Landscape Ecology

, Volume 1, Issue 4, pp 227–240 | Cite as

Dynamics of small biotopes in Danish agricultural landscapes

  • Peder Agger
  • Jesper Brandt
Article

Abstract

The contemporary pattern of small biotopes - small uncultivated areas in the agricultural landscape, its historical development and recent trends have been studied in Eastern Denmark. The study is based on ordinance maps dating back to 1885, aerial photographs, and field studies (1981 and 1986). The development of these areas is seen in changes in agricultural production. A general decrease in the overall density, and especially in the density of the smallest, wet biotopes, is demonstrated. This change, however, is hiding a more dynamic process of removal, establishment and change within the individual biotopes. The consequences on research, monitoring and management of the agricultural landscape are discussed.

agricultural landscape land use landscape pattern landscape elements patch network boundaries connectivity buffering zones 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Agger, P. and Brandt, J. 1984. Registration methods for studying the development of small-scale biotope structures in rural Denmark. In Proceedings of The First International Seminar on Methodology in Landscape Ecological Research and Planning. Vol. II, pp. 61–72. Edited by J. Brandt and P. Agger.Google Scholar
  2. Agger, P. and Brandt, J. 1987. Smaabiotoper og marginaljorder (Small biotopes and marginal soils). Miljoeministeriets projektundersoegelser 1986. Teknikerrapport nr. 35. Skov- og Naturstyrelsen.Google Scholar
  3. Agger, P., Andersen, S.S., Brandt, J., Nielsen, T.S., Pedersen, S. and Tvevad, A. 1987. Moraenelandets marginaljorder. (The marginal soils of the morainic landscape). Miljoeministeriets projektundersoegelser 1986. Samlerapport nr. VIIIa. Skov- og Naturstyrelsen.Google Scholar
  4. Agger, P. and Jensen, S.L. 1982. Hegn og skel i Roskilde amt. (Hedges and field divides the district of Roskilde). Forskningsrapport nr. 32. Institut for Geografi. Samfundsanalyse og Datalogi. Roskilde University Centre.Google Scholar
  5. Agger, P.and Jensen, S.L. 1983. Traeer og buske i hegn og skel. (Trees and bushes in hedges and field divides). pp. 427–432. Ugeskrift for Jordbrug. 23.Google Scholar
  6. Agger, P. and Jensen, S.L. 1984. A method for quantitative investigation of the vegetation. In Proceedings of The First International Seminar on Methodology in Landscape Ecological Research and Planning. Vol. V, pp. 109–115. Edited by J. Brandt and P. Agger.Google Scholar
  7. Arnold, G.W. 1983. The influence of ditch and hedgerow structure, length of hedgerows, and the area of woodland and garden on bird numbers on farmland. J. App. Ecol. 20: 731–750.Google Scholar
  8. Beebee, T.J.C. 1981. Habitats of the British amphibians (4): Agricultural lowlands and a general discussion of requirements. Biol. Conserv. 21: 111–124.Google Scholar
  9. Biotopgruppen (Agger, Brandt, Byrnak, Jensen og Ursin) 1986. Udviklingen i agerlandets smaabiotoper iOestdanmark. (The development of small biotopes in the agricultural areas of Eastern Denmark). Forskningsrapport nr. 48. Institut for Geografi, Samfundsanalyse og Datalogi. Roskilde University Centre.Google Scholar
  10. Brandt, J. 1986. Small-biotope structures as a synthetizing feature in agricultural landscapes. In Landscape Synthesis -Foundations, Classification and Management. Part I, Geoecological Foundations, pp. 52–62. Edited by H. Richter and G. Schoenfelder. Martin-Luther-Universitaet Halle-Wittenberg. Wissenschaftliche Beitraege 1986/16. Halle(Saale), GDR.Google Scholar
  11. Brandt, J. and Agger, P. (ed.) 1984. The International Association for Landscape Ecology (IALE). Proceedings of the first international seminar on Methodology in Landscape Ecological Research and Planning, Vol. 1–V. Roskilde University Centre, October 1984.Google Scholar
