part of the valley is somehow more uniform, but even here the landscape is
divided by river Sora, while fields and grasslands are occasionally interrupted by
hedgerows.
Methods
most butterflies were recorded without disturbance either by observation or pho-
tography, while few were determined by catch-and-release technique, using spe-
cialised butterfly net. the butterflies were determined using a butterfly field guide
(tolman and Lewington 2008), while the plants were determined similarly
(martinčič 2007; Spohn and Aichele 2011). 
While the butterfly counting method used in this study is somehow reminis-
cent of the standard transect monitoring method described by van Swaay et al.
(2008), as well as the time counts method used by uK Butterfly monitoring
Scheme (2021) and point-count method used by Henry et al. (2015), it could best
be described as the mixture of them all, where the specimens were counted across
the entire locality B for a whole hour. In order to eliminate the possibility of
counting the same individuals twice, the survey was done following a certain
path, where each micro-habitat was inspected only once. Basically, the monitor-
ing was performed on a semi ˝transect rout˝ across the entire locality, where at
each micro-habitat a point-count was performed for a few minutes. As the main
goal of the survey was mostly to discover as much butterfly species as possible,
and not to count the exact number of individuals present at the time of each sur-
vey, only the approximate number of specimens of each species per survey are
given (table 1). the weather conditions (wind speed, temperature, % of clouds)
varied between observations, but the surveys were predominantly done during
warm, sunny days, mostly between 10:00 and 18:00. In contrast to the locality B,
the locality A was only surveyed in order to record possible supplementary
species missing from the locality B. thus, the surveys performed on locality A
were not systematic. 
In total, 31 surveys were conducted, 4 in march, 2 in April, 4 in may, 5 in June,
7 in July, 2 in August, 5 in September and 2 in october (each survey was always
conducted on both localities). For each month at least one survey was carried out in
the first half, and at least one in the second half of the month, the only exception
being october, where both surveys were conducted in the first half of the month.
the number of surveys conducted in each month slightly varies, since the weather
conditions in some of the months were not always ideal (e.g. unusual amount of
rainy days in August 2019 and 2020, and very high temperatures (≈20 °C) in march
2020).
Acta entomologica slovenica, 30 (1), 2022
8
Results
List and description of localities
exact locality and details regarding coordinates (WGS 84 Web mercator projec-
tion; ePSG:3857), altitude, and habitat types are given. Since both localities cover
wider area, coordinates are given only for the one chosen observation spot on the
locality (coordinates are given for the spots marked with latter A and B – see
Figure 1). 
Locality A: coordinates: X: 46.099622, y: 14.144107; 400-410 m; mostly inten-
sive grassland, with some patches of dry extensive grassland on the slopes, and a
Luka Øturm: Importance of heterogeneous mosaic landscape for conservation of high butterfly diversity
9
Figure 1: map of wider
Gorenja vas area in
Poljanska Valley (above)
and a small map segment
including both sampling
localities (below): the
locality A was included for
convenience and addition of
a few missing species only,
while locality B served as
the main sampling locality. 
Slika 1: Zemljevid širše
okolice Gorenje vasi v
Poljanski dolini (zgoraj) in
majhen segment z obema
lokacijama vzorčenja (spo-
daj): lokacija A je bila
vključena zgolj zaradi priro-
čnosti in možnosti najdbe
manjkajočih vrst, lokacija B
pa je predstavljala glavno
lokacijo vzorčenja.
smaller area with wet grassland. the locality borders on a smaller bushy area with a
few trees near the northeast boarder, a small stream to the north, and is mostly encir-
cled with intensive grasslands and fields. An urban settlement is located nearby, fur-
ther northwest. the intensive and wet grassland on the locality are mowed at least
trice per year and fertilised with cow faeces, while the extensive grassland is mowed
once per year or not at all, and is never fertilised.
Locality B: coordinates: X: 46.098019, y: 14.142588; 410-440 m; mostly humid
or dry extensive grasslands, with some areas of wet grasslands on the lower south-
west and northeast points, as well as in the raised centre of the locality. the dry
Acta entomologica slovenica, 30 (1), 2022
10
Figure 2: Different sections of locality B: A) middle section, photographed a few
meters southwest of the given locality coordinates; B) the northernmost tip of the
middle section, including a small patch of wet grassland located in front of the
conifers in the background; C) section with the dry extensive grassland (left side of
the picture, above the track); D) South westernmost section with the biggest patch of
wet grassland and a small orchard in the background (already outside of the locality).
