Advertisement

Landscape Ecology

, Volume 31, Issue 9, pp 2031–2044 | Cite as

The significance of spatial fragmentation of land ownership for occurrence of scrubs on semi-natural grasslands

  • Gregor LevinEmail author
  • Doan Nainggolan
Research Article

Abstract

Context

Traditionally, studies of habitat fragmentation have focused on spatial isolation of habitats. Meanwhile, the role of fragmentation of land ownership and hence of parcelization of habitats remains, particularly in relation to management of semi-natural grasslands, not well understood.

Objective

We propose that, especially in a Danish context, fragmentation of land ownership leads to parcelization of semi-natural grassland habitats. This results in small parcel sizes, obstructing cost effective management in terms of grazing and mowing and consequently leads to encroachment of scrubs, threatening biodiversity.

Methods

We applied national, spatially explicit information about land ownership, management, semi-natural grasslands and vegetation height to examine the relationships between parcel size, management and the proportion of scrubs on semi-natural grasslands.

Results

Results from a regression analysis show that parcel size is significantly negatively related to proportion of scrubs; i.e. small parcels are associated with higher proportions of scrubs compared to large parcels. The results also show that the size of ownership parcels has a stronger explanatory power for the proportion of scrub compared to the size of habitat parcels, where ownership boundaries are not taken into account. Furthermore, parcels, with legal obligations for management, have significantly lower proportion of scrubs compared to parcels without management obligations.

Conclusions

Efforts for conservation of and improvement of biodiversity on semi-natural grassland should pay increasing attention towards the importance of fragmentation of land ownership and parcelization of habitats. Our results point at the need for cross-farm cooperation to secure continuous grassland management to prevent scrub encroachment.

Keywords

Fragmentation Parcel size Land ownership Semi-natural grassland Scrubs Denmarks 

Supplementary material

10980_2016_379_MOESM1_ESM.tiff (675 kb)
Appendix: Variograms of the residual of the estimated models (model 1 with proportion of scrubs within habitat parcels as the dependent variable while model 2 focuses on ownership parcels). The variograms depict semivariance of the residuals and take into account potential differences depending on direction (northern, north-eastern, eastern, and south-eastern). Supplementary material 1 (TIFF 675 kb)
10980_2016_379_MOESM2_ESM.tiff (675 kb)
Supplementary material 2 (TIFF 675 kb)

