Agroforestry Systems

, Volume 89, Issue 4, pp 705–719 | Cite as

Exploring the links between forest transition and landscape changes in the Mediterranean. Does forest recovery really lead to better landscape quality?

  • Joan MarullEmail author
  • Iago Otero
  • Constantí Stefanescu
  • Enric Tello
  • Marta Miralles
  • Francesc Coll
  • Manel Pons
  • Giovanna L. Diana


A growing number of studies argue that forest transition should be enhanced by policymakers given its potential benefits, for instance in slowing climate change through carbon sequestration. Yet the effects of forest transition in landscape heterogeneity and biodiversity remain poorly understood. In this paper we explore the relationships between the forest transition and the landscape changes occurred in a Mediterranean mountain area. Historical land-use maps were built from cadastral cartography (1854; 1956; 2012). Metrics on land-cover change, landscape structure, and landscape functioning were calculated. Multiyear data on butterfly assemblages from two transects (1994–2012) was used as indicator of land-use change effects on biodiversity. Results show a forest expansion process in former cereal fields, vineyards and pasturelands along with rural out-migration and land abandonment. Such forest transition involved large changes in landscape structure and functioning. As peasant management of integrated agrosilvopastoral systems disappeared, landscape became less diverse. Even if forest area is now larger than in mid-nineteenth century, ecological connectivity among woodland did not substantially improve. Instead, ecological connectivity across open habitats has greatly decreased as cereal fields, vineyards, meadows and pasturelands have almost disappeared. Butterfly assemblages under changing land-uses highlights the importance of agro-forest mosaics not only for these species but for biodiversity at large in the last decades. Our work emphasizes that conservation of landscapes with a long history of human use needs to take into account the role of humans in shaping ecological features and biodiversity. Hence the suitability of forest transitions should be critically examined in relation to context and policy objectives.


Forest transition Agroforestry system Landscape functionality Butterflies Biological conservation Mediterranean 



This work has been supported by the research project HAR2012-38920-C02-02 funded by the Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness, and the international Partnership Grant SSHRC-895-2011-1020 ‘Sustainable farm systems: long-term socio-ecological metabolism in western agriculture’ funded by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada. The council of Sant Celoni gave full support for the butterfly monitoring.

Supplementary material

10457_2015_9808_MOESM1_ESM.docx (81 kb)
Annex (DOCX 81 kb)