All pictures taken on 8.5.2021.
Slika 2: različni deli lokalitete B: A) osrednji del, slikano nekaj metrov jugoza-
hodno od navedenih koordinat lokalitete; B) Najbolj severna točka osrednjega dela,
vključujoč manjšo zaplato mokrotnega travnika, ki se nahaja tik pred iglavci v ozad-
ju; C) Del s suhim ekstenzivnim travnikom (levi del slike, nad kolovozom); D)
Najbolj jugozahodni del z največjo zaplato mokrotnega travnika in manjšim sadov-
njakom v ozadju (že zunaj lokalitete). Vse slike so bile posnete 8. 5. 2021.
extensive grassland is mostly limited to the slopes. the locality borders with mixed
forests to the north and south, intensive grasslands to the northwest, west and east,
and a couple of small streams at the southwest and northeast border. A smaller urban
settlement with gardens is located close to the northwest border, including a small
orchard. the entire locality is mowed twice per year, once in the summer and once
in the middle of September, while no part of the locality is ever fertilised.
List of species
the nomenclature and taxonomy are in accordance with Verovnik (2019).
Table 1: List of butterfly species at locality B with abundance classes indicated
for each month of the survey.
Tabela 1: Seznam vrst dnevnih metuljev na lokaciji B s podatki o razredih šte-
vilčnosti po mesecih vzorčenja.
Luka Øturm: Importance of heterogeneous mosaic landscape for conservation of high butterfly diversity
11
Family Species
month found
mAr APr mAy JuN JuL AuG SeP oCt
Papilionidae
Iphiclides podalirius A A
Papilio machaon A A B A B
Parnassius mnemosyne A
Pieridae
Anthocharis cardamines A B
Colias crocea B A B B B C
Gonepteryx rhamni C C C A B A B
Leptidea sp. B C C C C C B
Pieris bryoniae A A
Pieris napi A B A C B
Pieris rapae B B A C A C C
Lycaenidae
Aricia agestis * A
Callophrys rubi A
Celastrina argiolus B * A
Cupido argiades * A A
Cyaniris semiargus *
Lycaena alciphron A B
Lycaena hippothoe B A B * A
Lycaena phlaeas A A A B B
Lycaena tityrus A B B B B A
Lysandra bellargus A A
Plebejus argus C C C A
Plebejus idas A A
Polyommatus icarus C C C C C C
Number of individuals found/sampling day: A – 1 (rare); B – 2-5 (occasional); C
– >5 (common); * – specimen found only on the locality A; 
Število posameznih osebkov najdenih/dan vzorčenja: A – 1 (redek); B – 2-5
(občasen); C – >5 (pogost); * – osebek najden zgolj na lokaciji A; 
Altogether 54 species were observed in 31 surveys, conducted between march
and october 2019 and 2020, on the localities A and B. out of 54 species, 3 species
Acta entomologica slovenica, 30 (1), 2022
12
Nymphalidae
Aglais io * A
Aglais urticae B A B
Arachnia levana A A A
Argynnis paphia B
Boloria dia C C C C C C
Brenthis daphne A A
Brenthis hecate A A
Brintesia circe A A
Coenonympha arcania * *
Coenonympha pamphilus B C C C C C B
Euphydryas aurinia B A
Fabriciana adippe A
Issoria lathonia A
Maniola jurtina A C C C C
Melanargia galathea C C B
Melitaea athalia C C C C C
Melitaea diamina B B A A
Melitaea didyma B B A C
Melitaea phoebe A B A
Neptis rivularis A
Pararge aegeria A B
Speyeria aglaja *
Vanessa atalanta A * B
Vanessa cardui A C C B B
Hesperiidae
Erynnis tages B B
Hesperia comma A B
Ochlodes sylvanus B B
Pyrgus armoricanus A A B B
Pyrgus malvae A B C A
Thymelicus lineola C B
Thymelicus sylvestris B C
total species 54 6 14 32 28 36 22 25 12
were found only on the locality A (Cyaniris semiargus, Coenonympha arcania and
Speyeria aglaja), while 51 were recorded on the locality B at least once (table 1).