References

  1. Agency Geodata (2009a) Danish terrain model 2008. Geodata Agency, CopenhagenGoogle Scholar
  2. Agency Geodata (2009b) Danish surface model 2008. Geodata Agency, CopenhagenGoogle Scholar
  3. Agency Geodata (2012) Danish cadastre map 2012. Geodata Agency, CopenhagenGoogle Scholar
  4. Anthelme F, Villaret J, Brun J (2007) Shrub encroachment in the Alps gives rise to the convergence of sub-alpine communities on a regional scale. J Veg Sci 18:355–362CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Arealinformation (2012a) Danish registration of protected habitat types 2012. Arealinformation, CopenhagenGoogle Scholar
  6. Arealinformation (2012b) Danish registration of EU-Habitat Directive habitats 2012. Arealinformation, CopenhagenGoogle Scholar
  7. Caspersen OH, Fritzbøger B (2002) Long-term landscape dynamics—a 300-year case study from Denmark. Dan J Geogr 3:13–27Google Scholar
  8. Core Team R (2015) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, ViennaGoogle Scholar
  9. Cousins SAO (2001) Analysis of land-cover transitions based on 17th and 18th century cadastral maps and aerial photographs. Landscape Ecol 16:41–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Danish Defence (2012) Management plans for defence holdings. Danish Defence, CopenhagenGoogle Scholar
  11. Danish Government (2014) Naturplan Danmark, vores fælles natur. Danish Government, CopenhagenGoogle Scholar
  12. Danish Nature Agency (2009a) Nyt faktaark: tilgroning truer nordens enge og overdrev. Danish Nature Agency, CopenhagenGoogle Scholar
  13. Danish Nature Agency (2009b) Vejledning om 21 naturbeskyttelseslovens paragraf 3 beskyttede naturtyper. Danish Nature Agency, CopenhagenGoogle Scholar
  14. Danish Nature Agency (2012) Management plans for state forests 2012. Danish Nature Agency, CopenhagenGoogle Scholar
  15. del Corral J, Perez JA, Roibas D (2011) The impact of land fragmentation on milk production. J Dairy Sci 94:517–525CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Ejrnæs R, Wiberg-Larsen P, Holm TE, Josefson A, Strandberg B, Nygaard B, Andersen LW, Winding A, Termansen M, Hansen MDD, Søndergaard M, Hansen AS, Lundsteen S, Baattrup-Pedersen A, Kristensen E, Krogh PH, Simonsen VG (2011) Danmarks biodiversitet 2010—status, udvikling og trusler, Danish Centre for Environment and Energy, Aarhus University. Faglig rapport fra DMU nr. 815, AarhusGoogle Scholar
  17. Eldridge DJ, Bowker MA, Maestre FT, Roger E, Reynolds JF, Whitford WG (2011) Impacts of shrub encroachment on ecosystem structure and functioning: towards a global synthesis. Ecol Let 14:709–722CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Eriksson O, Cousins SAO, Bruun HH (2002) Land-use history and fragmentation of traditionally managed grasslands in Scandinavia. J Veg Sci 13:743–748CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. European Commission (2013) CAP reform—an explanation of the main elements. European Commission, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  20. Fahrig L (2003) Effects of habitat fragmentation on biodiversity. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 34:487–515CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Franklin JF (1993) Preserving biodiversity: species, ecosystems, or landscapes? Ecol Appl 3:202–205CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Fredshavn JR, Ejrnæs R, Damgaard C, Nielsen KE, Nygaard B (2011) Terrestriske habitatnaturtyper 2004–2010. Aarhus University, DCE-Danish Centre for Environment and Energy, (Scientific Report from DCE-Danish Centre for Environment and Energy; No. 7), CopenhagenGoogle Scholar
  23. Geodata Agency (2012b) Danmarks Højdemodel, DHM/Terræn. Data version 1.0–December 2009. Geodata Agency, CopenhagenGoogle Scholar
  24. Geodata Agency (2012c) Danmarks Højdemodel, DHM/Overflade. Data version 1.0–December 2009. Geodata Agency, CopenhagenGoogle Scholar
  25. Gonzalez XP, Alvarez CJ, Crecente R (2004) Evaluation of land distributions with joint regard to plot size and shape. Agr Syst 82:31–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Gude PH, Hansen AJ, Rasker R, Maxwel B (2006) Rates and drivers of rural residential development in the Greater Yellowstone. Landscape Urban Plan 77:131–151CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hand BK, Cushman SA, Landguth EL, Lucotchet J (2014) Assessing multi-taxa sensitivity to the human footprint, habitat fragmentation and loss by exploring alternative scenarios of dispersal ability and population size: a simulation approach. Biodivers Conserv 23:2761–2779CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hasler B, Christensen LP, Martinsen L, Källstrøm MN, Levin G, Dubgaard A, Jespersen H, Lundsbjerg M (2012) Omkostninger ved hensigtsmæssig drift og pleje af arealer med naturplejebehov indenfor Natura 2000 og Naturbeskyttelseslovens §3: Teknisk rapport vedr. delprojekt 3 i projektet Sikring af plejekrævende lysåbne naturtyper i Danmark. Aarhus University, DCE - Danish Centre for Environment and Energy, (Technical Report from DCE - Danish Centre for Environment and Energy; No. 12), 51 pp, CopenhagenGoogle Scholar