  1. Agnoletti M (2006) The conservation of cultural landscapes. CABI, WallingfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Agnoletti M (2014) Rural landscape, nature conservation and culture: some notes on research trends and management approaches from a (southern) European perspective. Landsc Urban Plan 126:66–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Altieri M (1999) The ecological role of biodiversity in agroecosystems. Agric Ecosyst Environ 74:19–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Alverson WS, Waller DM, Solheim SK (1988) Forest to deer: edge effects in Northern Wisconsin. Conserv Biol 2:348–358CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Andrén H (1994) Effects of habitat fragmentation on birds and mammals in landscapes with different proportions of suitable habitat: a review. Oikos 71:355–366CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Antrop M (2006) Sustainable landscapes: contradiction, fiction or utopia? Landsc Urban Plan 75:187–197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bender DJ, Contreras TA, Fahrig L (1998) Habitat loss and population decline: a meta-analysis of the patch size effect. Ecology 79:517–533CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bengtsson J, Angelstam P, Elmqvist T, Emanuelsson U, Folke C, Ihse M, Moberg F, Nyström M (2003) Reserves, resilience and dynamic landscapes. Ambio 32(6):389–396PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Benton TG, Vickery JA, Wilson JD (2003) Farmland biodiversity: is habitat heterogeneity the key? Trends Ecol Evol 18:182–188CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Blondel J, Aronson J, Bodiou J-Y, Boeuf G (2010) The Mediterranean region. Biological diversity though time and space. Oxford University Press, Oxford (400 pp)Google Scholar
  11. Brückmann S, Krauss J, Steffan-Dewenter I (2010) Butterfly and plant specialists suffer from reduced connectivity in fragmented landscapes. J Appl Ecol 47:799–809CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Campos P, Huntsinger L, Oviedo JL, Starrs PF, Diaz M, Standiford R, Montero G (2013) Mediterranean oak woodland working landscapes. Springer, Berlin 508 ppCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cardinale BJ, Duffy JE, Gonzalez A, Hooper D, Perrings C, Venail P, Narwani A, Mace GM, Tilman D, Wardle DA, Kinzig AP, Daily GC, Loreau M, Grace JB, Larigauderie A, Srivastava DS, Naeem S (2012) Biodiversity loss and its impact on humanity. Nature 486:59–67PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Erhardt A (1985) Diurnal Lepidoptera: sensitive indicators of cultivated and abandoned grassland. J Appl Ecol 22:849–861CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Fahrig L, Merriam G (1994) Conservation of fragmented populations. Conserv Biol 8:50–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Farina A (2000) The cultural landscape as a model for the integration of ecology and economics. Bioscience 50:313–320CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Fischer J, Brosi B, Daily GC, Ehrlich PR, Goldman R, Goldstein J, Lindenmayer DB, Manning AD, Mooney HA, Pejchar L, Ranganathan J, Tallis H (2008) Should agricultural policies encourage land sparing or wildlife-friendly farming? Front Ecol Environ 6(7):380–385CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Fuller RJ, Warren MS (1993) Coppiced woodlands: their management for wildlife, 2nd edn. Joint Nature Conservation Committee, Peterborough, UKGoogle Scholar
  19. Gabriel D, Roschewitz I, Tscharntke T, Thies C (2006) Beta diversity at different spatial scales: plant communities in organic and conventional agriculture. Ecol Appl 16:2011–2021PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gerard F, Petit S, Smith G, Thomson A, Brown N, Manchester S, Wadsworth R, Bugar G, Halada L, Bezak P, Boltiziar M, De Badts E (2010) Land cover change in Europe between 1950 and 2000 determined employing aerial photography. Prog Phys Geogr 34:183–205CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Giampietro M (1997) Socioeconomic constraints to farming with biodiversity. Agric Ecosyst Environ 62:145–167CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. González-Moreno P, Pino J, Carreras D, Basnou C, Fernández-Rebollar I, Vilà M (2013) Quantifying the landscape influence on plant invasions in Mediterranean coastal habitats. Landsc Ecol 28:891–903CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Grau HR, Aide TM (2008) Globalization and land use transitions in Latin America. Ecol Soc 13:16–27Google Scholar
  24. Grove AT, Rackham O (2001) The nature of Mediterranean Europe: an ecological history. Yale University Press, New HavenGoogle Scholar
  25. Haines-Young R, Potschin M (2010) The links between biodiversity, ecosystem services and human well-being. In: Raffaelli D, Frid C (eds) Ecosystem ecology: a new synthesis., BES Ecological Review SeriesCambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  26. Harper KA, MacDonald SE, Burton PhJ, Chen J, Brosofsfe KD, Saunders SC, Euskirchen ES, Robert D, Jaiteh MS, Esseen P-A (2005) Edge influence on forest structure and composition in fragmented landscapes. Conserv Biol 19:768–782CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Inger R, Gregory R, Duffy JP, Stott I, Vorisek P, Gaston KJ (2014) Common European birds are declining rapidly while less abundant species’ numbers are rising. Ecol Lett. doi: 10.1111/ele.12387 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Jackson LE, Pascual U, Hodgkin T (2007) Utilizing and conserving agrobiodiversity in agricultural landscapes. Agric Ecosyst Environ 121(3):196–210CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Jaeger JAG (2000) Landscape division, splitting index, and effective mesh size: new measures of landscape fragmentation. Landsc Ecol 15:115–130CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Jose S (2009) Agroforestry for ecosystem services and environmental benefits: an overview. Agrofor Syst 76:1–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kaule G (1997) Principles for mitigation of habitat fragmentation. In Canters (ed) Proceedings of the international conference on habitat fragmentation, infrastructures and the roles of ecological engineering. Maastricht and The Hague, The Netherlands, September 1995, pp 17–21Google Scholar
