Advertisement

European Journal of Forest Research

, Volume 133, Issue 4, pp 597–610 | Cite as

Socialist and postsocialist land-use legacies determine farm woodland composition and structure: lessons from Eastern Germany

  • Tobias Plieninger
  • Harald Schaich
Original Paper

Abstract

European agroecosystems host a variety of farm woodlands that act as primary determinants of biodiversity and ecosystem services. While woodland areas have been in decline worldwide, they have regionally increased, for example, in Eastern Germany. This study performs a quantitative and spatially explicit assessment of differences in species richness, diversity, and evenness as well as forest physiognomy and structure among Eastern German farm woodlands established during (1) the presocialist era (until 1945), (2) the socialist era (1945–1990), and (3) the postsocialist era (after 1990). Aerial imagery was used to allocate woodlands to one of the three eras, after which a forest inventory of 120 woodlands was performed. The results show substantial differences in forest composition and structure. Presocialist-era woodlands are composed of native (mean 96 %), deciduous (mean 94 %) tree species. Mean diameters and species richness values are high. Typical socialist woodland species are nonnative (mean 35 %) and/or coniferous (mean 51 %). Stands have a uniform, even-aged stand structure. Species richness/diversity indices are generally low. Postsocialist woodlands exhibit a high degree of variability. Percentages of nonnative (7 %) and coniferous (10 %) individuals are low. The findings suggest that socialist and postsocialist farmland and forest policies translated into distinct land-use legacies in the newly established farm woodlands, which differ considerably from the composition and structure of presocialist woodlands. We argue that forest conservation planning should actively consider land-use legacies, which are of particular relevance in the landscapes of Central and Eastern Europe, as these have undergone multiple, abrupt, and severe land-use transitions.

Keywords

Agricultural landscapes Land-use history Nonnative species Novel ecosystems Postsocialist transition Trees outside forests 

Notes

Acknowledgments

Thanks are due to Assistant Researcher Martin Mantel and field assistants Hendrik Hänke and Kathrin Trommler. Research was funded through Grant 01UU0904A within the Social-Ecological Research Programme of the German Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF).

Supplementary material

10342_2014_788_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (78 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (PDF 77 kb)

