Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Ownership and soil quality as sources of agricultural land fragmentation in highly fragmented ownership patterns

  • Research Article
  • Published:
Landscape Ecology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The relation between landscape structure and its drivers is a central issue in studies of landscape ecology. However, agricultural land fragmentation is dealt with in only a few such studies. We have investigated the effects of ownership and soil quality on agricultural land fragmentation in the highly fragmented ownership patterns that characterize some of the transition countries of Central and Eastern Europe. Using patch-scale spatial data generated from GIS, Minimal Adequate Models, based on ANOVA, were performed to test for the effects of ownership and soil quality patterns on arable land and grassland fragmentation across 483 study areas. The results show that there are important differences in the predictors of fragmentation between arable land and grassland. Grassland fragmentation was found to be associated particularly with ownership fragmentation, whereas arable land fragmentation tended to be driven mainly by soil conditions. A higher proportion of public ownership supports the more frequent appearance of larger patches. We found a significantly positive relationship between natural soil fertility and arable land fragmentation, while there was a strongly negative relationship between natural soil fertility and grassland fragmentation. Soil quality diversity was observed to be the most important driver affecting arable land fragmentation, but only a non-significant driver of grassland fragmentation. The study provides arguments for intervention aimed at reducing the huge differences between the levels of land-ownership and the land-use fragmentation.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Alig RJ, Lewis DJ, Swenson JJ (2005) Is forest fragmentation driven by the spatial configuration of land quality? The case of western Oregon. For Ecol Manage 217:266–274

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson JR, Hardy EE, Roach JT, Witmer RA (1976) Land use and land cover classification system for use with remote sensor data. U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 964, Washington, D.C.

  • Becvarova V, Vasek P, Vanicek F (1988) Bonitace cs. Zemedelskych pud a smery jejich vyuziti. 4. dil. FMZVZ, Prague

  • Beyene A, Gibbon D, Haile M (2006) Heterogeneity in land resources and diversity in farming practices in Tigray, Ethiopia. Agric Syst 88:61–74

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Binswanger H, Deininger K, Feder G (1995) Agricultural land relations in the developing world. Am J Agric Econ 75:1242–1248

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brabec E, Smith C (2002) Agricultural land fragmentation: the spatial effects of three land protection strategies in the eastern United States. Landsc Urban Plan 58:255–268

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bradshaw GA, Marquet PA (2003) How landscapes change. human disturbance and ecosystem fragmentation in the Americas. Springer-Verlag, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • Brandt J, Primdahl J, Reenberg A (1999) Rural land-use and dynamic forces − analysis of “driving forces” in space and time. In: Krönert R, Baudry J, Bowler IR, Reenberg A (eds) Land-use changes and their environmental impact in rural areas in Europe. UNESCO, Paris, France, pp 81–102

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown DG (2003) Land use and forest cover in private parcels in the Upper Midwest USA, 1970–1990. Landsc Ecol 18:777–790

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bürgi M, Turner MG (2002) Factors and processes shaping land cover and land cover changes along the Wisconsin River. Ecosystems 5:184–201

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cagnolo L, Cabido M, Valladares G (2006) Plant species richness in the Chaco Serrano Woodland from central Argentina: ecological traits and habitat fragmentation effects. Biol Conserv 132:510–519

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carsjens GJ, van Lier HN (2002) Fragmentation and land-use planning—an introduction. Landsc Urban Plan 58:79–82

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Caspersen OH, Fritzbøger B (2002) Long-term landscape dynamics – a 300-year case study from Denmark. Dan J Geogr 3:13–27

    Google Scholar 

  • Copley J (2000) Ecology goes underground (soil biodiversity research). Nature 406:452–454

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Crawley MJ (2002) Statistical computing. An introduction to data analysis using S-Plus. John Wiley & Sons Ltd., Chichester, UK

    Google Scholar 

  • Crow TR, Host GE, Mladenoff DJ (1999) Ownership and ecosystem as sources of spatial heterogeneity in a forested landscape, Wisconsin, USA. Landsc Ecol 14:449–463