Among those, 17 species were observed on the locality B in larger numbers (>5) dur-
ing at least one survey, while for 18 species at least two (but not more than 5) indi-
viduals were seen on the same day at least one time. Four species were observed only
once as a solitary specimen (Callophrys rubi, C. semiargus, Issoria lathonia, and S.
aglaja), and one was spotted only as a dead individual caught in the spider web
(Fabriciana adippe).  F. adippe, was otherwise common in 2020 on other grasslands
around Gorenja vas (own observations). Statistically, family Papilionidae was the
least represented, including only 3 species (5.6 %), while family Nymphalidae was
the most numerous, including 24 species (44,4 %) of those observed. Families
Pieridae and Hesperiidae were represented by the same number of species, namely 7
(13 %), while the second most numerous family by species representation,
Lycaenidae, included 13 different species (24.1 %).
Table 2: Important larval host plants for the species of butterflies observed on the
localities, and their presence at the locality B. 
Tabela 2: Pomembne larvalne rastline za vrste dnevnih metuljev, ki so bili opa-
ženi na lokacijah, in njihova prisotnost na lokaciji B.
Luka Øturm: Importance of heterogeneous mosaic landscape for conservation of high butterfly diversity
13
Plant (family/genus/species) Observed Larval butterfly species host 
Apiaceae yes P. machaon
Brassicaceae yes A. cardamines, P. bryoniae, P. napi, P. rapae
Fabaceae yes C. croceus, Leptidea sp., C. argiolus, C. argiades, P. argus, P. idas, P. icarus
Poaceae yes B. circe, C. arcania, C. pamphilus, M. jurtina, M. galathea, P. aegeria, H. comma, O. sylvanus, T. lineola, T. sylvestris
rosaceae yes C. argiolus; I. podalirius
rutaceae No P. machaon
Anthyllis spp. No C. croceus
Aruncus spp. yes N. rivularis
Cardamine spp. yes P. bryoniae
Cardus spp. No V. cardui
Centaurea spp. yes M. phoebe
Chamaecytisus spp. yes C. rubi
Cirsium spp. yes V. cardui
Corydalis spp. No P. mnemosyne
Erodium spp. No A. aegestis
Filipendula spp. yes B. hecate
Fragaria spp. yes P. armoricanus, P. malvae
Genista spp. yes C. rubi
Geranium spp. No A. aegestis
Helianthemum spp. No A. aegestis, P. armoricanus
Lathyrus spp. yes Leptidea sp.
Lotus spp. yes C. croceus, Leptidea sp., C. argiades, E. tages
Malva spp. No V. cardui
Plantago spp. yes M. athalia, M. didyma
Polygonum spp. No L. hippothoe, L. phlaeas
the selection of plant taxa is based on the description of important larval host
plants for each observed butterfly species, according to Polak (2009) and Verovnik
et al. (2012).
različne taksonomske skupine rastlin so bile izbrane na podlagi opisa pomemb-
nih larvalnih rastlin za posamezno vrsto metulja, po navedbah Polaka (2009) ter
Verovnika in sod. (2012).
Discussion
Before the beginning of the surveys, great care was taken to choose a locality,
which would reflect a typical and common enough rural landscape. this way, it
would be possible to assess how much butterfly richness this kind of landscape can
support, without including the richest hotspots, which became relatively rare and
thus not good representatives of the countryside, or the monocultures, which are
unimportant from the biodiversity perspective. As the main area (locality B), a small
fragment of mosaic landscape was selected, which contained different types of
extensive grasslands, while intensive grasslands, orchards, woodlands, and streams
could be found on its border. to supplement the locality, another area (locality A),
covering mostly intensive grasslands, was selected, to add a few species missing at
the main site. Considering both localities, around 40 species of butterflies were
expected to be found, out of 181 occurring in Slovenia (Verovnik 2019), based on
the previous observations on the localities A and B, as well as on other similar local-
ities around Gorenja vas. 
Among the butterflies observed, the most interesting are those with the status of
threatened species (Lycaena alciphron, Lycaena hippothoe, Melitaea diamina,
Plebejus idas and Pyrgus armoricanus) (van Swaay et al. 2010), and especially the
two also being protected by the national ˝regulation on protected wild animal
species˝ law (Euphydryas aurinia, Parnassius mnemosyne) (uradni list rS, št.