References

  1. Baffetta F, Fattorini L, Corona P (2011) Estimation of small woodlot and tree row attributes in large-scale forest inventories. Environ Ecol Stat 18(1):147–167. doi: 10.1007/s10651-009-0125-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Chai SL, Tanner EVJ (2011) 150-year legacy of land use on tree species composition in old-secondary forests of Jamaica. J Ecol 99(1):113–121. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2745.2010.01742.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Deckers B, Kerselaers E, Gulinck H, Muys B, Hermy M (2005) Long-term spatio-temporal dynamics of a hedgerow network landscape in Flanders, Belgium. Environ Conserv 32(1):20–29. doi: 10.1017/S0376892905001840 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Drever CR, Peterson G, Messier C, Bergeron Y, Flannigan M (2006) Can forest management based on natural disturbances maintain ecological resilience? Can J For Res 36(9):2285–2299. doi: 10.1139/X06-132 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Eichhorn MP, Paris P, Herzog F, Incoll LD, Liagre F, Mantzanas K, Mayus M, Moreno G, Papanastasis VP, Pilbeam DJ, Pisanelli A, Dupraz C (2006) Silvoarable systems in Europe—past, present and future prospects. Agrofor Syst 67(1):29–50. doi: 10.1007/s10457-005-1111-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Ellison AM, Bank MS, Clinton BD, Colburn EA, Elliott K, Ford CR, Foster DR, Kloeppel BD, Knoepp JD, Lovett GM, Mohan J, Orwig DA, Rodenhouse NL, Sobczak WV, Stinson KA, Stone JK, Swan CM, Thompson J, Von Holle B, Webster JR (2005) Loss of foundation species: consequences for the structure and dynamics of forested ecosystems. Front Ecol Environ 3(9):479–486. doi: 10.1890/1540-9295(2005)003[0479:LOFSCF]2.0.CO;2
  7. Eriksson S, Skanes H, Hammer M, Lonn M (2010) Current distribution of older and deciduous forests as legacies from historical use patterns in a Swedish boreal landscape (1725–2007). For Ecol Manag 260(7):1095–1103. doi: 10.1016/j.foreco.2010.06.018 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Fischer J, Hanspach J, Hartel T (2011) Continental-scale ecology versus landscape-scale case studies. Front Ecol Environ 9(8):430. doi: 10.1890/11.Wb.021 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Flinn KM, Marks PL (2007) Agricultural legacies in forest environments: tree communities, soil properties, and light availability. Ecol Appl 17(2):452–463. doi: 10.1890/05-1963 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Foster D, Donahue B, Kittredge D, Motzkin G, Hall B, Turner B, Chilton E (2008) New England’s forest landscape. Ecological legacies and conservation patterns shaped by agrarian history. In: Redman CL, Foster DR (eds) Agrarian landscapes in transition. Comparisons of long-term ecological and cultural change. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 44–88Google Scholar
  11. Gibbons P, Lindenmayer DB, Fischer J, Manning AD, Weinberg A, Seddon J, Ryan P, Barrett G (2008) The future of scattered trees in agricultural landscapes. Conserv Biol 22(5):1309–1319. doi: 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2008.00997.x PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gimmi U, Wolf A, Bürgi M, Scherstjanoi M, Bugmann H (2009) Quantifying disturbance effects on vegetation carbon pools in mountain forests based on historical data. Reg Environ Chang 9(2):121–130. doi: 10.1007/s10113-008-0071-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gimona A, van der Horst D (2007) Mapping hotspots of multiple landscape functions: a case study on farmland afforestation in Scotland. Landsc Ecol 22(8):1255–1264. doi: 10.1007/s10980-007-9105-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gotelli NJ, Colwell RK (2001) Quantifying biodiversity: procedures and pitfalls in the measurement and comparison of species richness. Ecol Lett 4(4):379–391. doi: 10.1046/j.1461-0248.2001.00230.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Grashof-Bokdam CJ, van Langevelde F (2005) Green veining: landscape determinants of biodiversity in European agricultural landscapes. Landsc Ecol 20(4):417–439. doi: 10.1007/s10980-004-5646-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Großer K-H (2008) Zur Vegetationsstruktur von Gehölzen im Oberlausitzer Lößhügelland. Berichte der Naturforschenden Gesellschaft der Oberlausitz 16:35–54Google Scholar
  17. Gubsch M, Denner M, Wendel D, Schmidt PA (2006) Untersuchungen zur Waldbodenvegetation ausgewählter Basaltberge der Östlichen Oberlausitz unter dem besonderen Blickwinkel von Isolation und historischer Waldentwicklung. Berichte der Naturforschenden Gesellschaft der Oberlausitz 14:107–126Google Scholar