  12. Brandt, J. and Agger, P. 1988. The influence of EEC-agricultural policy on the conditions for development of biotope structures in rural landscapes - some Danish experiences. In Connectivity in Landscape Ecology. Proceedings from the 2nd International Seminar of IALE. Muenster, FRO, July 1987. Edited by K.-F. Schreiber (Forthcoming).Google Scholar
  13. Dowdeswell, W.H. 1987. Hedgerows and verges. Allen & Unwin. Boston.Google Scholar
  14. Ericsson et al. 1987. Poster presented at the 2nd international seminar of IALE. Muenster, FRG, July 1987. Edited by K.-F. Schreiber (Forthcoming).Google Scholar
  15. Forman, R.T.T. and Godron, M. 1986. Landscape Ecology. John Wiley & Sons, New York.Google Scholar
  16. Haase, G. et al. 1985. Richtlinie für die Bildung und Kennzeichnung der Kartierungseinheiten der ‘Naturraum-typen der DDR im mittleren Masstab’. Institut f. Geographie u. Geoekologie d.A.d.W. der DDR. Wissensch. Mitt. Sonderheft 3. Leipzig.Google Scholar
  17. Ihse, M. 1987. Disappearing biotopes in the rural landscape: Changed conditions for man, mammals and plants. Poster presented at 2nd international seminar of IALE, Muenster, FRG.Google Scholar
  18. Koester, V. 1980. Nordic countries' legislation on the environment with special emphasis on conservation - a survey. IUCN Environmental Policy Law Paper, No. 14.Google Scholar
  19. Koester, V. 1984. Conservation Legislation and General Protection of Biotopes in an International Perspective. Environ. Pol. Law. 12(4): 106–116.Google Scholar
  20. Mader, H.J. et al. 1986. Experiments zum Biotopverbund-system - tieroekologische Untersuchungen an einer Anpflanzung. Schriftreihe für Landschaftpflege und Naturschutz. Heft 27.Google Scholar
  21. Moore, N.W. 1977. Arable land. In Conservation and Agriculture, pp. 23–43. Edited by J. Davidson and R. Lloyd. Wiley and Sons, New York.Google Scholar
  22. Naveh, Z. 1984. Towards a transdisciplinary conceptual framework of landscape ecology. In Proceedings of The First International Seminar on Methodology in Landscape Ecological Research and Planning. Vol. I. pp. 35–45. Edited by J. Brandt and P. Agger.Google Scholar
  23. Ruthsatz, B. and Haber, W. 1982. The significance of smallscale landscape elements in rural areas as refuges for endangered plant species. In Perspectives in Landscape Ecology, pp. 117–124. Edited by S.P. Tjallingi and A.A. de Veer. Pudoc, Wageningen.Google Scholar
  24. Schmel, H.J. and Englmaier, A. 1982. Zur Bedeutung naturnaher Kleinstrukturen für die Landwirtschaft im Rahmen der Flurbereinigung. Z.f. Kulturtechn. Flurber. 23: 75–86.Google Scholar
  25. Ten Houte de Lange, S.M. 1984. Effects of landscape structure on animal population dynamics. In Proceedings of The First International Seminar on Methodology in Landscape Ecological Research and Planning. Vol. I. pp. 19–31. Edited by J. Brandt and P. Agger.Google Scholar
  26. Tvevad, A. 1987. Smaabiotopernes betydning for flora og fauna. Marginaljorder og miljoeinteresser. (The importance of small biotopes for flora and fauna. Marginal soils and environmental interests. Miljoeministeriets projektundersoegelser 1986. Teknikerrapport nr. 38.Google Scholar
  27. Zwoelfer et al. 1984. Die tierokologische Bedeutung und Bewertung von Hecken. Berichten der Akademie für Naturschutz und Landschaftpflege. Laufen/Zalzach.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© SPB Academic Publishing bv 1988

Authors and Affiliations

  • Peder Agger
    • 1
  • Jesper Brandt
    • 2
  1. 1.Ministry of the Environment, The National Forest and Nature Agency, Monitoring SectionHoersholmDenmark
  2. 2.Institute of Geography, Socio-Economic Analysis and Computer Science Roskilde University CentreDenmark

Personalised recommendations