57/93, 61/93 – popr., 69/00, 98/02 in 46/04 2004). However, despite the exceeded
Acta entomologica slovenica, 30 (1), 2022
14
Potentilla spp. yes P. armoricanus, P. malvae
Rhamnus spp. No G. rhamni, C. rubi
Rhinanthus spp. yes M. athalia, M. didyma
Rubus spp. yes B. daphne, P. malvae
Rumex spp. yes L. alciphron, L. hippothoe, L. phlaeas, L. tityrus
Trifolium spp. yes C. croceus, C. argiades, C. semiargus
Valeriana spp. yes M. diamina; M. didyma
Veronica spp. yes M. athalia, M. didyma
Viola spp. yes A. paphia, B. dia, F. adippe, I. lathonia, S. aglaja
Frangula alnus yes G. rhamni, C. argiolus, C. rubi
Hippocrepis comosa No L. bellargus, E. tages
Prunus spinosa No I. podalirius
Scabiosa columbaria yes E. aurinia
Succisa pratensis yes E. aurinia
Urtica dioica yes A. io, A. urticae, A. levana, V. atalanta
number of expected butterfly species, some common ones weren’t observed. Among
those are Aphantopus hyperantus and Carterocephalus palaemon, which were both
found on a habitat-wise similar locality in Gorenja vas during summer of 2020 (own
observations). Despite both species being considered as woodland ones, the proxim-
ity of the forest on localities B would suggest their observation. the same could be
said about Polygonia c-album, a very common butterfly which also inhabits the for-
est edge and was previously already recorded in this part of the valley (Verovnik et
al. 2012). 
It is important to note, that for most butterflies, the suitable larval host plants were
observed at the localities or in their vicinity as well (table 2), confirming the impor-
tance of the area for their continuous survival (Spohn and Aichele 2011; Verovnik et
al. 2012). Still, for some species, the corresponding larval host plants could not be
located, despite most of the wider area around localities being searched (even the
nearby forest). those 3 species are Parnassius mnemosyne, Lysandra bellargus and
Aricia agestis. expectedly, those butterflies were observed on the localities only
once or twice, confirming that the chosen areas did not include a sufficient habitat
for their larval development. thus, the butterflies were most likely observed only as
the passing-by guests or searching for nectar. Among the potential ˝guests-only˝ are
also the species which were found only once or twice, like Pieris bryoniae,
Callophrys rubi, Cyaniris semiargus, Speyeria aglaja and Coenonympha arcania.
expectedly, the biggest surprises were mostly the same butterflies as mentioned
previously – Pieris bryoniae, Coenonympha arcania, Hesperia comma, Plebejus
idas, Brenthis hecate, Parnassius mnemosyne and Euphydryas aurinia. 
P. bryoniae is predominantly found at higher altitudes, so it was indeed surprising
that it was recorded at 410 m. on the other hand, H. comma and C. arcania are typ-
ical for hilly areas under 1000 m, being most widely distributed between 300-500 m
(Verovnik et al. 2012). yet in Poljanska Valley they were observed in larger numbers
only above 800 m, especially on Blegoš and Slajka (Šturm et al. 2021; own observa-
tions), while only few were observed on the studied localities. Anyhow, all three
species are usually absent from agriculturally dominated landscapes, so they were
deemed as an unexpected find. But while there was a lack of suitable habitat for C.
arcania and P. bryoniae, the habitat was suitable for H. comma. It might be, that only
a small colony of this species still endures on this locality, since H. comma is known
to sometimes be found only in smaller numbers (Verovnik et al. 2012). thus, while
H. comma can be included as an important species for the locality, C. arcania and P.
bryoniae can be counted only as a stray imagines, which flew down from the nearby
hill Javorč or its vicinity. 
Euphydryas aurinia and Parnassius mnemosyne, were previously not observed
by the author on this locality, so their discovery was a big surprise. P. mnemosyne
was seen on only two occasions as single individuals, while several individuals of E.
aurinia (3) were spotted on the same day. this should be expected, however, since
Škofjeloško Hills represents one of its strongholds in Slovenia (Verovnik et al.
2012). Additionally, its larval host plants, Succisa pratensis and Scabiosa colum-
baria (Polak 2009), were found on the extensive wet and dry grasslands, respective-
Luka Øturm: Importance of heterogeneous mosaic landscape for conservation of high butterfly diversity
15
ly. on the contrary, larval host plants of P. mnemosyne, Corydalis cava (Polak
2009), were not observed anywhere on or near the locality (not even inside the near
forest, where this plant would be expected). the butterflies have most probably only
visited the flowering meadows to drink nectar, and later flew back to their reproduc-
tive territory. thus, this species cannot be counted among the important ones for this
locality, but can be deemed important for the conservation of wider area.