  32. Lambin EF, Geist H (2006) Land-use and land-cover change: local processes and global impacts. Springer, BerlinCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Lindenmayer DB, Fischer J (2007) Tackling the habitat fragmentation panchreston. TREE 22:127–132PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Lizée M-H, Manel S, Mauffrey J-F, Tatoni T, Deschamps-Cottin M (2012) Matrix configuration and patch isolation influences override the species–area relationship for urban butterfly communities. Landsc Ecol 27:159–169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Ll Parcerisas, Marull J, Pino J, Tello E, Coll F, Basnou C (2012) Land use changes, landscape ecology and their socioeconomic driving forces in the Spanish Mediterranean coast (El Maresme County, 1850–2005). Environ Sci Policy 23:123–132Google Scholar
  36. Loreau M, Mouquet N, Gonzalez A (2010) Biodiversity as spatial insurance in heterogeneous landscapes. Proc Natl Acad Sci 100(22):12765–12770CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Margalef R (2006) Ecological theory and prediction in the study of the interaction between man and the rest of biosphere. In Siolo H (ed) Ökologie und Lebensschutz in IntrenationalerSicht, Freiburg: Rombach, 1973; reprinted in Catalan, Spanish and English in Medi Ambient. Tecnologia i Cultura 38:114–125Google Scholar
  38. Marull J, Mallarach JM (2005) A new GIS methodology for assessing and predicting landscape and ecological connectivity: applications to the Metropolitan Area of Barcelona (Catalonia, Spain). Landsc Urban Plan 71:243–262CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Marull J, Pino J, Mallarach JM, Cordobilla MJ (2007) A land suitability index for strategic environmental assessment in metropolitan areas. Landsc Urban Plan 81:200–212CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Marull J, Pino J, Tello E, Cordobilla MJ (2010) Social metabolism, landscape change and land-use planning in the Barcelona Metropolitan Region. Land Use Policy 27:497–510CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Marull J, Tello E, Wilcox P, Coll F, Pons M, Warde P, Valldeperas N, Ollés A (2014) Recovering the land-use history behind a Mediterranean edge environment: the importance of cultural landscapes in biological conservation. Appl Geogr 57:1–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Marull J, Font C, Tello E, Fullana N, Domene E, Pons M, Galán E (2015) Towards an energy–landscape integrated analysis? Exploring the links between socio-metabolic disturbance and landscape ecology performance (Mallorca, Spain, 1956–2011). Landsc Ecol (in press)Google Scholar
  43. Mather AS (1992) The forest transition. Area 24:367–379Google Scholar
  44. Mather AS, Fairbairn J, Needle CL (1999) The course and drivers of the forest transition: the case of France. J Rural Stud 15:65–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Matthews R, Selman P (2006) Landscape as a focus for integrating human and environmental processes. J Agric Econ 57:121–199Google Scholar
  46. May RM, Lawton JH, Stork NE (1995) Assessing extinction rates. In: Lawton JH, May RM (eds) Extinction rates. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 1–24Google Scholar
  47. McNeely JA (2004) Nature vs nurture: managing relationships between forests, agroforestry and wild biodiversity. Agrofor Syst 61:155–165Google Scholar
  48. Miralles M, Stefanescu C (2004) Les papallones diürnes del Montnegre. Deu anys de seguiment amb la metodologia del BMS. IV Trobada d’estudiosos del Montnegre i el Corredor, vol 38., MonografiesDiputació de Barcelona, Barcelona, pp 105–112Google Scholar
  49. Moser B, Jaeger JAG, Tappeiner U, Tasser E, Eiselt B (2007) Modification of the effective mesh size for measuring landscape fragmentation to solve the boundary problem. Landsc Ecol 22:447–459CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Musters CJM, Kalkman V, van Strien A (2013) Predicting rarity and decline in animals, plants and mushrooms based on species attributes and indicator groups. Ecol Evol 3(10):3401–3414PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. Naveh Z (1995) Interactions of landscapes and cultures. Landsc Urban Plan 32:43–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Naveh Z (2001) Ten major premises for a holistic conception of multifunctional landscapes. Landsc Urban Plan 57:269–284CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Otero I, Boada M, Tàbara JD (2013) Social–ecological heritage and the conservation of Mediterranean landscapes under global change. A case study in Olzinelles (Catalonia). Land Use Policy 30:25–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Otero I, Marull J, Tello E, Diana GL, Pons M, Coll F, Boada M (2015) Land abandonment, landscape and biodiversity. Questioning the restorative character of the Forest transition in the Mediterranean. Ecol Soc (in press)Google Scholar