  18. Hermy M, Verheyen K (2007) Legacies of the past in the present-day forest biodiversity: a review of past land-use effects on forest plant species composition and diversity. Ecol Res 22(3):361–371. doi: 10.1007/s11284-007-0354-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hietala-Koivu R, Lankoski J, Tarmi S (2004) Loss of biodiversity and its social cost in an agricultural landscape. Agric Ecosyst Environ 103(1):75–83. doi: 10.1016/j.agee.2003.10.015 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hildebrandt G (1996) Fernerkundung und Luftbildmessung für Forstwirtschaft, Vegetationskartierung und Landschaftsökologie. Herbert Wichmann, HeidelbergGoogle Scholar
  21. Hobbs RJ, Arico S, Aronson J, Baron JS, Bridgewater P, Cramer VA, Epstein PR, Ewel JJ, Klink CA, Lugo AE, Norton D, Ojima D, Richardson DM, Sanderson EW, Valladares F, Vila M, Zamora R, Zobel M (2006) Novel ecosystems: theoretical and management aspects of the new ecological world order. Glob Ecol Biogeogr 15(1):1–7. doi: 10.1111/j.1466-822x.2006.00212.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Joachim H-F (2007) Zum Flurholzanbau und zur Flurholzwirtschaft. In: Behrens H, Hoffmann J (eds) Umweltschutz in der DDR. Analysen und Zeitzeugenberichte. Mediale und sektorale Aspekte. oekom, Munich, pp 81–105Google Scholar
  23. Kinzig AP, Ryan P, Etienne M, Allison H, Elmqvist T, Walker BH (2006) Resilience and regime shifts: assessing cascading effects. Ecol Soc 11(1):1Google Scholar
  24. Kopecky M, Vojta J (2009) Land use legacies in post-agricultural forests in the Doupovske Mountains, Czech Republic. Appl Veg Sci 12(2):251–260. doi: 10.1111/j.1654-109X.2009.01023.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kristensen SP, Caspersen OH (2002) Analysis of changes in a shelterbelt network landscape in central Jutland, Denmark. J Environ Manag 66(2):171–183. doi: 10.1006/jema.2002.0582 Google Scholar
  26. Kuemmerle T, Hostert P, Radeloff VC, Perzanowski K, Kruhlov I (2007) Post-socialist forest disturbance in the Carpathian border region of Poland, Slovakia, and Ukraine. Ecol Appl 17(5):1279–1295. doi: 10.1890/06-1661.1 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kuemmerle T, Olofsson P, Chaskovskyy O, Baumann M, Ostapowicz K, Woodcock CE, Houghton RA, Hostert P, Keeton WS, Radeloff VC (2011) Post-Soviet farmland abandonment, forest recovery, and carbon sequestration in western Ukraine. Global Chang Biol 17(3):1335–1349. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2486.2010.02333.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Le Coeur D, Baudry J, Burel F, Thenail C (2002) Why and how we should study field boundary biodiversity in an agrarian landscape context. Agric Ecosyst Environ 89(1–2):23–40. doi: 10.1016/S0167-8809(01)00316-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Long AJ, Nair PKR (1999) Trees outside forests: agro-, community, and urban forestry. New For 17(1–3):145–174. doi: 10.1023/a:1006523425548 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Magurran AE (2004) Measuring biological diversity. Blackwell Publishing, MaldenGoogle Scholar
  31. Manning AD, Fischer J, Lindenmayer DB (2006) Scattered trees are keystone structures—implications for conservation. Biol Conserv 132(3):311–321. doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2006.04.023 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. McCune B, Grace J (2002) Analysis of ecological communities. mjm Software Design, OregonGoogle Scholar
  33. Moore NP, Askew N, Bishop JD (2003) Small mammals in new farm woodlands. Mammal Rev 33(1):101–104. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2907.2003.00004.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Nelson A (2005) Cold war ecology. Forests, farms and people in the East German landscape, 1945–1989. Yale University Press, New HavenCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Oksanen J (2013) Multivariate analysis of ecological communities in R: vegan tutorial. University of Oulu, http://cc.oulu.fi/~jarioksa/opetus/metodi/vegantutor.pdf
  36. Orlowski G, Nowak L (2005) Species composition of woody vegetation of three types of mid-field woodlots in intensively managed farmland (Wroclaw Plain, south-western Poland). Polish J Ecol 53(1):25–36Google Scholar
  37. Orlowski G, Nowak L (2007) The importance of marginal habitats for the conservation of old trees in agricultural landscapes. Landsc Urban Plan 79(1):77–83. doi: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2006.03.005 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Palang H, Printsmann A, Gyuro EK, Urbanc M, Skowronek E, Woloszyn W (2006) The forgotten rural landscapes of Central and Eastern Europe. Landsc Ecol 21(3):347–357. doi: 10.1007/s10980-004-4313-x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Perfecto I, Vandermeer JH, Wright AL (2009) Nature’s matrix: linking agriculture, conservation and food sovereignty. Earthscan, LondonGoogle Scholar
  40. Plieninger T (2012) Monitoring directions and rates of change in trees outside forests through multitemporal analysis of map sequences. Appl Geogr 32(2):566–576. doi: 10.1016/j.apgeog.2011.06.015 Google Scholar