Another unexpected butterfly was Plebejus idas, as this species is rare in this part
of Slovenia (Verovnik et al. 2012). Here, it is known mostly from small fragmented
colonies, despite its larval host plants (Fabaceae, Calluna vulgaris) being very com-
mon. the species was previously already found in Gorenja vas (Withrington 1984),
but as some of its smaller colonies across Slovenia are becoming extinct (Verovnik
et al. 2012), the confirmation was unexpected.
of all the species observed, the most surprising discovery was the observation of
Brenthis hecate, which is present mostly in the southwest Slovenia (Verovnik et al.
2012). A species, typical for warm, dry extensive grasslands, is found only where
Filipendula ulmaria and Filipendula vulgaris, its two larval host plants, are found
(Polak 2009; Verovnik et al. 2012). the butterfly was observed in Gorenjska region
only twice in the last decade, once in 2014 near Zgornja Bavšica (CKFF 2021) and
once in Strmec na Predelu inside triglav National park in 2012 (observation.org
2021), both localities from the upper southwest corner of the country. In Gorenja vas,
its last presence was noted more than three decades ago, when Withrington (1984)
observed it in 1980/81/82. the locality of the find is still the only one in a 20 km
radius, the other closest being topol pri medvodah to the east (Verovnik et al. 2012;
CKFF 2021) and Šentviška Gora to the west (torkar et al. 2013). other rare known
finds from Gorenjska (mostly around Kranj, trstenik and Bled) are older than 10
years (CKFF 2021). Despite not yet being listed as threatened, its colonies in the
entire northern Slovenia are very local and might soon disappear altogether, as its
suitable habitats are slowly disappearing (Verovnik et al. 2012). unfortunately, the
species was observed only twice, always as a single individual. yet, as its larval food
plants were found as well, some hope of its extended survival in this region still
remains.
Among the commoner species found, on the other hand, it is necessary to mention
the Vanessa cardui, which was observed during the 2019 surveys in enormous num-
bers. As reported, that year the butterflies migrated from the Northern Africa via
Spain, Italy, middle east and even mediterranean Sea to other parts of the eurasia,
overwhelming the meadows and parks of most european countries (Dobronosov
2019). otherwise a common butterfly throughout europe, usually present in low to
medium numbers, it can become numerous during mass migrations like the ones in
2009, 2014 and the one in 2019 (Verovnik et al. 2012; Dobronosov 2019).
Consequently, during the June and July surveys that year, it was observed in vast
numbers, outnumbering almost every other species. It was abundant even at the end
of the summer in September and even as late as october. As a great contrast, in 2020
only a single imago was observed, despite 19 surveys conducted during the entire
year from march to September. 
Acta entomologica slovenica, 30 (1), 2022
16
From the conservation point of view butterfly species from the genus Lycaena and
Pyrgus are most important as they were found in larger numbers throughout the year.
this indicates favourite status of extensive grassland habitats on the locality, with the
abundance of different flora (Schmitt and rákosy 2007; Nilsson et al. 2013). the
importance of preserving dry extensive grasslands and wet grasslands on the locality
B is further corroborated by the diverse flora found in the area (table 2). most impor-
tantly, for almost all butterfly species found, at least one larval host plant was deter-
mined on the localities – even if only in low abundance (Verovnik et al. 2012).
the observations at localities A and B are good indication, that even relatively
small mosaic areas can host high number of species. However, despite high richness
of butterfly species and plant taxa on the chosen localities, most of the valley’s land-
scape is not as diverse. In fact, as mentioned before, most of the non-inhabited and
non-wooded areas are covered with either fields of monocultures or highly intensive
grasslands. the latter are all fertilised few times a year, mostly with compost, and
mowed at least 4-times during every season. Consequently, very few flowering
plants, besides dandelion, can survive. In such landscape, even common species,
Luka Øturm: Importance of heterogeneous mosaic landscape for conservation of high butterfly diversity
17
Figure 3: Some of the butterfly species found at the locality B: A – Euphydryas
aurinia; B – Lycaena tityrus; C – Pyrgus armoricanus; D – Plebejus argus
Slika 3: Nekaj vrst metuljev najdenih na lokaciji B: A – Euphydryas aurinia; B
– Lycaena tityrus; C – Pyrgus armoricanus; D – Plebejus argus
such as Coenonympha pamphilus, whose caterpillars require grasses (Poa spp.) as
larval host plants (Polak 2009), are unable to survive, since the grass is mowed too
frequently for the caterpillars to end their life cycle. this has strong influence on the
diversity of the entire butterfly community as well as on other organisms (Börschig
et al. 2013; Nilsson et al. 2013). Lack of flowering plants on such grasslands is also
problematic, as the adult butterflies have no nectar sources.