  55. Perfecto I, Vandermeer J (2010) The agroecological matrix as alternative to the land-sparing/agriculture intensification model. Proc Natl Acad Sci 107(13):5786–5791PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Pino J, Marull J (2012) Ecological networks: are they enough for connectivity conservation? A case study in the Barcelona Metropolitan Region (NE Spain). Land Use Policy 29:684–690CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Robson JP, Berkes F (2011) Exploring some of the myths of land use change: can rural to urban migration drive declines in biodiversity? Glob Environ Change 21:844–854CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Rössler M (2006) World heritage cultural landscapes: a UNESCO flagship programme 1992–2006. Landsc Res 31:333–353CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Rudel TK, Coomes O, Moran E, Achard F, Angelsen A, Xu J, Lambin E (2005) Forest transitions: towards a global understanding of land use change. Glob Environ Change 15:23–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Schroth G, da Fonseca GAB, Harvey CA, Gascon C, Vasconcelos HL, Izac A-MN (2004) Agroforestry and biodiversity conservation in tropical landscapes. Island, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  61. Shreeve TG, Dennis RLH, Van Dick H (2004) Resources, habitats and metapopulations—whither reality? Oikos 106:404–408CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Stefanescu C, Peñuelas J, Filella I (2009) Rapid changes in butterfly communities following the abandonment of grasslands: a case study. Insect Divers Conserv 2:261–269CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Suggitt AJ, Stefanescu C, Oliver T, Páramo F, Anderson BJ, Hill JK, Roy DB, Thomas CD (2012) Habitat associations of species show consistent but weak responses to climate. Biol Lett 8:590–593PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Swift MJ, Izac AMN, van Noordwijk M (2004) Biodiversity and ecosystem services in agricultural landscapes—are we asking the right questions? Agric Ecosyst Environ 104(1):113–134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Thomas JA (2005) Monitoring change in the abundance and distribution of insects using butterflies and other indicator groups. Philos Trans R Soc B 360:339–357CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Thomas CD, Hanski I (2004) Metapopulation dynamics in changing environments: butterfly responses to habitat and climate change. In: Hanski I, Gaggiotti OE (eds) Ecology, genetics, and evolution of metapopulation. Elsevier Academic, Amsterdam, pp 489–514CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Thomas JA, Telfer MG, Roy DB, Preston CD, Greenwood JJD, Asher J, Fox R, Clarke RT, Lawton JH (2004) Comparative losses of British butterflies, birds, and plants and the global extinction crisis. Science 303:1879–1881PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Tress B, Tress G, Décamps H, d’Hauteserre AM (2001) Bridging human and natural sciences in landscape research. Landsc Urban Plan 57:137–141CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Tscharntke T, Klein AM, Kruess A, Steffan-Dewenter I, Thies C (2005) Landscape perspectives on agricultural intensification and biodiversity-ecosystem service management. Ecol Lett 8:857–874CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Tscharntke T, Clough Y, Wanger TC, Jackson L, Motzke I, Perfecto I, Vandermeer J, Whitbread A (2012) Global food security, biodiversity conservation and the future of agricultural intensification. Biol Conserv 151:53–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Turner MG (2005) Landscape ecology: what is the state of the science? Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 36:319–344CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Van Swaay CAM, Nowicki P, Settele J, van Strien AJ (2008) Butterfly monitoring in Europe: methods, applications and perspectives. Biodivers Conserv 17:3455–3469CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Van Swaay CAM, van Strien A, Harpke A, Fontaïne B, Stefanescu C, Roy D, Maes D, Kühn E, Ounap E, Regan E, Svitra G, Heliölä J, Settele J, Pettersson L, Titeux N, Cornish N, Leopold P, Julliard R, Verovnik R, Popov S, Collins S, Goloshchapova S, Roth T, Brereton T, Warren M (2012) The European butterfly indicator for grassland species 1990–2011. Report VS2012.019, De Vlinderstichting, WageningenGoogle Scholar
  74. Verdasca MJ, Leitao AS, Santana J, Porto M, Dias S, Beja P (2012) Forest fuel management as a conservation tool for early successional species under agricultural abandonment: the case of Mediterranean butterflies. Biol Conserv 146:14–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Vos W, Meeks H (1999) Trends in European cultural landscape development: perspectives for a sustainable future. Landsc Urban Plan 46:3–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. West P, Igoe J, Brockington D (2006) Parks and peoples: the social impact of protected areas. Annu Rev Anthropol 35:251–277CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Joan Marull
    • 1
    Email author
  • Iago Otero
    • 2
    • 3
  • Constantí Stefanescu
    • 4
    • 5
  • Enric Tello
    • 6
  • Marta Miralles
    • 7
  • Francesc Coll
    • 1
  • Manel Pons
    • 1
  • Giovanna L. Diana
    • 1
  1. 1.Barcelona Institute of Regional and Metropolitan Studies (IERMB), Building MRAAutonomous University of BarcelonaBellaterraSpain
  2. 2.Integrative Research Institute on Transformations of Human-Environment Systems (IRI THESys)Humboldt-Universität zu BerlinBerlinGermany
  3. 3.Institute of Environmental Science and Technology (ICTA), Building CAutonomous University of BarcelonaBellaterraSpain
  4. 4.Catalan Butterfly Monitoring SchemeMuseu de Ciències Naturals de GranollersGranollersSpain
  5. 5.Centre for Ecological Research and Forestry Applications (CREAF)Cerdanyola del VallèsSpain
  6. 6.Department of Economic History and Institutions, Faculty of Economics and BusinessUniversity of BarcelonaBarcelonaSpain
  7. 7.Ajuntament de Sant CeloniSant CeloniSpain

Personalised recommendations