  41. Plieninger T, Gaertner M (2011) Harnessing degraded lands for biodiversity conservation. J Nat Conserv 19(1):18–23. doi: 10.1016/j.jnc.2010.04.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Plieninger T, Bens O, Hüttl RF (2006) Perspectives of bioenergy for agriculture and rural areas. Outlook Agric 35(2):123–127. doi: 10.5367/000000006777641624 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Plieninger T, Schleyer C, Mantel M, Hostert P (2012) Is there a forest transition outside forests? Trajectories of farm trees and effects on ecosystem services in an agricultural landscape in Eastern Germany. Land Use Policy 29(1):233–243. doi: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2011.06.011 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Reif A, Achtziger R (2000) XI-2.2. Gebüsche, Hecken, Waldmäntel, Feldgehölze (Strauchformationen). In: Konold W, Böcker R, Hampicke U (eds) Handbuch Naturschutz und Landschaftspflege. Ecomed, Landsberg, pp 1–45Google Scholar
  45. Rey Benayas JM, Bullock JM, Newton AC (2008) Creating woodland islets to reconcile ecological restoration, conservation, and agricultural land use. Front Ecol Environ 6(6):329–336. doi: 10.1890/070057 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Rhemtulla JM, Mladenoff DJ, Clayton MK (2009) Legacies of historical land use on regional forest composition and structure in Wisconsin, USA (mid-1800s-1930s-2000s). Ecol Appl 19(4):1061–1078. doi: 10.1890/08-1453.1 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Schaich H, Plieninger T (2013) Land ownership drives stand structure and carbon storage of deciduous temperate forests. For Ecol Manag 305:146–157. doi: 10.1016/j.foreco.2013.05.013 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Schleyer C, Plieninger T (2011) Obstacles and options for the design and implementation of payment schemes for ecosystem services provided through farm trees in Saxony, Germany. Environ Conserv 38(4):454–463. doi: 10.1017/S0376892911000361 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Schmidt PA (1990) Landwirtschaft und Naturschutz in der DDR. Forstwissenschaftliches Centralblatt 109:378–402CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Schmidt PA (2001) Die Baum- und Straucharten Sachsens—Charakterisierung und Verbreitung als Grundlagen der Generhaltung. Sächsische Landesanstalt für Forsten, PirnaGoogle Scholar
  51. Schütze A, Schütze P (1997) Vegetations- und Nutzungswandel im Ostteil des Lausitzer Gefildes. Berichte der Naturforschenden Gesellschaft der Oberlausitz 6:15–29Google Scholar
  52. Skalos J, Engstova B, Trpakova I, Santruckova M, Podrazsky V (2012) Long-term changes in forest cover 1780–2007 in central Bohemia, Czech Republic. Eur J For Res 131(3):871–884. doi: 10.1007/s10342-011-0560-y CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Sklenicka P, Molnarova K, Brabec E, Kumble P, Pittnerova B, Pixova K, Salek M (2009) Remnants of medieval field patterns in the Czech Republic: analysis of driving forces behind their disappearance with special attention to the role of hedgerows. Agric Ecosyst Environ 129(4):465–473. doi: 10.1016/j.agee.2008.10.026 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Usher MB, Keiller SWJ (1998) The macrolepidoptera of farm woodlands: determinants of diversity and community structure. Biodivers Conserv 7(6):725–748. doi: 10.1023/a:1008836302193 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. van der Horst D (2006) A prototype method to map the potential visual-amenity benefits of new farm woodlands. Environ Plan B Plan Des 33(2):221–238. doi: 10.1068/b31172 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Van Laar A, Akca A (2007) Forest mensuration. Managing forest ecosystems. Springer, Heidelberg. doi: 10.1007/978-1-4020-5991-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Vanhinsbergh D, Gough S, Fuller RJ, Brierley EDR (2002) Summer and winter bird communities in recently established farm woodlands in lowland England. Agric Ecosyst Environ 92(2–3):123–136. doi: 10.1016/s0167-8809(01)00301-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. von Lüpke N, Hardtke A, Lück M, Hessenmöller D, Ammer C, Schulze E-D (2011) Growing stock, diversity of tree species and structure of stripped private-owned forests in the Hainich region, Thuringia, Germany. Forstarchiv 82:203–215. doi: 10.4432/0300-4112-82-203 Google Scholar
  59. Wäldchen J, Schulze ED, Mund M, Winkler B (2011) Forest management in the Hainich Dün region (northern Thuringia) during the 19th century under political, juridical and economic changes. Forstarchiv 82:35–47. doi: 10.2376/0300-4112-82-35 Google Scholar
  60. Wegener U, Reichhoff L (2007) Gestaltung und Pflege der Landschaft. In: Behrens H, Hoffmann J (eds) Umweltschutz in der DDR. Analysen und Zeitzeugenberichte. Sektorale Aspekte. oekom, Munich, pp 1–27Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Geosciences and Natural Resource ManagementUniversity of CopenhagenFrederiksberg CDenmark
  2. 2.Chair for Landscape Management, Institute of Earth and Environmental SciencesUniversity of FreiburgFreiburgGermany

Personalised recommendations