therefore, to retain the high richness of the rural environment, the mosaic land-
scapes with extensively managed grasslands need to be preserved on a larger scale,
not only in isolated areas.
Acknowledgements:
Special thanks to prof. dr. rudi Verovnik for all the help with the identification
of butterfly species and improving the article.
References
ARSO [Agencija Republike Slovenije za Okolje], 2021: Atlas okolja: Povprečna
letna višina korigiranih padavin 1981-2010. urL: http://gis.arso.gov.si/atla-
sokolja/profile.aspx?id=Atlas_okolja_AXL@Arso (accessed: 16.2.2021;
19:15)
Börschig, C., Klein, A.-M., von Wehrden, H., Krauss, J., 2013: traits of butterfly
communities change from specialist to generalist characteristics with increasing
land-use intensity. Basic and Applied Ecology 14(7): 547-554.
Breitenmoser, U., 1998: Large predators in the Alps: the fall and rise of man’s com-
petitors. Biological Conservation 83(3): 279-289.
Center za kartografijo favne in flore (CKFF), 2021: Podatkovna zbirka Centra za
kartografijo favne in flore. Center za kartografijo favne in flore, miklavž na
Dravskem polju. (accessed: 29.4.2021; 16:47)
Dobronosov, V., 2019. About mass migration of Painted Lady Butterfly (Vanessa
cardui L.) to eurasia in 2019. Concepts of Dairy & Veterinary Sciences 2(5),
244-248.
Frélichová, J., Fanta, J., 2015: ecosystem service availability in view of long-term
land-use changes: a regional case study in the Czech republic. Ecosystem
Health and Sustainability 1(10): 1-15. 
Geodetski Zavod Slovenije, Novak, F., Neuf, M., Požar, S., 2005: Atlas Slovenije.
Klemenčič, m.m., ogrin, D. (eds.). mladinska knjiga Založba, d. d., Ljubljana,
487 pp.
Henry, E. H., Haddad, N. M., Wilson, J., Hughes, P., 2015: Point-count methods
to monitor butterfly populations when traditional methods fail: a case study with
miami blue butterfly. Journal of Insect Conservation 19: 519-529
Ilešič, S., 1938: Škofjeloško hribovje: geografski opis Poljanske in Selške doline.
Zveza geografskih društev Slovenije, Ljubljana, Slovenia, pp. 51.
Martinčič, A., 2007: Mala flora Slovenije, 4th edition. tehniška založba Slovenije,
Ljubljana, Slovenia, pp. 967.
Acta entomologica slovenica, 30 (1), 2022
18
Nilsson, S. G., Franzén, M, Pettersson, L. B., 2013: Land-use changes, farm man-
agement and the decline of butterflies associated with semi-natural grasslands
in southern Sweden. Nature Conservation 6: 31-48
Observation.org, Stichting observation International, Amsterdam, Netherlands,
urL: https://observation.org (accessed 29.4.2021, 16:30)
Perko, D., Ciglič, R., Zorn, M., 2020: The geography of Slovenia: small but
diverse. Springer Nature Switzerland AG, Cham, Switzerland, pp. 260.
Perpar, A., Kovačič, M., 2002: typology and development characteristics of rural
areas in Slovenia. Dela 17, 85-99.
Polak, S., 2009: Metulji Notranjske in Primorske: slikovni priročnik za določanje
dnevnih metuljev v naravi. Notranjski muzej Postojna, Postojna; Notranjski
regijski park, Cerknica, Slovenia, pp. 180.