  29. Hellesen T, Levin G (2014) Methodology to estimate loss of semi-natural grasslands due to shrub encroachment in Denmark from 1965 to 2010: a sample based study using dot grids on aerial photos. J Land Sci 9:331–348CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. James PMA, Fortin MJ, Fall A, Kneeshaw D, Messier C (2007) The effects of spatial legacies following shifting management practices and fire on boreal forest age structure. Ecosystems 10:1261–1277CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Jepsen MR, Levin G (2013) Semantically based reclassification of Danish land-use and land-cover information. Int J Geogr Inf Sci 27:2375–2390CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Levin G (2006) Farm size and landscape composition in relation to landscape changes in Denmark. Dan J Geogr 106:45–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Levin G (2013) Applying parcel-specific land-use data for improved monitoring of semi-natural grassland in Denmark. Environ Monit Assess 185:2615–2625CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Levin G, Jepsen MR (2010) Abolition of set-aside schemes, associated impacts on habitat structure and modelling of potential effects of cross-farm regulation. Ecol Mod 211:2728–2737CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Levin G, Jepsen MR, Blemmer MK (2012) Basemap: Technical documentation of a model for elaboration of a land-use and land-cover map for Denmark. Aarhus University, DCE—Danish Centre for Environment and Energy, (Technical Report from DCE - Danish Centre for Environment and Energy, No. 11), CopenhagenGoogle Scholar
  36. Levin G, Normander B (2008) Arealanvendelse i Danmark siden slutningen af 1800-tallet. Aarhus University, National Environmental Research Institute, (Technical Report from NERI—National Environmental Research Institute; No. 682), CopenhagenGoogle Scholar
  37. Lovett-Doust J, Biernack M, Page R, Chan M, Natgunarajah R, Timis G (2003) Effects of land ownership and landscape-level factors on rare-species richness in natural areas of southern Ontario, Canada. Landscape Ecol 18:621–633CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Luoto M, Rekolainen S, Aakkula J, Pykälän J (2003) Loss of plant species richness and habitat connectivity in grasslands associated with agricultural change in Finland. Ambio 32:447–452CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. MacArthur R, Wilson EO (1967) The theory of island biogeography. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  40. Maestre FT, Bowker MA, Puche MD, Belén Hinojosa M, Martínez I, García-Palacios P, Castillo AP, Soliveres S, Luzuriaga AL, Sánchez AM, Carreira JA, Gallardo A, Escudero A (2009) Shrub encroachment can reverse desertification in semi-arid Mediterranean grasslands. Ecol Let 12:930–941CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Ministry of Food Agriculture and Fisheries (2012a) Danish agricultural register 2012. Ministry of Food Agriculture and Fisheries, CopenhagenGoogle Scholar
  42. Ministry of Food Agriculture and Fisheries (2012b) Danish field parcel map 2012. Ministry of Food Agriculture and Fisheries, CopenhagenGoogle Scholar
  43. Ministry of Food Agriculture and Fisheries (2012c) Vejledning til enkeltbetaling 2012, sådan er reglerne for enkeltbelaling. Ministry of Food Agriculture and Fisheries, CopenhagenGoogle Scholar
  44. Morgado R, Beja P, Reino L, Gordinho L, Delgado A, Borralho R, Moreira F (2010) Calandra lark habitat selection: strong fragmentation effects in a grassland specialist. Acta Oecol 36:63–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Olsson EGA, Austrheim G, Grenne SN (2000) Landscape change patterns in mountains, land use and environmental diversity, Mid-Norway 1960–1993. Landscape Ecol 15:155–170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Papke LE, Wooldridge J (1996) Econometric methods for fractional response variables with an application to 401(k) plan participation rates. J Appl Econom 11:619–632CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Pihlgren A, Lennartsson T (2008) Shrub effects on herbs and grasses in semi-natural grasslands: positive, negative or neutral relationships? Grass Forage Sci 63:9–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Pykälä J, Luoto M, Heikkinen RK, Kontula T (2005) Plant species richness and persistence of rare plants in abandoned semi-natural grasslands in northern Europe. Basic Appl Ecol 6:25–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Schmidt AM, Piórkowski H, Bartoszuk H (2000) Remote Sensing Techniques and Geographic Information Systems for Wetland Conservation and Management: Monitoring scrub encroachment in Biebrza National Park. Alterra, Green World Research. Alterra-rapport 174, WageningenGoogle Scholar
  50. Schulte LA, Rickenbach M, Merrick LC (2008) Ecological and economic benefits of cross-boundary coordination among private forest landowners. Landscape Ecol 23:481–496CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Sklenicka P, Janovska V, Salek M, Vlasak J, Molnarova K (2014) The farmland Rental Paradox: extreme landownership fragmentation as a new form of land degradation. Land Policy 38:587–593CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Sklenicka P, Salek M (2008) Ownership and soil quality as sources of agricultural land fragmentation in highly fragmented ownership patterns. Landscape Ecol 23:299–311CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Stanfield BJ, Bliss JC, Spies TA (2002) Land ownership and landscape structure: a spatial analysis of sixty-six Oregon (USA) Coast Range watersheds. Landscape Ecol 8:685–697CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Stoate C, Báldi A, Beja P, Boatman ND, Herzon I, van Doorn A, de Snoo GR, Rakosy L, Ramwell C (2009) Ecological impacts of early 21st century agricultural change in Europe—a review. J Environ Manage 91:22–46CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. Turner MG, Wear DN, Flamm RO (1996) Source land ownership and land-cover change in the southern Appalachian highlands and the Olympic Peninsula. Ecol Appl 6:1150–1172CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Van Auken OW (2009) Causes and consequences of woody plant encroachment into western North American grasslands. J Environ Manage 90:2931–2942CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. Van Dijk T (2003) Scenarios of Central European land fragmentation. Land Policy 20:149–158CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Vestergaard P (2007) Naturen i Danmark—det åbne land. Gyldendals Forlag, CopenhagenGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Environmental ScienceAarhus UniversityRoskildeDenmark

Personalised recommendations