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fahrig L (2003) Effects of habitat fragmentation on biodiversity. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 34:487–515

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Forman RTT (1995) Land mosaics: the ecology of landscape and regions. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK

    Google Scholar 

  • Gonzales XP, Alvarez CJ, Crecente R (2004) Evaluation of land distributions with joint regard to plot size and shape. Agric Syst 82:31–43

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guo Y, Gong P, Amundson R (2003) Pedodiversity in the United States of America. Geoderma 117:99–115

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gude PH, Hansen AJ, Rasker R, Maxwell B (2006) Rates and drivers of rural residential development in the Greater Yellowstone. Landsc Urban Plan 77:131–151

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hall CAS, Tian H, Qi Y, Pontius G, Cornell J (1995) Modelling spatial and temporal patterns of tropical land use change. J Biogeogr 22:753–757

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hargis CD, Bissonette JA, David JL (1998) The behavior of landscape metrics commonly used in the study of habitat fragmentation. Landsc Ecol 13:167–186

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hietel E, Waldhardt R, Otte A (2004) Analysing land-cover changes in relation to environmental variables in Hesse, Germany. Landsc Ecol 19:473–489

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ibáñez JJ, De-Alba S, Bermúdez FF, García-Álvarez A (1995) Pedodiversity: concepts and measures. Catena 24:215–232

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kopeva D (2003) Land markets in Bulgaria. In: Groppo P (ed) Land reform 2003/3. FAO, Rome, pp 41–58

    Google Scholar 

  • LaPierre S, Germain RH (2005) Forestland parcelization in the New York City Watershed. J For 103:139–145

    Google Scholar 

  • Lerman Z (2001) Agriculture in transition economies: from common heritage to divergence. Agric Econ 26:95–114

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Li H, Franklin JF, Swanson FJ, Spies TA (1993) Developing alternative forest cutting patterns: a simulation approach. Landsc Ecol 8:63–75

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lovett-Doust J, Biernacki M, Page R, Chan M, Natgunarajah R, Timis G (2003) Effects of land ownership and other landscape-level factors on rare-species richness. Landsc Ecol 18:621–633

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lubowski RN (2002) Determinants of land-use transitions in the United States: econometric analysis of changes among major land-use categories. PhD Dissertation, Harvard University

  • Magurran AE (1988) Ecological diversity and its measurement. Princeton Univ. Press, New Jersey

    Google Scholar 

  • McCrea AR, Trueman IC, Fullen MA, Atkinson MD, Besenyei L (2001) Relationships between soil characteristics and species richness in two botanically heterogeneous created meadows in the urban English West Midlands. Biol Conserv 97:171–180

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mottet A, Ladet S, Coqué N, Gibon A (2006) Agricultural land-use change and its drivers in mountain landscapes: a case study in the Pyrenees. Agric Ecosyst Environ 114:296–310

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mörtberg U, Wallentinus HG (2000) Red-listed forest bird species in an urban environment—assessment of green space corridors. Landsc Urban Plan 50:215–226

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Niroula GS, Thapa GB (2005) Impacts and causes of land fragmentation, and lessons learned from land consolidation in South Asia. Land Use Policy 22:358–372

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Öckinger E, Smith HG (2006) Landscape composition and habitat area affects butterfly species richness in semi-natural grasslands. Oecologia 149:526–534

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ovalle C, Del Pozo A, Fasádo MA, Acosta B, de Miguel JM (2006) Consequences of landscape heterogeneity on grassland diversity and productivity in the Espinal agroforestry system of Central Chile. Landsc Ecol 21:585–594

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Plantinga AJ (1996) The effect of agricultural policies on land use and environmental quality. Am J Agric Econ 78:1082–1091

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reger B, Otte A, Waldhardt R (2007) Identifying patterns of land-cover change and their physical attributes in a marginal European landscape. Landsc Urban Plan 81:104–113