Portal GOV.SI, 2021: Priloga: Naselja z manj kot 5000 prebivalci. Spletišče uprave
republike Slovenije, Slovenia, pp. 134. urL: https://www.gov.si/assets/min-
istrstva/mKGP/JAVNI-rAZPISI/2020/m6-4-1-Jr/8_Priloga_naselja.pdf
(accessed: 31.1.2021; 21:30]). 
Ribeiro, D., Hribar, M. Š., 2019: Assessment of land-use changes and their impacts
on ecosystem services in two Slovenian rural landscapes. Acta Geographica
Slovenica 59(2): 143-159.
Schmitt, T., Rákosy, L., 2007: Changes of traditional agrarian landscapes and their
conservation implications: a case study of butterflies in romania. Diversity and
Distributions 13: 855-862.
Spohn, M., Aichele, D., 2011: Kaj nekaj tu cveti?: s fotografijami: zanesljivo pre-
poznavanje po barvi [translation: Lovka, m.; original title: Was blüht den
da?]. Narava (S knjigo v naravo), Preddvor, Slovenia, pp. 447. 
Šifrer, M., 1982: The Quarternary development of Škofja Loka mountains. Založba
ZrC, Ljubljana, Slovenia, pp. 59.
Šturm, L., Peternel, A., Verovnik, R., 2021: Butterfly diversity (Lepidoptera:
Papilionoidea) of mt. Blegoš and mt. Koprivnik (Škofjeloško hribovje,
Slovenia). Natura Sloveniae 23 (2): 65-79.
Tolman, T., Lewington, R., 2008: Collins butterfly guide. The most complete guide
to the butterflies of Britain and Europe. HarperCollins Publishers Ltd., London,
pp. 384.
Torkar, G., Drole, B., Gomboc, S., 2013: Contribution to the knowledge of the but-
terfly fauna (Lepidoptera: rhopalocera) of the Šentvid plateau, NW Slovenia.
Acta Entomologica Slovenica 21(1): 47-58.
UK Butterfly Monitoring Scheme (UKBMS), 2021: Guidance & recording forms:
Ng1: monitoring butterflies by annual timed counts.  urL:
https://ukbms.org/sites/default/files/downloads/uKBmS%20Ng1%20-
%20timed%20count%20guidance%20notes.pdf (accessed: 29.4.2021; 11:30)
Uradni list Republike Slovenije (RS), št. 57/93, 61/93 – popr., 69/00, 98/02 in
46/04, 2004: uredba o zavarovanih prosto živečih živalskih vrstah. urL:
http://www.pisrs.si/Pis.web/pregledPredpisa?id=ureD2386# (accessed:
1.3.2021, 23:02)
Luka Øturm: Importance of heterogeneous mosaic landscape for conservation of high butterfly diversity
19
van Swaay, C. A. M., Warren, M. S., 2006: Prime butterfly areas of europe: an ini-
tial selection of priority sites for conservation. Journal of Insect Conservation
10: 5-11.
van Swaay, C. A. M., Nowicki, P, Settele, J., van Strien, A. J., 2008: Butterfly
monitoring in europe: methods, applications and perspectives. Biodiversity and
Conservation 17: 3455-3469.
van Swaay, C., Cuttelod, A., Collins, S., Maes, D., López Munguira, M., Šašić,
M., Settele,J., Verovnik, R., Verstrael, T., Warren, M., Wiemers, M.,
Wynhof, I., 2010: European red list of butterfies. Publications office of the
european union, Luxembourg, pp. 58.
Verovnik, R., 2019: Prenovljeni seznam dnevnih metuljev (Lepidoptera:
Papilionidea) Slovenije. Acta Entomologica Slovenica 27(1): 5-15.
Verovnik, R., Rebeušek, F., Jež, M., 2012: Atlas dnevnih metuljev (Lepidoptera:
Rhopalocera) Slovenije, Atlas of butterflies (Lepidoptera: Rhopalocera) of
Slovenia. Center za Kartografijo favne in flore, miklavž na Dravskem polju,
Slovenia, pp. 456.
Withrington, D., 1984: Butterflies in northern yugoslavia. Bulletin of the Amateur
Entomologists' Society 43: 32-38, 76-81.
Zupan, S., Bužan, E., Grubar, V. B., Jugovic, J., 2020: Importance of traditional
landscapes in Slovenia for conservation of endangered butterfly. Open
Geosciences 12: 610-625.
Received / Prejeto: 29. 3. 2021
Acta entomologica slovenica, 30 (1), 2022
20