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ritters KH, O’Neill RV, Hunsaker CT, Wickham JD, Yankee DH, Timmins SP, Jones KB, Jackson BL (1995) A factor analysis of landscape pattern and structure metrics. Landsc Ecol 10:23–39

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sitewell Information Systems (2004) Project case study: Sitewell LPIS 2 System implementation—LPIS Ministry of Agriculture of the Czech Republic, Sitewell Sro., Prague

  • Sklenicka P (2006) Applying evaluation criteria for the land consolidation effect to three contrasting study areas in the Czech Republic. Land Use Policy 23:502–510

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sklenicka P, Lhota T (2002) Landscape heterogeneity – a quantitative criterion for landscape reconstruction. Landsc Urban Plan 58:147–156

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spies TA, Ripple WJ, Bradshaw GA (1994) Dynamics and pattern of a managed coniferous forest landscape in Oregon. Ecol Appl 4:555–568

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • S-Plus (2000) Professional edition for Windows, Release 3 (August 2000). MathSoft, Inc., Seattle, Washington

  • Stanfield BJ, Bliss JC, Spies TA (2002) Land ownership and landscape structure: a spatial analysis of sixty-six Oregon (USA) Coast Range watersheds. Landsc Ecol 17:685–697

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Swinnen JFM (1999) The political economy of land reform choices in Central and Eastern Europe. Econ Transit 7:637–664

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Swinnen J, Vranken L, Stanley V (2006) Emerging challenges of land rental markets—a review of available evidence for the Europe and Central Asia Region. The World Bank, Washington, D.C

    Google Scholar 

  • Tittonell P, Vanlauwe B, Leffelaar PA, Rowe EC, Giller KE (2005) Exploring diversity in soil fertility management of smallholder farms in western Kenya. Agric Ecosyst Environ 110:149–165

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Turner MG, Wear DN, Flamm RO (1996) Land ownership and land-cover change in the southern Appalachian highlands and the Olympic Peninsula. Ecol Appl 6:1150–1172

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Dijk T (2003) Scenarios of Central European land fragmentation. Land Use Policy 20:149–158

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Veldkamp A, Fresco LO (1996) CLUE-CR: an integrated multi-scale model to simulate land use change scenarios in Costa Rica. Ecol Model 91:231–248

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Verbung PH, Chen YQ (2000) Multiscale characterization of land-use patterns in China. Ecosystems 3:369–385

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vitikainen A (2004) An overview of land consolidation in Europe. Nord J Survey Real Estate Res 1:25–44

    Google Scholar 

  • Vranken L, Noev N, Swinnen JFM (2004) Fragmentation, abandonment and co-ownership: Transition problems of the Bulgarian market. Q J Int Agric 43:391–408

    Google Scholar 

  • World Bank (2001) Albania Agriculture Service Project. Report No: 22161 ALB. World Bank, Tirana, Albania

    Google Scholar 

  • Wu J, Shen W, Sun W, Tueller PT (2002) Empirical patterns of the effects of changing scale on landscape metrics. Landsc Ecol 17:761–782

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This study was supported by Grant No. 1R44058 from the Ministry of Agriculture of the Czech Republic “Restoration of non-productive functions of rural landscape in the process of land consolidation”. The authors owe special thanks to Robin Healey for his useful advice.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Land Use and Improvement, Faculty of Environmental Science, Czech University of Life Sciences, 165 21, Prague 6—Suchdol, Czech Republic

    Petr Sklenicka

  2. Department of Ecology and Environment, Faculty of Environmental Science, Czech University of Life Sciences, 165 21, Prague 6—Suchdol, Czech Republic

    Miroslav Salek

  3. Department of Spatial Planning, Faculty of Architecture, Czech Technical University, 166 36, Prague 6—Suchdol, Czech Republic

    Petr Sklenicka

Authors
  1. Petr Sklenicka
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Miroslav Salek
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Petr Sklenicka.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Sklenicka, P., Salek, M. Ownership and soil quality as sources of agricultural land fragmentation in highly fragmented ownership patterns. Landscape Ecol 23, 299–311 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-007-9185-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-007-9185-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation